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

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. Los Santos Summer Special
      2. The Diamond Casino Heist
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA VI

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    3. GTA V

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

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

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

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

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

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

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Gutslab

III, VC, SA and IV were released in a span of 7 years

Recommended Posts

Len Lfc
1 minute ago, Zapper said:

This sums it up nicely.

We've known this ever since 2016. After Fallout 4 finally released, the questions began coming about TES6. Bethesda said they had to other big projects before TES6. And that they would be different, but the same kinds of games that BGS make. And most importantly, they''d still follow the same release patterns, in terms of waits.

 

I keep saying it, I get it. Nobody likes having to wait 10 years for one game. Especially when before the wait was much shorter, or half that. But it is what it is. And you were warned. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kris194
Posted (edited)
“Why does it take so long for you to develop games when u have so much money and so many staff? It should be months between games not years can someone explain it to me. We live in a consumer society the customer is always right don’t forget that. Yours with anger R Harris” – received via Mouthoff
 
Upsetting you feel this way! It takes us a long time to make games because we take it enormously seriously, and want the game to be everything it can be so that you, our fans, are as entertained and amazed as possible. We are sorry that it sometimes seems to take a long time, but the massive amount of work it takes to imagine, design, build, and populate a digital world is simply staggering, and we are constantly striving to make sure each game surpasses the last one. The games are made up of millions of assorted assets, and built by hundreds of highly talented, highly specialized people, working incredibly hard. We try to work as fast as possible, but given the combinations of cutting edge technology, high resolution graphics and animation, and hundreds of thousands of sound files, all of which have to work perfectly, and be fun and enjoyable to play, it is not surprising the games take a while to make. Even with sequels to existing games, it is important to us that they have a lot of new elements and feel fresh and exciting. We feel it is our duty to make sure the games are as good as we can make them and as innovative as we can make them. 
 
Edited by Kris194
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Do I miss the times when Rockstar could turn a game around in a year or two? Yes. Do I blame them for taking longer now? No.

 

The only comparable developer that attempts to make games to the scale of Rockstar is CD Projekt Red. Witcher 3 had a 3.5 year development cycle, GTA V took 3 years to make once in full development.

 

Cyberpunk was announced in 2012 which gives it a minimum of 8 years in development, probably 4 or 5 once in full development after Witcher launched. Which is the same as RDR2 really, 5 years once GTA V was put to market. Cyberpunk is releasing two years after RDR2, just like Witcher 3 released two years after GTA V. See the pattern? It's normal. New games need to be better than their predecessors which requires more time from that alone, not to mention the fact that these studios are making multiple games at once.

 

I'm sure they could make them quicker, follow the business models practised by EA and Ubisoft, but who the hell wants that. Everyone would be moaning that Rockstar have 'lost it' because the games wouldn't be anywhere near as good.

 

They've built a solid online infrastructure so their games have longevity between releases, but of course that's not good enough for anyone either.

Edited by darkdayz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3Peat
Posted (edited)
On 8/10/2020 at 8:05 PM, Kris194 said:
“Why does it take so long for you to develop games when u have so much money and so many staff? It should be months between games not years can someone explain it to me. We live in a consumer society the customer is always right don’t forget that. Yours with anger R Harris” – received via Mouthoff
 
Upsetting you feel this way! It takes us a long time to make games because we take it enormously seriously, and want the game to be everything it can be so that you, our fans, are as entertained and amazed as possible. We are sorry that it sometimes seems to take a long time, but the massive amount of work it takes to imagine, design, build, and populate a digital world is simply staggering, and we are constantly striving to make sure each game surpasses the last one. The games are made up of millions of assorted assets, and built by hundreds of highly talented, highly specialized people, working incredibly hard. We try to work as fast as possible, but given the combinations of cutting edge technology, high resolution graphics and animation, and hundreds of thousands of sound files, all of which have to work perfectly, and be fun and enjoyable to play, it is not surprising the games take a while to make. Even with sequels to existing games, it is important to us that they have a lot of new elements and feel fresh and exciting. We feel it is our duty to make sure the games are as good as we can make them and as innovative as we can make them. 
 


