GTA 6 should be set in the future.

[GreenArrow]

I wouldn't mind a present day Vice City, or whatever city they're going to next. But with GTA V, they've loved adding futuristic vehicles and clothing that feels out of place in 2019. So maybe the next GTA could be in the year 2100? Or something. It could take people away from their normal lives and enter the future. 

 

Plus, it'd end Cyberpunk 2077 before it even begins.

[Zello]

 

[Yinepi]

The way I see it is that GTAV was a parody of movies and most of the OTT futuristic vehicles are parodies of vehicles that were used in film. Deluxo = Back to the Future, Apoc vehicles = Mad Max, etc.

[Aquamaniac]

8 hours ago, GreenArrow said:

I wouldn't mind a present day Vice City, or whatever city they're going to next. But with GTA V, they've loved adding futuristic vehicles and clothing that feels out of place in 2019. So maybe the next GTA could be in the year 2100? Or something. It could take people away from their normal lives and enter the future. 

 

Plus, it'd end Cyberpunk 2077 before it even begins.

Which futuristic cars and clothing are you reffering to? If you speak about GTA Online, similar fancy cars have been seen in Bond Movies from the 70s, that's no reason to make a game set in the future.

 

The flying car actually looks like the submarine car from some Bond movie:

 

 

I'm afraid future cars will rather be boring if you consider real life trends within the car industry.

 

The future might be this:

 

 

 

[GTA-Biker]

I don't know.I wouldn't mind if R* made an open world game with a futuristic/sci-fi setting,maybe even make it a part of the same universe GTA, Manhunt, Bully and possibly Red Dead games take place in,but I'm not sure if I'd want it to be a GTA game.It would just feel too different from other GTA games (excluding old PS1 era games like GTA 2).In my opinion,GTA should be set either in the present or recent past (anything before the 70s would feel more like a Mafia game).

[Yinepi]

I'm curious why you consider anything pre-2000 to be recent past. An '80s or '90s game is hardly recent past now. Maybe it was in 2004 but not now. To me GTA works best when it's modern day (at time of release) or in a futuristic setting. Past settings just don't work too well because they're very limiting and stuck parodying technology that's archaic and restrictive.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Yinepi

[Algonquin Assassin]

5 hours ago, Yinepi said:

I'm curious why you consider anything pre-2000 to be recent past. An '80s or '90s game is hardly recent past now. Maybe it was in 2004 but not now. To me GTA works best when it's modern day (at time of release) or in a futuristic setting. Past settings just don't work too well because they're very limiting and stuck parodying technology that's archaic and restrictive.

I agree with this. The only by gone era I would like to see is the 70s as it's never been done before, but my preference is present day or near future as I don't want to see things like the in game internet and phone stripped back/gone all together because of the time period. 

 

[Zello]

27 minutes ago, SonOfLiberty said:

 in game internet and phone stripped back/gone all together because of the time period. 

They are not major things that are essential to gameplay we like hardly use those things and they could be replaced. Payphones and pagers, want a car? go actually buy it at the dealership.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Zello

[Algonquin Assassin]

32 minutes ago, Zello said:

They are not major things that are essential to gameplay we like hardly use those things and they could be replaced. Payphones and pagers, want a car? go actually buy it at the dealership.

 

 

I don't know if I would call them absolutely essential to gameplay, but I can't deny I use my phone like 90% of the time in GTA IV and GTA V for that matter since the story also relies on them so it's not like they can just be easily ignored. In GTA V especially I like being able to surf the internet on the phone and being able to take photos and save them. 

 

I can accept dated and archaic technology in the Red Dead games, but being forced to use pagers again and using payphones to make calls would honestly be annoying to me since I stopped doing that in real life 20 years ago. 

[CrimsonFolo]

Imagine the future. All the vehicles will be self driving (you don't drive anywhere and vehicles drive themselves).

 

Jokes aside, Future setting doesn't really go too well imo. I hate the aspect of the futuristic vehicles like deluxo or oppressor as they further ruin any sort of classic PvP experience in free roam.

It's like COD in a sense, Modern and slightly pre modern ones were the best ( MW2, BO, MW3 ) and once they went futuristic, they sucked. 

I want to be able to do drivebys in a gta game and rob cars and drive them.

