Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. After Hours
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Hussein Sonic

Did Rockstar create the San Andreas state to its full potential?

Recommended Posts

ChiroVette
Posted (edited)

Honestly I just think you don't understand GTA IV at all.

 

You presume that my disagreeing with you, regarding why you love the map, translates into me not understanding. I do understand. We just disagree.

 

But regarding map, when you write "drab and depressing" about IV's map that's pretty much why I love it.

 

Well if you like a drab and depressing map then you like a drab and depressing map because of that quality. It is what it is. I find that its like playing in black and white. And yes I am using hyperbole to make a point. This was driven home in my playthrough of the Episodes recently just because I wanted to give them a try. As a New Yorker, I know for an absolute fact that my city doesn't look like that, all washed out and grey. (And to my credit, I am not making jokes about a fecal brown haze, so bear that in mind, bitch! lol J/K)

 

Seriously, though, New York City is not that drab and its not that grey. It is a stunning, gorgeous, vibrant, and huge city! Now to IV's credit (and the Episodes) in terms of detail and "feel" and vibe of the city, not withstanding the colors and hue, they mostly did a great job. I can even overlook my complaint that the city is too cramped and that the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges are not like a block or two away from other Manhattan structures, but MILES away from places like Central Park, The Empire State Building, Met Life Building, Grand Central, and the Theater District on Broadway in the Mid '40's. Because unlike, say a Spider-Man game, that mostly renders just Manhattan, IV does 4 of the 5 boroughs and also even adds industrial North Jersey. So I can totally accept (though not happily) the cramped and "unrealistic" proximity of all the Manhattan structures, because the entire map is trying to render NYC and to some extent the Tri State area.

 

This is all by way of saying that, given how much you love the story of IV, and I don't, I can actually understand why you like the map with the current color scheme, because it does kind of fit with the story that you enjoy so much. Again, not an insult of IV, just saying I get it. But I don't have to like it. And not liking it does NOT mean I don't get it.

 

 

That's what IV was trying to do so i'm not going to moan that it's too grey when that was the idea, it's one piece of a bigger picture and all the peices complement each other. It's grey because GTA IV is a depressing tale about a depressed man in a depressed city. It's like Max Payne being drab to reflect its noir theme and even more depressed protagonist. RDR has the same open wasteland that I call "wasted space" in GTA V, but in RDR it is teeming with life and character, it complements the game's theme. Put it this way, a stroll in the desert in RDR is a lot more immersive (and dangerous) than in V because in V the desert has no life.

 

And while I do prefer the dark and gritty style to the vibrant and colourful style, as well as depressing stories to campy, over the top stories, I won't knock GTA V purely for not being dark, or drab or depressing because I know it was not going for that. There are parts of GTA V's map that I think are absolutely amazing but does each part of it really feel like it had equal thought and care put into it? Do you think the three gigantic mountains had the same level of care put into them as Franklin's neighbourhood? The latter goes well with what V is trying to do with its recreation of LA so it has a purpose, and it's parts of the map like this that take it beyond the surface level playing area. But the wasted space of GTA V, the mountains, deserts are shallow. The forest in the mission Predator for example, why is that not constantly full of life and activity? In RDR, if you ever play it, DO NOT go wandering mindlessly in the forests. The Alamo Sea, what is in there? Nothing, and GTA V has an extensive swimming system so why not? These parts of V's map feel lifeless, as though Rockstar just pasted it there and said that'll do. The map feels almost obligatory, or routine and i'm think as ever the blame goes to GTA Online. Who needs nuance, purpose, or focus? Aint nobody got time for that shiz.

 

You, as a IV fan, can also make the argument about the entirety of Blaine County, with a plethora of mountain and desert and use that against me for my argument about the color and drabness of IV's map. And you would be right. I guess the lesson here is that you like V's story about as much as I like IV's, and since IV and V's maps BOTH seem to echo, in some kind of analogous way, the tone and vibe of their respective stories, it is understandable that you might object to parts of V's map I absolutely love on the same grounds that I object to the color and hue of LC in IV/Episodes.

