Does anyone feel disappointed with R*?

[Jvaz615]

 

 

1. I refuse to believe that the reason for V having a relatively low number of interiors was due to hardware limitations. If previous GTAs two like VC and SA have so many interiors that are 12 and 9 years old respectively, then why couldn't V ? If the 5-year old IV could have a decent number of interiors, then why couldn't V ? This alone is a strong indication that hardware limitation was not the issue, and besides you have no concrete proof that it was the issue.

I'm 90% sure it's not a hardware limitation, but you can't compare interior numbers to VC and SA. That's stupid.

But you admit its a 10% chance. Thats progress!

[Official General]

 

1. I refuse to believe that the reason for V having a relatively low number of interiors was due to hardware limitations. If previous GTAs two like VC and SA have so many interiors that are 12 and 9 years old respectively, then why couldn't V ? If the 5-year old IV could have a decent number of interiors, then why couldn't V ? This alone is a strong indication that hardware limitation was not the issue, and besides you have no concrete proof that it was the issue.

I'm 90% sure it's not a hardware limitation, but you can't compare interior numbers to VC and SA. That's stupid.

 

 

I don't think it was stupid to do that. My point was if PS2 technology can have many interiors in GTA, how comes more advanced HD technology on the PS3 and 360 cannot have more interiors ? I think it's fair to say that. In any case I won't argue this issue any further, you said 90% so I'm happy with that.

[WavyWeazel]

Not at all. GTA V is a game that (for me) lived up to all the expectations and hype.

 

Just my opinion though, I know others don't exactly feel that way.

[LawasDS]

 

1. I refuse to believe that the reason for V having a relatively low number of interiors was due to hardware limitations. If previous GTAs two like VC and SA have so many interiors that are 12 and 9 years old respectively, then why couldn't V ? If the 5-year old IV could have a decent number of interiors, then why couldn't V ? This alone is a strong indication that hardware limitation was not the issue, and besides you have no concrete proof that it was the issue.

I'm 90% sure it's not a hardware limitation, but you can't compare interior numbers to VC and SA. That's stupid.

 

 

Keep in mind the interiors in Vice City and San Andreas were in other "Virtual Worlds"

 

Like for example, Los Santos is Virtual World 1, CJ's house is Virtual World 2... etc. So making interiors is not a problem for them since they just have to change virtual worlds when you get in/out an interior and it only has to load the house items and graphic info.

 

 

In GTA V, the only interiors in other virtual worlds are the some player houses on GTA Online (the ones that have no windows which you can see through) and Player Garages (Vinewood Garage, Grove Street Garage, Vapid/GTAO Mors Mutual Garage and the player garages from GTA Online.), the rest of them are implemented into the main map/virtual world. I believe they are not drawed and loaded 100% until you get pretty close to them or even get in but those interiors, like Michaels House or Franklin's mansion take up resources, a little bit, but they do.

 

 

I've learned this from SAMP related stuff and Pokemon related stuff (even tho Pokemon is a really different thing but they share the Virtual World system). If I am not right and there is anyone with knowledge on developing, please let me know!

Edited September 19, 2014 by Luismy_MMD

[Aleph-Zero]

Not at all. GTA V is a game that (for me) lived up to all the expectations and hype.

 

Just my opinion though, I know others don't exactly feel that way.

 

The NG/PC version would've lived up 100%. old gen version felt more like theytried/10, but now we know it was just a greedy move. Less quality moar money. YAY

[Official General]

 

Not at all. GTA V is a game that (for me) lived up to all the expectations and hype.

 

Just my opinion though, I know others don't exactly feel that way.

 

The NG/PC version would've lived up 100%. old gen version felt more like theytried/10, but now we know it was just a greedy move. Less quality moar money. YAY

 

 

@ Aleph

 

Wow you changed your tune.....that is if you're not joking of course.

