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

    2. News

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

    1. GTA Online

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

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

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

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

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

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

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

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

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. 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. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

ivarblaauw

Red Dead Online: Discussion & Speculation

Recommended Posts

DexMacLeod
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Commander S said:


"Alarmist journalists" (:sigh:) were literally just quoting Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick from the company's end-of-year conference call with investors:

"We've said that we aim to have recurrent consumer spending opportunities for every title that we put out at this company. It may not always be an online model, it probably won't always be a virtual currency model, but there will be some ability to engage in an ongoing basis with our titles after release across the board."

 

Gamasutra - Take-Two plans to only release games with 'recurrent consumer spending' hooks


 

Which, in fairness, wasn't them spreading clickbait about microtransactions in every Take-Two game ("recurrent consumer spending after release" could just mean old-fashioned DLC expansions, after all). Let's not get up in arms about 'lying game journo shills' or whatever, just because people misread a headline, didn't bother reading the article, and immediately grabbed their pitchforks... ;)


Nope, the "Alarmist journalists" deliberately misquoted him in headlines. "Every Take-Two game will have microtransactions from now on." "GTA Publisher Plans to Have Microtransactions in All Future Games ..." "Take-Two now to have microtransactions in all games going forward ..." "Take-Two says all of its future titles will include microtransactions - MCV"

I get that some sites did it the right way (and they're not who I was referring to) but they are far outnumbered by the sites that went all Alex Jones with their headlines for the clicks.

 

 

Edited by DexMacLeod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commander S

There's a difference between 'misquoting' and 'interpreting' - I was playing Devil's advocate before, but just because he's not saying "all our games will have microtransactions" verbatim, doesn't mean that's not what he's implying.

 

"Recurrent consumer spending opportunities ... in an ongoing basis after release" doesn't exactly suggest "buying an expansion pack" - not after he's spoken about how player engagement has changed from tens of hours or more (as you'd expect from a finite boxed product) to ongoing engagement post-release. Players are now sticking with Take-Two titles longer than ever, and leveraging that in order to keep getting those players to spend money again and again (i.e., microtransactions) has "been transformative for us". As a result, "we've said that we aim to have recurrent consumer spending opportunities for every title that we put out at this company" - that sure sounds like 'Take-Two CEO aims to put microtransactions in all future titles' from where I'm sitting...

 

They're not going all "Alex Jones" - it's simply unpacking the corporate jargon. And it's not even some deliberately-euphemistic dodge on the part of Zelnick, either - after all, why would he downplay proposing the idea of pushing microtransactions to investors (after mentioning that it's been a huge, positive change in how they do business) - ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DexMacLeod

If the interporation is the opposite of what was said it's a misquote. Zelnick specifically said "it probably won't always be a virtual currency model" and that somehow turned into Microtransactions in everything.

 

I get that most internet articles are just a writer re-reporting someone else's news and then covering it in their own opinion but I think at the very least the headlines should stick to the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EVOLUT7ON

Are we going to have same 32 players per lobby as GTAV has?
Or can we expect 64 players for example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSantader25

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. GTA ONLINE Sessions already suck when it gets passed 15 ppl. 

They have to fix their servers for future titles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EVOLUT7ON
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. GTA ONLINE Sessions already suck when it gets passed 15 ppl. 

They have to fix their servers for future titles. 

I think it's all because of NPC traffic, explosions & heavy weapons, different player's actions and different types of vehicles, etc.? No?

Red Dead Online will not have it I guess. Just horses, players and wild nature?..
 

Edited by EVOLUT7ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSantader25
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, EVOLUT7ON said:

I think it's all because of NPC traffic, explosions & heavy weapons, different player's actions and different types of vehicles, etc.? No?

Red Dead Online will not have it I guess. Just horses, players and wild nature?..
 

They just need to rebuild a new session system. If not for now for next GTA they should. They should also speed up joining jobs

Edited by TheSantader25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commander S
2 hours ago, DexMacLeod said:

If the interporation is the opposite of what was said it's a misquote. Zelnick specifically said "it probably won't always be a virtual currency model" and that somehow turned into Microtransactions in everything.

 

I get that most internet articles are just a writer re-reporting someone else's news and then covering it in their own opinion but I think at the very least the headlines should stick to the facts.


...except microtransactions literally means 'mini-purchases' - it's not a synonym for 'in-game currency'. Monster Hunter World doesn't let you buy in-game currency/materials, but still has a cash shop for cosmetic items (NPC costumes, emotes, sticker packs, etc.), all of which are still microtransactions.