[bigtiddy]

i think setting it in the future (especially too far) will probably date the game pretty hard. most of GTA's charm is it satire of our world, which isn't possible to do in a reality that we haven't inhabited yet. it would be a really cool spin off but it would be a massive waste if it was a main title.

[Lance_Vance89]

On 6/28/2019 at 1:36 AM, GreenArrow said:

I wouldn't mind a present day Vice City, or whatever city they're going to next. But with GTA V, they've loved adding futuristic vehicles and clothing that feels out of place in 2019. So maybe the next GTA could be in the year 2100? Or something. It could take people away from their normal lives and enter the future.

You do realize that music and radio are two of the most important things for GTA? It worked with a future setting in GTA 2 because it had like 10 radio stations that were a 20 minute loop. 

[GTA-Biker]

On 6/28/2019 at 12:56 AM, Yinepi said:

I'm curious why you consider anything pre-2000 to be recent past. An '80s or '90s game is hardly recent past now. Maybe it was in 2004 but not now. To me GTA works best when it's modern day (at time of release) or in a futuristic setting. Past settings just don't work too well because they're very limiting and stuck parodying technology that's archaic and restrictive.

When it comes to GTA,I guess 70s-90s still counts as recent because it would still fit GTA well,anything set before the 70s would feel like they're copying Mafia,and anything before 1920s might as well be a Red Dead game.As for the future,I think it would be too risky and could damage the franchise reputation unless it's done right,which I think would be hard.I know they already did a future setting with GTA 2 and it worked (and even then it was some kind of retro-future with vehicles that look like they're from the 30s-60s),but that was back when they didn't even really know what to do with the franchise,in the 2000s they established GTA games as games set in the present or recent past,so from today's standards it would feel weird to see stuff like robots, aliens, ray guns and flying cars in GTA,unless it's just Easter eggs, cheat codes, non-canon Online content, or at most some kind of limited prototype similar to SA jetpack.Not to mention how hard it would be to design futuristic architecture, vehicles, weapons, fashion, everyday life, and they'd have to pretty much invent new music genres for the radio stations.But as I said before,I'd be ok if R* made a sci-fi/futuristic game,as long as it would be its own thing,and not a GTA game (Red Dead games didn't have to be named GTA Wild West and Bully didn't have to be named GTA Middle School to be successful,and neither would an open world game with a futuristic setting,it would just have to be a good game).

As for the criticism of the late 20th century tech being outdated and restrictive,I think it just seems that way because we never got a GTA game set in the past since they started HD era and introduced some new features to the franchise,so people are judging the setting by the old games.For example,GTA 3 was set in the early 2000s when cellphones and internet were already around but it had neither,and in a few years newer GTA LCS which was set in the late 90s,the protagonist had a cellphone that could only be used to receive calls but not make them,and while there are references to the internet it can't be used,in both cases the problem are game's limitations,not setting's limitations (if they made a game set in the late 90s or early 2000s today,of course we could fully use period accurate cellphones and the internet).And in a modern game set even before,in the 70s or 80s,we could still do much of the same stuff as in the present setting,just in a different way.Instead of using a cellphone to call contacts we would have to use a phone in the safehouse or a payphone,instead of taking photos using a phone camera we'd have to have an old school camera in the inventory,and instead of buying vehicles from a website we could go to the dealership to buy them or simply find any car or motorcycle on the streets and steal it.

Edited July 2, 2019 by GTA-Biker

[Timcatgt5]

Need for Speed: Most Wanted (the 2005 version) with guns would be ideal. Keep the cars and the music, make the map bigger and better, and you have a game that can compete against San Andreas. 

 

Only in my dreams though, can that be possible. 

[Len Lfc]

On 6/28/2019 at 12:36 AM, GreenArrow said:

Plus, it'd end Cyberpunk 2077 before it even begins.

One is due out next April. The other hasn't even been announced yet. Tell me how GTA 6 would end Cyberpunk 2077 before it even begins? 

[Jabalous]

I won't play a future-based GTA game, even for free! 

 

Better to remain grounded in reality than making up some kind of a cliche futuristic universe. 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Jabalous

[YamatheKreature47]

Yeah noo. The video game industry is being over saturated with futuristic games now. I'd rather have one set in the past or modern day. Not really interested in modern day tho since V and Online pretty much did a lot for that. When I think of GTA, I don't think of flying motorcycles and cars and all that. That's what Cyberpunk is for. 

