Jump to content

GTA 6 Speculation & Discussion [Part 5.69]


Spider-Vice

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Kris194 said:

Rockstar desperately needs new IP.

If it takes them 10+ years to get a series sequel out, then a new IP is highly unwelcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Len Lfc said:

If it takes them 10+ years to get a series sequel out, then a new IP is highly unwelcome. 

 

I was thinking about this the other day; wondering if they'd ever separate studios a bit more again so sequels can get released more frequently from each other. What do you think is a reasonable time between games though if GTA and Red Dead were their only mega hitters? It'd be weird, for example, to get a Red Dead even a year or so after a GTA, and in a way RDR2 feels even more special because it came so long after the previous one.

  • Like 2
  • Best Bru 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheatz/Trickz
2 hours ago, Len Lfc said:

If it takes them 10+ years to get a series sequel out, then a new IP is highly unwelcome. 

 

It was honestly worth the wait for RDR2. Quality takes time especially now that graphics are what they are. 

 

I don't think GTA 6, if it exists, has been in full development for that long really. A lot of people online seem to think the game has been worked on since 2013, and that just makes no sense. Concepts maybe, early drafts of story etc, but they had the V remaster to do, and only managed to put out one game made specifically for the PS4/One generation and that was RDR2, and that took up all the studio's attention. I think Houser walking out has left the game in some kind of limbo. 

 

Edited by Cheatz/Trickz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they need to separate studios again to come out with new projects because they could hypothetically always allocate teams within the global group. If it was a smaller project/new IP it wouldn't really necessarily mean they'd take 10 years to release it, especially if it was something smaller/more linear/etc... It would be very welcome to me.

 

I don't want to see sequels of mainline big hitters (i.e. GTA and RDR) being released more frequently, because the time they take to produce is part of what allows them to be more special tech and story/gameplay wise, and it's worth it. Don't rush these. If they had a project designed to release at a quicker cadence, to me, I'd rather have it be a new IP or something. I really want to see R* tackling a more linear narrative-focused experience again a la Max Payne 3 but much better tbh, or something like The Last of Us 2.

 

Granted, that would still take quite a while... Games production is not done quick these days. Demanding something quick from a AAA studio is just not something we'll have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Len Lfc said:

If it takes them 10+ years to get a series sequel out, then a new IP is highly unwelcome. 

I don't really share this mindset myself, though I am probably in the minority here. If a new IP was highly unwelcome, we would never see RDR1 (yes technically Revolver was the first game, but Redemption is quite a bit different, proper open world with lots of budget behind it). It was a huge gamble to bring the western genre into the mainstream and they succeeded. Hell, not many people even believed that GTA 3 would be successful when it made its transition to 3D. It wasn't a new IP, yeah, but top-down GTAs weren't even close to the critical and commercial success of GTA 3 and subsequent titles. A new IP can easily become a huge hit and be beloved by many R* fans.

That's why I respect Bethesda for making Starfield instead of just sticking it TES & Fallout. They are doing something new, fresh and exciting. And it will still have that "Bethesda DNA" as they say. Rockstar could do the same. They don't have to create something that is totally outside of what they do (like a Table Tennis sequel lol), but something like a realistic open world game - just in a different time period and with a different setting. The potential is enormous and it would be infinitely more exciting than making GTA/RDR sequels to the end of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheatz/Trickz
2 minutes ago, Spider-Vice said:

I don't think they need to separate studios again to come out with new projects because they can always allocate teams within the global group. If it was a smaller project/new IP it wouldn't really necessarily mean they'd take 10 years to release it, especially if it was something smaller/more linear/etc... It would be very welcome to me.

 

I don't want to see sequels of mainline big hitters (e.g. GTA and RDR) being released more frequently because the time they take to produce is part of what allows them to be more special tech and story/gameplay wise, and it's worth it. Don't rush these. If they had a project designed to release at a quicker cadence, to me, I'd rather have it be a new IP or something. I really want to see R* tackling a more linear narrative-focused experience again a la Max Payne 3 but much better tbh, or something like The Last of Us 2.

 

Granted, that would still take quite a while... Games production is not done quick these days. Demanding something quick from a AAA studio is just not something we'll have, unless it's a crap game.

 

I want to see them do another linear game too but please tell me you mean like Last of Us 2 gameplay...and not story. 