 

1 hour ago, EVOLUT7ON said:

I think it's all because of NPC traffic, explosions & heavy weapons, different player's actions and different types of vehicles, etc.? No?

Red Dead Online will not have it I guess. Just horses, players and wild nature?..


That's a thought: will the fact that RDR2 isn't having to accomodate Xbox 360 and PS4 mean that wildlife and whatnot will appear in Online, as well as in single-player?

 

You'd think that animals probably would, because of hunting/food mechanics - but then, are those systems going to be carried over as well? It might be that, like with hair/clothing physics (present in GTA V, not in Online) or being able to cause fuel leaks in vehicles, R* streamlines those out of the game - maybe not because Online won't be able to handle it, but because of convenience in a multiplayer environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EVOLUT7ON
25 minutes ago, Commander S said:

That's a thought: will the fact that RDR2 isn't having to accomodate Xbox 360 and PS4 mean that wildlife and whatnot will appear in Online, as well as in single-player?

 

You'd think that animals probably would, because of hunting/food mechanics - but then, are those systems going to be carried over as well? It might be that, like with hair/clothing physics (present in GTA V, not in Online) or being able to cause fuel leaks in vehicles, R* streamlines those out of the game - maybe not because Online won't be able to handle it, but because of convenience in a multiplayer environment.

1

True...

But Wildlife in Online or Red will be Dead for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GenericGTAO
On 6/11/2018 at 4:00 PM, Commander S said:


...except microtransactions literally means 'mini-purchases' - it's not a synonym for 'in-game currency'. Monster Hunter World doesn't let you buy in-game currency/materials, but still has a cash shop for cosmetic items (NPC costumes, emotes, sticker packs, etc.), all of which are still microtransactions.

 


That's a thought: will the fact that RDR2 isn't having to accomodate Xbox 360 and PS4 mean that wildlife and whatnot will appear in Online, as well as in single-player?

 

You'd think that animals probably would, because of hunting/food mechanics - but then, are those systems going to be carried over as well? It might be that, like with hair/clothing physics (present in GTA V, not in Online) or being able to cause fuel leaks in vehicles, R* streamlines those out of the game - maybe not because Online won't be able to handle it, but because of convenience in a multiplayer environment.

Purchasing items that can be earned online seems more tolerable especially if most of the items can be earned in game.  Than a currency system, that literally removes money at every conceivable moment like GTAO.  Key word seems.

 

Less cops, the cops cause so much lag, the law was pretty bad in story mode in RDR, I do not think the law was that bad in RDRO, Heres to completely removing random cop spawns.   Probably wont happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AGNT009

Im expecting the Online map to drastically increase in density to accommodate all the possible businesses and player homes we'll eventually get. RDR was pretty sparse. RDR2 story will have to stay that way since its even earlier. But once we get to online, I fully expect them to fast forward PAST RDR1 time and Marston is dead. They can then advance the technology some. We can stay in the old west map, but our online world will feature fuller towns with more surrounding buildings, and the open countryside will get a little more dense with more cabins and ranches to personally own. Expect the motorized cars to be the new Yacht, ridiculously overpriced, but the fastest form of travel. Which also makes me wonder if they will allow car and horse collisions in online, and let players drive around mowing down horses.

 

I want to own a winter cabin in Tall Trees, and have a big ranch near the city too to take my business goods back and forth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
e1999KrayzieBone

Right off the bat, when you play your first bit of RDR:Online or whatever it will be called, there should be a prompt that tells you "every hostile action you make will have repercussions," in that anytime you go unjustly kill human players, they keep tabs, and if you do it too much, you should be banished to a sh*tty server full of hostiles. This is not GTA. I don't want to play this game like a bloodthirsty maniac--I'd much rather have other online players be teammates and not enemies. While RDR was shaky at best online, some of my favorite times were spent meeting up with random people and going out hunting. I don't think the hostility in free roam should be rewarded, rather I think it should be suffocated. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MC_HaMMaSTiX
28 minutes ago, e1999KrayzieBone said:

Right off the bat, when you play your first bit of RDR:Online or whatever it will be called, there should be a prompt that tells you "every hostile action you make will have repercussions," in that anytime you go unjustly kill human players, they keep tabs, and if you do it too much, you should be banished to a sh*tty server full of hostiles. This is not GTA. I don't want to play this game like a bloodthirsty maniac--I'd much rather have other online players be teammates and not enemies. While RDR was shaky at best online, some of my favorite times were spent meeting up with random people and going out hunting. I don't think the hostility in free roam should be rewarded, rather I think it should be suffocated. 