[beretta-gt88]

Yeah I am extremely disappointed with Rockstar on many levels. The release of GTA beta for 360/PS3. The abortion that is GTA Online being their main focus. Putting out these precious "free" updates that usually end up screwing up single player mode.

Yep me two my 82.2% game is glitched my properties don't give missions anymore weed farm random event has never worked and what makes me mad the most is no Car Insurance in SP WTF man! and all the other addons to ONLINE it makes me so angry! now I have to buy a PS4 and another copy of the game I already bought the Collectors Edition what a waist of money and I'm a loyal GTA fan I own all except china town wars and there all better than this Beta crap we have now they split the game in half, half SP half Online and cut out all the content everyone wanted just to release it on next gen I preordered my copy but this might be my last GTA game. the HD era games have been a total joke since the edition of online. 3D era GTA rule Vice City and San Andreas blew my mind. I have to say the world of GTA V is amazing scuba diving is fun and terrifying at the same time I don't know if I'll get eaten by a shark or drown. but if they would of held off Online for a bit then SP could of had all three city's that it deserves instead of one city and a desert where nothing happens oh and a empty ocean. so much missed opportunity and the list of restrictions just goes on and on

can't throw people

can't listen to music while walking around

no custom music in cars

pics from snapmatic only on socialclub no option to import to HDD and compressed to 640x360

no Vigilante GTA IV had it and the others are gone also I'm sorry there fun to do

Armor is like swiss cheese and no way to raise the life bar like past gta's

all three characters are rich at the end of the story but no houses to buy like past gta's

GTA IV had a big list of vehicles but instead they gave us 5% of 'em

brought back old names of vehicles and change the vehicle

I'm done sorry about the rant it's just upsetting.

[Njale]

 

 

1. I refuse to believe that the reason for V having a relatively low number of interiors was due to hardware limitations. If previous GTAs two like VC and SA have so many interiors that are 12 and 9 years old respectively, then why couldn't V ? If the 5-year old IV could have a decent number of interiors, then why couldn't V ? This alone is a strong indication that hardware limitation was not the issue, and besides you have no concrete proof that it was the issue.

I'm 90% sure it's not a hardware limitation, but you can't compare interior numbers to VC and SA. That's stupid.

 

 

Keep in mind the interiors in Vice City and San Andreas were in other "Virtual Worlds"

 

Like for example, Los Santos is Virtual World 1, CJ's house is Virtual World 2... etc. So making interiors is not a problem for them since they just have to change virtual worlds when you get in/out an interior and it only has to load the house items and graphic info.

 

 

In GTA V, the only interiors in other virtual worlds are the some player houses on GTA Online (the ones that have no windows which you can see through) and Player Garages (Vinewood Garage, Grove Street Garage, Vapid/GTAO Mors Mutual Garage and the player garages from GTA Online.), the rest of them are implemented into the main map/virtual world. I believe they are not drawed and loaded 100% until you get pretty close to them or even get in but those interiors, like Michaels House or Franklin's mansion take up resources, a little bit, but they do.

 

 

I've learned this from SAMP related stuff and Pokemon related stuff (even tho Pokemon is a really different thing but they share the Virtual World system). If I am not right and there is anyone with knowledge on developing, please let me know!

 

 

Well the system GTA V uses is similar to the old virtual worlds from gta sa, interiors aren't loaded until you get to them so they don't take up that much power, i don't belive the lack of interiors was a hardware limitation, which means we probably won't get many more from the next ge GTA V release

Edited September 20, 2014 by Njale

[Geralt of Rivia]

 

 

 

 

1. I refuse to believe that the reason for V having a relatively low number of interiors was due to hardware limitations. If previous GTAs two like VC and SA have so many interiors that are 12 and 9 years old respectively, then why couldn't V ? If the 5-year old IV could have a decent number of interiors, then why couldn't V ? This alone is a strong indication that hardware limitation was not the issue, and besides you have no concrete proof that it was the issue.