 

Anyway, I dunno if we're ever going to see Rockstar do any more one off games like your Manhunts or your Warriors. Games just take too friggin' long to make now, and a new IP is always gonna be in danger of being shot down by the execs who will just want to milk established names. Suppose Rockstar did tease something, not a title, just a "we are finally gonna announce our newest game in a week" type of thing on twitter or something, and it turns out it's not GTA 6 but a new IP. That new IP is already off to a terrible start through no fault of its own, just because of how much GTA 6 has been built up. The collective disappointment at it not being GTA 6 would massively outweigh any excitement for the new IP. 

  • Like 1
  • Best Bru 1
  • excuseme 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The marketing strategy for a new IP would certainly have to be different, that's a given. :p 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Spider-Vice said:

The marketing strategy for a new IP would certainly have to be different, that's a given. :p 

If the next game is Bully 2 (not sure if it is), their marketing strategy could be bullying so make sure you have your lunch money on hand

  • Like 1
  • KEKW 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly wouldn’t surprise me if rockstar create a battle Royale game considering the profit it brings in. 

Could even be one on gta 6 online

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kris194 said:

Rockstar desperately needs new IP.

How about a first person shooter game by R*?! 

Edited by WanteD1
  • Like 1
  • KEKW 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yolobigman said:

Honestly wouldn’t surprise me if rockstar create a battle Royale game considering the profit it brings in. 

 

19 minutes ago, WanteD1 said:

How about a first person shooter game by R*?! 

If that's what devs want to create then I wouldn't mind. I would like new IP to be more about creativity than big bucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And It Came To Pass

Rockstar Games should set up more studios, the size of Rockstar Games, within Rockstar Games. That way, whilst Rockstar Games works on rockstar games, they can also work on rockstar games, so we can have twice as many games from Rockstar Games.

 

Tap-head.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yolobigman said:

Honestly wouldn’t surprise me if rockstar create a battle Royale game considering the profit it brings in. 

Could even be one on gta 6 online

 

Isn't there already an adversary mode very similar to PUBG in GTA Online? I imagine they'll have something even closer in E&E with it's likely increased player count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Zello said:

I think they bring back their old dead franchises like Midnight Club.

It’d be crazy if they brought back Oni and made Oni 2 :kekw:

I don't think a new Midnight Club would be necessary to Rockstar's eyes, because racing is something Rockstar can implement into GTA itself, Los Santos Tuners is basically a new Midnight Club inside GTA Online, like it or not.

11 hours ago, Kris194 said:

Rockstar desperately needs new IP.

Yeah, we can't have only GTAs and Red Deads from now on, we need at least one more franchise.

 

10 hours ago, Len Lfc said:

If it takes them 10+ years to get a series sequel out, then a new IP is highly unwelcome. 

Nothing new from Rockstar is highly unwelcome, as soon as people see the Rockstar Games logo on the screen and see that it's not a 50th re-release of GTA 5, they'll get excited.

 

8 hours ago, Kirsty said:

 

I was thinking about this the other day; wondering if they'd ever separate studios a bit more again so sequels can get released more frequently from each other. What do you think is a reasonable time between games though if GTA and Red Dead were their only mega hitters? It'd be weird, for example, to get a Red Dead even a year or so after a GTA, and in a way RDR2 feels even more special because it came so long after the previous one.

I think the ideal thing to do would be release another game between GTAs and Red Deads to easy up the wait between their two main franchises.

 

7 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

It was honestly worth the wait for RDR2. Quality takes time especially now that graphics are what they are. 

 

I don't think GTA 6, if it exists, has been in full development for that long really. A lot of people online seem to think the game has been worked on since 2013, and that just makes no sense. Concepts maybe, early drafts of story etc, but they had the V remaster to do, and only managed to put out one game made specifically for the PS4/One generation and that was RDR2, and that took up all the studio's attention. I think Houser walking out has left the game in some kind of limbo. 

 

Let's just wait and see, I don't think Rockstar would be crazy enough to risk its next title to be a failure, especially from its main franchise and source of income, they have a reputation to preserve and they would even hire Hollywood directors to replace Dan Houser and Lazlow if necessary, don't ever forget how deep their pockets are.

  • Like 2
  • Best Bru 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Dudu RDRII said:

I don't think a new Midnight Club would be necessary to Rockstar's eyes, because racing is something Rockstar can implement into GTA itself, Los Santos Tuners is basically a new Midnight Club inside GTA Online, like it or not.