 

What you see as "wasted" space, I see as a great playground AND having tons of stuff to do, if and only if, like me, you really enjoy all the plethora of side missions and collectibles AND you like the idea of exploring a simulation of California urban, desert, and mountainy areas. Clearly you don't like it and that's fine.

 

I have zero interest in any RDR games because I am picky about my games, and have simply never been a fan of games or worlds set in the past, before electricity, cars, planes, and modern tech. Future and Sci Fi I am fine with. The past, not so much, That's just taste. But its why I couldn't play even a game like Witcher 3 for more than 20 minutes without wanting to slit my own wrists. Even though the world is stunning and I am sure its an amazing game!

 

I know you don't like the mountains, but I do. And that's fine. And, no, I don't think that the same level of care went into the mountains as went into Franklin's hood or many other parts of the map. Anymore than I think that the same amount of care went into a lot of the expanse of Bone County as went into Fierro, LS, and Venturras. Bone County has some really nice things in it, as does Blaine County, but mostly in both games, its just kind of "nice structures" with a lot of wasteland in between everything. It is what it is.

 

But when I am base jumping, exploring, finding collectibles, doing off road races, that scenery and even being directly in that area is just awesome. To me. Not to you. BUT that in no way means I think you don't understand. You simply disagree.

Edited by ChiroVette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheatz/Trickz
Posted (edited)

No I really do think you just don't follow IV or understand any of its messages, themes etc. And not because you're incapable but because you prefer over the top games so much more that you aren't able to are are unwilling to adjust your mindset to try something that isn't that. Refusing to play RDR because it isn't modern, fair enough but it is an example of you doing what i'm saying here.

Personally, I can go back and forth depending on whatever the context is. I usually don't play games for mechanical reasons i.e. I don't bother with FPV games. But as you've proven your interest is far more rooted in pure and simple gameplay, hence why you'd happily see things like hangouts and other, "immersive" type stuff removed rather than improved.

 

IV doesn't looked washed out/grey. It looks "drab and grey" in terms of art style, tone, the atmosphere is dark. But the game itself does not have muted colors like you're implying. TBOGT actually makes things as vibrant as V, it just doesn't have those graphics, though V is overly vibrant because LA is nowhere near that plastic-looking (though I get the satire). Complaining about structures being closer together, even mentioning it as something you overlook is a bit far, it's hardly something exclusive to IV. As a New Yorker I can see how this'd stick out to you but for that reason you should afford it extra leniency regardless of how much of NY it depicts. You are primed to notice this stuff, i'm sure there are plenty of LA folk feeling the same about V. That said, i've seen other New Yorkers around the net praise IV for nailing the layout despite the scale. None of these maps are recreations, but representations

 

If it was my enjoyment of IV that enabled me to appreciate the map, then I wouldn't be able to appreciate V's map for the same reasons I do IV's, since i'm approaching both with the same mindset (LS at least, because the city has thrice the energy put into it and it shows. Most complaints about V's map are directed outside LS). I'd be complaining that the map is sh*t or overly colourful because I hate the story, characters, tone etc. But my complaints are totally standalone, Blaine County is full of wasted space and this would still be true even I liked V's story. And if IV had a load of countryside I would say it too was pointless if it was implemented at all like the majority of Blaine County is.

 

What you see as "wasted" space, I see as a great playground AND having tons of stuff to do, if and only if, like me, you really enjoy all the plethora of side missions and collectibles AND you like the idea of exploring a simulation of California urban, desert, and mountainy areas. Clearly you don't like it and that's fine.

