R* Decisions You Couldn't Understand

[KingAJ032304]

On 6/23/2021 at 12:01 AM, MonoChrome213 said:

marksman pistol and musket in gta v singleplayer

 

why. just f*cking why. it’s ammunation ffs, not a museum

Why does this bother you? You know real life gun stores have these things right?

On 1/10/2023 at 7:31 AM, Ondr4H said:

"How can we make car damage even worse than PS3 version?

"Lets make whole cabin indestructible for functions that nobody is actually using" .

 

"Perfect!"

If we are being perfectly fair, I would bet my life savings that the reduced car destruction is way less cared about than 1st person in general of players

[KingAJ032304]

On 3/6/2023 at 10:08 PM, Panzermann11 said:

Truth to be told, Rockstar never gave a rat's asshole about the song's release date and whether or not it fits a game's timeline when it comes to retroactively adding music into their GTA games. This goes way back to EFLC where plenty of songs from 2009 were added into the game despite being set an year before these songs were released.

there's nothing wrong with a year/year and a half imo. It's 2+ years that I can't do.

[KingAJ032304]

On 10/22/2021 at 7:30 AM, Algonquin Assassin said:

I don’t get what you mean that it would make it look like “crappy copy and paste” when there are far more brazen and obvious references like apartment 3C, the office in Tommy’s mansion etc so what harm could a few songs possibly do?

 

It’s not I’m saying the entirety of Scarface’s soundtrack should’ve replaced what Vice City currently has, but it’s hindsight that’s all and something that has bothered me for years as both a fan of Scarface and Vice City. I love the numerous Scarface references, but the fact it doesn’t include even a single distinguishable song is bothersome to me personally.

 

If anything at all their inclusion in GTA III doesn’t make much sense since GTA III has almost an exclusively original soundtrack that was curated for the game so having songs plucked from a soundtrack of a movie it doesn’t directly reference is a bit weird.

 

 

Ultra late, but songs give a vibe that even a mansion doesn't give. There's association with songs, it's human nature. 

 

But as you said they already have the interiors you mentioned and the storyline, adding the songs would be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

 

As for GTA III, you gotta remember that Rockstar making GTA III was very different, you're looking at GTA III like the Rockstar that made SA to V who are big people who carefully put these things and already have establishments and expectations. Sometimes it's as simple as a couple of guys wanting to dream big and liking something and putting it in their game, there was no telling if GTA III would even be a success but I'm sure they have already thought about Vice City midway through GTA III's development.

Edited April 1, 2023 by KingAJ032304

[Krymefull]

On 4/1/2023 at 6:40 PM, KingAJ032304 said:

there's nothing wrong with a year/year and a half imo. It's 2+ years that I can't do.

I remember hearing from someone on YouTube that GTA IV canonically takes place in late 2008/early 2009 as a justification of why some EFLC songs are from 2009.

 

I found this to be pure BS as Rockstar original intention for IV is to take place in early 2008.

Edited July 23, 2023 by DubiousThiny

[KingAJ032304]

1 minute ago, 2L8 said:

I remember hearing from someone on YouTube that GTA IV canonically takes place in late 2008/early 2009 as a justification of why some EFLC songs are from 2009   

I found this to be pure BS as Rockstar original intention for IV is to take place in early 2008, that's a fact me and many hardcore GTA fans knows about. 

Wasn't it always agree that GTA IV was set in Fall of 2008? 

 

Edit: man these "quadruple posts" of mine are... terrible lmao. I thought it'll combine.

Edited April 1, 2023 by KingAJ032304

[lol232]

19 hours ago, KingAJ032304 said:

there's nothing wrong with a year/year and a half imo. It's 2+ years that I can't do.

Some songs in Vladivostok that were added in GTA IV after the removal of most songs, were made even later, one as far as 2016. But they are all Russian and they sound old-school anyway.

 

 

I don't understand Russian, but this sh*t is a banger.

 

As for GTA IV, its original intention was for it to take place in Fall 2007, its original release date. Then when it was pushed to April 2008, the final game takes place in early fall 2008 (when it's both sunny and cold sometimes).

Edited April 2, 2023 by lol232

[universetwisters]

Idk how hard it would’ve been for rockstar to have found songs from before 2009 for EFLC tbh 

[Krymefull]

.

Edited July 23, 2023 by DubiousThiny

[gtafaninwest]

Not giving North to do the Trilogy.

[B Dawg]

1 hour ago, gtafaninwest said:

Not giving North to do the Trilogy.

That's the thing, they didn't want to do it.

[Moth]

5 hours ago, gtafaninwest said:

Not giving North to do the Trilogy.