Nah man. Midnight Club has different gameplay mechanics from GTA it doesn't matter how detailed tuners is GTA will never be like Midnight Club. There's also the fact that Midnight Club uses real cars something that GTA will never do.

  • Like 2
  • Best Bru 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Spider-Vice said:

I don't think they need to separate studios again to come out with new projects because they can always allocate teams within the global group. If it was a smaller project/new IP it wouldn't really necessarily mean they'd take 10 years to release it, especially if it was something smaller/more linear/etc... It would be very welcome to me.

 

I don't want to see sequels of mainline big hitters (i.e. GTA and RDR) being released more frequently, because the time they take to produce is part of what allows them to be more special tech and story/gameplay wise, and it's worth it. Don't rush these. If they had a project designed to release at a quicker cadence, to me, I'd rather have it be a new IP or something. I really want to see R* tackling a more linear narrative-focused experience again a la Max Payne 3 but much better tbh, or something like The Last of Us 2.

 

Granted, that would still take quite a while... Games production is not done quick these days. Demanding something quick from a AAA studio is just not something we'll have.

I also think that Max Payne 3 was a good game, but not as good as some people says it is, they praise it a lot for its shooting mechanics, but we can't even toss a damn granade in its story mode, only in its online mode, not to mention the scenarios where some locations looks good, while others looks kinda rushed, the vehicles design isn't good, even for something we can't interact with and enemies are way too generic, always cursing in a cringy way (I'm brazilian, so I know), among other issues. With all of that in mind, I sure hope that if Rockstar is creating a brand new franchise, they're doing a slight better job than in Max Payne 3, it's a good game that could've been better if not for some very obvious flaws and its extremely depressive vibe which don't make you wanna play it as often as other games.

1 hour ago, Zello said:

Nah man. Midnight Club has different gameplay mechanics from GTA it doesn't matter how detailed tuners is GTA will never be like Midnight Club. There's also the fact that Midnight Club uses real cars something that GTA will never do.

We'll have to wait and see what the future will bring us then.

 

7 hours ago, 0909090 said:

I don't really share this mindset myself, though I am probably in the minority here. If a new IP was highly unwelcome, we would never see RDR1 (yes technically Revolver was the first game, but Redemption is quite a bit different, proper open world with lots of budget behind it). It was a huge gamble to bring the western genre into the mainstream and they succeeded. Hell, not many people even believed that GTA 3 would be successful when it made its transition to 3D. It wasn't a new IP, yeah, but top-down GTAs weren't even close to the critical and commercial success of GTA 3 and subsequent titles. A new IP can easily become a huge hit and be beloved by many R* fans.

That's why I respect Bethesda for making Starfield instead of just sticking it TES & Fallout. They are doing something new, fresh and exciting. And it will still have that "Bethesda DNA" as they say. Rockstar could do the same. They don't have to create something that is totally outside of what they do (like a Table Tennis sequel lol), but something like a realistic open world game - just in a different time period and with a different setting. The potential is enormous and it would be infinitely more exciting than making GTA/RDR sequels to the end of time.

You simply took the words out of my mouth, but I couldn't have said it better myself.

7 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

I want to see them do another linear game too but please tell me you mean like Last of Us 2 gameplay...and not story. 

 

Anyway, I dunno if we're ever going to see Rockstar do any more one off games like your Manhunts or your Warriors. Games just take too friggin' long to make now, and a new IP is always gonna be in danger of being shot down by the execs who will just want to milk established names. Suppose Rockstar did tease something, not a title, just a "we are finally gonna announce our newest game in a week" type of thing on twitter or something, and it turns out it's not GTA 6 but a new IP. That new IP is already off to a terrible start through no fault of its own, just because of how much GTA 6 has been built up. The collective disappointment at it not being GTA 6 would massively outweigh any excitement for the new IP. 

I don't think Rockstar cares about those 10 years old GTA 6 fanboys at all, they've been doing this for years already, even before RDR2 was a thing.

 

4 hours ago, WanteD1 said:

How about a first person shooter game by R*?! 

GTA 5 and RDR2 already have the option to play in first or third person view, that's probably something they'll keep doing in all their new games from now on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Dudu RDRII said:

A 9 years time jump isn't a 30 to 40 years time jump.

??? Michael is 45, i dont see how a guy thats 55 is much different 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yarrow said:

??? Michael is 45, i dont see how a guy thats 55 is much different 

They are older and can't move as fast. I don't want super old protagonists that sh*t is not fun.

