Too much details, too few interiors

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

GTA 4 was nowhere revolutionary as GTA 5 is. Especially spinning off from San Andreas, it was in a way a massive let down. They took all the great stuff from San Andreas out. GTA 5 did more than add a big map and detailed graphics. It brought back the old GTA feel with an detailed alive feeling.

 

I really don't see how that makes it more revolutionary. If details are being discussed how can you ignore GTA IV's? Whether you like GTA IV or not it was and is a far more detailed game than San Andreas will ever be.

 

I mean you say GTA V brings back the old GTA feel with detail, but that doesn't mean it's revolutionary and in many peoples' view it still lacks the old GTA feel so it's not something that can be used as an objective measure.

Edited January 12, 2016 by SonOfLiberty

[ChiroVette]

Bro, nobody was asking for the whole world to created in a GTA game, V in this case. All people wanted was the same stuff that made the previous GTAs like SA and VC so great, but in an updated, more refined way, in addition to the new stuff. That was all, it's not much to ask for.

 

I understand you, but I think you may be missing my point. With such a HUGE plethora of not only old features devs may want to make a return, but new stuff, too, don't they at some point, have to just stop? Stop adding stuff in? Stop making the world larger in scope? Stop with new features? And, more on point with this discussion, stop adding things from past games?

 

Look, GTA is such a huge world that maybe it isn't so easy, and perhaps even less important, that every feature from (in this case) San Andreas make it into this iteration of the game.

 

I have no idea what features Rockstar wanted to put into this game, what they wanted to leave out, but sequels today, particularly GTA games, aren't like they used to be. There's just too much stuff going into all these games, in my opinion, to categorically hold devs accountable for re-introducing every, single, little thing from the previous games. Particularly when they add so many new things. If San Andreas had, say a thousand gameplay motifs people like, it doesn't mean that all 1,000 get imported! Its like the people who get pissed because there are no Jet Packs, no Area 69, no Oysters. What about Spray Tags? Oh, I miss the Dodo from GTA III.

 

F*ckers! Why didn't they bring that back. The challenge of flying it was better than the new planes which are so easy! lol

 

What about police bribes and Pay 'n' Sprays and gangs from San Andreas? Oh that's right, you already mentioned gangs.

 

See my point?

 

 

 

 

GTA 4 was nowhere revolutionary as GTA 5 is. Especially spinning off from San Andreas, it was in a way a massive let down. They took all the great stuff from San Andreas out. GTA 5 did more than add a big map and detailed graphics. It brought back the old GTA feel with an detailed alive feeling.

 

 

 

Man, I TOTALLY agree with this. In a nutshell, its why I was so disappointed with IV and Rockstar sucked me back in with V!

Edited January 12, 2016 by ChiroVette

[SmileyBandito]

Except more people praised GTA IV at release than they did GTA V. The only reason GTA V is still relevant right now is because a) GTA V was released in three consecutive years on five different platforms b) GTA Online brings in new updates to keep the community busy.

 

Does no one remember how blown away everyone was with GTA IV? The f*cking physics and attention to detail was mindblowing. It actually has a higher metascore than GTA V; reviewers constantly called it one of the best video games ever made. It had that Ocarina of Time effect going before people pulled the "it's so overrated!" card on it several years later.

 

No one cared about a low-poly countryside or a goofy jetpack when Rockstar gave us by far the most immersive, detailed, and compelling open world with GTA IV. Never before have we seen a city simulated to such high fidelity. Most people who missed extensive character customization and a big map in San Andreas simply couldn't appreciate GTA IV for being an amazingly detailed world with a strong narrative.

 

Although GTA V is more refined and plays better, it felt very streamlined to me. The driving was watered down and took no skill (most of the vehicles felt the same), the Euphoria physics were a joke even compared to Red Dead, and even the story was rushed and didn't take itself seriously. GTA V is still an amazing game and sets a bar for the open world genre, but it didn't standout as being anymore revolutionary than GTA IV in its respective time of release. GTA IV was still the most impressive game to me at its release. GTA V didn't bring in the same wow factor in my opinion.

