Do u also feel that Rockstar listened to complain?

[Guest]

 

Nobody actually likes V's driving

*raises hand*

 

I'd show you all the reviews where the driving was noted as an improvement over V but I'm on my phone. Also, if you think iv is realistic driving, you don't drive. Just super saiyan 3

 

I never said IV driving was realistic, it's fun. You have the arcadey-ness of being able to zoom around the map and crash without too much of a penalty, but the "realism" of suspension, transmission, drivetrains etc. with different cars behaving differently. You can drive a Patriot, ram into a saloon and it'll get pushed out of your way, tipping over. In V there's no advantage to using a big car. It turns the same, it crashes the same, the only difference is that it's slower. What fun is that?

 

The reviews where driving is noted as an "improvement" is just by the aforementioned people who don't actually want to drive, they just want to get from place to place, and feel ashamed of themselves when they have to take a cab because they can't drive on their own, so they blame their problems on the game being "hard".

 

People who review games like IGN just play GTA for 10 minutes then f*ck off back to jerking over CoD so they don't practice the driving and get used to it, allowing them to have an educated opinion on it.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Guest

[Geralt of Rivia]

Nobody actually likes V's driving.

Wrong. I do.

 

 

 

Nobody enjoys the actual driving experience, what people enjoy is getting from place to place quickly.

 

I'm gonna bet people like both. I love driving my customized cars down the highway at super fast speeds.

 

 

 

Nobody goes on V and thinks "I think I'll go for a nice drive and enjoy my new car". No, for them, the cars are just a disposable tool to get from place to place.

 

Again, I do that too lol. I don't need certain driving physics to enjoy driving. I'm sure other people don't, either.

 

 

 

If R* released a racing game using V's handling, and nothing else, it would sell sh*t. People play V for other things, not solely for driving.

 

I don't get what point you're trying to make here.

 

 

 

IV, however, is completely different. People could get from A to B with taxis, and people who e njoyed driving could go for a nice cruise.

 

People can do that now.

 

 

 

As for your second point, bicycles go forwards and backwards and turn. A f*cking dog can go forrwards, backwards and turn.

 

Yes. All that means is that going forwards, backwards, and turning slightly resembles a lot of things. Including cars.

 

 

 

V doesn't have anything that cars at their very basics have. No suspension, no transmission, aerodynamic effects or anything like that. When you're at 100mph there's no thrill because you can stop on a dime and turn 90 degrees whenever you want. That's not how cars work, buddy.

 

Congratulations. V isn't going for realistic driving. That's why the driving is what it is.

 

-----------------------------------

 

When something's broken, it doesn't work, or it works the complete opposite the way it should be working.

 

GTA V's driving works as its intended to work. It's not broken in any way, shape, or form.

 

So, I say again: You not liking the driving =/= The driving being broken.

Edited April 17, 2014 by TheMasterfocker

[woggleman]

Many people hated IV's driving and view V as an improvement. IV's driving was criticized left and right when it first came out. Just because somebody doesn't like something does not mean it is broken because that is the way R intended it to be.

[LightningLord]

Dude, they read this forum everyday.

LIES. Edited April 17, 2014 by LightningLord411

[woggleman]

If I made the GTA series and I read this forum everyday I would just sell my share in the company and retire on a yacht. It can't be fun trying to please these people.

[Johan]

They did listen, I remember in an interview long before the game released (probably in the Game Informer cover) one of the Housers explained that they knew how annoying it was for some people in GTA IV so they got rid of that "annoyance"

 

I really wish they haven't because thanks to this change, I keep forgetting you can even hang out at all until I checked the 100% checklist.

[Official General]

They listened because they changed certain things in V, but still made stupid decisions at the same time. So on one hand you can give them credit for listening, and other the hand, criticize them for still not learning their lessons from mistakes they made in GTA IV.

 

That's my take on it.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Official General

[Niobium]

If they listened, WHERE'S THE F*CKING PC VERSION?! There was a PC Discussion thread that's 200 pages long. It is clear that a lot of people want it. But they didn't make it.

[Geralt of Rivia]

But they didn't make it.

I would love to know how you got this information.

 

Ever think it's just not ready yet? R* has nothing to gain by delaying the release of a game on a platform when it's ready to go. Nothing.

 

There's plenty of evidence of a PC version.

Edited April 18, 2014 by TheMasterfocker

[Niobium]

 

 

But they didn't make it.

I would love to know how you got this information.

 

Ever think it's just not ready yet? R* has nothing to gain by delaying the release of a game on a platform when it's ready to go. Nothing.

 

There's plenty of evidence of a PC version.

Wow, we'll disagree with each other on EVERYTHING.

 

If rockstar is making the damn game for PC, they would have announced the gamr by now.

 

Rockstar told us on August 6, only 3 months after it has been released for the consoles, that Gta 4 for the pc is currently in development.