I'm 90% sure it's not a hardware limitation, but you can't compare interior numbers to VC and SA. That's stupid.

 

I don't think it was stupid to do that. My point was if PS2 technology can have many interiors in GTA, how comes more advanced HD technology on the PS3 and 360 cannot have more interiors ? I think it's fair to say that. In any case I won't argue this issue any further, you said 90% so I'm happy with that.

Big difference between interiors loaded in real time and interiors loaded through a loading screen.

 

That's why the comparison's stupid.

[Lucky32]

I liked everything but the melee animations, they used like the same one for every weapon. I loved IV's melee system, why couldn't they just use it?

[Brilliant Ideas]

i dont see why loading times are an issue in regards to interiors. im more than willing to sit through a handful of loading seconds if it means getting to go inside interiors.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Brilliant Ideas

[Official General]

 

 

 

1. I refuse to believe that the reason for V having a relatively low number of interiors was due to hardware limitations. If previous GTAs two like VC and SA have so many interiors that are 12 and 9 years old respectively, then why couldn't V ? If the 5-year old IV could have a decent number of interiors, then why couldn't V ? This alone is a strong indication that hardware limitation was not the issue, and besides you have no concrete proof that it was the issue.

I'm 90% sure it's not a hardware limitation, but you can't compare interior numbers to VC and SA. That's stupid.

 

I don't think it was stupid to do that. My point was if PS2 technology can have many interiors in GTA, how comes more advanced HD technology on the PS3 and 360 cannot have more interiors ? I think it's fair to say that. In any case I won't argue this issue any further, you said 90% so I'm happy with that.

Big difference between interiors loaded in real time and interiors loaded through a loading screen.

 

That's why the comparison's stupid.

 

 

That was not really my point, and no disrespect, but nor do I really care. I'm not going into the finer, technical details that you seek to impress us with. My main point is that I just don't believe hardware limitations are excuse for Rockstar to give us a low number of interiors in V relative to it's size, compared to previous GTAs. I'm not bothered as to how it was done, all I know is that V should have done much better than this regarding interiors.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Official General

[Wylight]

to answer your points in a quick manner, yes i'd rather have none of those features at all, if they were gonna be piss-poor at launch. aside from the subjective ones, the rest of them feel mediocre. the way i see it, if rockstar cant be bothered to take full advantage of a certain feature or piece of detail, then they shouldnt include it at all. they should save their time and resources for other things. most of the half-assed content in the game feels like an insult. "lets put in burger shot but not let them go inside". "lets put in animals, but only a very small amount, and lets make the animals irrelevant".

 

 

 

sorry, but the way i see it, either a feature should be utilized to its utmost potential, or not included whatsoever. i dont like the awkward fusion of inconsistencies that this game has to offer.

 

Ok, so you would rather take most of the game's features out because you think they're half assed? What would you have said if Rockstar didn't put in the restaurants AT ALL for example?? I bet you, and everyone else would have preffered to have them in for detail and for the fact those names are part of the ''GTA Lore'' than not have them at all. I literally think you have no idea what you're wishing for. You're basically saying ''Let's cut some more sh*t up to make the game even more shallow than it is since these features are not as fullly fleshed as we hoped them to be.

That was not really my point, and no disrespect, but nor do I really care. I'm not going into the finer, technical details that you seek to impress us with. My main point is that I just don't believe hardware limitations are excuse for Rockstar to give us a low number of interiors in V relative to it's size, compared to previous GTAs. I'm not bothered as to how it was done, all I know is that V should have done much better than this regarding interiors.

 

At first I was bothered by interiors too, but now I realize interiors won't make me keep playing the game more unless they have substantial things to do inside them and they're obviously filled with life. Rockstar seems to only have made the interiors that were absolutely necessary and nothing more. If they even put the same rather simple and basic 3 or 4 interiors across ALL the Online apartments and houses, then it's safe to say Rockstar hates interior modelling.