 

GTA V (I'm talking about the last-gen version to make the comparison fair) had more or less of the same detail packed in Los Santos compared to LC. I've always thought the countryside was mediocre as f*ck in GTA V, I'm more impressed by Los Santos than Bland County.

 

I still think both GTA IV and GTA V are a bit overrated - seeing it bear a 98 and 97 on Metacritic while games like Red Dead, The Last of Us, and The Wild Hunt somewhat sit at lower scores.

[Osho]

I feel there exists a huge market ( demand? ) of players who want games for simply one reason: enjoyment, and tend to keep their expectations low by leaving upto the developers to decide the key factors of enjoyment.

 

From what I have been reading when I interact with the players on the various forums, and understand their expectations, there's a lot more stronger outrage over what they see ( graphics and details in the trailers / screens ), and as such, these visual elements have become another 'gameplay' mechanic, having nearly the same importance ( and in cases like GTA, a lot more important ) in their experience of what makes or breaks the game, regardless of whether it has any use besides providing the immersion or not.

Excessive details with good set pieces and the game has good amount of followers already, which is fine, each to its own and all, but I find this trend dangerous because I never thought about pre-ordering nor buying the games based on its beauty alone.

Something I feel is not right, and looking at how the AAA games are developed and marketed on consoles, the developers of these popular AAA projects seem to be quite clear and have a set pattern for making games, that is, excite and hype first, marketing all the technical wizardry, and 'speak' big words about how ambitious and groundgreaking their games are, and when their sales hit the chart and making headlines about the success of the sales they managed to attain within just a day, hours or the week ended since initial date of the release, both the developers and the fanboys blinded by the loyalty start celebrating the success of the game within just one week and before completing the game in its entirery.

The people don't seem to understand that the game has pretty serious flaws, like the topic in question, and just avoid being objective, vocal and critical about it, instead pass it off quite casually as everything is subjective, and target the critics for suffering from nostalgia, and all other baseless accussations.

What I'm trying to say is, that all this has set a wrong precedent for the what the fans actually want from this talented and financially strong AAA developers.

It seems like more and more expectations are raised for the visuals and details, and the fans will probably ignore the flaws in their games if they fall short, giving the developers the "benefit of the doubt" due to brand loyalty towards them among the fans.

But that "benefit of the doubt" seems to be too much in case of V than IV and feel its wrong.

Rockstar has delivered the GTA V full of graphical excellence, but it took a lot of the power and within the limitations of the hardware to pull this off, which seems to be quite unfair in terms of the priorities for an ambitious game like V which has some great ideas on paper, but from technical standpoint a lot of those ideas feel a lot unsatisfying relative to the size of the map due to other considerations in the details and graphics department.

I am not sure whom to blame here. The developers who are smart enough to simply sell their games based on the looks departments, or the consumers who consider beautiful and immersive experiences more important for their enjoyment, even if the actual gameplay and content didn't quite deliver for all the big talks and ambitions these developers had shown during pre release of their games.

It feels like the AAA developers like R* are more worried about the players, be kids or adults, who are expecting from their games to deliver more on their visual quality and details, otherwise they may quickly lose interest if the game still had not blown them away in the looks department, even if that extra raw power could have proved more beneficial in delivering far better and groundbreaking gameplay, with more interiors, content and features within the scale and size of a map that doesn't appear too big that it feels empty, nor too small than what they managed to pull off with IV.

Well, the blame should lie at our end for giving rise to such a wrong trend in gaming that the developers will of course listen to what extent they can go to win the consumers, including the new additions to the already larger playerbase, than pleasing what their critics want, from the hardware and within limitations they need to decide what their next game should prioritise and consider in order to achieve maximum sales and keep investors happy.

So yeah, the excessive details in V are just overrated in my opinion.

[Fuzzknuckles]

Now THAT is a wall of text

 

I get enjoyment from V. Do you really want to waste another day of your life going around this circle again?

 

You're rudely suggesting we don't want enjoyment from our games because we like V. Please stop insulting people. It's hypocritical.