But what you're missing is that it could've easily been given a lot more substance and life like the city or RDR's wilderness, and still be a playground. It is wasted space because there is nothing unique to it. Ok, so it's a different environment, but how does this make for new gameplay? Add some depth (because exploring is not depth, I can explore the runway at Francis International and it doesn't mean it has some newfound depth) and you've got everything you already like about it, plus some uniqueness to set it apart. Ask yourself why you like the gang areas of LS, most likely because they have activity and danger, and present a gameplay opportunity unique to that area. When the only gameplay present in these completely new areas is just the same gameplay found in the city (except less, because there's less cover, less peds and less cars, but the same amount of f*cking cops) them something should be done to balance it, otherwise it is objectively a flaw in the design. It's like this; theoretically/hypothetically, you could derive endless pleasure from walking end to end in the Senora Desert for hours. Your favorite mission could be Exercising The Truth, you wish it was longer, but that doesnt mean its well done or not wasted space.

Edited by Cheatz/Trickz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skau

GTA V left me the impression that Blaine County is only there because of Trevor and to inflate map size. Los Santos is great but the map as a whole makes me consider it my least favorite GTA map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette
Posted (edited)

No I really do think you just don't follow IV or understand any of its messages, themes etc. And not because you're incapable but because you prefer over the top games so much more that you aren't able to are are unwilling to adjust your mindset to try something that isn't that.

 

Nah, the game is just lackluster and the worst entry into GTA history. No need to attempt to conflate our differing tastes with psychobabble to justify your own subjective preferences. For whatever reason, you don't have the space in your mind to accommodate someone who loves GTA and hates GTA IV, so you need to ascribe bizarrely duplicitous motives to it rather than accepting the truth that not everyone likes a stripped down Econo-GTA with a mediocre story and an unrealistic, fecal-brown haze over everything. lol

 

 

Refusing to play RDR because it isn't modern, fair enough but it is an example of you doing what i'm saying here.

 

Not at all. I am not a fan of games or entertainment that are period specific. The truth is that when you have as many games as we do at our fingertips today to choose from, we player can be a lot more choosy. I am sure if there were not such a huge plethora of games available to play that are more closely aligned with my preferences, then I would be more likely to play a game like RDR simply because of limited supply. And I also bet I would enjoy the hell out of it, too. But not liking certain time periods in one's entertainment, contrary to your attempt to conflate that with negative personality traits, shows a level of immaturity and intolerance on your part. When you have so many choices, you tend to be a lot more picky because you can.

 

Not everyone likes Westerns. I happen to LOVE Halo games, for instance. Now when someone tells me, "You know, I love FPS's, but I really am not into Sci Fi so I am not interested," unlike you with IV, I don't attempt to surreptitiously label them as closed minded like you are hinting at. Not everyone likes what I like, including futuristic science fiction. I get it.

 

 

Personally, I can go back and forth depending on whatever the context is. I usually don't play games for mechanical reasons i.e. I don't bother with FPV games. But as you've proven your interest is far more rooted in pure and simple gameplay, hence why you'd happily see things like hangouts and other, "immersive" type stuff removed rather than improved.

 

No. I love storyline and exploration. I enjoy collectibles and even some of the RPG elements of GTA, when they are toned down. I can even tolerate the "friends" or in V, the strippers who you can get booty calls. Why? Because I only have to deal with them when I want to. You know what the problem with IV and the Episodes is, in this regard? I rescind my original statement about this element being removed, BUT the problem is that I don't play videogames to be annoyed by telemarketers. There is a happy new joyous thing here in the States, where I get calls somehow from phone numbers very similar to my cell phone, like the fist three digits exact sometimes. Somehow automated telemarketers have managed to spoof their auto-calls to mask the number and make it look like numbers not only like my cell phone but numbers with the same area code and first three digits of landlines in my area. Presumably this is how they catch us off guard by masking their real numbers to look like phone numbers close to people I might know. A little off topic about the tactics, but there it is anyway.

 

Anyway, this is what IV and the Episodes are like. Sure, I was able to hang up on them all the time, whether Niko's idiot friends, Johnny-soon-to-be-dead-K's moron biker buddies or his meh girl, or Luis's annoying compatriots. I would be okay with it in the game if and when I wanted to use it, but not when my phone constantly rings. I know you could turn off the incoming calls in IV, but I remember it causing some kind of problem (don't remember what) when I did.