Plus Saints Row tried that futuristic sh*t and look at how that turned out. They lost like half of their playerbase and put out a bunch of sh*tty games

[Yinepi]

11 hours ago, GTA-Biker said:

When it comes to GTA,I guess 70s-90s still counts as recent because it would still fit GTA well,anything set before the 70s would feel like they're copying Mafia,and anything before 1920s might as well be a Red Dead game.As for the future,I think it would be too risky and could damage the franchise reputation unless it's done right,which I think would be hard.I know they already did a future setting with GTA 2 and it worked (and even then it was some kind of retro-future with vehicles that look like they're from the 30s-60s),but that was back when they didn't even really know what to do with the franchise,in the 2000s they established GTA games as games set in the present or recent past,so from today's standards it would feel weird to see stuff like robots, aliens, ray guns and flying cars in GTA,unless it's just Easter eggs, cheat codes, non-canon Online content, or at most some kind of limited prototype similar to SA jetpack.Not to mention how hard it would be to design futuristic architecture, vehicles, weapons, fashion, everyday life, and they'd have to pretty much invent new music genres for the radio stations.But as I said before,I'd be ok if R* made a sci-fi/futuristic game,as long as it would be its own thing,and not a GTA game (Red Dead games didn't have to be named GTA Wild West and Bully didn't have to be named GTA Middle School to be successful,and neither would an open world game with a futuristic setting,it would just have to be a good game).

As for the criticism of the late 20th century tech being outdated and restrictive,I think it just seems that way because we never got a GTA game set in the past since they started HD era and introduced some new features to the franchise,so people are judging the setting by the old games.For example,GTA 3 was set in the early 2000s when cellphones and internet were already around but it had neither,and in a few years newer GTA LCS which was set in the late 90s,the protagonist had a cellphone that could only be used to receive calls but not make them,and while there are references to the internet it can't be used,in both cases the problem are game's limitations,not setting's limitations (if they made a game set in the late 90s or early 2000s today,of course we could fully use period accurate cellphones and the internet).And in a modern game set even before,in the 70s or 80s,we could still do much of the same stuff as in the present setting,just in a different way.Instead of using a cellphone to call contacts we would have to use a phone in the safehouse or a payphone,instead of taking photos using a phone camera we'd have to have an old school camera in the inventory,and instead of buying vehicles from a website we could go to the dealership to buy them or simply find any car or motorcycle on the streets and steal it.

I agree with what you have said about game limitations being the reason why earlier games didn't have internet, working cell phones, etc.

What I meant by restrictive is that having these older concepts wouldn't be convenient. I'm thinking about it from a game design perspective and not a setting perspective. For example, you mentioned car dealership (which still exist in modern time). If you could have a feature in your game where you can buy any car you want from any location on the map with a simple few clicks of a button/key, why is there a need to make players drive all the way across the map to say Premium Deluxe Motorsport to get said car. And that's just one example of how a game set in the past is restrictive.

There is also the camera, as you had also mentioned. Why make players have to grab a camera and carry it around in their inventory and making them have to switch to it when they want to take a photo when a cell phone can also take photo graphs? It's the same reason why I'm a little distraught over Rockstar's choice of excluding a mobile radio in GTAV when modern cell phones can get radio signals and have music apps on them.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Yinepi

[Algonquin Assassin]

27 minutes ago, Yinepi said:

What I meant by restrictive is that having these older concepts wouldn't be convenient. I'm thinking about it from a game design perspective and not a setting perspective. For example, you mentioned car dealership (which still exist in modern time). If you could have a feature in your game where you can buy any car you want from any location on the map with a simple few clicks of a button/key, why is there a need to make players drive all the way across the map to say Premium Deluxe Motorsport to get said car. And that's just one example of how a game set in the past is restrictive.

It's just like the phone. Why force players to use payhones just to make a call? Even if they brought back those brick phones like in Vice City and San Andreas it would still feel restrictive because of lacking the functionality of their modern counterparts. 

 

You're right though. From a game design point of view it would be a pain. This would've made more sense if the HD era started with a by gone era slowly working itself way up to modern day, but going backwards in time NOW would feel like all that work would be undone. 