 

The game didn't deliver for you but for many it did. Some of us think it's a great game with plenty to do. We disagree with you. So are we all so terrible and do we have such bad taste just because that's what you believe? No. Stop dictating tastes to us.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Fuzzknuckles

[SmileyBandito]

GTA V does have a lot of minute details here and there. They go to obscure lengths. Hell, even Michael's flip flops, well, flip and flop as he walks. I gotta admit, I have a soft spot for the little things.

 

I just think Rockstar should cater to tweaking the broader details as well, primarily gameplay mechanics. Now, I know Watch_underscroll_Dogs can get some fans salty in this forum, but hot damn the gunfights were so compelling in that game! If an explosion went off near the player, Aden would dynamically role to the ground from the impact. The animations were just so fluid. I love how you could roll over the hood of a car when transitioning between cover. Stuff like that, y'know.

 

Wish GTA V had the on-foot mechanics of WD. I would swap first person mode for it.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Vinewood Villain

[Son of Zeus]

 

GTA 4 was nowhere revolutionary as GTA 5 is. Especially spinning off from San Andreas, it was in a way a massive let down. They took all the great stuff from San Andreas out. GTA 5 did more than add a big map and detailed graphics. It brought back the old GTA feel with an detailed alive feeling.

 

I think you're not understanding the word 'revolutionary' here. IV introduced us to an entirely new engine with new physics, animations and of course graphical detail. That's what makes it more revolutionary than V.

 

V isn't revolutionary. It brought back features from SA with a new coat of paint. That doesn't make V revolutionary, it means SA was revolutionary.

[SmileyBandito]

Exactly, GTA IV was the first HD GTA game to run on Rockstar's next-gen engine (at the time). GTA V would've had to debut on next-gen or be built on a new engine entirely to have revolutionized itself apart from GTA IV.

 

The jump from GTA IV to GTA V was nowhere near as big or impressive as the jump from San Andreas to GTA IV. GTA V, to me, is a cleaner, more tighter version of GTA IV, laid on a bigger map. The game still reeks of GTA IV DNA in many areas.

 

That's why I hope GTA VI is built on a brand new engine. I mean, RAGE is like ten years old now, it wouldn't to upgrade. Hell, I wouldn't even mind if GTA VI debuts on next-gen (PS5/Xbox Two?) if that's what it takes to revolutionize the series again.

 

TL;DR: GTA IV was far more revolutionary than GTA V was because it was a reboot of the series built on a next-gen engine.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Vinewood Villain

[Osho]

The list of content V missed out is far more than it brought back from SA. Some of them have returned as Online exclusive.

[SmileyBandito]

Yep. Online exclusive content locked behind an artificial paywall known as shark cards. You can look at it that way, or you can look at endless hours devoted to grinding.

 

"Have fun!" - Rockstar

 

At first it was tolerable, but ever since IGG vehicle prices skyrocketed. It's like the in-game economy inflates as shark card profits rise. Who would have thought?! /s

Edited January 12, 2016 by Vinewood Villain

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

 

GTA 4 was nowhere revolutionary as GTA 5 is. Especially spinning off from San Andreas, it was in a way a massive let down. They took all the great stuff from San Andreas out. GTA 5 did more than add a big map and detailed graphics. It brought back the old GTA feel with an detailed alive feeling.

 

I think you're not understanding the word 'revolutionary' here. IV introduced us to an entirely new engine with new physics, animations and of course graphical detail. That's what makes it more revolutionary than V.

 

V isn't revolutionary. It brought back features from SA with a new coat of paint. That doesn't make V revolutionary, it means SA was revolutionary.

 

 

I think the word "revolutionary" gets thrown around too much without understand its true meaning. Revolution means a complete change or shift. IMO the only GTAs that are "revolutionary" are GTA III, GTA IV and San Andreas. Each represented an important shift.

 

GTA III brought the series into a new light with its transition into 3D which forged the way for similar games in the genre and is the sole reason we're still here talking about the series today. GTA IV wasn't quite as big going into HD, but many technical innovations it introduced were used to help develop games like RDR and MP3 and San Andreas showed us the potential of "go anywhere and do anything" with its off the scale freedom..