 

 

 

 

IV doesn't looked washed out/grey. It looks "drab and grey" in terms of art style, tone, the atmosphere is dark.

 

Not sure this is a defense. Drab and grey is bad for a beautiful city like NY. It isn't artistic, its just flat and lifeless. Then again, so is the story of IV and the Episodes, to if you're looking for context, there you have it.

 

 

But the game itself does not have muted colors like you're implying.

I am not suggesting ALL colors are muted. Vehicle colors were vibrant as were the characters and NPC, and also clothing. I am talking only about the city like the roads, bridges, edifices. Call it what you will but it is very muted and while not actually black and white, it was not exactly vibrant either.

 

 

 

TBOGT actually makes things as vibrant as V,

Inside clubs, yes. Again, though, not the city. That retains its lifeless hue.

 

 

it just doesn't have those graphics, though V is overly vibrant because LA is nowhere near that plastic-looking (though I get the satire).

 

Its not graphics. I will absolutely NOT hold it against a 2008 game for not being as graphically polished as a 2013 game. That would just be silly.

 

 

Complaining about structures being closer together, even mentioning it as something you overlook is a bit far, it's hardly something exclusive to IV. As a New Yorker I can see how this'd stick out to you but for that reason you should afford it extra leniency regardless of how much of NY it depicts.

 

lol Which is precisely WHY I am willing to overlook it. As I already stated.

 

 

 

You are primed to notice this stuff, i'm sure there are plenty of LA folk feeling the same about V. That said, i've seen other New Yorkers around the net praise IV for nailing the layout despite the scale. None of these maps are recreations, but representations

 

And IV's representation, even with the (as you call it) drab and grey city, would have been fine. OBVIOUSLY a recreation isn't feasible. I live in Brooklyn, for example. But the way you are making it sound, when I booted up the game for the first time I must have thrown a hissy-fit because I went to the area I live in on the map of "Broker" and couldn't find my house. I get that it is a representation. It would be silly to expect otherwise and I never have.

 

 

If it was my enjoyment of IV that enabled me to appreciate the map, then I wouldn't be able to appreciate V's map for the same reasons I do IV's, since i'm approaching both with the same mindset (LS at least, because the city has thrice the energy put into it and it shows. Most complaints about V's map are directed outside LS). I'd be complaining that the map is sh*t or overly colourful because I hate the story, characters, tone etc. But my complaints are totally standalone, Blaine County is full of wasted space and this would still be true even I liked V's story. And if IV had a load of countryside I would say it too was pointless if it was implemented at all like the majority of Blaine County is.

You know what the difference between you and I is? I ventured an opinion about a possible reason why you don't like V's map the way I do, and you explained just now that this was not the case. Okay, fair enough, I accept it. You, on the other hand, seem to lack the ability to grasp that I may not have some slight character defect in my gaming tastes causing me to not like IV.

 

I am honestly not sure if you can transcend this strange need to either get me to love IV or explain away why I don't with some bizarrely nefarious quality in me. lol It is a little silly, and would be just as silly as me not accepting the explanation you just gave me about V's map.

 

You know what? We simply disagree about V's map. Nothing more.

 

 

<I had to get rid of some quotes since you can only use so many. So I bolded below instead of quoting>

 

But what you're missing is that it could've easily been given a lot more substance and life like the city or RDR's wilderness, and still be a playground. It is wasted space because there is nothing unique to it. Ok, so it's a different environment, but how does this make for new gameplay? Add some depth (because exploring is not depth, I can explore the runway at Francis International and it doesn't mean it has some newfound depth) and you've got everything you already like about it, plus some uniqueness to set it apart. Ask yourself why you like the gang areas of LS, most likely because they have activity and danger, and present a gameplay opportunity unique to that area. When the only gameplay present in these completely new areas is just the same gameplay found in the city (except less, because there's less cover, less peds and less cars, but the same amount of f*cking cops) them something should be done to balance it, otherwise it is objectively a flaw in the design. It's like this; theoretically/hypothetically, you could derive endless pleasure from walking end to end in the Senora Desert for hours. Your favorite mission could be Exercising The Truth, you wish it was longer, but that doesnt mean its well done or not wasted space.