 

@28 secs


That is the protest that happened when Atlantic Records wouldn’t release the rapper Lupe Fiasco’s album to the point that the group Anonymous stepped in and threatened to hack and leak their vital information.

 

spoiler: It wasn’t because they were trying to make it “real good”. It was said that Lupe didn’t want to sign a new contract with new terms. So his record label held his album release captive. This is such a common practice in the music industry that there is an actual law against it now. The law was established years before this but no one cares.

 

lol Corporations always say that. And then it launches or releases with a heap of problems and fans wonder what happened to all that “tender loving care” that went into it.

 

 

Edited by 3Peat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VercettiGuy

I don't blame them for taking so long.

 

However, I do blame them for never telling us what is actually going on. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KingAJ032304
Posted (edited)

Just to give you a perspective of how long 7 years is:

 

In the world of Saints Row,

We went from gangbanging back during 2006

To killing aliens with super powers in and out the matrix during 2013

 

7 years is no joke people.

Edited by KingAJ032304
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Len Lfc
54 minutes ago, KingAJ032304 said:

Just to give you a perspective of how long 7 years is:

 

In the world of Saints Row,

We went from gangbanging back during 2006

To killing aliens with super powers in and out the matrix during 2013

 

7 years is no joke people.

Yet no Saints Row game has ever come close to any GTA game...

It's almost as if making truly high quality ambitious games takes a very long time.

Also, it hasn't been 7 years. It's been 22 months, just shy of 2 years. RDR2 was Rockstars next game, after GTA V.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KingAJ032304
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Len Lfc said:

Yet no Saints Row game has ever come close to any GTA game...

It's almost as if making truly high quality ambitious games takes a very long time.

Also, it hasn't been 7 years. It's been 22 months, just shy of 2 years. RDR2 was Rockstars next game, after GTA V.

SR1 literally had nothing wrong with it. It works exactly as a game that came out 2 years after GTA SA would. In fact I'll argue it had just as much quality as a Rockstar game at the time. While the driving is probably worse than any game in the 3D universe, the character movements and aiming was far ahead among other things. The story itself actually has a pretty high amount of quality to it even though it's really short. This was a game made in development since 2002 I mind you.

 

For SR2 they made the purposeful decision to use SR1 engine back in 2004 and try to bring enough quantity and unique open world stuff (such as a surprisingly destructible environment and more depth to interiors that rivals and arguably surpasses GTA IVs) to the table that made it unique till this date even at noticeable cost of quality because they wanted to get the quality good enough that its entertaining for what I would call switchers (such as myself). It's a different approach. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it for what they were giving. For SR3+ I mostly agree with you but there's a fundamental problem with that argument that always get brought up.

 

The problem with that argument is GTA is profiting off money from the fact that they were top dawgs back in the PS2 era and were cashing in sh*t loads of money that alone far surpasses the SR games till date. Your forgetting they also were in the same situation as the early SR games where they had mediocre or even bad controls (especially GTA III and VC which have aged horribly), relatively bad graphics and visuals for PS2 standards, used the same engine multiple times, meh sound system and sound effect, and lacked basic swimming for 3/5 games. They were churning out games with the same engine (with the psp games being an overall downgrade) and they were average in production even for their time. And the 2D universe didn't make them much money either.

 

But because people could forgive them of these mishaps for how unique, fun, and addicting they were, they made a sh*t load of money which allowed them to make the truly innovative sequel that showed what the new generation of console were capable of only 2 years after the release of GTA VCS and 4 years after SA with me talking about GTA IV of course. And Rockstar kept raising that bar with each release making a sh*t load more money than the last in their respective series. So OF COURSE they will have high quality when you have people buying 2 generations of the same game full price. It's stuff like this why GTA does innovative stuff, it doesn't really "impress me", it's more of an expectancy than anything. Like "oh cool the new gta has this or is about this, look at the graphics and voice acting, the details and scale of the open world etc." For me it's like they BETTER be raising the bar consistently with their sh*t load of money profiting as the most critically acclaimed video game of all time.