 

And you can't really compare PS2 era games with the HD ones in terms of interiors really. First of all, VC didn't really had more interiors than V as far as I remember and SA used the same copied and pasted ones all over the place while still utilizing many unique ones and more interior variety.

However, they used interior cells in these games which means the interios where somewhere else and not in the game world, hence the loading screens. Lastly, the level of detail was nowhere near GTA V or GTA IV's interiors.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Skizzo45

[Official General]

That was not really my point, and no disrespect, but nor do I really care. I'm not going into the finer, technical details that you seek to impress us with. My main point is that I just don't believe hardware limitations are excuse for Rockstar to give us a low number of interiors in V relative to it's size, compared to previous GTAs. I'm not bothered as to how it was done, all I know is that V should have done much better than this regarding interiors.

 

At first I was bothered by interiors too, but now I realize interiors won't make me keep playing the game more unless they have substantial things to do inside them and they're obviously filled with life. Rockstar seems to only have made the interiors that were absolutely necessary and nothing more. If they even put the same rather simple and basic 3 or 4 interiors across ALL the Online apartments and houses, then it's safe to say Rockstar hates interior modelling.

 

And you can't really compare PS2 era games with the HD ones in terms of interiors really. First of all, VC didn't really had more interiors than V as far as I remember and SA used the same copied and pasted ones all over the place while still utilizing many unique ones and more interior variety.

However, they used interior cells in these games which means the interios where somewhere else and not in the game world, hence the loading screens. Lastly, the level of detail was nowhere near GTA V or GTA IV's interiors.

 

 

Let me set something straight. Having more interiors in V is not the only thing that would make me play the game more. I never once stated this. There are a number of various flaws and shortcomings in V that really bother me, not just the lack of interiors. I've stated many of them enough on these forums, you should know what they are by now, so I won't go into that further. The lack of interiors is just one of the more important things that I really dislike about V and that I'm highly critical of.

 

I disagree with what you say about GTA needing a specific purpose for interiors, that I'm sorry to say is kinda bullsh*t, for real bro. The whole point of being immersed in an open-world game environment is the freedom to go to or to enter many places within it,and thats what GTA eventually became highly acclaimed for up until recently with V. It's the simple, little things like interiors that really come together to give the player that feeling. You may think a Burger Shot or Cluckin' Bell is not that important to be in the in-game world of GTA, but to others like myself, it makes a big difference. Many of us don't just want a pretty-looking city, we want to feel like we exist in it as much as possible, like going in to a restaurant to eat, going into a bar to drink, going into a nightclub to dance, going into a hospital for treatment etc - it's the little things that can make all the difference in a great way regarding the player's experience of exploring and existing wiithin the free-roam environment of GTA games. To say many interiors is not necessary is quite stupid. You're basically saying that Rockstar should cut corners and regress from the great work from previous great GTAs, simply for the sake of "necessity". That's a very poor line of thought in my view. Hey, if you enjoy nice-looking exteriors, then I'm happy for you, at least you're not bothered about this like I and many others are.

 

As for interiors needing to have life in them, of course I agree with that. No point in having interiors with not much life or anything happening, that I agree with. When I said V should have had more interiors, that is what I had in mind in the first place.

 

I compared V's lack of interiors to III-era GTAs for a reason, read it again, I don't wanna repeat myself.

[Brilliant Ideas]

 

to answer your points in a quick manner, yes i'd rather have none of those features at all, if they were gonna be piss-poor at launch. aside from the subjective ones, the rest of them feel mediocre. the way i see it, if rockstar cant be bothered to take full advantage of a certain feature or piece of detail, then they shouldnt include it at all. they should save their time and resources for other things. most of the half-assed content in the game feels like an insult. "lets put in burger shot but not let them go inside". "lets put in animals, but only a very small amount, and lets make the animals irrelevant".