 

 

I think there is plenty unique in Blaine. You cited the Airfield missions in McKenzie as one thing. The Bail Jumping missions, off road races (truck and bike) there are all kinds of S&F's as well as collectibles. And the population of wild animals is different from the "domesticated pets" of the city. Base Jumping gets started in Blaine, and has a ton of them there. I can go on and on, but I really don't get your complaint here.

 

Its ok. I am fine with you just not liking it. I obviously disagree with you, and that's fine, too.

Edited by ChiroVette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ash_735

Chiro the thing is, yes you can have a preference, you don't like Westerns, that's fine, but a LOT of what you're arguing as a plus for GTAV are things that were done BETTER in RDR1, and those of us that have played it know this. The deserts and wastelands in RDR1 are amazing and yes, full of activity and life, from random camp fires, shoot outs happening between gangs, bar fights pushing out into the towns, etc and of course the vast eco system of plant life and wild animals.

 

This is where I think you differ from a lot of us here in that we're not just IV fanboys as you put it, but we've played OTHER Rockstar titles that furthered our expectations. L.A.Noire's map was an utterly amazing design in really making you feel how huge LA is (well a snapshot of the 1940's version), Red Dead Redemption showed brilliant vast deserts and forests brimming with life, and in GTAV, these things feel like a cut down basic version that DO look nice but feel empty, hollow, compared to what Rockstar have shown in the past.

 

And that's what kinda rings a little annoying about your posts in a sense because you're happy to claim GTAV is the pinnacle of Rockstar Games, the best Desert to appear in a game, the best designed map to appear in a game, etc, when you haven't actually sampled their other offerings which is most cases they did better, and then you're trying to argue with us about this and constantly underplay it as we're just IV fans and that's why we don't like GTAV. As I've said before, GTAV's map LOOKS great but it's badly designed and Rockstar HAVE done better, no not just GTA IV but in L.A.Noire and RDR and even areas in Midnight Club LA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette
Posted (edited)

Chiro the thing is, yes you can have a preference, you don't like Westerns, that's fine, but a LOT of what you're arguing as a plus for GTAV are things that were done BETTER in RDR1, and those of us that have played it know this.

 

This is very interesting, actually. I hadn't thought about it from this perspective. While I can't speak to how much better they or worse they were done in RDR, I will take your word that the deserts and wastelands are better even in the original RDR, I will say that GTA V is not a pre-industrial game whose entire map will invariably live and die by its small, undeveloped, western cities, its deserts, and its wilderness. I would expect that to be the case even without having to be told. GTA V is a game set in the modern era simulating Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Orange County, the LA beaches, and the outlying deserts that stretch north toward San Francisco and northwest toward Nevada.

 

I certainly wouldn't try to compare the two maps based on my very limited knowledge of RDR. Maybe I will consider giving RDR2 a try when it comes out. No promises as I am not a fan of the gameplay I saw in the original RDR videos and even the descriptions of the game I read all about in the reviews, which admittedly were glowing with praise. Just not feeling the whole Western thing. Look, the reason I love Blaine County is because it is only part of the map in the game, is incredibly detailed and beautiful, definitely worthy of exploration, AND it has a ton of stuff that I actually enjoy doing. Now I repeat, I am not saying you have to like the map, only that I do, and I don't agree with a lot of the criticisms I read here.

