[GTAO] Obsoletionist Thoughts on GTAV/O, Consoles, & Gaming Overall

[fw3]

It's hard to believe that GTAV was released in 2013.

Arguably, it hasn't changed much since day one, besides some new toys, properties, and ways to make money, that have truly impacted the overall experience and layout of the game, like say, a map extension might.

Working in a school system, I used to enjoy sharing stories of GTAO with students who reveled in "that" teacher who played their game.

Now, literally no one talks about GTAO, anymore. One student said, "it's old and too hard to make enough money to buy all the good stuff."

I had to agree and could see it from his perspective.

Their game of choice for the past few months was Rules of Survival, which most students played on their phones, all over the school.
Now, they're all playing Fortnite on their laptops.

Recently, we talked about how a large populous has become dispossessed from the console experience and prefer their laptops or phones when gaming.
Sure, they still log on to their consoles, but said they spend more time on devices, these days, than their consoles.

I asked what would changes that, their reply was, "maybe a new console that wasn't a shopping and social media hub and just stuck to gaming."
I'm not sure that's the answer, but I got the idea.

Prior to the next gen console releases and GTAV/O, I remember the Wii being the hot console. Now, barely anyone mentions Nintendo.
The whole PS4 vs. XB1 debate has worn down into a dull, "meh."

So, I'm just curious as to what other's thoughts are on the GTA franchise, starting with GTAV/O, as well as consoles, altogether, becoming obsolete?
Will the future of devices, like phones, iPads, tablets, laptops, or some unrealized device potentially be the future of gaming?

What would you like to see from GTAV/O to keep it an active game in the soon-to-be wake of RDR2 and other potential games?

And lastly, where do you see this community, the GTAV/O community, going next?

Thanks for indulging my curiosity. Just something I was thinking about over the past week.

TL;DR:
Interest in GTAV/O seems to be on the decline, as does console gaming. With device gaming on the rise, what are your thoughts on the former becoming more obsolete?

Cheers!

What's all this nonsense talk about being obsolete?

[Sanches]

Now, literally no one talks about GTAO, anymore.

Because it was a lot easier to achieve "fun" back in a days. Now you have to pay big cash to hang around, and to get that big cash, you have to spend hours doing repetative grinding or donating. Fun gameplay, right?

Of course anyone can find their fun in any game and any state of a game. I was speaking about majority of players.

 

Also, that's cool that a teacher plays games. Don't hear much about teacher having similar tastes with his students.

Edited March 12, 2018 by Sanches

[Jimbatron]

Let's face it, it's an old game now. It's quite impressive it still has the level of interest it does.

 

While the phone market may have creamed a few casual players away from PCs and Consoles, I don't see them replacing full on gaming experience any time soon. It's got less to do with the processing power of the device, and as much to do with the size of the screen and the control interface as anything. There's only so immersive something can be on a display that's five inches by two or whatever.

 

If kids are going off GTA's current guise maybe it's a good thing. R* will be forced to pull their fingers out and make GTA VI. As long as GTA O is making a lot of easy money there's always a risk they'll be lazy.

[Willy A. Jeep]

I personally know very little of mobile gaming. When asked, I'd probably not even include that genre into the overall gaming culture. For me, the point of a video game is the story and the world crafted by the developers, not really the drive to be doing... something, or to enjoy the mechanics of the game. Mobile games aren't my cup of tea, and the last time I played one was probably when that Angry Birds siege engine creator spin-off was released. Mobile games aren't going to drag me away from gaming that requires a computer or console any time soon, if ever. If I want to waste my time, I'll go flesh out a manuscript I gave up on in 2012, then set it on fire because I don't want to publish something so poorly conceived.

 

Of course, I don't know much about the console market anymore, either. Last console exclusive I played regularly was Forza Horizon, and since I don't own or have access to any modern consoles now, there's little chance of me getting back in that groove. I have played a few console games since, but I've never used anything from this generation other than the Switch, and even then it was only one game.

 

The "too old" argument, which gets made and tossed around on these very forums on a regular basis, is silly. It's an excuse people use to explain why they're not playing something anymore. Rather than it being their fault - for losing interest or simply not being their game - it's the game's fault for being too outdated. But there are games that have been running for much longer than Online that continue to maintain large player counts and fanbases. People who are always looking for something new will always have this argument, of course, but they have no reason to make it. There's a new game every day, no reason to linger on forums and complain when the answer somebody is looking for is right beside them.

 

And, hah, just because the news entering into one person's circle doesn't include news of a certain group doesn't mean that thing is not making news. Nintendo is a great example! They had a low period for a while there after the original Wii ended production, but now with the Switch, people are interested in their games again. The studios are producing new titles in decades-old series for the Switch. The newest video game I've played is Breath of the Wild, for example. Sure, Nintendo isn't as synonymous with "gaming" as it once was in the West, but they're far from being the next Atari or Commodore. I think it's a silly and somewhat sad sight to see when people claim their perceived reality as truth when there's so much more out there that is true, and they would never know it and so dismiss it as meaningless. That's stepping into some large scale societal problems, but you get the idea. Why do we still have guns? We should ban all guns! But what about all those people who hunt for a living? Those people who rely on a firearm for safety or their profession? Why do we spend so much on the space program if people are starving? We should put that money into farms! But farms require time and effort and the weather and soil to cooperate. The space program is putting humanity into an age of ease and access, providing communications that can save lives and, potentially, discover new worlds to inhabit. Bleh.