 

For me the ideal age of a protagonist is between the ages of 28-43. 

Edited by Zello
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Zello said:

They are older and can't move as fast. I don't want super old protagonists that sh*t is not fun.

 

For me the ideal age of a protagonist is between the ages of 28-43. 

 

wtf is this, they can still make it realistic but have it "weighted"

 

It would be like max payne or michael

 

we literally have this already, I dont see what the big deal is LOL, Michael already moves like an old man

Edited by Spider-Vice
removed reference to deleted post
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zello said:

They are older and can't move as fast. I don't want super old protagonists that sh*t is not fun.

 

For me the ideal age of a protagonist is between the ages of 28-43. 

I'm fine with whatever age to be honest, Charles is 24 years old in RDR2, 12 years younger than Arthur, and he is a hell of a character, I wouldn't mind playing as him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Yarrow said:

wtf is this, they can still make it realistic but have it "weighted"

 

It would be like max payne or michael

 

we literally have this already, I dont see what the big deal is LOL, Michael already moves like an old man

I don't wanna play as an old guy. Why do you wanna play as an old guy? This isn't retirement home the game. I want someone who's in the middle still young but with some experience in crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy crap that was one of the most childish fights I've had to delete in this thread in a long time. Can we resume normal programming and not bicker like this is two kids in recess having at it? Thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kirsty said:

I was thinking about this the other day; wondering if they'd ever separate studios a bit more again so sequels can get released more frequently from each other. What do you think is a reasonable time between games though if GTA and Red Dead were their only mega hitters? It'd be weird, for example, to get a Red Dead even a year or so after a GTA, and in a way RDR2 feels even more special because it came so long after the previous one.

4 or 5 years, I'd say.

 

It's what I loved about Bethesda Game Studios. They have (had, now) Elder Scrolls and Fallout. And a new game would come every few years. But sadly, that meant there was 7 years between Fallout 3 & Fallout 4. And currently 10+ years ongoing between Elder Scrolls V & VI, because of their new IP, Starfield and Online games (ESO & 76). 

 

Adding a new IP for Rockstar would only delay them further. And I can't see them going back to individual studios making their own games anymore. Their games are just too big and ambitious to go back to that. Unless they significantly scale back... which is also hard to imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Spider-Vice said:

I don't want to see sequels of mainline big hitters (i.e. GTA and RDR) being released more frequently

I have to kind of disagree, there. I get what you're saying, and I do agree with your reasoning, which is why I only 'kind of' disagree... When GTA V released, it was 5 and a half years after GTA IV. Nobody complained it was too soon, in fact it was the opposite. It was part of the reason V was so hyped. It was the longest wait we'd had to date. We're currently set for a 10+ year wait for a sequel to GTA V or RDR2. I don't think more frequent releases is a bad thing to want. People are happy to wait 4, 5 maybe even 6 or 7 years. But when it's over 10 years, people lose patience. And the truth, and reasoning as to why goes out the window. People just get fed up waiting that long. And you can't blame them. 10 years is a significant amount of time.

 

A 3rd IP only extends that wait.

10 hours ago, 0909090 said:

I don't really share this mindset myself, though I am probably in the minority here. If a new IP was highly unwelcome, we would never see RDR1

I get the argument, but where does it end? a 3rd IP? A 4th? Five? At a certain point it becomes too much. If Rockstar take over 10 years to manage 2 IP's, then a 3rd would be too much. Unless it replaced one of them and they 'retire' or rest an IP, like they have done for Max Payne or such. New IP's are welcome and very, very important. But when you have 2 major established IP's that people love, you can't just add more for the sake of it.

 

Even Strauss Zelnick agreed the 8 year wait for RDR2 was too long. I know we aren't just moving on from that and forgetting so easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This talk about a potential new IP reminds me of a quote from Sam Houser:
 

Quote

And he's no a fan of the many executive level bloodsuckers in the world of games. Houser said, "I've been working in this industry for quite a long time. I think it's getting itself into sticky territory when it thinks only sequels and franchises and brands are what people (care) about. These companies are run by these corporate types while the great, creative things (in games) have only really come from guys going, ‘Well, we're gonna make this because that's what we believe in. So that's what we're going to make.'

If there is still a bit of that old Rockstar spirit left in the company, a new IP is likely something Rockstar would very much like to do. It's the reason why I don't feel like they would like to be known for just GTA/RDR for the eternity. We'll see though.
 