 

But putting that aside, a game, to me, is a whole not just a bunch of parts. So when I see videos, say of RDR, and people are hunting animals, skinning them, trading pelts, and about 100 other RPGish elements I came across when the game launched, at that point, the "world" itself is of little significance to me. Because I have always felt that a game world, whether III, VC, SA, IV, V, many of the Saints Row games, Just Cause, etc., is only as good as the game it housesfor lack of a better term. So when I enjoy V's map, it isn't only the map I am enjoying, its all of it, the whole kit-and-kaboodle, taken in that make the map sort of my playground. And V is a gorgeous map, and to me, an amazing playground.

 

This is kind of what I was trying to say above. No matter how much I love V's map now, if it were, say a different game, instead of GTA V, in that very same map, and I was trading pelts, could only ride horses, and had access to nothing but 1899 technology as tools, I bet I wouldn't like the map at all.

 

Well, that isn't true either. I would still admire Los Santos and Blaine County, BUT I would simply not feel connected to it and immersed into it the way I do now.

 

Why do you think that even with all of the low res textures and blocky turn of the new millennium graphics I can still get totally lost in III, SA, and VC? Because even though booting those games up is a sort of culture shock now, because of the graphical weaknesses, I LOVE the games so much, I stop caring once my eyes get used to it. But for me, V is the best of both worlds, Amazing game, well designed map (like 3D Era GTA games) and awesome graphics.

 

This is why I rarely agree with the critiques of the map for V I read in this forum.

 

 

 

The deserts and wastelands in RDR1 are amazing and yes, full of activity and life, from random camp fires, shoot outs happening between gangs, bar fights pushing out into the towns, etc and of course the vast eco system of plant life and wild animals.

 

I can totally see how you can enjoy this!

 

This is where I think you differ from a lot of us here in that we're not just IV fanboys as you put it, but we've played OTHER Rockstar titles that furthered our expectations. L.A.Noire's map was an utterly amazing design in really making you feel how huge LA is (well a snapshot of the 1940's version), Red Dead Redemption showed brilliant vast deserts and forests brimming with life, and in GTAV, these things feel like a cut down basic version that DO look nice but feel empty, hollow, compared to what Rockstar have shown in the past.

 

Well, let's be clear. I am a huge Rocktar fan, too! Just because I passed on RDR, and its interesting you mentioned Noir, because I passed on that, too, doesn't mean overall I don't love a lot of Rockstar games. The original Midnight Club game was literally the very first PS2 game I ever did 100% completion on, even though way back in 2000 when the game launched with the console, I don't think there was such a designation as "100% completion." I loved Midnight Club II enough to not only buy it and get 100% in that, also on the PS2, but when I saw it on Steam, a couple of years back, I snagged it and played 100% again.

 

I was, and STILL AM, a huge fan of Midnight Club DUB Edition, and bought the REMIX version when it came out, all over again. I played both Smuggler's Runs to death on the PS2, and even bought it on the Gamecube when it launched for that little platform. I played Bully, and even bought the PC version later on. I played a couple of Max Payne games a while back. I bought the original State of Emergency when it launched, and played it. I still have Midnight Club Los Angeles, but for some reason I got sidetracked and stopped playing it fairly early on. I should probably boot it up and get deeper in. I think it was something with the Catch up AI and the really difficult AI drivers that bothered me about it, but I don't really remember.

 

I played Manhunt, too. Though I wasn't crazy about it, the game was okay. I also played the original Mafia on Xbox, but I was not a huge fan. I finished it, but found it a little restrictive for my tastes, particularly with the cops chasing you for speeding, and I think blowing red lights. To be fair, I also own Mafia 3 (didn't play II for some reason, I can't remember why, but I think I may pick that up just for the lulz). The only reason I haven't played Mafia 3 is because I bought it dirt cheap on Steam, but even though my aging PC has the specs to play it, I really want to wait until I build my new high end gaming rig this summer. So I am holding off on that one for the moment. But rest assured, I am really looking forward to playing then when I build my system with either a GTX 1180 or settle for the GTX 1080 ti.