 

The Grand Theft Auto community? To be honest, I didn't realize there was much of a community before Online. Of course there was one, but all of the games were singleplayer, and the style of game already promoted solitary players that kept to themselves. Nowadays, with Online and the massive success of GTA V as a whole (because, yes, the game has become #3 best-seller ever), there's a higher number of people coming out of the woodwork to share and create, all connected together with the game. In the future, as people are introduced to the series or quit playing because of their own reasons, I don't see the GTA community vanishing unless the next game hugely deviates from the model of V and Online. The new Red Dead... I doubt it will have too huge an impact upon the GTA community, since you can certainly remain a fan of more than one game at once, and Red Dead is more niche than GTA. Where GTA is modern, with all those amenities, Red Dead is wild west. It is inherently more restricted. Now that GTA has developed an active, outspoken community that feels like it has some sort of correspondence with Rockstar, it's doubtful that it would dissolve.

 

I figure, if the next installment of GTA is to succeed in following Online and V's popularity, it would need to continue the interactivity between Rockstar and the fans. Online has been so successful not only because it's a logical improvement over the open-world sandbox (by adding multiplayer), but because Rockstar has responded to players' thoughts and requests over the years. The relationship is far from perfect, of course, but many fanbases hold little sway in what a developer is developing. This one got an entire update petitioned into the game. If Online as we know it today is to continue to succeed, it will need to improve and evolve as the players' interests do. Much like Team Fortress 2 or Eve: Online, as the players trade and battle and join and depart, Online grows and shrinks. What Rockstar does to keep players interested also means they get to continue putting food on the table. More players means more money means more incentive to develop better updates, and, hopefully, better interaction between player and developer for an easier process of update creation.

 

In summary, I think it's silly to base observations of the gaming community and market off of small groups of people. Grand Theft Auto, Online or otherwise, isn't going away any time soon. There will always be people who play different games and play those different games differently. And, as always, people should keep in mind that the world they know is only a small section of the reality they inhabit. "What's a rototiller?" It's more important than you know.

[fw3]

I think it's silly to base observations of the gaming community and market off of small groups of people.

I really appreciate the thoughtful reply, Willy A. Jeep and lean toward many of your points.

 

However, I think it's important, sometimes, to observe the trends of those small groups, as they often get larger when no one is paying attention.

 

When Pokémon first hit, no one took it serious in the US. But, then, out of nowhere, it became a global phenomenon.

When eBay first came along, a small collective saw opportunity and we jumped on it. Now, I rarely go near it because it's so bloated.

And online dating was almost taboo, yet Tinder is one of the most popular dating apps out there, now.

 

My point isn't to dismiss all you wrote - as again, much of it I agree with; I merely suggest keeping an eye on the mobile community to see where it grows.

As you point out, consoles are doubtfully going anywhere, anytime soon. Yet, mobile devices are definitely gaining ground - whether to the gaming community, overall, or just a percentage.

 

It might be too early to predict what's going to happen, but for me, it's very interesting to speculate. Thank you again for such a great reply! Cheers!

[Willy A. Jeep]

Of course! It's always an interesting exercise of the mind, speculating and mulling about these kinds of topics. The future!

 

I don't mean to dismiss mobile gaming. I see the trends, it's clear that mobile gaming is a massive market for anybody who leaps on it. Some of my favorite developers of "full-size" games have made forays into mobile gaming - Fallout Shelter, for instance. And I certainly wouldn't want to say that the small groups aren't worth listening to! Goodness, that'd be like if I said nobody here had sway. A few hundred contributors on this forum is tiny compared to the scale of GTA's fanbase, but these folks speak out and share where so many do not, or there is not enough organization. I wrote and rewrote that post a few times, and I still didn't get all the points out correctly, ahah.

 

Right, OK. Even though I doubt, anything is possible when it comes to gaming and the huge, varied community surrounding it. A large problem is that, sometimes, it can be so wide that members of it might not recognize other members as members at all. The classic "casual vs. competitive" debate, for example. I have always considered myself "casual," but also still a "gamer," though some others might not consider me so. When we get to these levels of breadth and variety it's easy to get lost in all the meanings and reasons. The #2 on the best-sellers list is an indie game called Minecraft, after all! It was a far cry from the image of games for many at the time, and helped reshape the market. What will tomorrow bring? The future!

[The Collector]

Console > to mobile or tablets, always. When it comes to pc its a little more obvious who the winner is.

 

Pc power + Mouse + keyboard > Console > mobile phone or tablet.

 

Console won't be going anywhere because of the affordability vs pc. If everyone had limitless cash I dont think anyone would play on consoles expect the die hard fan bois and mobile phone/ tablet games are gimmicks in my eyes. Just something to pass the time while you stand in line at the bank imo.

 

As for GTA, its a old game. Of course the kids have moved on to the newest flavor, its only natural.

Edited March 11, 2018 by The Collector

[SinZer0s]

GTAO is not a casual game anymore.

 

You grind like you don't have a life or you buy shark cards to keep living like a normal person.