 

 

 

 I like that idea since I'd much rather hunt or do RDRO's equivalent of GTA jobs with randoms than get stuck in endless loops of spawning and killing. Like PvE with the ability to PvP within reason. Griefers and tryhards ruin everything.

 

 "Just join a private lobby." With 3 friends and zero randoms? No thanks. How about people who wanna treat RDRO/GTAO like CoD go play CoD and let me box bears with the homies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nemecsis
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, e1999KrayzieBone said:

Right off the bat, when you play your first bit of RDR:Online or whatever it will be called, there should be a prompt that tells you "every hostile action you make will have repercussions," in that anytime you go unjustly kill human players, they keep tabs, and if you do it too much, you should be banished to a sh*tty server full of hostiles. This is not GTA. I don't want to play this game like a bloodthirsty maniac--I'd much rather have other online players be teammates and not enemies. While RDR was shaky at best online, some of my favorite times were spent meeting up with random people and going out hunting. I don't think the hostility in free roam should be rewarded, rather I think it should be suffocated. 

 

 

Aww poor guy. You know, there are video games without gun violence if that's more your speed. 

Edited by Nemecsis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fun 2
Posted (edited)

I can't wait to hear the stories of some players.

"I was hanging out with this gang and they killed the NPC I helped last night. So I chased them down one by one and achieved redemption."

Reddit be like "Good Job", "John Marston will be proud of ya", "Upvote"

You wake up the next day to find another post saying the same thing.

Edited by Fun 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSantader25
54 minutes ago, Fun 2 said:

I can't wait to hear the stories of some players.

"I was hanging out with this gang and they killed the NPC I helped last night. So I chased them down one by one and achieved redemption."

Reddit be like "Good Job", "John Marston will be proud of ya", "Upvote"

You wake up the next day to find another post saying the same thing.

Also can't wait to see people call this game the best game of all time at the first two weeks. Then start calling it a disappointment afterwards so we can hear people moan about how RDR1 was better and how this sucks. All the way to the next R* title. Then suddenly that next title will turn into the worst and RDR2 will become the best ever. smh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commander S
On 6/16/2018 at 6:49 AM, Nemecsis said:

Aww poor guy. You know, there are video games without gun violence if that's more your speed. 


I like how this guy immediately equates 'not wanting to have to put up with griefers all the time' with 'no combat at all'... :rol:

 

The previous poster was ...basically describing a mix of GTAO's mental state system and bad sport lobbies - GTAO doesn't actually penalise hostile players for targeting peaceful players, and while the system is supposed to put similarly-inclined players into sessions with each other, that doesn't really happen in practice.

 

Frankly, I'd be fine with a system more like Conan Exiles, where there's actually the choice between PvP and PvE servers - the difference being whether or not players can kill each other. Bearing in mind that PvE doesn't mean 'no combat whatsoever', because you'd still have NPCs - it just means that players can only work together cooperatively (if they so choose).

 

Personally, I think there needs to be a better approach than GTAO, where R* keeps restricting substantial gameplay additions to public sessions, while also adding in overpowered tools to completely mess up those new gameplay additions for folks just wanting to get on with them (nothing quite like an orbital cannon blast to ruin a perfectly good supply run, after all... :sigh:). Considering how it isn't exactly difficult to one-shot someone's horse with even a basic handgun, you'd think that R* would plan around that, and make options to avoid the risk of being griefed by assholes (other than just closed sessions where many game modes are disabled).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nemecsis
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Commander S said:


I like how this guy immediately equates 'not wanting to have to put up with griefers all the time' with 'no combat at all'... :rol:

 

The previous poster was ...basically describing a mix of GTAO's mental state system and bad sport lobbies - GTAO doesn't actually penalise hostile players for targeting peaceful players, and while the system is supposed to put similarly-inclined players into sessions with each other, that doesn't really happen in practice.

 

Frankly, I'd be fine with a system more like Conan Exiles, where there's actually the choice between PvP and PvE servers - the difference being whether or not players can kill each other. Bearing in mind that PvE doesn't mean 'no combat whatsoever', because you'd still have NPCs - it just means that players can only work together cooperatively (if they so choose).