They're busy with VI, so yeah wasn't going to happen. I'm guessing all of the Rockstar studios are working on it, cause they focus only on one massive project at a time now.

 

Which I understand,  but really don't f*cking like. I miss the days of Rockstar having more than 2 games a f*cking decade.

[NightmanCometh96]

21 hours ago, B Dawg said:

That's the thing, they didn't want to do it.

Which is absolutely understandable, as they (and the rest of Rockstar’s studios, considering the company’s “all hands on deck worldwide” work ethic since 2013) would’ve more than likely wanted to prioritize GTA VI (and they just seem to have a sheer disdain for revisiting old titles that aren’t V/Online for the umpteenth time). The problem with the DE specifically was the bone-headed, baffling decision to hire Grove Street Games (despite being infamous for the mixed quality of their previous work with R*) to save a quick buck.
 

If the Trilogy was outsourced to just about any other company (e.g. Bluepoint would have been a great fit had Sony not already acquired them) or, at the very least, had it not been based on the lousy mobile ports, I’m confident that it would have turned out significantly better than the abomination we got in the end. GSG was just not a wise choice for tackling 20th anniversary remasters of some of the most influential video games ever made; I bet that even the most die-hard DE defenders would be willing to admit these games could (and should) have been handled much more respectfully.

Spoiler

There’s always GTA III’s 30th anniversary, I suppose…

Spoiler

 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by NightmanCometh96

[E Revere]

10 hours ago, NightmanCometh96 said:

There’s always GTA III’s 30th anniversary, I suppose…

sh*t. You reminded me that GTA's 30tg anniversary is in just 4 years! I'm always appalled by how old it's got. When I was a kid, I always said I wanted GTA to be immortal, go all the way to GTA 10 and 20 and so on. Now I'm not so sure.

 

[Moth]

14 hours ago, E Revere said:

Now I'm not so sure

Cause the people who made GTA what it is, don't work there anymore.

[The Tracker]

2 hours ago, Moth said:

Cause the people who made GTA what it is, don't work there anymore.

 

Are you understimating the work my best friend friend's dad makes at Rockstar?

[cant remember]

On 3/25/2023 at 1:15 AM, lol232 said:

I'll rant about the weapon recoil removal later.

 

I only played GTA4 on PC so it's interesting to learn about these differences. I never knew about the suits and I agree it seems senseless. The originals were better and it's not like they were bound to licensing constraints for Niko's outfits.

 

The gun recoil maybe it interferred with mouse controls? I know in 3D era the mouse implementation did some weird things that were better on console. eg. when the scene (such as after exiting a garage) had the player facing the camera, on PC he would be walking out the garage backwards. Also when moving around it was more natural on PS2, while on PC the character always had his back afixed to the camera's "placement" and he turned like an action figurine with his legs and feet stuck into the same position. They only fixed that for SA.

[psxdriverplayer]

4 minutes ago, cant remember said:

I know in 3D era the mouse implementation did some weird things that were better on console. eg. when the scene (such as after exiting a garage) had the player facing the camera, on PC he would be walking out the garage backwards. Also when moving around it was more natural on PS2, while on PC the character always had his back afixed to the camera's "placement" and he turned like an action figurine with his legs and feet stuck into the same position. They only fixed that for SA.

With VIce City turning on Classic Controls from the menus changed the movement to PS2 style, whether ye played with a keyboard and mouse or a controller, even gave the PS2-like aiming and all. Otherwise back against camera, a bit annoyingly yes.

[B Dawg]

1 hour ago, cant remember said:

The gun recoil maybe it interferred with mouse controls?

No. There are zero bugs with restored bulletspread.

 

Speaking of GTA 3/VC era control styles, why can't you "aim" on Standard controls (outside of select few weapons)? You can't get into a firing ready stance without actually shooting so you either have to deal with constant delays between shooting or wasting your ammo.

Edited April 5, 2023 by B Dawg

[Krooked_]

1 hour ago, cant remember said:

I know in 3D era the mouse implementation did some weird things that were better on console. eg. when the scene (such as after exiting a garage) had the player facing the camera, on PC he would be walking out the garage backwards. Also when moving around it was more natural on PS2, while on PC the character always had his back afixed to the camera's "placement" and he turned like an action figurine with his legs and feet stuck into the same position. They only fixed that for SA.

Yeah, I was never was a fan of that and also not being able to walk in neither III or VC with the Standard Controls.

 

But then the PS2 (or Classic) controls weren't that great either with the inability to use the right stick or mouse to move your camera while on foot. I always get this claustrophobic feeling while playing with the Classic Controls preset. It also makes gunfights harder than they have to be.

 

Thankfully the Classic Axis mod fixes all of these problems and makes the gameplay on foot much more enjoyable.