 

Saints Row however never got to that point because if people weren't calling it a GTA SA clone than people were giving it the same standards as the most critically claimed video games series of all time which is truly unfair giving the fact that Volition NEVER made an open world game before (while with Rockstar it was more of an trial and error thing) and the fact that they got it so right in their first attempt with the same true love and passion seen in Rockstar Games is an achievement to me. (And no they were cashing in with the Saints Row 1, they really just wanted to make an open world game and got inspired by GTA to also try to make an improved version of GTA with "everything having a purpose" and staying in line with the main plot at all times. They had to delayed their games till next gen to try to use it being the first open world game on next gen to their advantage. It was also going to be one of the few games on PS2 to have ragdoll physics.)

 

For me the main take of it is the fact that SR1-2 are still till this date the only games that somewhat brought arguments over GTA fans in this highly competitive genre and were the only games to cause some competition and still did a lot of things people wanted in GTA games despite what Volition were giving with is a milestone for gaming in my book!

Edited by KingAJ032304
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gettin up

SR is a joke compared to GTA tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KingAJ032304
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Gettin up said:

SR is a joke compared to GTA tho.

Now? I agree. But I simply just can't say that to SR1. Truly nothing wrong with it. In fact the more I think about it, they more I realize the original SR1 actually took it self more serious than GTA SA and arguably VC.

But to reiterate the reason they got to the point was because:

20 minutes ago, KingAJ032304 said:

if people weren't calling it a GTA SA clone than people were giving it the same standards as the most critically claimed video games series of all time

 

Edited by KingAJ032304
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Len Lfc
11 minutes ago, KingAJ032304 said:

SR1 literally had nothing wrong with it. It works exactly as a game that came out 2 years after GTA SA would. In fact I'll argue it had just as much quality as a Rockstar game at the time. While the driving is probably worse than any game in the 3D universe, the character movements and aiming was far ahead among other things. The story itself actually has a pretty high amount of quality to it even though it's really short. This was a game made in development since 2002 I mind you. For SR2 they made the purposeful decision to use SR1 engine back in 2004 and try to bring enough quantity and unique open world stuff (such as a surprisingly destructible environment and more depth to interiors that rivals and arguably surpasses GTA IVs) to the table that made it unique till this date even at noticeable cost of quality because they wanted to get the quality good enough that its entertaining for what I would call switchers (such as myself). It's a different approach. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it for what they were giving. For SR3+ I mostly agree with you but there's a fundamental problem with that argument that always get brought up. The problem with that argument is GTA is profiting off money from the fact that they were top dawgs back in the PS2 era and were cashing in sh*t loads of money that alone far surpasses the SR games till date. Your forgetting they also were in the same situation as the early SR games where they had mediocre or even bad controls (especially GTA III and VC which have aged horribly), relatively bad graphics and visuals for PS2 standards, used the same engine multiple times, meh sound system and sound effect, and lacked basic swimming for 3/5 games. They were churning out games with the same engine (with the psp games being an overall downgrade) and they were average in production even for their time. And the 2D universe didn't make them much money either. But because people could forgive them of these mishaps for how unique, fun, and addicting they were, they made a sh*t load of money which allowed them to make the truly innovative sequel that showed what the new generation of console were capable of only 2 years after the release of GTA VCS and 4 years after SA with me talking about GTA IV of course. And Rockstar kept raising that bar with each release making a sh*t load more money than the last in their respective series. So OF COURSE they will have high quality when you have people buying 2 generations of the same game full price. It's stuff like this why GTA does innovative stuff, it doesn't really "impress me", it's more of an expectancy than anything. Like "oh cool the new gta has this or is about this, look at the graphics and voice acting, the details and scale of the open world etc." For me it's like they BETTER be raising the bar consistently with their sh*t load of money profiting as the most critically acclaimed video game of all time. Saints Row however never got to that point because if people weren't calling it a GTA SA clone than people were giving it the same standards as the most critically claimed video games series of all time which is truly unfair giving the fact that Volition NEVER made an open world game before (while with Rockstar it was more and the fact that they got it so right in their first attempt with the same true love and passion seen in Rockstar Games is an achievement to me. (And no they were cashing in with the SR series, they really just wanted to make an open world game and got inspired by GTA to also try to make an improved version of GTA with "everything having a purpose" and staying in line with the main plot at all times. They had to delayed their games till next gen to try to use it being the first open world game on next gen to their advantage. It was also going to be one of the few games on PS2 to have ragdoll physics.) For me the main take of it is the fact that SR1-2 are still till this date the only games that somewhat brought arguments over GTA fans in this highly competitive genre and were the only games to cause some competition and still did a lot of things people wanted in GTA games despite what Volition were giving with is a milestone for gaming in my book!