Edited January 12, 2016 by SonOfLiberty

[Osho]

I find the word 'evolutionary' suits IV better than 'revolutionary' since apart from the multiplayer aspect, I don't think IV revolutionized the series ( or open world genre ) with something 'new or groundbreaking' like GTA III.

Basically, IV seems more like an evolutionary leap of the series.

Evolutionary:- A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. ( for instance: the resolution, graphical fidelity, world details, AI, physics, mechanics, etc )

[Algonquin Assassin]

I find the word 'evolutionary' suits IV better than 'revolutionary' since apart from the multiplayer aspect, I don't think IV revolutionized the series ( or open world genre ) with something 'new or groundbreaking' like GTA III.

Basically, IV seems more like an evolutionary leap of the series.

Evolutionary:- A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. ( for instance: the resolution, graphical fidelity, world details, AI, physics, mechanics, etc )

 

Yeah maybe that's a better way of saying it. I think most people call GTA IV revolutionary because it "started over" and introduced us to more complex physics and such. I would say the engine too, but to be fair the table tennis game R* made on the 360 in 2006 was technically the first game to have used R.A.G.E.

Edited January 12, 2016 by SonOfLiberty

[[email protected]]

I agree that there should've been more rendered and 'enterable' interiors scattered throughout the map; would've added a another facet to the online gameplay. It was pretty good in GTA SA where there were loads of General Stores including food places Lucky Plucker, Cluckin Bell etc., or police stations, betting shops, that Cylindrical tower and several other places like the Big pointy building.

 

Having said that, gameplay detail always takes preference seeing as we'd be spending most of our time 'outside' in the GTA world.

[ChiroVette]

Except more people praised GTA IV at release than they did GTA V.

 

I don't know if I agree with this. I think that GTA IV has a critical advantage over V in that it was the first game that was created with the philosophy that permeates the new style of GTA. So it had more raw shock value to critics and the public.

 

So even though I think V is ten times the game that IV is, I am factoring that out for this post. Because a lot of what makes this "new style" of GTA go is what Rockstar did with IV. Look, with GTA III, VC, and San Andreas, they kept building on what made III great. They just kept making the games bigger and badder.

 

They didn't try to re-invent the wheel until they made GTA on the new consoles.

 

I would say that if you want GTA games to be truly groundbreaking over IV and V, I mean, then give it more time NOT one game. I don't think Rockstar should feel obliged to re-invent the wheel with every game, any more than they did in the PS2 gen of GTA. Let's have another game or two that are "like GTA IV and V" before we spaz out about the games not being "new and unique enough."

 

I would say, let Rockstar do San Fierro and Venturras on this game (perhaps expansions of V) and then do a game around Vice City as a standalone, sort of as a sequel to V. Then, after that, let them re-invent GTA again.

 

 

 

 

GTA 4 was nowhere revolutionary as GTA 5 is. Especially spinning off from San Andreas, it was in a way a massive let down. They took all the great stuff from San Andreas out. GTA 5 did more than add a big map and detailed graphics. It brought back the old GTA feel with an detailed alive feeling.

 

I think you're not understanding the word 'revolutionary' here. IV introduced us to an entirely new engine with new physics, animations and of course graphical detail. That's what makes it more revolutionary than V.

 

V isn't revolutionary. It brought back features from SA with a new coat of paint. That doesn't make V revolutionary, it means SA was revolutionary.

 

 

This I have to concede, even though I initially agreed with Chamberlain. Still, V is a lot more fun and has a lot more crazy stuff to do. I think that's what he meant, but you are correct. GTA IV, as much as I don't like the game, did introduce this new GTA paradigm that does somewhat permeate even GTA V. So clearly, IV was the more revolutionary game, from a technical standpoint, since it invented the new style.

 

 

You're rudely suggesting we don't want enjoyment from our games because we like V. Please stop insulting people. It's hypocritical.

 

The game didn't deliver for you but for many it did. Some of us think it's a great game with plenty to do. We disagree with you. So are we all so terrible and do we have such bad taste just because that's what you believe? No. Stop dictating tastes to us.