Edited April 5, 2023 by Krooked_

[lol232]

7 hours ago, cant remember said:

 

I only played GTA4 on PC so it's interesting to learn about these differences. I never knew about the suits and I agree it seems senseless. The originals were better and it's not like they were bound to licensing constraints for Niko's outfits.

 

The gun recoil maybe it interferred with mouse controls? I know in 3D era the mouse implementation did some weird things that were better on console. eg. when the scene (such as after exiting a garage) had the player facing the camera, on PC he would be walking out the garage backwards. Also when moving around it was more natural on PS2, while on PC the character always had his back afixed to the camera's "placement" and he turned like an action figurine with his legs and feet stuck into the same position. They only fixed that for SA.

People said it's "because they wanted to give something exclusive to PC players" it's not really an exclusive if it's a replacement rather than an addition.

About the weapon recoil, as my boy @B Dawg said, there are zero bugs with restored bulletspread.

The thing is, it wasn't entirely removed, you could still have it as long as you just played with a controller, regardless if you picked free or assisted aim.

 

But here comes the rant, what the f*ck was the point of removing bulletspread on the PC version, but ONLY when using a mouse? Mouse makes aim exponentially easier by default, what the f*ck was the point of making it EVEN easier by giving weapons 100% accuracy with virtually zero bulletspread? Bulletspread made it realistic, you gotta shoot in bursts if you want to stay accurate, and when you get rid of that it becomes way too easy. Plus the said spread makes you feel like guns actually have a lot of power in them when you shoot them. Why would you remove it from the PC version but then magically enable it when using a controller?

 

What was the point in this, was it because of multiplayer so that players on a controller wouldn't have a massive advantage?

If that is the case that is extremely stupid because:

A - it just punishes players on a controller who play with free aim as they also get the bullet spread, playing with a controller in a free lobby is a no go, so if anything it should be reverse

B - even if that was the case, it did NOT have to extend to singleplayer where 95% of the playing time for everyone would be

 

GTA V also has virtually zero bulletspread too and this extends to consoles as well. Which is strange because the game just before it, Max Payne 3, had the most realistic gunplay in any one of their games.

Additionally, GTA IV's free aim with a controller is actually pretty good, in comparison, using free aim in GTA V (on a controller) is kinda wonky.

Edited April 5, 2023 by lol232

[gtafaninwest]

Why is C* hard on PC players. PC gamers bought the game, but C* always requires an internet connection to launch the game and that activation required crap.

Edited April 6, 2023 by gtafaninwest

[B Dawg]

11 hours ago, lol232 said:

A - it just punishes players on a controller who play with free aim as they also get the bullet spread, playing with a controller in a free lobby is a no go, so if anything it should be reverse

From what I've heard (but never tested): in Multiplayer, spread only exists for controllers with auto aim enabled. I do know that Free Aim Controllers don't have spread in Multiplayer either.

Still dumb though. It would have made more sense to make Free Aim Controller the no-spread option (even though blind firing would still be kinda broken).

Edited April 6, 2023 by B Dawg

[psxdriverplayer]

7 hours ago, gtafaninwest said:

Why is C* hard on PC players. PC gamers bought the game, but C* always requires an internet connection to launch the game and that activation required crap.

Isn't this every company pretty much these days doing that?

 

Never understood the practice, but peoples accepting it made that happen by showing companies that they do actually go through with it. Even some 15 years ago you complained about this somewhere, some peoples would say "well it's modern times get used to it" along with "everyone haz internet what is the problem" with no real solutions to the problem. Something goes down and activation doesn't work? What happens then? Options people mention are either "nah, can't happen". Well, look at what happened to some quite very big banks semi-recently (well their system is rigged anyway). But if that somehow magically happens peoples mention "they'll have it all modified so it just works". I have doubts about that. Or the other thing that happens is that "well everything great has remakesters anyway as nobody cares about the originals in that point". I have my doubts about that. But then the cycle must repeat, remakesters getting a remakester getting a remakester etc and so on and so forth and you get the idea you'll figure it out.

Online activation is a thing these days, but what happens when the party stops? What happens then?

Now you all hold on a second, in my house, when the party stops, everything just goes back to normal when peoples leave and stuff. Just like that. But that's my problem.

 

I've been against this crap from the beginning, if something is enough, it's at most offline activation code - that'll teach you to take care of your items and sh*t. Otherwise some manual check or some crap is fine, assuming it's implemented correctly - that'll tech you to take care of your items and sh*t, again.

Everything with online requirements to use it can go to hell, outside online multiplayer. And OFFLINE MODES ARE NOT A SOLUTION, DAMMIT. THE PROBLEM THAT THIS "WORKS A BIT AROUND" SHOULD NOT EVEN EXIST, WHY PEOPLES ALWAYS SAY THAT, TURN ON "OFFLINE MODE"? It doesn't fix the core problem.