This post is in dire need of some formatting, by the way. But I don't see how any of that is really relevant.Your initial argument was that Saints Row did all that in 7 years. My point is that Rockstar stress over the small details. They really care about attention to detail in their games, and they work hard to make their games as immersive as possible. Volition just made some cool fun games that take a lot less time to make. (which isn't a criticism, I like the Saints Row games. They're quite fun) Great games aren't defined by how long they take to make. But if they match their ambitions and do it well. You can make the most fun arcade party game in 2 years and it may get a 10/10. Or you can spend 5 years on an open world western and also get a 10/10. It's case by case. 

 

The argument that 7 years is a long time was kinda' pointless. Because as I pointed out, for 5 of those 7 years, Rockstar Studios were working solely on RDR2. It's like complaining to CD Project Red, saying "it's been 5 years, where the f*ck is Witcher 4!?" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KingAJ032304
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Len Lfc said:

This post is in dire need of some formatting, by the way. But I don't see how any of that is really relevant.Your initial argument was that Saints Row did all that in 7 years. My point is that Rockstar stress over the small details. They really care about attention to detail in their games, and they work hard to make their games as immersive as possible. Volition just made some cool fun games that take a lot less time to make. (which isn't a criticism, I like the Saints Row games. They're quite fun) Great games aren't defined by how long they take to make. But if they match their ambitions and do it well. You can make the most fun arcade party game in 2 years and it may get a 10/10. Or you can spend 5 years on an open world western and also get a 10/10. It's case by case. 

 

The argument that 7 years is a long time was kinda' pointless. Because as I pointed out, for 5 of those 7 years, Rockstar Studios were working solely on RDR2. It's like complaining to CD Project Red, saying "it's been 5 years, where the f*ck is Witcher 4!?" 

Sorry my original post was a joke saying how in the same series we saw a game completely change genres and tone in the same time frame and had nothing to do with the making of the games (hope that made sense). Did not in anyway represent my argument.

 

Anyways Volition had the same mindset of making details as the GTA games back in SR1 and arguably 2 (important to note that SR1 has a fair amount of details that were lost in SR2 in exchange for a different direction. I think the original idea was to combine SR1's quality and enhance it with SR2 quantity and enhance that as well for future titles), the difference is they don't get talked about nearly as much as the 3D GTA games and the future Saints Row games almost sh*t on the reputation of the old games (the new games of course lack any detail whatsoever and is one of the VERY few times I seen a series of any entertainment product lack on both quantity and quality with seemingly nothing to try to even somewhat compensate for the quality drop besides "oh we're so WACKYYY".)

 

I truly think the first two had the ambition and potential but just couldn't pull it off at the time. Essentially in my argument, I ignore the existence of the latter two games as those just... they really just ruined the appeal ugh.

 

(By the way I agree what you said about the 7 year argument and always refer to it when people talk about GTA VI, I had no problem with the wait and just wished they actually gave us SOME info and communicated with their community like another developer I referred to but oh well that's Rockstar for ya. But I will be sorely disappointed if GTA VI still doesn't have AT LEAST SR2 level of interiors even if it doesn't have environmental destruction because once again the improvements in GTA games are more of an expectation for me)

Edited by KingAJ032304
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Len Lfc
5 minutes ago, KingAJ032304 said:

they don't get talked about nearly as much as the 3D GTA games

Because the Saints Row games don't have the same level of satire or homage to film that the GTA games did. And GTA came first. The writing and humour in the GTA games were by far and away better than Saints Row. And I have to disagree about the detail in the Saints Row games. For it's time in 2006, it was okay. But we saw the first trailer for GT AIV in 2006, and there's no comparison at all. Even compared to San Andreas, visually it's close. But attention to detail is more than just visuals. I'm actually playing ALL the Saints Row games, right now. Currently half way through Saints Row IV. A lot of fun. But nothing on GTA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zello
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gettin up said:

SR is a joke compared to GTA tho.