 

Casual gamers will go towards other games obviously

[Geisterfaust]

My wife likes to play casual games on her tablet or phone, but I never played anything on mobile platform apart from chess, I value my eyes and honestly I'd rather read when I'm in some kind of queue. Gaming on a mobile device is not for me, definitely.

 

And considering the GTA thing, it really is an old game. I play like 20-30 minutes per session now, just to help with sales or watch the sunset.

Edited March 11, 2018 by hei3enberg

[Spadge]

I wouldn't worry, there are enough manga character models for download on gta5mods.com to keep the socially akward crowd buying copies.

[fw3]

GTAO is not a casual game anymore.

 

You grind like you don't have a life or you buy shark cards to keep living like a normal person.

 

Casual gamers will go towards other games obviously

For some of us, GTAO is definitely still casual.

 

I never grind, do heists, CEO jobs, or any of that stuff. I love the Freeroam events and do a lot of racing, Adversary matches, and so on.

 

When I log on these days, it's to mess around in Freeroam until I'm ready to bump n' grind in a quick job.

 

Still, I do agree with you that most players don't play it so casually, which is a shame.

 

I don't play any other console games, but I play a ton of phone Chess, Sudoku, Solitaire, and other quick, casual games.

For those, I can get in and play quick, and shut down even faster.

 

With GTAO, for me to casually play for 30-60 minutes, it takes just as much time to load the danged game, only to get the "Connection Lost Due to Unexpected Network Error" 98% of the time.

 

Don't get me wrong, tho... I am a die-hard GTAO fan. I'd play much more if there were something to really spike my interest, of course.

 

[Jimbatron]

The Grand Theft Auto community? To be honest, I didn't realize there was much of a community before Online. Of course there was one, but all of the games were singleplayer, and the style of game already promoted solitary players that kept to themselves.

I have to strongly disagree with this. It might sound like a digression, but actually there's a big point here.

 

GTA IV did have a multiplayer mode, and it was hugely popular. It was not as expansive as GTA V's online, but I would argue that the modes it did have especially PvP match modes, were higher quality with more lasting game-play - especially CnC and TMW. With respect, misconceptions otherwise are mainly held by players who have not owned the previous titles. Further fueled by the branding of GTA Online as a separate game. It isn't. It's multiplayer for GTA V, with the same map and engine etc. You can't buy GTAO and save yourselves a few bucks by saying "no thank you" to the single player component.

 

It did have a community. Maybe not as large as GTA V, but it was far from tiny, an from my perspective, much tighter. In Cops and Crooks I knew all of the 100 or so players on the PC who were on the game every week for 4 years (hundreds of thousands of course played every now and then, but you got to know who the regulars were). In comparison GTA V's online is awash with unrecognisable names.

 

That's partially a function of the size of the player base, it's naturally harder to create a community feel in a larger group. However it's more than that.

 

Firstly, the way you search for matches hasn't been widely discussed, but IMHO it's hugely important and where a trick was missed with GTA V's online. In IV you had a custom match, where you could specify the game mode type and it would list all the ones that currently were in the lobby, and who the host was. So after a while, even though they weren't you friend at the time, you'd think, "I know that player who is hosting that sever, I'll join that one out of the others for that mode." That's how friends were made.

 

This is exacerbated with them breaking up adversary modes into locations e.g Extraction I, II and III etc which further splits the player base up. Are you as likely to keep meeting the same people if they are scattered across 5 different map locations of the same game? Compare that to IV where lobbies were only divided by game mode type, and the locations where either random on launch an selected by the host. Again, these modes had more longevity. Extraction is basically a watered down variant of CnC - it's ok, but as it is more limited, it doesn't have the same lasting appeal.

 

And this is the problem with a lot of DLC. They are basically novelty updates - designed to shift a new car, and indirectly, Shark Card sales. Rather than creating lasting appeal, they churn out something new to divert rather than retain interest.

 

The exceptions for me are Heists which are excellent. R* firmly leads the way in co-op modes for me. Variety in free roam is nice in theory but the options of what to do seem to be bifurcating towards the polar opposites of grind or grief. Other than those, it isn't much different from fooling around in IV Freemode.

 

Now I have mixed views on Shark Cards. On the one hand I've done rather well out of them. I've never bought one, so effectively other people have been subsidising my free content. But R* need to get the balance right between easy money and longer term investment and development. They got it right in the DD update for me but not with many of the others.

 

And it's that long term view that will create lastability on which communities are built. I'm firmly of the belief it was the IV community that contributed to a large chunk of the V initial growth spurt and gave it the foundations for success. It's taken on a life of its own now long ago, and many of the old community from IV have dispersed (I message a couple of them recent congratulations on becoming fathers for the first time, naturally they have less time for gaming).

 

R* need to ask who the community is that will sustain the franchise through to GTA VI.

Edited March 13, 2018 by Jimbatron

[alkaline_]

hello!

me, i like the idea of having a console in the living room. it's like consciously sitting down and playing a flippy game. the computer i see as working station and don't want to get distracted with other stuff (well this sparkly forums distract me quite often though hihihi). also, my mobile phone is reserved for work/friends and nothing else.

butt what do i know.. im still using a classic ipod, i like buying cd's and reading the booklets etc hihihi

[kenmy13999]

 

I think it's silly to base observations of the gaming community and market off of small groups of people.