 

Hey! Here's a Rockstar/Take2 blast from the past for you. Way back in the early Nineties, right before I started Chiropractic college and was still an undergrad, I played Lemmings. Ha I had NO IDEA who Rockstar was or even if they were technically even a company back then, and had no clue at all what GTA was going to be a half a decade later and beyond. But you can't say that I am not a fan of Rockstar because the TWO games you guys all love in this forum, which I believe share a lot of philosophical similarities with GTA IV, by the way, are ones I passed on.

 

Just so you know. ;)

 

And that's what kinda rings a little annoying about your posts in a sense because you're happy to claim GTAV is the pinnacle of Rockstar Games, the best Desert to appear in a game, the best designed map to appear in a game, etc, when you haven't actually sampled their other offerings which is most cases they did better,

 

See, no.

 

I ALWAYS say that GTA V is one of the very highest points in GTA. I never said it was even the best GTA game to date. I think a lot of things that I enjoy about V are the best in the series (for me) but there are things about the game that I still don't like, and things I honestly believe that the 3D Era GTA games do a lot better. And I have said all of this MANY times. I never, not once, tried to assert V's map superiority over a game I have never played. That would be ludicrous.

 

and then you're trying to argue with us about this and constantly underplay it as we're just IV fans and that's why we don't like GTAV. As I've said before, GTAV's map LOOKS great but it's badly designed and Rockstar HAVE done better, no not just GTA IV but in L.A.Noire and RDR and even areas in Midnight Club LA!

 

I have played MC LA and I don't think that game has a better map than V. BUT, that said, I will boot up the game again and play it, just to see for myself. But again, I never said Los Santos is a better map than LA Noir's. How the f*ck would I possibly know, when that was one of the TWO Rockstar games I passed on?

 

My argument with you guys, regarding the map, is NOT that I am trying to say V's map is better than games I have not played, BUT when you say things like "poorly designed," "wasted space," and on and on.

Edited by ChiroVette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheatz/Trickz

No as I said you don't properly follow IV and after that rant, in which you totally misrepresent what I was saying to make it sound like I am calling you closed minded (I wasn't, but the above rant makes me think I should've) I can totally see why you prefer a more watered down, stripped back experience that lacks any depth like GTA V. I don't think you would enjoy RDR, it doesn't give you the the freedom that the unbalanced and unfinished mechanics of GTA V provide to cater to the casuals/dumbo's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette
Posted (edited)

I can totally see why you prefer a more watered down, stripped back experience that lacks any depth like GTA V. I don't think you would enjoy RDR, it doesn't give you the the freedom that the unbalanced and unfinished mechanics of GTA V provide to cater to the casuals/dumbo's.

 

That is precisely what you were saying without coming right out and saying it above. Which is what I was responding to. Oddly enough, I prefer the part I just quoted from you, because in your case, its more honest, and at least has the virtue of being openly hostile rather than surreptitiously. Congratulations, you FINALLY said what you really believe but tried to thinly veil!

 

This is a big step for you. Open contempt rather than underhanded contempt. :)

Edited by ChiroVette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheatz/Trickz

Since when was saying someone is a casual openly hostile? Me thinks you're just looking for anything to make you seem like a victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette
Posted (edited)

Since when was saying someone is a casual openly hostile? Me thinks you're just looking for anything to make you seem like a victim.

 

Oh, believe you, me, there are no victims here, only willing participants. If you take NOTHING else I say seriously, like about the game for instance, take that one to the bank. In NO way do I feel like you are bullying me or I am a victim, We both give as good as we get, one of the reasons I actually enjoy arguing with you. That said, you cannot deny underhanded sniping in statements like this:

 

 

No I really do think you just don't follow IV or understand any of its messages, themes etc. And not because you're incapable but because you prefer over the top games so much more that you aren't able to are are unwilling to adjust your mindset to try something that isn't that.

 

This is obviously not true and I thought you knew it, because I recently purchased and played The Episodes both TLaD and BoGT to 100% completion. Clearly I am willing to even try IV offshoots!

 

None of this is bad, by the way, but you cannot deny that you are simply accepting we differ. You seem to have to show me how my tastes in games are somehow less than or unsophisticated compared to yours.