Saints Row 1 and 2 still manage to do things that GTA hasn't done to this day.

 

They were one of the first open world games to use a GPS system instead of setting waypoints like the old 3D era games. Rockstar would later on add a GPS in IV.

 

MP3 players. So you can listen to music anywhere, anytime on foot. Still hasn't been seen in GTA.

 

Drive thrus. Like if you aren't going to give us restaurant interiors give us the next best thing Drive thrus.

BRVGRG9.png?1

I still can't believe Saints Row did that all the way back in 2006.

 

I'm also probably forgetting some stuff. But there's more.

Edited by Zello
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KingAJ032304
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Len Lfc said:

Because the Saints Row games don't have the same level of satire or homage to film that the GTA games did. And GTA came first. The writing and humour in the GTA games were by far and away better than Saints Row. And I have to disagree about the detail in the Saints Row games. For it's time in 2006, it was okay. But we saw the first trailer for GT AIV in 2006, and there's no comparison at all. Even compared to San Andreas, visually it's close. But attention to detail is more than just visuals. I'm actually playing ALL the Saints Row games, right now. Currently half way through Saints Row IV. A lot of fun. But nothing on GTA.

In terms of humor and writing SR1 had a different approach. Honestly it came off really artistic to me. Wasn't exactly satirically but more surreal and was inspired by culture and was supposed to be very relatable to a lot kinda like GTA III. In GTA VC and SR2+ the game had a lot of stereotypical elements full of cliches but this wasn't really present in SR1. The game really allowed you to escape from mainstream essentially. Stilwater was chosen as an urban city that had nothing really special to it by design. Everybody looked normal. All of the city and clothes shined to put you in the perspective of a gang who's very materialistic. The game also had the typical "in the end, real gangsters never live happily forever after" vibe to it aswell. It really felt underground. (SR2 onwards kinda forget the time placement and the urban ground culture and feels really generic) 

 

Volition also talked about how they wanted SR1's story to make sense just as much as any gangster movie and wasn't the biggest fan of GTA SA storytelling. SR1 writing and production is actually pretty sharp and shows genuine love. And it's funny because originally SR1 was more grounded than GTA VC and SA which why it didn't have the military or tanks and to an extent air/watercraft (the latter was most likely because they were really focusing on just getting the game working and they talk about how much of a pain adding flying was in SR2 10th year anniversary) For reference, read the Saints Row developer diaries. There's six of them and Fl1ppy (the og Saints Row fan) does a pretty good job talking about the six diary:

skip to 10:23

The six diary: http://xbox360.gamespy.com/xbox-360/saints-row/725023p1.html

But one I STRONGLY recommend to truly see my argument of the original Saints Row is the inside developer interview with Volition:

Unlike SR2+ (and even GTA outside GTA IV), SR1 is a game exclusively made on subtlety and charm being the exact same experience in and out the story, missions open world, multiplayer, activities, cutseens, and even title screen which is why so the game feels so smooth and immersive.

 

And about the trailer for GTA IV. Once again I just don't get impressed. I'm glad Rockstar WENT that direction don't get me wrong. And I love GTA IV. But on the technical side, it's still an expectancy. But the funny thing is GTA IV really reminds me of Saints Row 1 in A LOT of ways with the biggest being the artistic view on real life. But the ABSOLUTE MOST important thing to do when talking about SR is to isolate each game and obverse the differences between. Because when you start grouping the games together, you start clouding the true identity of each Saints Row game with SR1 identity really best described ass being the odds one out in the series and can stand on its own (and honestly should have been a different series) Seriously they differences between SR1 subtle quality over quantity approach and SR2 arcadey quantity with some quality approaches are huge.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Zello said:

Saints Row 1 and 2 still manage to do things that GTA hasn't done to this day.

 

They were one of the first open world games to use a GPS system instead of setting waypoints like the old 3D era games. Rockstar would later on add a GPS in IV.