 

 

 

sorry, but the way i see it, either a feature should be utilized to its utmost potential, or not included whatsoever. i dont like the awkward fusion of inconsistencies that this game has to offer.

 

Ok, so you would rather take most of the game's features out because you think they're half assed? What would you have said if Rockstar didn't put in the restaurants AT ALL for example?? I bet you, and everyone else would have preffered to have them in for detail and for the fact those names are part of the ''GTA Lore'' than not have them at all. I literally think you have no idea what you're wishing for. You're basically saying ''Let's cut some more sh*t up to make the game even more shallow than it is since these features are not as fullly fleshed as we hoped them to be.

yes, yes I would. I said that didnt I? besides, your point is practically null and void, since there arent even any enterable restaurants in the first place! lol. my point exactly. they shouldnt just be there for aesthetics. i should be able to interact with whatever the hell I damn well please. the game was capable of doing this. rockstar, on the other hand, obviously wasnt.

[zeppelincheetah]

GTA V only disappoints with the story, though that is an improvement over IV (save for TLAD, imo the best HD GTA story). I will eventually get GTA V for PS4 whenever I get a PS4 (probably closer to GTA VI's release).

 

Rockstar is BY FAR the best third party developer in the world. They don't cut corners, and they deliver an exceptionally well made product, unlike almost every single other big developer. I think Nintendo is the only company that puts out as good of quality in their work, but their games don't come close to the scale and variety of content as the GTA series.

 

I think we should all give them consideration for that. I was butthurt over GTA IV because it cut content back (which I could accept given the new sense of realism) AND failed miserably on the story. I could live with one but not both. V brought the content back and slightly improved the story.

 

As long as the quality of their games stays the same the only thing they can do that would disappoint me would be if GTA went online only. That is the line I draw where I walk away from the series. I could care less for online gaming and I wish they would just remove it and focus more resources on the single player.

[Ixnay]

I really wish we didn't have to be online to save photos. That's pretty lame.

[zeppelincheetah]

 

 

to answer your points in a quick manner, yes i'd rather have none of those features at all, if they were gonna be piss-poor at launch. aside from the subjective ones, the rest of them feel mediocre. the way i see it, if rockstar cant be bothered to take full advantage of a certain feature or piece of detail, then they shouldnt include it at all. they should save their time and resources for other things. most of the half-assed content in the game feels like an insult. "lets put in burger shot but not let them go inside". "lets put in animals, but only a very small amount, and lets make the animals irrelevant".

 

 

 

sorry, but the way i see it, either a feature should be utilized to its utmost potential, or not included whatsoever. i dont like the awkward fusion of inconsistencies that this game has to offer.

 

Ok, so you would rather take most of the game's features out because you think they're half assed? What would you have said if Rockstar didn't put in the restaurants AT ALL for example?? I bet you, and everyone else would have preffered to have them in for detail and for the fact those names are part of the ''GTA Lore'' than not have them at all. I literally think you have no idea what you're wishing for. You're basically saying ''Let's cut some more sh*t up to make the game even more shallow than it is since these features are not as fullly fleshed as we hoped them to be.

yes, yes I would. I said that didnt I? besides, your point is practically null and void, since there arent even any enterable restaurants in the first place! lol. my point exactly. they shouldnt just be there for aesthetics. i should be able to interact with whatever the hell I damn well please. the game was capable of doing this. rockstar, on the other hand, obviously wasnt.

 

This always has been and always will be the case. You've got to remember there are human beings working on this game and they have a deadline. They can only do so much. You also have to remember there are also limits on the disc and the hardware. The game was originally made to fit on a DVD and work on a 360. If they only made things so they can be absolutely 100% realistic it would've taken 10 years to make GTA V and it would be a PC only game. Or the alternative is to have almost no features and have a vast bland area with little to do. Basically vanilla GTA IV but over the map of V.

 

This makes the prospect of GTA VI more exciting. They have a blu-ray disc to play with this time, and much better hardware.