 

Personally, I think there needs to be a better approach than GTAO, where R* keeps restricting substantial gameplay additions to public sessions, while also adding in overpowered tools to completely mess up those new gameplay additions for folks just wanting to get on with them (nothing quite like an orbital cannon blast to ruin a perfectly good supply run, after all... :sigh:). Considering how it isn't exactly difficult to one-shot someone's horse with even a basic handgun, you'd think that R* would plan around that, and make options to avoid the risk of being griefed by assholes (other than just closed sessions where many game modes are disabled).

If y'all are so worried about other people, play in an empty public lobby. Or get better at PVP. I never have problems with other players because I know when trouble is coming and how to properly dispose of griefer dickheads. I agree that it's BS that R* basically encourages griefing and ruining others' grind through use of overpowered and overpriced tools, but it's just what they do. It helps encourage Shark Card puchases. As long as R* supply the turds, people will continue to get sh*t on.

Edited by Nemecsis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PvTails

well it's simple rockstar should use the deathmatch blimp system from V with some improvements with stealth. 

 

If your near a random player their blimp will never appear until you have actually spotted them or they have fired their weapons near you.

 

also I hope they switch to dedicated servers and make the matchmaking seamless so you never go into the clouds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSantader25

I can't believe people are moaning about people who kill them in GTA ONLINE. it's f*cking GTA. anyone can do as they please in this game as long as they don't cheat. You wanna have alone time there's private lobbys. People killing you in GTA ain't nothing weird. It's f*cking GTA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commander S
7 hours ago, Nemecsis said:

If y'all are so worried about other people, play in an empty public lobby. Or get better at PVP. I never have problems with other players because I know when trouble is coming and how to properly dispose of griefer dickheads. I agree that it's BS that R* basically encourages griefing and ruining others' grind through use of overpowered and overpriced tools, but it's just what they do. It helps encourage Shark Card puchases. As long as R* supply the turds, people will continue to get sh*t on.

 

7 hours ago, TheSantader25 said:

I can't believe people are moaning about people who kill them in GTA ONLINE. it's f*cking GTA. anyone can do as they please in this game as long as they don't cheat. You wanna have alone time there's private lobbys. People killing you in GTA ain't nothing weird. It's f*cking GTA. 


See, you're verging on non-sequitur territory, there:

 

1. "People killing you in GTA ain't nothing weird. It's f*cking GTA" - I mean, if you're going to default to the core of what GTA is, it's also a single-player series (with the exception of GTA IV multiplayer and GTA Online). And even with multiplayer added to the last two main series titles, it's still built around the single-player experience first, right down to the mechanics and environmental design. So yeah, "people killing you" more often than not has meant NPCs - relative to the series as a whole, other players is still very much the exception.

 

And before you jump in with the obvious "but it's multiplayer!"...
 

 

...2. GTA Online =/= GTA PvP. Heck, "Online" doesn't even need to mean multiplayer - it literally just means 'can't be played offline'. And multiplayer likewise doesn't mean 'PvP all the time' - co-op is also multiplayer.

 

That's true of a whole bunch of other persistent online games - nearly all MMOs, space sims like Elite Dangerous, some survival games (again, Conan Exiles), MMO-lites like Destiny, etc. It's also fundamentally true of GTA Online - until R* changed course with things like Freemode events and the various businesses, nearly everything in GTAO could be done solo. And with stuff like heists, it's not like you're having to fight off other players at the same time as completing missions - it's purely co-op PvE.

 

 

With all that said, and considering you've got the kinds of players who:

 

- prefer traditional GTA PvE (and the various GTAO modes that cater to that) to PvP

- play things like Online because it's the only new GTA content being made (RIP GTA V single-player DLC...)

- like their multplayer as a social/co-operative experience with friends, not randoms

 

...acting like Online (or even the whole of GTA - ?!?) is just some kind of Battle Royale-style PvP free-for-all, and the above just need to 'git gud', is ...well, bulls***.

 

 

And again, GTAO was fine for giving players those kinds of options - used to be that the only difference between public sessions and things like crew/friends/invite-only was 'is this an open or closed session?'. But like I said, you've now got entire updates that are technically still PvE content, but with no way to play them (aside from trying to mess around with your NAT type or whatever to empty a public session - which doesn't excuse R*'s design decisions) outside of public sessions where PvP is unavoidable.