 

Now, we have waited 7 months for at least one GTA V announcement and rockstar hasn't said ANYTHING. this shows that R* isn't making a pc version.

[Geralt of Rivia]

Indeed we will, nobum, indeed we will.

 

 

If rockstar is making the damn game for PC, they would have announced the gamr by now.

 

They're not going to announce a game they're unsure of. Look at what happened with V. A release date was announced, and then the game was promptly delayed. No one likes delayed games.

 

 

Rockstar told us on August 6, only 3 months after it has been released for the consoles, that Gta 4 for the pc is currently in development.

 

So? This isn't GTA IV. This is GTA V

 

 

this shows that R* isn't making a pc version.

 

It doesn't, though.

 

If there was no PC version, R* would flat out say there's no PC version. They wouldn't keep avoiding the question, as the only thing that comes from that is reduced sales.

[DeafMetal]

http://gtaforums.com/topic/702624-jet-pack-found-in-game-code/

 

Just saiyan. Super saiyan. Super saiyan 4. Golden super saiyan 4.

[DS 17]

I dont know how there are still some kids out there who are thinking R* is the only company in the world who is able to not have to listen to their customers. They act like every other company, do market research etc. and reading all the posts here without paying any single cent (well besides the salary of the employer, but not for the information in general) is the cheapest and maybe the best source for them.

[KimberJane]

Bottom line is it's human nature to complain, so even if the game is as it is now and also have what people miss from IV there would be other things they'd find to complain about.

[Deji]

They don't have to listen, they have plenty of their own ideas. Any idea you come up with, they've probably already had or at least considered considering they were working on it professionally as a job for a very long time, while the average gamer managed to come up with a suggestion for improvements within 2 minutes of inserting the damn disc

 

I hate it when people say "Rockstar don't listen".

 

I also hate it when people say "Rockstar are listening".

 

R* is a logo. It's a company NAME. They are not an entity. It's impossible for R* to be listening, reading, or indeed any verb that is commonly attributed to a human being. People take logos and brands way too seriously. I've already had this rant, so at least now I get to attempt to repeat it in a less lengthy format...

 

If you think R* are listening.. who specifically? Does Dan Houser == 100% of Rockstar? Or does it only count when you see Sam Houser too? Well actually they have f*ck all to do with each game. I mean, they do, but that's to a very limited capacity. There are very few creators who continue developing their product after it has become successful. Once anything reaches success, they usually hire people to work on the rest. Sure, they may still be able to shake their heads at something that doesn't work and say "change it", but even they'd know that the people they've hired can probably come up with a better solution faster and better than they could.

 

 

Or maybe it's the voice of the lead character. You reckon he has much of a weighing decision on these things? The lead programmer? Maybe, but he's not "idea man", but if he is, I think he has so many ideas of his own that he'd rather go with. Because it'd be no good to have a role in a videogame if your success was based on somebody else's ideas.

 

 

That's not to say that "R* don't care", but more to say that they don't have to. At the end of the day, 'they' will try to make the best product that their team is capable of. Even when releasing the game, people within the team may have uncertainties and think they could have done X, Y and Z better, but there are always limits and even boundaries of how far they can go with anything.

 

Next game, they'll learn from the mistakes of the last (again, they really don't need you to point them out) and try to do something better. Knowing the GTA series, they'll hopefully try to do something quite different. But the best way for them to determine their success is through sales, because even if the sales don't reflect the quality of the game, they help towards the next game and continuation of the company. That, at the end of the day, is the only thing that matters.

 

 

EDIT:

I just got a call from Rockstar, every part of the team past and present was sitting in a circle holding hands when they read my post, and told me they are very upset with me

Edited April 19, 2014 by Deji

[Melech]

Of course they listen! They read this forum.

 

I hope the next GTA has more enterable buildings. I want an enterable hospital, a BIG police station... I also want a classical music radio!

[kvic]

I feel like i'm the only person on this site who actually enjoyed the game.

No I enjoyed playing it but as far as re playability NO, to me it feels to much like a chore playing some of those mission's and dealing with the idiotic stock market BS in order to make money.

[Official General]

 

I feel like i'm the only person on this site who actually enjoyed the game.

No I enjoyed playing it but as far as re playability NO, to me it feels to much like a chore playing some of those mission's and dealing with the idiotic stock market BS in order to make money.

 

 

Gosh that stock market stuff was such a bore. It took up too much time to get into it, it was not fun by any means, and I quickly lost interest in it before I was halfway through the game. I just could not be bothered with it in the end.

 

They could have made it better with a nice set of side missions directly linked to the stock market like wrecking and sabotaging companies and firms in many ways, not just by sticking in vague clues and hints in Lester's assassin missions.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Official General

[BLOOD]

I feel like i'm the only person on this site who actually enjoyed the game.

 

I do three