 

This is Osho in a nutshell. He condescends to tell everyone else what they should consider fun because its what he considers fun.

Edited January 12, 2016 by ChiroVette

[Osho]

I have always preferred open worlds that justify its scale and size than simply use it as a marketing gimmick, offering a map with a sizeable portion with nothing interesting to explore other than just empty, detailed environments.

That's why I loved GTA 2 and Vice city maps the most. For an open world GTA 2 and VC had amazing atmosphere, at least to me, with smaller world, the develpers were able to concentrate on every inch of the map for making it a lot more distinct areas to explore including interesting amount of interiors ( in case of VC ). It was good enough in terms of scale for what they were offering in gameplay and content.

 

GTAV on the other hand went for the map size that was more than the size of SA, IV and RDR combined, but with one city and the countryside, desert and mountain areas for the rest of the big portion on the map, without adding enough content not any meaningful things to do on many parts of the map. Most of SA in V is just empty and peds spawning but with not enough life poured into them through activities, interiors and such.

I don't know how to explain this, but many areas didn't offer me anything worth to make me want to return again exploring after, maybe couple of times driving through the same areas, and looking around for the best opportunity in different time of the day and weather for taking a snapmatic shot.

Basically, I don't understand what's the point of going bigger in size and scale if for the most part of the game, I just drive through them on my way and the only objective, or purpose left for me to explore was mostly just taking photos, and nothing interesting in terms of interiors, content, races, side missions, stadium events, chiliad challenges, something more, something that makes sense, than just being dead and empty.

Oh.. I forgot. Of course, throw in more collectibles to fill some of the places...for giving some context or meaning... how exciting!!!

[Raj The Rager]

 

 

GTA 4 was nowhere revolutionary as GTA 5 is. Especially spinning off from San Andreas, it was in a way a massive let down. They took all the great stuff from San Andreas out. GTA 5 did more than add a big map and detailed graphics. It brought back the old GTA feel with an detailed alive feeling.

 

I think you're not understanding the word 'revolutionary' here. IV introduced us to an entirely new engine with new physics, animations and of course graphical detail. That's what makes it more revolutionary than V.

 

V isn't revolutionary. It brought back features from SA with a new coat of paint. That doesn't make V revolutionary, it means SA was revolutionary.

 

I already knew what he meant. Based upon of their releases GTA 5 was the one that aged better. It had the brought a big thing to the GTA series. Switching between 3 characters and felt like a movie with a lot of details. GTA 4 brought a lot of realism but that just doesn't seem to run over GTA 5's release. Well at least to me.

Except more people praised GTA IV at release than they did GTA V.

I don't want to be rude or anything, but did you get GTA 4 late? Because it recieved a lot of hate.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Chamberman20

[ChiroVette]

 

I don't want to be rude or anything, but did you get GTA 4 late? Because it recieved a lot of hate.

 

 

It did. Most of it was from me.

 

Seriously, there are a lot of critics of GTA IV. I didn't make up the name GTA: Snore. Now just because a game receives a lot of hate DOES NOT prove the game is bad. Some of the posts about V in this forum prove that.

Edited January 12, 2016 by ChiroVette

[Raj The Rager]

 

 

GTA 4 was nowhere revolutionary as GTA 5 is. Especially spinning off from San Andreas, it was in a way a massive let down. They took all the great stuff from San Andreas out. GTA 5 did more than add a big map and detailed graphics. It brought back the old GTA feel with an detailed alive feeling.

 

I really don't see how that makes it more revolutionary. If details are being discussed how can you ignore GTA IV's? Whether you like GTA IV or not it was and is a far more detailed game than San Andreas will ever be.

 

I mean you say GTA V brings back the old GTA feel with detail, but that doesn't mean it's revolutionary and in many peoples' view it still lacks the old GTA feel so it's not something that can be used as an objective measure.

 

I never said that San Andreas is more detailed than GTA 4. Even though I like San Andreas better, I believe only a fool would say such an ignorant thing. GTA 5 feels like the older GTAs in a way. It's colorful, gangs are dangerously territorial, there is a lot of satire and they brought back the weapons we once had.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Chamberman20

[ChiroVette]

 

I never said that San Andreas is more detailed than GTA 4. Even though I like San Andreas better, I believe only a fool would say such an ignorant thing. GTA 5 feels like the older GTAs in a way. It's colorful, gangs are dangerously territorial, there is a lot of satire and they brought back the weapons we once had.