 

So yeah, all Red Dead Online needs to do is either have PvP and PvE sessions (so either full free-for-all, or co-op), or just revert back to the same approach as earlier-era GTAO updates, where pretty much all meaningful Freemode PvE activities could be done in any kind of session. Don't see why the PvP fans need to get uppity about that approach - they can just play in regular public sessions like normal, and shoot up whoever they like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSantader25
16 minutes ago, Commander S said:

 


See, you're verging on non-sequitur territory, there:

 

1. "People killing you in GTA ain't nothing weird. It's f*cking GTA" - I mean, if you're going to default to the core of what GTA is, it's also a single-player series (with the exception of GTA IV multiplayer and GTA Online). And even with multiplayer added to the last two main series titles, it's still built around the single-player experience first, right down to the mechanics and environmental design. So yeah, "people killing you" more often than not has meant NPCs - relative to the series as a whole, other players is still very much the exception.

 

And before you jump in with the obvious "but it's multiplayer!"...
 

 

...2. GTA Online =/= GTA PvP. Heck, "Online" doesn't even need to mean multiplayer - it literally just means 'can't be played offline'. And multiplayer likewise doesn't mean 'PvP all the time' - co-op is also multiplayer.

 

That's true of a whole bunch of other persistent online games - nearly all MMOs, space sims like Elite Dangerous, some survival games (again, Conan Exiles), MMO-lites like Destiny, etc. It's also fundamentally true of GTA Online - until R* changed course with things like Freemode events and the various businesses, nearly everything in GTAO could be done solo. And with stuff like heists, it's not like you're having to fight off other players at the same time as completing missions - it's purely co-op PvE.

 

 

With all that said, and considering you've got the kinds of players who:

 

 

Of course GTA is a single player at its core but that's not what we're talking about here. We are talking about other players killing others at multiplayer. You can call it PvP or whatever other name that comes to your mind. But what made GTA, GTA was freedom. The ability to do as you please. You wanna restrict someone who wants to kill you? You're literally ruining the reason people pick this game up. in GTA you do as you please. There are no rules. You can act like it's a racing game, a PvP, a walking simulator. You're free to do what you LOVE. restricting others is destroying the freedom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commander S

But that's my point: instead of having one type of session, and then forcing restrictions on to all players, all the time, just have separate PvP and PvE sessions.

 

That way, just pick whether you want 'honor among thieves' or 'every man for himself' before you even enter the session, and you can choose whether you want it to play like total freedom (including killing each other) or the co-op version of single-player.

 

After all, it cuts both ways: if you like PvP, then yeah, being stuck in a PvE-only session is going to be restricting. But if you're trying to play PvE stuff, but you can't because you're getting wasted in seconds by any random asshole (particularly in GTAO these days - again, good like trying to deliver a car collection while some dick is firing missiles from a flying DMC-12...), then that's also going to feel restricting.

 

And GTA (and all R* open-world titles in general) isn't just about freedom of play - it's also about immersion in a realistic game world. And it's a bit immersion-breaking to be doing a robbery or a carjacking, only to get steamrollered by some rando in their chrome stealth tank. :turn:


 

So yeah: just give players the option to choose the kind of session they prefer: that way everyone gets to play the game their way (which is the ultimate kind of freedom in these games, IMO), and no-one has to feel restricted. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSantader25
Posted (edited)

Assholes aren't the problem. Once again they CHOSE to be assholes because you're free. What makes this unstable is the vehicles we have. Vehicles like the deluxo or the khanjali are OP and don't belong to the GTA world. They could be single player cheats instead of being overpriced vehicles in online. So the main problem is the fact that we don't have balance. 

Edited by TheSantader25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commander S

To be fair, it's probably less of an issue with an even more grounded setting like Red Dead - but balance in GTAO has always been a bit iffy, considering that R* created the usual map full of cool toys for single-player, and then shoved multiple human players in it. :turn:

 

I.e., imagine GTA III, and then imagine how different it'd be if you had multiple player characters thrown into the mix. III never had to worry about the Rhino or RPG unbalancing things, because it's purely single-player - if you don't want to use it, you don't have to. But 'GTA III Online' would probably devolve into a race to grab a Rhino (or always have one stored in a safehouse garage) - heck, does anyone else remember the early days of GTAO, where complaints about tank griefing ended up with the Rhino getting nerfed - ?