[lol232]

13 hours ago, B Dawg said:

From what I've heard (but never tested): in Multiplayer, spread only exists for controllers with auto aim enabled. I do know that Free Aim Controllers don't have spread in Multiplayer either.

Still dumb though. It would have made more sense to make Free Aim Controller the no-spread option (even though blind firing would still be kinda broken).

Thanks for the correction man. I'll test it later when I'm not lazy. I feel like multiplayer is the primary reason and it's pretty stupid. Especially since it's mostly dead on PC now, and 95% of the playerbase won't play it (as someone who is rank 10 on PC and PS3).

Edited April 6, 2023 by lol232

[MrBreak16]

On 4/4/2023 at 3:20 AM, gtafaninwest said:

Not giving North to do the Trilogy.

Rockstar North are busy with GTAVI and they would rather make new games than remaster old ones. They should have given this to Rockstar Dundee, who worked on the Halo: Master Chief Collection.

[psxdriverplayer]

21 minutes ago, MrBreak16 said:

they would rather make new games

A decision I never understand would be in all those cases where a company is not doing this in one way or another.

[lol232]

8 hours ago, 2L8 said:

the way I see it, I'm glad that Rockstar North didn't work on the DE of the 3D trilogy, otherwise this would ruin their near perfect reputation.

Or they'd make a fantastic remaster/remake...

[Reathyr]

It basically took just 4 years between the launch of GTAIV and the launch of GTAV to make GTAV, and build all of southern San Andreas with Los Santos, it's been 10 years of GTAV/Online, there are still no official images or trailers of GTAVI, no official release date, it's probably still a few years away.
But in those 10 years the only map expansion we got for GTAV/Online is tiny Cayo Perico which is no bigger then the peninsula that LSIA sits on, and we can only visit during a heist, I feel like in that time they could have easily made northern San Andreas with San Fierro in that time for us to do crime in, roam around in, do heists, buy property, continue stories, etc, etc., just to breathe new life into the map, heck they could have easily made eastern San Andreas or what ever GTA equivalent of Nevada it exists in, with Las Venturas as well, but all we've gotten to date, is Cayo Perico, and that will be the biggest Rockstar decision I'll never understand

Edited April 7, 2023 by Reathyr

[Moth]

4 hours ago, lol232 said:

Or they'd make a fantastic remaster/remake...

It all depends on the budget and time constraints.

 

2 hours ago, Reathyr said:

It basically took just 4 years between the launch of GTAIV and the launch of GTAV to make GTAV, and build all of southern San Andreas with Los Santos, it's been 10 years of GTAV/Online, there are still no official images or trailers of GTAVI, no official release date, it's probably still a few years away.
But in those 10 years the only map expansion we got for GTAV/Online is tiny Cayo Perico which is no bigger then the peninsula that LSIA sits on, and we can only visit during a heist, I feel like in that time they could have easily made northern San Andreas with San Fierro in that time for us to do crime in, roam around in, do heists, buy property, continue stories, etc, etc., just to breathe new life into the map, heck they could have easily made eastern San Andreas or what ever GTA equivalent of Nevada it exists in, with Las Venturas as well, but all we've gotten to date, is Cayo Perico, and that will be the biggest Rockstar decision I'll never understand

GTA Online made Rockstar/Take2 a f*cking mountain of money with minimum effort. Why would they make massive map expansions when they can just keep using the same map with slight changes over a f*cking decade? Hell, they made even more money with that approach instead of the map expansions, cause those map expansions would be f*cking expensive to make. 

[Michael_Pro_X]

2 hours ago, Reathyr said:

It basically took just 4 years between the launch of GTAIV and the launch of GTAV to make GTAV, and build all of southern San Andreas with Los Santos, it's been 10 years of GTAV/Online, there are still no official images or trailers of GTAVI, no official release date, it's probably still a few years away.
But in those 10 years the only map expansion we got for GTAV/Online is tiny Cayo Perico which is no bigger then the peninsula that LSIA sits on, and we can only visit during a heist, I feel like in that time they could have easily made northern San Andreas with San Fierro in that time for us to do crime in, roam around in, do heists, buy property, continue stories, etc, etc., just to breathe new life into the map, heck they could have easily made eastern San Andreas or what ever GTA equivalent of Nevada it exists in, with Las Venturas as well, but all we've gotten to date, is Cayo Perico, and that will be the biggest Rockstar decision I'll never understand

I agree, GTA 5 should got a a free mode map expansion a long time ago, rockstar they just make no sense as usual