I really appreciate the thoughtful reply, Willy A. Jeep and lean toward many of your points.

 

However, I think it's important, sometimes, to observe the trends of those small groups, as they often get larger when no one is paying attention.

 

When Pokémon first hit, no one took it serious in the US. But, then, out of nowhere, it became a global phenomenon.

When eBay first came along, a small collective saw opportunity and we jumped on it. Now, I rarely go near it because it's so bloated.

And online dating was almost taboo, yet Tinder is one of the most popular dating apps out there, now.

 

My point isn't to dismiss all you wrote - as again, much of it I agree with; I merely suggest keeping an eye on the mobile community to see where it grows.

As you point out, consoles are doubtfully going anywhere, anytime soon. Yet, mobile devices are definitely gaining ground - whether to the gaming community, overall, or just a percentage.

 

It might be too early to predict what's going to happen, but for me, it's very interesting to speculate. Thank you again for such a great reply! Cheers!

I play and have played a couple of mobile games and they'll never replace my console as long as console with good games exist.

I stopped playing games when I was around 17 years in the late 90's and started playing mobile games in 2012 or something like that, bought a ps3 a couple of years later and a ps4 after couple of months more so for me it has actually been the other way around than what you thought about. I might be the the 1% that goes the other way but imo you really can't compare console/pc games with mobile games. I'm probably a little older than the students tho and they are kind of the future so people like me might be pushed away for the younger generation or something like that

[Willy A. Jeep]

 

(snipped)

 

 

Of course, I didn't mean to suggest there wasn't one. Communities in singleplayer games go back decades, and Grand Theft Auto, being one of the biggest gaming franchises around - something that touches upon other parts of the culture and every day life - certainly did have a community from a very early time. This site was founded in, what, 2001? People have been posting here for over sixteen years now? Goodness, that's a long time!

 

I really meant that for a player who is playing Grand Theft Auto singleplayer, it might seem to them that there's not much of a community. It reinforces the solitary nature of the single player, though some do finally discover the larger community they are, indeed, a part of. I played GTA IV alone for... years. The only person I ever discussed it with was my cousin, who actually owned the copy that we shared for 360. It took GTA V coming to PC for me to start wondering if there was some form of organized, out-of-game community, and happening upon the GTA Forums when I was looking up screenshots of different car customization designs to really open my eyes. Not how it happens for everybody, but it is a way it goes.

 

Maybe I'm just a bit uneducated - I will never claim to know everything, and try to hold my tongue if I'm sure I don't - but that is my level of understanding. A lot of players, though not every one of them, get caught in the lonesome.

 

And I agree - Online's current form is not playing very well for those people who revel in having fun in just doing whatever they want. Rockstar caters to other players, and it's hard for me to see if they're considering those of us who don't grind or throw down in freeroam. Sometimes, it can even begin to lose weight - Rockstar's efforts - as players who feel left behind don't care enough to keep playing, and would rather go play other games. Which, to me, is fine! But not for Rockstar. Not for GTA. Not for the fans.

 

fw3 is really stimulating some intellectualism in here.

[fw3]

 

 

(snipped)

 

Maybe I'm just a bit uneducated - I will never claim to know everything, and try to hold my tongue if I'm sure I don't - but that is my level of understanding. A lot of players, though not every one of them, get caught in the lonesome.

 

fw3 is really stimulating some intellectualism in here.

I can't speak on your level of education, Willy, but I would definitely say you are enlightened, for sure. Of course, you seem pretty smart, too. lol!

 

As for the "lonesome," I know that label. That's been pretty much my entire gaming experience. From Super Mario and Sonic to Daggerfall and Skyrim.

Gaming has always been a lonely experience for many.

 

Back in the arcade days, however, it was a whole different story. Going to an arcade or bowling alley with a group of friends to play Asteroids, Defender, or Ms. Pac Man for hours... it was sublime!

 

I even remember all the text based games, like Zork and Pirate Adventure (You are in a small room with a window. What do you want to do? >)

For me, the first experience I had playing with other people online was probably either Warcraft or Myth: The Fallen Lords, and those were just awesome.

Round up forward to GTA, those single player experiences were fantastic, but again, very lonely.

GTAIV's Multiplayer sucked me in and I rode that invisible dinosaur right up until GTAV launched. Such a great game.

 

Anyhow, to the point that players get caught in the "lonesome," that's what is happening with games like Fortnite, which was a free release on PC, XB1, and PS3 and was released for mobile today!

Rules of Survival allowed up to 120 players to play at one time, so in a high school, you can just imagine how many kids were logging on.

 

It will be very interesting to see how Fortnite does upon mobile release. That sense of "lonesome" is gone when you're friends are yelling, "Behind you, bro! Behind you!" lol!

 

Thanks for indulging the discussion. I'm thoroughly enjoying it! Cheers!

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2018/03/12/heres-what-fortnite-mobile-looks-like-being-played-on-an-iphone-x/#1ea81cd71c57

Edited March 13, 2018 by fw3

[gtafan26]

 

The Grand Theft Auto community? To be honest, I didn't realize there was much of a community before Online. Of course there was one, but all of the games were singleplayer, and the style of game already promoted solitary players that kept to themselves.

I have to strongly disagree with this. It might sound like a digression, but actually there's a big point here.