 


The main thing to worry about with regards to getting yanked around by other players in RDO is probably going to be how fragile your horse is - I don't expect them to add permadeath to Online horses (they'll probably just respawn back at your camp, and you'll have to go back and retrieve them), but it'll be all too easy a dick move to just go and shoot someone's ride between the eyes and thus leave that player stuck on foot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSantader25

I don't know about you but I can have fun with assholes. They are the people who make the game different. You can sh*t talk with them and then screw them over and they'll cry. What I'm saying is I enjoy the chaos in online games. It makes me laugh. It reminds me of the RIOT cheat in GTA SA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TiberiusMcQueen

People should have the freedom to decide whether or not they want to play online in a chaotic lobby or not. And no, people don't actually have much of a choice in GTA online, because actual substantial PvE content is locked to public lobby. The mental gymnastics some players go through to justify the bulls*** way in which R* handles public and private lobbies in GTA online baffle me, R*'s handling of the lobbies is absolutely indefensible, and the only defense anyone ever seems to give basically ends up amounting to "I want to get easy kills by going after players who aren't interested in PvP" when you read between the lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MC_HaMMaSTiX
3 hours ago, TiberiusMcQueen said:

People should have the freedom to decide whether or not they want to play online in a chaotic lobby or not. And no, people don't actually have much of a choice in GTA online, because actual substantial PvE content is locked to public lobby. The mental gymnastics some players go through to justify the bulls*** way in which R* handles public and private lobbies in GTA online baffle me, R*'s handling of the lobbies is absolutely indefensible, and the only defense anyone ever seems to give basically ends up amounting to "I want to get easy kills by going after players who aren't interested in PvP" when you read between the lines.

 

 Exactly. I could more than hold my own in PS3 Freeaim lobbies (not PS4 ones oddly enough) but because there's never any tangible victory in it like a TDM it got boring, really quick, to be fighting all the time. I had more fun goofing with friends (and sometimes randoms) than I ever did shooting it out with griefers who thought GTA was an open world Call of Duty game. I always assumed the "check muh KD bro" tryhards just sucked at CoD because GTA's PvP shooting was arbitrary at best, not skill based. RDR Online will hopefully have ways around this problem besides "go play alone in a private lobby."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commander S

That's why I really hope Red Dead Online goes back to the original GTAO philosophy of a "living online world", where "what you choose to do in it is up to you", including stuff like just being able to "simply cruise around, showing off":

 

 

 

I've said this in the GTAO section many times, but I think that's the big difference between Beslie Lenzies' attitude to GTAO, and Imran Sarwar's: one was about a realistic space where you can do whatever you want, and the other is more about throwing people into a space full of gimmicks, and letting them just go at it. One is the appeal of single-player GTA, made open-ended, and opened up to multiple people at a time - the other takes the framework and assets of GTA, but the fundamental appeal is more like PUBG or whatever, where the fun comes from emergent PvP chaos. And IMO, the two approaches aren't all that compatible with one another.

 

Personally, I'd much rather being able to play RDO as 'The Old West Online', where it's almost like being transported to another time and place entirely - you have all this environmental interactivity and dedication to verisimilitude, and it'd be good to really get to make the most of it. Just using it as a needlessly-detailed deathmatch arena feels like a bit of a waste of all that, frankly. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSantader25
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Commander S said:

That's why I really hope Red Dead Online goes back to the original GTAO philosophy of a "living online world", where "what you choose to do in it is up to you", including stuff like just being able to "simply cruise around, showing off":

 

 

 

I've said this in the GTAO section many times, but I think that's the big difference between Beslie Lenzies' attitude to GTAO, and Imran Sarwar's: one was about a realistic space where you can do whatever you want, and the other is more about throwing people into a space full of gimmicks, and letting them just go at it. One is the appeal of single-player GTA, made open-ended, and opened up to multiple people at a time - the other takes the framework and assets of GTA, but the fundamental appeal is more like PUBG or whatever, where the fun comes from emergent PvP chaos. And IMO, the two approaches aren't all that compatible with one another.

 

Personally, I'd much rather being able to play RDO as 'The Old West Online', where it's almost like being transported to another time and place entirely - you have all this environmental interactivity and dedication to verisimilitude, and it'd be good to really get to make the most of it. Just using it as a needlessly-detailed deathmatch arena feels like a bit of a waste of all that, frankly. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Imran Sarwar did comment on his opinion towards online but I doubt any of the Original GTA V developers even have anything to do with gta o. They most likely were moved to the next projects like RDR2 and left a small team who have no idea what GTA is to control online. 

Edited by TheSantader25

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

×

Important Information

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