[Zapper]

58 minutes ago, SonOfLiberty said:

 It's just like the phone. Why force players to use payhones just to make a call? Even if they brought back those brick phones like in Vice City and San Andreas it would still feel restrictive because of lacking the functionality of their modern counterparts. 

 

If I want to experience the modern world, I would just get out of my house. But some people play games to experience something that they can't in real life, something which can only experienced virtually. I'd like to experience 70s, 80s, 90s as it was like back then. If I want to use a smartphone I can use in real life right now.

 

58 minutes ago, SonOfLiberty said:

This would've made more sense if the HD era started with a by gone era slowly working itself way up to modern day, but going backwards in time NOW would feel like all that work would be undone. 

Considering almost everything is stagnant from 2013 onwards, I don't know how a modern game would feel like. I'm afraid it'd feel too much like V. 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Zapper

[Aquamaniac]

4 hours ago, Zapper said:

If I want to experience the modern world, I would just get out of my house. But some people play games to experience something that they can't in real life, something which can only experienced virtually. I'd like to experience 70s, 80s, 90s as it was like back then. If I want to use a smartphone I can use in real life right now.

 

Considering almost everything is stagnant from 2013 onwards, I don't know how a modern game would feel like. I'm afraid it'd feel too much like V. 

 

In storymode smartphones are irrelevant, in multiplayer you can solve this with a discrete ingame interface to join missions or contact players, I never played RDR Online but I guess it works similarly, GTA is not about smartphones or surfing in the internet. Why buying cars at all in storymode, it is Grand Theft Auto, not Grand Car Shopping Spree. In Online magazines can replace the internet and you buy cars by marking them in a car magazine, the same with buildings etc.

 

The only new thing since 2013 are stupid battery cars, from an automotive point of view a GTA featuring a lot of battery cars, maybe with the need to quickcharge them, would actually be something new, I'm afraid the automotive future sucks and this is reason enough for me to put future GTAs in the past.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Aquamaniac

[Algonquin Assassin]

6 hours ago, Zapper said:

If I want to experience the modern world, I would just get out of my house. But some people play games to experience something that they can't in real life, something which can only experienced virtually. I'd like to experience 70s, 80s, 90s as it was like back then. If I want to use a smartphone I can use in real life right now. 

I get what you're saying, but really we've already had two GTAs in the 90s and two in the 90s. The 80s Florida drug boom was covered in pretty substantial detail and so was the 90s uprising of LA street gangs so I fear going back to those eras would just be retreading the same water we've already seen before. It's something I feel RDR2 is a bit guilty of too even though I love the game.

 

The thing I like modern settings is eventually in due time they carve out their own, unique period pieces. GTA III is the GTA I remember set right after 9/11 and GTA IV is set during the early stages of the GFC and post terrorism paranoia. GTA V is still a little too recent, but I have no doubt it'll feel like an unintentional period piece too.

 

6 hours ago, Zapper said:

Considering almost everything is stagnant from 2013 onwards, I don't know how a modern game would feel like. I'm afraid it'd feel too much like V. 

I don't know. There was only a 5 year gap between GTA IV and GTA V, but IMO the difference of feeling between their takes on the modern era felt pretty big. Assuming GTA VI releases sometime within the next 3 years GTA V will be starting to get up in age where the early 2010s will feel like it was an age ago. I doubt it would feel that similar.

 

1 hour ago, Aquamaniac said:

 

In storymode smartphones are irrelevant, in multiplayer you can solve this with a discrete ingame interface to join missions or contact players, I never played RDR Online but I guess it works similarly, GTA is not about smartphones or surfing in the internet. Why buying cars at all in storymode, it is Grand Theft Auto, not Grand Car Shopping Spree. In Online magazines can replace the internet and you buy cars by marking them in a car magazine, the same with buildings etc.

No one's saying GTA is all about smartphones or surfing the internet. We're only discussing the cons of going back in time and what affect it would have on the aforementioned technology. Maybe you don't care and that's fine, but not everyone feels that way.

 

Also what kind of logic is that? "Grand Theft Auto" is just the series name. There's nothing wrong with giving the player the option to buy a car. Even criminals own things legitimately without needing to steal them lol. If you're going to say that you might aswell question the series' inclusion to have planes because it's not called Grand Flight Simulator. 