 

 

 

But he made a valid point that you kind of brushed off, all GTA games up to IV were are solo playing, IV is what brought us into the new era of GTA with multiplayer , so he is 100% correct, solo play had long been established in the GTA Series before IV ever came around. Just my 1.5 cents.

Edited March 13, 2018 by gtafan26

[III-Ari-III]

It's not gtao.. it's the current trend.. games are being more popular on mobile devices than fixed consoles/pcs, but that's mostly for the casual gamers out there (the majority of course), die hard gamers will always resort to a console/pc or both (it's expensier tho).

Edited March 13, 2018 by III-Ari-III

[gtafan26]

 

 

So you are a video game playing teacher, you got my respect.

 

But its funny they mentioned that they want a console that does one thing, play games, I want that too, I love progress , but it seems like with each new console generation they are getting further away from their whole point.

Edited March 13, 2018 by gtafan26

[gtafan26]

My wife likes to play casual games on her tablet or phone, but I never played anything on mobile platform apart from chess, I value my eyes and honestly I'd rather read when I'm in some kind of queue. Gaming on a mobile device is not for me, definitely.

 

And considering the GTA thing, it really is an old game. I play like 20-30 minutes per session now, just to help with sales or watch the sunset.

I am not a mobile gamer either, mostly because I dont like the whole pay to play formula so many are using.

[Jimbatron]

 

 

The Grand Theft Auto community? To be honest, I didn't realize there was much of a community before Online. Of course there was one, but all of the games were singleplayer, and the style of game already promoted solitary players that kept to themselves.

I have to strongly disagree with this. It might sound like a digression, but actually there's a big point here.

 

 

 

But he made a valid point that you kind of brushed off, all GTA games up to IV were are solo playing, IV is what brought us into the new era of GTA with multiplayer , so he is 100% correct, solo play had long been established in the GTA Series before IV ever came around. Just my 1.5 cents.

 

 

I don't think I brushed off anything else he said. My only point was the statement "I didn't realize there was much of a community before Online. Of course there was one, but all of the games were singleplayer" implied IV multiplayer didn't exist. IV multiplayer was still going strong in 2013, and notably, without a single content update, 5 years after it's release. Naturally people wanted to try out the new game when it launched, so it was only in when V released that the player numbers took a significant dip.

 

Of course R* has its roots more in single player, but chronologically, still just over half of the franchise's multiplayer lifetime was pre-GTA V.

 

If my above post was suffering from a bit of TL:DR then to put it more straightforwardly, the two franchise installments had very different player retention mechanics. GTA IV had a few really well designed modes with longevity, GTA V's Online retains people more through adding new content. And because the content keeps changing, I don't believe it is as conducive to building communities that last. The player base may be bigger but it feels more fragmented and less stable, by my observation at any rate.

Edited March 13, 2018 by Jimbatron

[Lonely-Martin]

Simply, gaming gets expensive for the average kid to keep up with. Parents are often not able to buy weekly or anything, hell, when I was a kids, this sh*t was Birthdays and Christmases only. And we have a similar approach with my children. We can't afford to throw it all away, you know.

 

I can only work part time, and this all comes under stuff we gotta plan/save up for. Simple as really. But I'm a freeloader for playing this way. f*ck it. Console games are thinning out for me anyhow.

 

I ain't rushing to get a PS5

 

These mobile games are often free, very quick to start/connect, and can do sh*t in the background if you have to drop it and do other pap. The Mrs/ plays The Sims freeplay, has for 12 months or so.

 

It fits like a glove for her, so flexible. More-so than any console. Plus, kids can continue their games during lunch breaks, on their way home, and at home. All together, even if not talking out of their games, got their groups/networks. The get a tweet/FB message, just a quick flick over, and back again.

 

As we see with GTA:O, passive incomes are key. People do sweet FA, yet succeed. Easier for kids to do, as games become more about grinding (For me, a very modern trend I dislike) all to help recurring spending too. Compromises games. Worse if there's no microtransactions too.

 

Gran Turismo, a stellar franchise for me too, so bad now. GT6, couldn't play it unless you downloaded a day one urgent patch. Game crashed after the 1st licence test, lol. Absurd I couldn't spend the money I have on consoles/games and not just pop it in and play it without having to connect. Without even including that online/social aspect, games are released half f*cked!. Having to go to a friends to borrow internet for that was embarrassing, lol. (Then, we relied on mobiles internet as I never online game, nor did we Netflix etc. I am an avid movie/TV man, huge collection, even old VHS still, lol)

 

Todays emphasis on selling us sh*t all the time, and the social aspect too. Again, GT sport, IMHO, takes the piss. Game was released with minimal campaign, a series I loved, changed for this online only approach, sh*t, it's even a game to save online only. (Granted, they caved over the disappointment, we have some campaign now, but with 600 cars on GT6, to have 180-odd now, and the promise of more over time, and the fact some cost 20m there now, genuinely, you'll be grinding like GTA:O just to buy an old Jag/Ferrari. Don't get me started with the penalty system there, such a shocking affair, game's on patch/update 1.14, and still addressing that sh*t. Shocking!).

 

I quit the franchise. Just like GTA, I have all games still. Grown up with it. But it's all different. I'll not buy back into GT now, and R* are definitely coming close to pushing me away for good.