 

 

I agree with this!

 

To me, GTA V feels like a return to old school GTA with some of the elements of IV (which I grudgingly accept) because clearly Rockstar tried to compromise with this game. Where I differ in opinion with a lot of the GTA V critics in this forum is that they would prefer V be more like IV.

 

Hahaha my EVERY criticism of V, however, is in the places where it is more like IV than it is like the PS2 era GTA, obviously with the exception of the graphics. I love the graphics and visuals in IV and V. But V showed that Rockstar could back off of the pomposity of IV at least enough to make GTA fun again!

Edited January 12, 2016 by ChiroVette

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

 

 

GTA 4 was nowhere revolutionary as GTA 5 is. Especially spinning off from San Andreas, it was in a way a massive let down. They took all the great stuff from San Andreas out. GTA 5 did more than add a big map and detailed graphics. It brought back the old GTA feel with an detailed alive feeling.

 

I really don't see how that makes it more revolutionary. If details are being discussed how can you ignore GTA IV's? Whether you like GTA IV or not it was and is a far more detailed game than San Andreas will ever be.

 

I mean you say GTA V brings back the old GTA feel with detail, but that doesn't mean it's revolutionary and in many peoples' view it still lacks the old GTA feel so it's not something that can be used as an objective measure.

 

I never said that San Andreas is more detailed than GTA 4. Even though I like San Andreas better, I believe only a fool would say such an ignorant thing. GTA 5 feels like the older GTAs in a way. It's colorful, gangs are dangerously territorial, there is a lot of satire and they brought back the weapons we once had.

 

 

I think you may have missed my point. All I was saying is "the old GTA feel" isn't something that can be used to define whether GTA V is revolutionary. It's not a physical feature. It's only a subjective feeling.

 

For instance I feel GTA IV brought back GTA III's raw and gritty nature. GTA V only feels like it wants to be San Andreas with HD graphics if anything. It feels nothing like GTA III and VC IMO. It probably comes down to the fact I've never been massively sugary for San Andreas (though it's a good game), but GTA V doesn't bring back the old school GTA feel at least for me.

 

If it does for you guys I don't see anything wrong with that. Just saying that it's pretty subjective really.

[ChiroVette]

 

 

 

If it does for you guys I don't see anything wrong with that. Just saying that it's pretty subjective really.

 

 

This is the place that intelligent discourse begins when it comes to entertainment and tastes. Unfortunately, too many people try to round-peg their opinions into the square hole of empiricism, when they are too different things. I see it all the time in this forum. People making statements like, "Such and such story and so and so characters are better, objectively..." as if there is some pompous, videogame review board and they alone sit perched atop its highest ordered seat.

 

I get how people can like one thing better, and I would NEVER, in a million years, argue with you when you say that you like IV better; you think V doesn't bring back the old school GTA feel for you, because I am in no position to tell you how you should feel about a game and its content, not to mention how it compares to a predecessor or later iteration.

 

This is how things should be discussed. With a little bit of humility.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

 

 

 

If it does for you guys I don't see anything wrong with that. Just saying that it's pretty subjective really.

 

 

This is the place that intelligent discourse begins when it comes to entertainment and tastes. Unfortunately, too many people try to round-peg their opinions into the square hole of empiricism, when they are too different things. I see it all the time in this forum. People making statements like, "Such and such story and so and so characters are better, objectively..." as if there is some pompous, videogame review board and they alone sit perched atop its highest ordered seat.

 

I get how people can like one thing better, and I would NEVER, in a million years, argue with you when you say that you like IV better; you think V doesn't bring back the old school GTA feel for you, because I am in no position to tell you how you should feel about a game and its content, not to mention how it compares to a predecessor or later iteration.

 

This is how things should be discussed. With a little bit of humility.