8 minutes ago, Len Lfc said:

I get the argument, but where does it end? a 3rd IP? A 4th? Five? At a certain point it becomes too much. If Rockstar take over 10 years to manage 2 IP's, then a 3rd would be too much. Unless it replaced one of them and they 'retire' or rest an IP, like they have done for Max Payne or such. New IP's are welcome and very, very important. But when you have 2 major established IP's that people love, you can't just add more for the sake of it.

 

Even Strauss Zelnick agreed the 8 year wait for RDR2 was too long. I know we aren't just moving on from that and forgetting so easily.

It's just that with new IP they could bring something more innovative than just another sequel to an already established franchise. Those who followed RDR2 in the pre-release know that one of the leaks which correctly stated Arthur's name and the basics of plot suggested that the devs were struggling to make the game appear innovative for the higher ups. Who knows what that meant, but it really got me thinking whether they will have ideas for a sequel(s) that are truly great and would make for a new and innovative experience. Perhaps they will have an idea to abandon the wild west theme and come up with something new. Not entirely different - more like a combination of a familiar and new - different setting, different time period etc. but you would still see many elements of what makes Rockstar game a Rockstar game. 

Are there more ideas for the stories in a western setting? Definitely. It's just that with those games they might feel limited and/or they might not end up as special as previous titles. With a new IP they have a potential to bring something familiar that would attract the fans of previous Rockstar titles and yet also something new that wasn't possible with an established IP. Same goes for GTA, though I assume they have a lot more room for new ideas since there's a lot more time periods and settings to choose from than in a Red Dead game.

I get your perspective though. It may come off as strange, but I am personally more interested in what R* can do outside of these 2 established franchises. I love what they did with RDR2 and I would definitely love them to take on a new concept. Wild West setting isn't exactly the most popular one in the fiction, yet RDR2 managed to appeal to a wide range of players. They could definitely do something else with the similar results. And I love GTA too, I just think a new IP would be infinitely more exciting. It's just my opinion though and this is a GTA 6 forum, so it's only natural if people disagreee.

To be honest, I wasn't too excited about a prospect of a new GTA because I found V to be pretty disappointing, but on the other hand I loved RDR2. So now I am definitely excited to see what's next, be it GTA or something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, 0909090 said:

Those who followed RDR2 in the pre-release know that one of the leaks which correctly stated Arthur's name and the basics of plot suggested that the devs were struggling to make the game appear innovative for the higher ups.

That's why it wouldn't be a bad idea to rest RDR franchise. Let's be honest, how much further Rockstar can push it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way you'll see a new Rockstar IP or new Rockstar game apart from GTA and RDR is if they actually make one or two separate 250-300 man studios to focus on those new titles while the older studios work on the existing IPs while supporting each others work in the meantime.

 

For better or worse Rockstar is just not going to churn out sequels anyway and Take Two certainly won't say no 3-4 brand new Rockstar games in 10 years instead of 2 if they can release them along with all other things they're currently doing, they want faster releases anyway. Rockstar is always expanding but how they're going to allocate that resource is entirely on them, if they want to make a experimental 30-40 hour game in between or they want every man on board with whatever GTA or RDR they're making like they did with RDR2. A totally new title would be great for fans, but for their business, well, people are already running numbers for them. We're gonna see what happens in next 5-10 years, there's honestly no point in talking about the business strategy of the most eldritch video game studio out there.

 

5 minutes ago, Kris194 said:

That's why it wouldn't be a bad idea to rest RDR franchise. Let's be honest, how much further Rockstar can push it?

RDR2 is Rockstar's 2nd most sold game of all time, it surpassed every single GTA except V in just 3 years from launch. There's no f*cking way they'll rest that franchise for a new IP. The amount of time they are taking to make a sequel nowadays means you'll be lucky to get Red Dead 3 in this decade. And Rockstar can easily make 2-3 more Red Dead games, set in 1870s, 60s or 50s and that'll take over 20 years to come out when you count in the GTA releases in between.

 

They still have a huge portion of US west (California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Oregon, Washington etc.) untouched to make a solid Red Dead map and they can even add parts of Canada and Mexico if they want more. Hell they haven't even made any game that takes place during the goddamn Civil War or a game with a Native American or a Black protagonist that'd change things up significantly. There's literally tons of ways Red Dead can continue and there certainly ain't no dearth of materials to take inspiration from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 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.