 

The kids are right, a new console where it's about the f*cking game please. f*ck social (all the time, I love co-op. But I love my time too). And f*ck all this 'buy now, be dripfed the rest of the game over time as we learn what we f*cked up on as we're in such a hurry to get the cash, we'll release lesser games for you. Now, bend over!').

 

On consoles, they are taking the piss, and are far to complacent/compromised. I see it getting worse until 'pop'.

 

as I said. Mobile games often cost f*ck all, families with lower incomes, a huge proportion of gamers, just can't keep up (Many are always 'playing catch up' too. I mean how many kids would love a PS4 this coming Christmas still, let alone a PS4 pro, even a PS5 might not be far off. £50-60 per game. For me as a kid, this was all always 'birthdays and Christmases' stuff. And for me and many, it still is. Like youtube, Spotify and others, it does the bloody lot. Connect/socialize/games/music/videos/TV & Film/bit of porn, lol. All right there, can even call Nan and check in in 2 seconds, that all free with WhatsApp/Skype, we can even play GTA in the playground/office now, lol.

 

Makes a console look so un-flexible compared, and the costs, gotta pay monthly fees, lol. It bends parents over. I bought my boy a smart phone. He's off. Ain't played GTA with him for a few now. Not that I mind, the lad can enjoy his life, naturally, but there's another issue there too. Peer pressure. So underrated by many - And in our case, my sons already a target out there, I'll certainly not help that bullsh*t, you know?. I'd sooner forego any of my hobbies to help my kids in this world, lol. So as a gamer, I have that conflict too. As much as I'd love him to want a game to master on his console, I won't ever force the issue, lol.

 

Too much. And now, with R* likely to keep to microtransactions, and this game is so warped towards them. I fear RDR2 will be compromised big time, and that would see me just about done really.

 

Gran Turismo and Grand Theft Auto, and I include RDR with that, are the key games/franchises for me, these are fading. and gaming is becoming less and less for me out there with these. I don't really like shooter games, R* games literally being the only 'combat' games I play. Frustrates me.

 

On the flip side, honestly. I love games like Tetris/Coloums, Worms, Bomberman. I love a game of cards, some chess, hell, even snakes and ladders, or monopoly or sh*t. So... Well, that's all on mobiles now. Phones are getting big like mini-computers these days, these phones are getting bigger and bigger games now. sh*t, Minecraft has a similar setup as PC, no world size limits, just keep walking north, forever. PlayStation/Xbox are restricted here, big time!.

 

Like you said about the bowling alley highjinks we had growing up. And with consoles back then. Split screen/actually playing against my friends/ All piling into one friends house and just going ape sh*t on games, lol. Such a great way to game. Bonding too, folks underrate that crap. I got good at games knowing a dead arm would follow if I died/failed a mission. That's dead really. Respawn, save before. Hell, even EWO now to preserve 'success'. A joke!.

 

Dang!. I'll probably be pressed into becoming part of the issue, lol.

 

I genuinely feel at a crossroads with gaming right now. Hard to in-see things, lol. I hope crap like that EA/Battlefront stuff does see things pulled in a little. Not against them cleaning up and making billions of us, but I do want a game of it. I only stay with GTA:O as I'm comfortable. The day I fall behind topping up, I'm off.

 

Great game, so flawed. Too much now. We as gamers should do more to unite, but R* were cute here. They got the gamers fighting the 'whales', and PvP bickering with PvE instead.

 

Seeing all this more intelligent talk, my simple minded rant might have strayed off a tad, but at the moment, there's many factors within gaming right now. Great potential, but to go either way, I do feel. I strongly feel this game, and many on consoles, are taking the piss now. Mobile games do too, but as I said, all free, flexible, and a vast choice, especially as the phone does so much more. Call, text, videos, music etc.

 

(I read this a day or so ago, just had to think. I've had many dig out my 'text what I think' approach, I can accept if people see this as a rant, lol. Sorry it's a bit all over the place. Many factors, lol).

 

Peace guys.

Edited March 13, 2018 by KWF1981

[flexcreator]

I have bought the new monitor with 1440p and the165hz G-Sync. And the game looks fresh again.

 

Also, the so called "old" GTA has so many features the so called "next-gen" games are lacking.

 

GTA is one of the very few modern games that have proper mirrors. I'm not so sure why developers have stopped working on mirrors in recent games.

I'm not buying that mirrors are "complicated" and "take a lot of resources". It's just another render target with a few tweaks.

 

Like ffs...

Fallout 4 - Bathroom mirrors don't reflect anything. It's a matte surface.

Mirrors Edge: Catalyst - Mirrors don't reflect the character.

Titanfall 2 - No working mirrors

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided - No working mirrors!!

 

I remember that Titanfall 2 had no metal barrel collisions. There are collisions between the character and the barrel, but one barrel could go through another barrel. Yet the "old" GTA can handle that collisions just fine.

The "old" GTA can easily put modern games to shame.

 

Get the games you are genually interested in. The fact that no one is talking about GTA is not a reason to switch to Fortnite or whatever is popular now.

Some people are stil playing TES3: Morrowind after 16 years.