 

 

In many ways I can understand why many people feel it brought back the old school feel, but one of my reasons for my response to Chamberman20 was him saying it was revolutionary because it brought back the old GTA feel with more detail, but like I said revolution usually means change or shift.

 

If GTA V digs into the past and attempts to replicate the way things used to be then it's really not revolutionary. In fact it points to being the opposite and as Son Of Zeus pointed out it means San Andreas was more of a revolutionary title in that regard.

 

Look don't get me wrong even though I'm a massive fan of GTA IV I acknowledge that GTA V done its bit to refine certain aspects and itself brought along new features to the series such as weapon customisation and the switching mechanic, but IMO they're nothing really game changing or genre defining.

 

Even the switching mechanic is moreso an evolutionary mechanic than a revolutionary one. GTA IV/EFLC had multiple protagonists, but GTA V took it one step further by allowing them to be switched at will in the one game .It just felt more like an important evolutionary mechanic to me. I just think the word gets thrown around too much nowadays.

 

When I think of revolutionary I think of games like Doom and GTA III that basically built whole genres around them. I don't think GTA V serves such a title, but that's just me.

[Osho]

I don't think GTA V feels like a return to old school GTA.

By definition, old school --- used, usually approvingly, to refer to someone or something that is old-fashioned or traditional.

 

I don't see it right to refer to V as having that "old-fashioned or traditional" feel or elements to it.

Infact, IV still retained many of the old-fashioned or traditional elements the way we always experienced in the 3D Era system, while also evolving in a lot of ways, too

GTA V on the other hand reduced by removing a lot of the old-fashioned or traditional elements of the series like restaurants, six star wanted system, etc while providing some new ( though many were already introduced in other R* titles, for instance: weapon wheel ) elements as well.

I feel more like V has started a "new school" different from the "old school" in a lot of ways, than to the extent IV did to differentiate itself.

GTA V feels a lot streamlined than old school titles ( incl. IV ) were.

So, I strongly disagree with this line of thought that V gives more of the old school vibe because I definitely don't get that feeling.

If there's any term that defines a new school that formulates the version of old school but being used in a different sense for a new direction ( or audience ) then I would call that to GTA V.

[ChiroVette]

 

In many ways I can understand why many people feel it brought back the old school feel, but one of my reasons for my response to Chamberman20 was him saying it was revolutionary because it brought back the old GTA feel with more detail, but like I said revolution usually means change or shift.

 

If GTA V digs into the past and attempts to replicate the way things used to be then it's really not revolutionary. In fact it points to being the opposite and as Son Of Zeus pointed out it means San Andreas was more of a revolutionary title in that regard.

 

Look don't get me wrong even though I'm a massive fan of GTA IV I acknowledge that GTA V done its bit to refine certain aspects and itself brought along new features to the series such as weapon customisation and the switching mechanic, but IMO they're nothing really game changing or genre defining.

 

Even the switching mechanic is moreso an evolutionary mechanic than a revolutionary one. GTA IV/EFLC had multiple protagonists, but GTA V took it one step further by allowing them to be switched at will in the one game .It just felt more like an important evolutionary mechanic to me. I just think the word gets thrown around too much nowadays.

 

When I think of revolutionary I think of games like Doom and GTA III that basically built whole genres around them. I don't think GTA V serves such a title, but that's just me.

 

 

Clearly, this is true. As much as I love V, and as much as it is a great nod to the old school GTA mechanics and feel that was so absent in IV, it cannot realistically be called revolutionary. First off, it is the SECOND game using basically the same paradigm and motifs, with the physics "loosened up" a bit because Rockstar probably wanted to add to the fun factor. And the story is different from IV in that this is not a "rags to better rags" story. But much of the mechanics from the Rage engine to this one are preserved. So to call V revolutionary doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

But, and this is the important part, that doesn't mean it isn't an awesome game.

 

By the way, someone above said that they thought that both III and San Andreas were revolutionary, and even though San Andreas improved on everything from III, it isn't revolutionary either. III was revolutionary because it was the first game of its type at a time when devs were trying to milk every little bit of graphics from their PS2 games. As amazing as San Andreas is, it really is just a much larger, much bigger, much badder GTA III with three cities instead of one and a much larger scope to it.