 

MP3 players. So you can listen to music anywhere, anytime on foot. Still hasn't been seen in GTA.

 

Drive thrus. Like if you aren't going to give us restaurant interiors give us the next best thing Drive thrus.

BRVGRG9.png?1

I still can't believe Saints Row did that all the way back in 2006.

 

I'm also probably forgetting some stuff. But there's more.

I'll never forget an interview saying how SR2 copied the cellphone system and cheat system from GTA IV and said it lacked originality...

Edited by KingAJ032304
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KingAJ032304
Posted (edited)

I truly think the reason SR1 didn't hit much is because subtly and mainstream just DON'T mix.

Edited by KingAJ032304
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eternal Moonshine
On 8/12/2020 at 11:05 PM, Zello said:

They were one of the first open world games to use a GPS system instead of setting waypoints like the old 3D era games. Rockstar would later on add a GPS in IV.

I might be the only person who doesn't like that feature. I liked waypoints better. I don't like having to stare at the minimap and wait for the right turn. I'd rather just set a waypoint and figure out to get from A to B on my own. These games are becoming way too easy 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonFolo

I loved Saints row 2. I think Saints row could have potentially rivalled GTA if they invested more into the Co-Op and kept the multiplayer around as well.

 

Its just sad that no new GTA has been released for so long. I wouldn't even mind a proper DLC (even if it was like a GTA undead nightmare). 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zello
5 hours ago, Eternal Moonshine said:

I might be the only person who doesn't like that feature. I liked waypoints better. I don't like having to stare at the minimap and wait for the right turn. I'd rather just set a waypoint and figure out to get from A to B on my own. These games are becoming way too easy 

You must be crazy. Waypoints are a nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GhettoJesus
1 hour ago, Zello said:

You must be crazy. Waypoints are a nightmare.

I feel like I memorized the map of San Andreas faster than I did IV's or V's. Of course there is a difference on the time I spent on these games but once I stopped using the GPS in V's free roam to find a garage or such I started to memorize more of the map. Of course each to their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eternal Moonshine
1 hour ago, Zello said:

You must be crazy. Waypoints are a nightmare.

how come? i never had any problems finding my way around the city before they introduced GPS. i prefer that over hand holding TBH. they already made those games so much easier. like we have health regen, checkpoints and mission skips, GPS. you could say those are life quality improvements but i guess i'm a bit old school about those things. not that any of it bothers me or anything but i liked things the way they were

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zello
8 minutes ago, Eternal Moonshine said:

how come? i never had any problems finding my way around the city before they introduced GPS. i prefer that over hand holding TBH. they already made those games so much easier. like we have health regen, checkpoints and mission skips, GPS. you could say those are life quality improvements but i guess i'm a bit old school about those things. not that any of it bothers me or anything but i liked things the way they were

I agree with the health regeneration I hate health regeneration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KingAJ032304
4 hours ago, Zello said:

I agree with the health regeneration I hate health regeneration. 

Funny thing is the no checkpoint but still having mission restarts in SR1 was perfect imo but oh well you know it is in gaming.

Share this post


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

I think what really gets on people's nerves is Rockstar's complete silence. If only they could do what Bethesda did and show a glimpse of Vice City with GTA VI logo, we wouldn't have had this thread right here, because people would have finally exhaled with peace and excitement after all these years, knowing that the thing actually exists, knowing what kind of setting to expect and looking forward to the bright future fantasizing about all the cool features and the storyline. Dead silence is what kills them.

Edited by RenegadeAngel
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Len Lfc
10 minutes ago, RenegadeAngel said:

I think what really gets on people's nerves is Rockstar's complete silence. If only they could do what Bethesda did and show a glimpse of Vice City with GTA VI logo, we wouldn't have had this thread right here, because people would have finally exhaled with peace and excitement after all these years, knowing that the thing actually exists, knowing what kind of setting to expect and looking forward to the bright future fantasizing about all the cool features and the storyline. Dead silence is what kills them.