 

As for the consoles, never had it, lol

I'm a hardcore PC player who doesn't care about the trends

Edited March 13, 2018 by flexcreator

[Jimbatron]

^ Slight digression but I remember being wowed by the properly reflective mirror in the start of the Marine campaign in Aliens vs Predator by Rebellion. I say wowed, because that came out in 1999. Almost 20 years ago. The idea that mirrors take up too much resources on modern systems is clearly a load of twaddle.

[Geisterfaust]

I agree that R* is pushing it too close for me. I don't think I'm going to play as much GTA as I played before. Sure, there are personal reasons like another degree coming up and the process of learning french, but it's mid to short term and I'm talking long term when I feel like I don't want to play. And it's not because Online is old. It's the general direction I don't like and I think that VI, if it ever comes, will be more online-oriented and microtransaction-driven. That is the moment I will skip the game entirely.

 

And about franchises, I left Forza. Played since 3, but part 7 introduced lootboxes instead of adequate AI. Franchise is dead for me, period. Even if they'll leave lootboxes out in the next version, not going back.

[Rabid Vulpix]

Maybe opinion wise people you talk to say or act like console gaming is on the demise, but it's not. 3 of my friends are managers at Gamestops, & 2 of them have already told me that their past few quarters in console sales have well exceeded all expectations beyond what their district managers had hoped for. The other is still doing above expectations but has been focusing on other sales. When it comes to console gaming, the only real change is that digital content is becoming the big thing. A child can simply get some PS or Microsoft currency, & download a mature rated game, whereas at a store they'd legally need a parent or someone 18+ to purchase the game for them. Plus the early download & lack of transportation needed for digital downloads is really appealing to more & more gamers. * As well what they are seeing, is more adults buying consoles now & kids are opt'n for phone & tablet games, so that is interesting. I went to the X1X release, & saw like 2 kids there & about 40 adults, every adult there that I spoke to was buying a console for themselves and/or their spouse. So it's an interesting trend, where parents seem to invest in consoles now while their kids play cheap apps.

 

 

PC nor phone anytime soon will put consoles on the path of demise, as long as PC still has it's horrendous modding/exploit capability & phones don't have solid 4k worldwide multiplayer gaming. I have a laptop, but I only use it to play old games like Decent & for singleplayer modding in games. I understand alot of kids in schools feel preference to their laptops or phones though, the newest generation is practically raised on their phones & tablets, they can bring them to school.

 

As for GTA:O, again as stated numerous times before in threads, it was an experiment.

It went father than R* had planned/expected, so really they have no reason in cutting it off yet when they can still make money here & there.

They might as well keep it running until the next installment comes out, given this game never really had a planned "Course/Timeframe".

I mean how old is Warcraft? It's a similar situation on PC, but they still dish out new content, so age doesn't really determine the fate of the game yet.

 

For GTA:O now, I'm a casual gamer that still plays it a few times a week with my gf & friends, just for the co-op game modes.

I worked my @ss off in Heists & now sometimes AFK Bunker business building, so in-game money hasn't been a concern for me in years.

Edited March 13, 2018 by Foreverpast

[SaveTheZombies]

I used to get consoles (PS3 was my last) when more of the games were about local multiplayer; there was a point to it. Now all the games are online multiplayer and if you play on a console, you have to pay a monthly fee for that. I usually get really into one game for a while and I don't know if it's going to be an online game like GTAO or Borderlands or if it's going to be a solo game like Fallout or JC so the monthly fee is impractical for me.

That's why I may get a switch to play with my kids but I like playing my games on the PC now... and most of my friends do too, which of course helps.

 

I play mobile games too but they're a different beast. It's great that they're expanding the games market but I don't think it's capable of cannibalizing the console/pc gamer market.

[Willy A. Jeep]

Though I think this is distancing us from the main topic - of GTA Online, though it does touch that through the grander gaming continuum - I think it's silly when people use mirrors or physics objects as examples of game design not living up to expectations. I do understand why people expect - most video games at this point have treated the players to flavor physics and various details that have no bearing on the gameplay itself, and we've come to expect that as standard because it's good. But for a game designer, when it comes to what is necessary for the gameplay or environment, a mirror reflecting or an object being knocked over can mean very little. The original Half-Life relied upon the then-revolutionary "physics" puzzles, pulling and pushing crates, and Half-Life 2 expanded upon that with further weight and buoyancy puzzles. Here we are, twenty and sixteen years down the line, and most games still aren't using realistic buoyancy or weight. The few that are are making a point of it, as it's a major part of the gameplay.

 

Mirrors are that special case where they might look like something you know in reality, but they work a lot differently. As I understand it, mirrors in video games are windows into a second render of a scene. The graphics processor is having to place all those assets twice, and adapt the reflected scene as well as the interactive one to the player's inputs. For games that don't bother to render the reflections, it's a huge performance boost for losing a feature that, from a gamer designer's viewpoint, is superfluous. GTA V has a huge reliance upon static reflections, though those reflections themselves are always being changed even when the scenes are not, and excels in the few dynamic moments it does have (though, in a few cases, the reflections are painted on). Many older games, if they featured reflections, were using them as part of the plot or a specific showcase of technology. If the developer felt like the reflection would enhance a scene or help serve as a means to an end, sure, the resources could be devoted to it for that moment. A game where mirrors are important to the gameplay would obviously devote more resources to mirrors, but games that don't won't need to. If the mirror doesn't reflect all the time, it might not simply be a result of resource saving or cut corners, but the developer might have figured it more important to focus their time and effort elsewhere, where it's more important.