 

 

I don't bother with FPV games. But as you've proven your interest is far more rooted in pure and simple gameplay, hence why you'd happily see things like hangouts and other, "immersive" type stuff removed rather than improved.

 

lol you aren't actually coming right out and calling me an un-evolved simpleton here, but you are characterizing my gameplay taste as being simplistic or sophomoric. I, in fact, like complex missions and games. But you took my enjoyment of V's property missions out of all context and rather than accepting it at face value, you seemed to need to put a subtle little dig in there. Don't get me wrong, stuff like this is actually what I like about you. I suspect in real life you are very witty and tend to be one of the smartest guys in the room, and I bet you can put someone down sometimes without them even knowing you did. The trouble is, I can see this for what it is. You breaking my balls. Being from Brooklyn, I actually appreciate that. But that's another whole conversation. The point? Don't blame me for being a little douchey in response, or breaking balls back.

 

 

 

If it was my enjoyment of IV that enabled me to appreciate the map, then I wouldn't be able to appreciate V's map for the same reasons I do IV's, since i'm approaching both with the same mindset (LS at least, because the city has thrice the energy put into it and it shows. Most complaints about V's map are directed outside LS). I'd be complaining that the map is sh*t or overly colourful because I hate the story, characters, tone etc. But my complaints are totally standalone, Blaine County is full of wasted space and this would still be true even I liked V's story. And if IV had a load of countryside I would say it too was pointless if it was implemented at all like the majority of Blaine County is.

 

Okay, this I have to confess I completely misinterpreted and misunderstood. I thought you were saying something else, but if it makes you feel better, I apologize, as I was NOT intentionally creating a straw man. I just thought you were saying something you weren't. Probably due to the dynamic generally between us predisposing me to look for something that, in this case, wasn't there at all.

Edited by ChiroVette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DetectivePhelps
Posted (edited)

To its full potential? NO! Compared to GTA San Andreas, no way!

But V is a great game, could care less about IV, seriously!

Edited by DetectivePhelps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Official General

@ ChiroVette

 

Lol......seriously lets just all agree you think GTA V is the best GTA ever with no other GTA title that can compare, no matter what anyone else says. I have no problem if you believe this, but it's pointless debating or arguing with others, when the argument goes around in an endless cycle that generally always ends on your part with you claiming V to best GTA ever made in every way possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette
Posted (edited)

@ ChiroVette

 

Lol......seriously lets just all agree you think GTA V is the best GTA ever with no other GTA title that can compare, no matter what anyone else says.

 

No and I never said that. lol You still actually believe that because I say V is better than IV that I think it is THE BEST GTA, period, the end? NOT once have I ever said that. One of the best? Yeah. Better in SOME WAYS than all other GTA games? Yes. Not as good as some GTA games in many ways? Absolutely. There are still MANY MANY things I believe the 3D era does much better than V.

 

Or were you not paying attention the many times I have said V is a compromise between IV and 3D Era, and that, more than anything, is why I love the game? So you really have to ask yourself, if I see V as a compromise, then doesn't that mean that there HAVE TO be things I don't like about it, particularly since part of the compromise between IV (a game I hate) and San Andreas (a game I love) means that V has absolutely got to have many elements in it that..................................wait for it.................I don't like? That is, after all, what a compromise is. I have to give up a ton of stuff I LOVE from San Andreas and 3D Era games and I simultaneously have to accept many things preserved from IV that I have to suck it up and tolerate.

 

 

I have no problem if you believe this, but it's pointless debating or arguing with others, when the argument goes around in an endless cycle that generally always ends on your part with you claiming V to best GTA ever made in every way possible.

 

Not even once have I ever even hinted at such a thing.

Edited by ChiroVette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KY Jello

V needed Orange county

[Video]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cutter De Blanc

They didn't even make the whole state of San Andreas, just the south part

So, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hussein Sonic

As of now, I ruled out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.