Oh we would. Rockstar announced GTA V, and aside from around 9 screenshots in the summer, they said nothing for 12 months. People were pretty mad and pissed. People will always be mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RenegadeAngel
Just now, Len Lfc said:

Oh we would. Rockstar announced GTA V, and aside from around 9 screenshots in the summer, they said nothing for 12 months. People were pretty mad and pissed. People will always be mad.

Perhaps you're right and I'm too optimistic :) Well, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been that bad at least lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Len Lfc
7 minutes ago, RenegadeAngel said:

Perhaps you're right and I'm too optimistic :) Well, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been that bad at least lol.

Yeah, it's different now, as it's been 7 years. They could announce it super early and say nothing for 2 or 3 years, and people would get mad they won't tell us more. Or they could wait to announce it and people would complain they haven't announced it yet. There's no winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CM1
Posted (edited)
On 8/22/2020 at 8:01 AM, Len Lfc said:

Oh we would. Rockstar announced GTA V, and aside from around 9 screenshots in the summer, they said nothing for 12 months. People were pretty mad and pissed. People will always be mad.

That is patently inaccurate. You're very quick to make excuses for them, but some of those excuses have holes in them. A full on trailer is not "saying nothing".

 

I don't see point of constantly condescending to people who express concern and disappointment. At this point, it's valid. They botched delivering RDR2 in a timely and efficient manner, thus causing a domino effect with other plans.

 

They started RD2 production in 2012, not 2013. It overlapped GTA V development, yet somehow you have an issue with plausibility that VI and RDR2 would overlap.

 

Instead they're trying to rehash the same damn map, likely with little to no improved/new story is irksome and a cynical grab at money after 8 years to fund their easy to make GTAO. Please get off of it, as it's absurd. And frankly, I don't care about Cyberpunk or what other companies do in this respect.

Edited by CM1
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3Peat
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CM1 said:

That is patently inaccurate. You're very quick to make excuses for them, but some of those excuses have holes in them. A full on trailer is not "saying nothing".

 

I don't see point of constantly condescending to people who express concern and disappointment. At this point, it's valid. They botched delivering RDR2 in a timely and efficient manner, thus causing a domino effect with other plans.

 

They started RD2 production in 2012, not 2013. It overlapped GTA V development, yet somehow you have an issue with plausibility that VI and RDR2 would overlap.

 

Instead they're trying to rehash the same damn map, likely with little to no improved/new story is irksome and a cynical grab at money after 8 years to fund their easy to make GTAO. Please get off of it, as it's absurd. And frankly, I don't care about Cyberpunk or what other companies do in this respect.

Good point.

 

This is similar to what I was saying in the speculation thread a few days ago. After all of the time they have spent rehashing V as you say, and constantly making updates for Online, no one thinks this is taking away from VI’s release? Especially since fans have said that they are tackling one game at a time. I know this is a forum for fans but a company releasing three iterations of a game on three console cycles is crazy.
 

I never thought I would even see anything like this a few years back. Not while everyone has been waiting for the follow up going on 6 years now. Fans would have you told you they were sure that VI would be here by mid 2018, not only did that not happen but 2 years later we haven’t gotten it and we know we won’t get it for at least another year. That’s 8 whole years. 2 more years and we become that hopeless and desperate fan base. I would have laughed at you if you told me a game publisher was planning on doing this.

 

They haven’t even officially acknowledged it. That’s my main gripe. I could see if we were complaining about not seeing a trailer or something but sheesh we don’t even KNOW if it’s coming, just that it’s in “early stages of development”. I know games that stayed perpetually in the early stages of development. These guys get angry if you say that though.

Edited by 3Peat
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Len Lfc
11 hours ago, CM1 said:

That is patently inaccurate. You're very quick to make excuses for them

It's not an excuse I'm making for them. It's a criticism against them. You joined here in 2018, so you weren't here throughout 2012 (The Info Drought, The Dark Days), when we were waiting for more info on GTA V, and got nothing but 9 screenshots in the summer. So it's absolutely accurate. After announcing the game and showing the trailer, they pretty much said nothing about the game for 12 months. That's not condescending people, it's just pointing out something that happened before = Even when Rockstar do announce their game, people will still be upset when they don't say anything for a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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