[Len Lfc]

7 hours ago, SonOfLiberty said:

It's just like the phone. Why force players to use payhones just to make a call? Even if they brought back those brick phones like in Vice City and San Andreas it would still feel restrictive because of lacking the functionality of their modern counterparts. 

I get what you mean, but I just personally disagree. It doesn't seem to be a problem in RDR2. Yes, I know they're 2 completely different styles, themes and settings. But if Rockstar want to set a game in the past I just trust them to do it well. People will always complain about what they can no longer do, that they could do in GTA V. But a lot of people would also say things like "OMG you have to go to a dealership to buy a car, such a cool detail because that's how it was back then omg!" 

 

I just think we have discussions about what would work, vs what wouldn't. And most of the time, in the end none of our 'fears' really happen.

[GTA-Biker]

12 hours ago, Yinepi said:

I agree with what you have said about game limitations being the reason why earlier games didn't have internet, working cell phones, etc.

What I meant by restrictive is that having these older concepts wouldn't be convenient. I'm thinking about it from a game design perspective and not a setting perspective. For example, you mentioned car dealership (which still exist in modern time). If you could have a feature in your game where you can buy any car you want from any location on the map with a simple few clicks of a button/key, why is there a need to make players drive all the way across the map to say Premium Deluxe Motorsport to get said car. And that's just one example of how a game set in the past is restrictive.

There is also the camera, as you had also mentioned. Why make players have to grab a camera and carry it around in their inventory and making them have to switch to it when they want to take a photo when a cell phone can also take photo graphs? It's the same reason why I'm a little distraught over Rockstar's choice of excluding a mobile radio in GTAV when modern cell phones can get radio signals and have music apps on them.

Seeing as we still have to go to stores to buy clothes or guns,I don't see how having to also go to the dealership would be so inconvenient,not to mention that there should be multiple dealerships across the map so we wouldn't have to drive too far.Also,introducing dealerships would add some realism because motorcycle dealerships would be a better place to get motorcycle gear like helmets, biker jackets, pants, gloves, boots and accessories than regular clothing stores,and all dealerships could let us customize vehicles right after we buy them for convenience,so we wouldn't have to drive to the mechanic's garage to customize them.But even dealerships should be optional for getting a vehicle,an alternative for those who don't wanna waste time looking for a certain car or bike,at least in singleplayer we should be able to find any vehicle in game spawned somewhere on the map and steal it for free instead of having some vehicles only available if we pay for them.

As for the camera,they could make it available from the start of the game and make it so that we can't lose it once we get it,similar to how it's in Bully.I don't think going to the inventory to get the camera would be any harder or more time consuming than taking the phone and turning on phone camera.As for the music on foot,Sony Walkman was released 40 years ago,so we could have music on foot as early as the late 70s setting.

Edited July 3, 2019 by GTA-Biker

[Aquamaniac]

18 hours ago, SonOfLiberty said:

No one's saying GTA is all about smartphones or surfing the internet. We're only discussing the cons of going back in time and what affect it would have on the aforementioned technology. Maybe you don't care and that's fine, but not everyone feels that way.

 

Also what kind of logic is that? "Grand Theft Auto" is just the series name. There's nothing wrong with giving the player the option to buy a car. Even criminals own things legitimately without needing to steal them lol. If you're going to say that you might aswell question the series' inclusion to have planes because it's not called Grand Flight Simulator. 

Having personal cars for each protagonist took away a lot the original GTA feeling. When I had stored a precious car in GTA IV it in front of my apartment I took care of it, in GTA V you can drive your car into the river and it will spawn at your house. That's stupid. In singleplayer all cars should spawn in traffic or be parked somewhere and you should not be able to buy all cars - no matter when the game takes place.

[Zello]

14 hours ago, GTA-Biker said:

Seeing as we still have to go to stores to buy clothes or guns,I don't see how having to also go to the dealership would be so inconvenient,not to mention that there should be multiple dealerships across the map so we wouldn't have to drive too far.Also,introducing dealerships would add some realism because motorcycle dealerships would be a better place to get motorcycle gear like helmets, biker jackets, pants, gloves, boots and accessories than regular clothing stores,and all dealerships could let us customize vehicles right after we buy them for convenience,so we wouldn't have to drive to the mechanic's garage to customize them.But even dealerships should be optional for getting a vehicle,an alternative for those who don't wanna waste time looking for a certain car or bike,at least in singleplayer we should be able to find any vehicle in game spawned somewhere on the map and steal it for free instead of having some vehicles only available if we pay for them.