 

But even with all the flyables, the much longer story, the huge map, the jet pack, and all that cool stuff, it is still a game built on the GTA III engine.

Edited January 13, 2016 by ChiroVette

[itsme83]

If the game has more interiors people don't rush through the story mode as much... thus creating a longer experience. nobody really cares about tennis , yoga etc etc... if you look @ RockStars demo it's probably men 18-40

 

So why not include baseball, basketball, pool (again), or even some type of football mini game. No casino? 1 strip club? They should have focused more on fun stuff instead of stupid details that only .2 percent of 100% of people pay attention to.

Edited January 13, 2016 by itsme83

[ChiroVette]

If the game has more interiors people don't rush through the story mode as much... thus creating a longer experience. nobody really cares about tennis , yoga etc etc...

 

 

 

Well, I certainly don't care about any of that stuff,and believe me, I had to force myself through each and every one of those activities to get them checked off in the Social Club (and don't forget darts! lol)

 

But I can see them having some niche appeal, AND I think they are very well fleshed out mini-games, all of them. lf I liked golf in videogames, I would probably enjoy it in this. Same with tennis, golf, etc. Yoga is what it is. I think that it would have been better if the yoga sessions, both in Did Somebody Say Yoga and in the side diversion were shorter, but that's me. To be honest, while I have no interest in playing any of these diversions other than "to get credit for them," I could see how they could be fun as a break from the regular game.

 

They certainly don't play badly or clunky.

[GtaivCop]

 

I'll take the details over the interiors. I love interiors and wish we could have more, but I don't find my gaming suffers due to there being only a few of them.

 

There's more detail in Lester's garment factory that there is in all of Vice City. Having a few really interesting interiors with a lot of detailing is fine for me. While interiors can aid immersion and are great for RP fans, really, there's not much you can do in them other than... just be in them. I'm not a big RP player myself, I play RPGs for that sort of thing, so maybe I'm missing the intrinsic benefits of being able to enter a building and stand around in it for a while. Surely the world outside, where all the cars and vehicles and people are... that's where the games actually happening, right? Not in some dingy little Burger Shot.

 

Though I will admit, I so miss the guy from LC's Burger Shot. Welcome to Burger Shot muh-f*ckarrrr!

Sorry Fuzz, but I'm getting very mixed signals from this post. I mean you say there's not a lot to do inside of interiors, but what do details do beside something to look at?

 

Atleast interiors can have more than one function. Using Burger Shot for example it's not only somewhere to get health, but I've spent countless hours in GTA IV holding up inside dropping cops as they come through the front door. That's more fun IMO than say admiring the fact water drips off the protagonists' clothes in GTA V.

 

Details are nice, but to me interiors do more for gameplay. I would love to see R* do an aquarium, church interior etc. Even the return of a fully functioning shopping mall that's been absent since VC would be grand.

 

Truthfully I think both should complement each other rather than oppose, but for the sake of the thread I choose interiors any day.

 

 

I agree, when I cruise down past the night clubs in GTA V it feels like such a waste that we can't enter any of them. Would make me feel much more immersed. I personally would also have preferred more instead of a lot of pointless desert/woodland.

 

After playing Witcher 3 and seeing how big that was as well as with interiors however I think GTA 6 will bring the best of both worlds since it will be specifically for the current gen - no excuses really if Rockstar leaves them out again.

[Seedy]

GTA games always were and still are beyond any comparison despite all their bugs, fails, interior lacks etc. I have played games like Sleeping Dogs, Mafia II i.e., and like I said, GTA is better anyway. Especially Five. A one of many reasons why any other game sucks comparing to GTA is that you can edit a lot of gameplay features with a f*ck*ng notepad. And EVERYTHING else with special tools available for free and pretty understandable. You re dissapointed in lack of interiors and side missions? In glitches? Well, try Sleeping Dogs or Mafia II. I promise you will love GTA again. Lol

got sleeping dogs FREE with my graphics card.. never installed it.. In-fact I threw the download code in the bin as pretty much as soon as i got it out the box.