 

I won't vouch for problematic collisions, though. I can understand when it happens for older games that are sneakily "shaving" their collision meshes for performance boosts - ever play a Bethesda game? everything is secretly a square - but when objects fail to interact with one another, that's a sign somebody didn't do enough quality assurance. Barrels going through barrels? When both have collisions? That's silly.

 

But this brings me to a good example of physics flavor vs. physics need. Bethesda Game Studios games - Fallout, The Elder Scrolls - share similar open-world, interactive environments, much like Grand Theft Auto. Players can throw many different objects around and collide with all sorts of props that have (slightly floaty) reactions, not to mention how every single corpse is a ragdoll. A lot of interaction! But the player can't kick every single little piece of trash or brick, nor can they bend or warp every piece of metal or wood they come across. In comparison to reality, the player's actions upon the world are heavily limited. And it doesn't matter too much, since the games are RPG/shooters, not physics puzzles.

 

It makes me wonder where the collective gamer subset draws the line for this sort of thing. Obviously, we would all like to have full ability in our games - to be able to strap out HMDs on, walk over to a shelf, start throwing every last piece of priceless china on the floor, for it to shatter into dynamic shards, and to run our hands through the realistic dust on the shelf afterwards - but as it is now, are we, as a collective, OK with the books on shelves being static objects? Is it alright that the grass doesn't always deform under our footsteps? That pools of blood don't appear on our skin and streak along towards the ground in every game where you can get hurt? It certainly has very little impact upon the gameplay, and that's often enough, but clearly we have criticisms anyway.

 

All in all, to me, it's silly that people would pick-and-pull at different features of different games when those games have no reason to share those features. If the developer decides that immersion through physics flavor or perfect reflections is what they want, that's all good, and can go a long way, but it's not make-or-break. Or it shouldn't be.

[fw3]

Maybe opinion wise people you talk to say or act like console gaming is on the demise, but it's not.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that; I was trying to comment that it seems there's a large populous of young people using their devices to game, whereas in prior years consoles were really the only option.

 

At school, I get why kids play on their phones. It's really the only option. But at home, my own kids often forfeit the console in favor of their phones.

 

I just asked them why, to get a verified answer. One of my sons says because he doesn't want to go all the way downstairs and it takes to long to set up.

The other son said he just likes goofing around for a while, but he'll probably jump on the XBox later – not so much to play, but to chat with his buddies.

 

When I first got GTAIII for the original XBox, there were no distractions. You put the disc in, fired it up, and hit "play."

There was no complicated Home lobby, shopping options, other games to try, or the thousand other things that get in the way of just playing a game.

 

I've owned many consoles, including Pong when we got it in the mid-1970's (yes, I'm that old!).

And whether it was the Apple ][ computer, TRS-80, TI-99/4A, Commodore64, Atari 2600, Nintendo, Sega, or others... it was always about the games, period.

 

Now, I fire up the XB1 and if I bump the controller with my knee while I'm sitting down, the next thing I know I just launched Netflix and I'm watching The Twilight Zone.

 

Anyhow, my point was that I didn't mean to say consoles were on the decline, only that the interest in mobile gaming has caught on to a younger generation who can't go without their phones.

 

Cheers!

 

 

[flexcreator]

Mirrors are that special case where they might look like something you know in reality, but they work a lot differently. As I understand it, mirrors in video games are windows into a second render of a scene. The graphics processor is having to place all those assets twice, and adapt the reflected scene as well as the interactive one to the player's inputs. For games that don't bother to render the reflections, it's a huge performance boost for losing a feature that, from a gamer designer's viewpoint, is superfluous.

 

Mirror is a texture that is marked as render target. The scene is rendered second time with another view matrix. The result is passed to shader like any other texture. That's the basic, anything else depends on the particular engine implementation.

 

If the mirror doesn't reflect all the time, it might not simply be a result of resource saving or cut corners,

 

Mirror is typically something that is hanging in the toilet or in the closed enviroment, it reflects the very small part of the scene. And if you don't see a mirror, the engine won't waste resources at rendering the scene twice. If it does - it's a bad engine and / or you have imcompetent programmers that should be fired.

I had an attempt to write my own game engine ~10 years ago (DirectX 9), and I know for sure that mirrors is something that is VERY, VERY easy to implement. They are really nothing special. All performance problems can be sorted by culling (and LOD if nessesery), you SHOULD have the occlusion and other types of culling in your game engine anyway. Anything that is not in the player's sight is simply not rendered.

That's why I don't understand why it's not a thing in modern games, and it pisses me off when people use the "performance" as an argument.

 

ever play a Bethesda game? everything is secretly a square

 

I even mod Bethesda games. I don't understand what do you mean.

I made a boat-related modification that heavily relies on collisions. Collisions works in this game like a charm.

 

 

All in all, to me, it's silly that people would pick-and-pull at different features of different games when those games have no reason to share those features.

 

I expect the game to be realistic. Reflections are the big part of the immersion. I can forgive the absense of reflections in "Life Is Strange" synce it has that's cartoonish style, but I can't stand the same in Fallout 4. Especially, when the main story starts with character looking in the mirror with his spouse!