As for the camera,they could make it available from the start of the game and make it so that we can't lose it once we get it,similar to how it's in Bully.I don't think going to the inventory to get the camera would be any harder or more time consuming than taking the phone and turning on phone camera.As for the music on foot,Sony Walkman was released 40 years ago,so we could have music on foot as early as the late 70s setting.

Also we could go to the dealership eye a car we like take it out for a test drive with the salesman and then of course kill him and drive off with the car. This is Grand theft Auto after all.

[Algonquin Assassin]

43 minutes ago, Aquamaniac said:

Having personal cars for each protagonist took away a lot the original GTA feeling. When I had stored a precious car in GTA IV it in front of my apartment I took care of it, in GTA V you can drive your car into the river and it will spawn at your house. That's stupid. In singleplayer all cars should spawn in traffic or be parked somewhere and you should not be able to buy all cars - no matter when the game takes place.

I agree the personal cars needs some more work if it's retained as in being able to choose what car to use as one, but I don't get your objection to buying cars as a whole. Like I said even criminals can legitimately own things. IMO it would've been dumb in GTA V if Michael didn't have his own car for example seeing as he'd been living in the city for so long.

 

Besides it's not like we can/could buy all the cars anyway. GTA V only had a selected number so there were still others that could be stolen. I mean what's wrong with giving people the option? I feel adding buyable cars gives a little more personalisation as I found most of the cars I modified were the ones I bought. It wouldn't make any sense to remove now regardless of year or what crime metaphor the series is named after.

[Zello]

There should be multiple ways to buy cars.  Used car dealerships for older cars, salvage yards for those beat up junker cars, car auctions for unique cars think of something like a police auction where they auction off some drug lords shot up car, speciality places like a tractor dealership.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Zello

[Aquamaniac]

7 hours ago, SonOfLiberty said:

I agree the personal cars needs some more work if it's retained as in being able to choose what car to use as one, but I don't get your objection to buying cars as a whole. Like I said even criminals can legitimately own things. IMO it would've been dumb in GTA V if Michael didn't have his own car for example seeing as he'd been living in the city for so long.

 

Besides it's not like we can/could buy all the cars anyway. GTA V only had a selected number so there were still others that could be stolen. I mean what's wrong with giving people the option? I feel adding buyable cars gives a little more personalisation as I found most of the cars I modified were the ones I bought. It wouldn't make any sense to remove now regardless of year or what crime metaphor the series is named after.

Because it means an inflationary access on supercars (or tanks, planes, whatever), I don't mind online though. At the end of the campaign you are insanely rich and can buy whatever, there is no more reason to look out for precious cars, I think in storymode you generally shouldn't become that rich. When you're rich you can buy anything and when you can buy anything it looses its value, maybe you get my point?

Edited July 4, 2019 by Aquamaniac

[GTAVis4kids]

Said like a typical under 18s player. The game has been spoilt cus of kiddie requests which is obvious when the average age has plummeted from mid 20s to between 10-14.R* will always cater to kids even on a supposedly 18+ game simply cus middle class kids spend all their parents money on shark cards and business comes first when dealing with a company that has to put shareholders first. I wouldn't complain if they took that 18+ certificate off the game, which they need to do for the next one. You want a futuristic game off R*? Then ask for one, stand alone from GTA, they've made enough money to fund it as well as GTA6.

Currently GTAonline is a slow, glitched out, time consuming mess. The youngsters can handle it cus they don't know anything different from loading screens n timeouts n 6 hour sessions are nothing if u don't hv to go to work. For the rest of us, 2hrs GTA equals approx 30 mins real time action. They can patch dupe glitches but cant do anything about race speed glitches, sniping thru walls glitches, specific heist glitches. They can push out untested content n massively over hype it tho..................aaaaahhhh and breathe, rant over from an older experienced gamer who isn't fooled by hype. Me n GTA, serious love/hate relationship in which I WILL have to leave her, let the next naive fool have her (GTA6).

R* have become a parody of themselves but there's always another generation of gullible kids for them to take the piss out of.