A Note/Update from Rockstar regarding the Trilogy Definitive Edition

[Algonquin Assassin]

3 hours ago, ChubbyB0b said:

It is. Vice City is bigger than III. It's just that LC is more compact and it creates an illusion of being bigger. Those are their sizes:

• GTA III: 8.12sq km
• GTA VC: 9.11sq km

Not much bigger.

 

It also has a lot to do with GTA III’s Liberty City having 3 main islands as opposed to 2 in Vice City and that Shoreside Vale gives the illusion of being connected to landmass.

[Lock n' Stock]

Watched this video by House Hexagon recently and it has changed my perception a little bit on who is really responsible for letting this horrible remaster turn out the way it is. Basically he goes over how Take-Two may have potentially forced Rockstar to put the DE out and make them outsource to GSG so as to not compromise development on GTA VI.

 

 

I still refuse to believe that R* is entirely blameless however. Take-Turd is definitely a horrible influence but I'm not entirely convinced the state of current Rockstar isn't due to a large amount of complacency on their part. The way I see it, they're both two sides of the same coin.

 

He also makes a good point at the end that remakes/remasters are overrated, and it's better to look towards the future. The problem is I don't really see a good future for this franchise with all the sh*t that's gone on in the past 2 years alone. Even if GTA VI ends up being good, it'll still very likely be milked and monetized out the arse for a good decade just like GTA V has.

[Spider-Vice]

The remasters being outsourced isn't the entire issue, it's more *who* they were outsourced to. There are good remaster studios out there, I think they just went with GSG because there was a pre-existing business relationship - problem being, they already had been questionable with some of the previous mobile ports, such as R*'s own San Andreas, so that alone, from a developer's perspective, should have been a reason to seek someone else.

 

Lucid obviously wasn't a choice either because they stole from the modding community for GTA LCS, but I'm sure they could've gotten someone else to tackle those remasters (and, despite that, I do think the GTA LCS port was relatively solid?). I'm sure more studios out there are fans of the trilogy games enough to know how to deal with them. GSG are clearly fans but... also clearly didn't have the right vision for it - and some of the design decisions, alongside just leaving the script source code and localisation tools in the game files carelessly, and the comments in the code, almost looks like they were trolling R*.

I obviously have a lot of respect for any game developer, developing and producing games, remasters or not, good games or not, isn't easy, but GSG's handling of this specific project left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth in regards to their seriousness.

 

Reiterating my first point, obviously it was R* higher-up fault for going with GSG again and I have a feeling they learned this the hard way now that what's done is done, but then I also feel like GSG also took advantage of this. Two sides at fault.

 

All in all, the remasters DO do some things right, and albeit I don't think the art style for the character models etc. is ever gonna change, IMO it's not completely unsaveable on the patching department (according to SteamDB there's still patches in development and they have the mobile version still slated for this fiscal year), but what they did do wrong can be jarring in comparison.

 

I finished GTA VC and I have to say that other than some questionable art choices and all the blind (didn't check it in post) AI-based texture upscaling, it wasn't that bad of an experience and I completed it and even did some of the side missions. GTA III isn't awful either and I do like what they did with the environment art - the character art and general tone of the game (weather, colour, etc.) being the biggest criticisms, but GTA SA was a bit of a mixed disaster with completely buggered collisions (e.g. Mount Chiliad), bad map placements, questionable character models and art bugs that made it to release, weird control schemes on PC (I can't finish Vertical Bird on KB/M) and performance issues - but I did like what they did with some of the environments such as the forests in Flint and Red County, making them more dense etc.

 

With just a bit more love I think they could've been a lot better, because there's good things in them, but the bad things can be too bad.

[arisfelbonilla]

41 minutes ago, Lock n' Stock said:

He also makes a good point at the end that remakes/remasters are overrated, and it's better to look towards the future. The problem is I don't really see a good future for this franchise with all the sh*t that's gone on in the past 2 years alone. Even if GTA VI ends up being good, it'll still very likely be milked and monetized out the arse for a good decade just like GTA V has

Being honest, Rockstar surely didn't want to do these remasters, but take two did.
R already makes a new game there it stays
they look more at the new ones than the old ones
since if they wanted
would they do better?

[VCPR]

3 hours ago, Spider-Vice said:

The remasters being outsourced isn't the entire issue, it's more *who* they were outsourced to. There are good remaster studios out there, I think they just went with GSG because there was a pre-existing business relationship - problem being, they already had been questionable with some of the previous mobile ports, such as R*'s own San Andreas, so that alone, from a developer's perspective, should have been a reason to seek someone else.

forme, you are the last person who would criticize R*; i'm glad that you wrote this

[Spider-Vice]

I wrote this same thing in a long-form article in November (which means more text and more nuance) that I even posted on socials...  

[Americana]

In my opinion Grove Street Games is that kind of a company which doesn't give a f*ck about details.

 

And sometimes details are the most important.

[DavidReyes2250]

I feel that this topic has already spread quite unnecessarily, because we are just going around and around the matter with things that we all already know.
We already know that these remasters weren't made an "DEFINITIVE" way and only exist to take your $60 out of your pocket; We already know that having hired GSG for the creation of these remasters was the biggest mistake of R*/T2; We already know that this remastered trilogy was tremendous hoax by promoting itself as AAA games; And above all, we would all have wanted this trilogy to have had the best remastering in history because these games mean a lot in the saga and more for those who played them in their time, but sadly it was quite the opposite and the remastered trilogy leaves much, much, much to be desired.

 

GTA San Andreas means a lot to me really, because it's my favorite game in the series for various reasons, including EMOTIONAL reasons. Believe me I'm hurt by the fact that it's the game with the most errors of the remastered trilogy and I'm sure many feel the same way I do (if it's not for SA, it's for VC and/or III).

 

 

In short, the only thing I wish with all this already said, is that this trilogy revives in a dignified and DEFINITIVE way, either by returning the original games, fixing these remasters 100% or doing them again from scratch but this time made by authentic professionals (I admit that the latter I see quite unlikely).

Edited August 25 by DavidReyes2250

[jdfsociety]

7 hours ago, DavidReyes2250 said:

In short, the only thing I wish with all this already said, is that this trilogy revives in a dignified and DEFINITIVE way, either by returning the original games, fixing these remasters 100% or doing them again from scratch but this time made by authentic professionals (I admit that the latter I see quite unlikely).

 

 

I can't imagine Rockstar doing it (I'll be happy as long as they optimise the DE) but with the 2003 game XIII, the reception upon release of the remaster in 2020 was so bad that they eventually hired a different studio to remake the game again and get it right. That's for XIII, which was a great game but nowhere near as well known or influential as III, VC and SA were. 

Edited August 25 by jdfsociety

[Spadge]

I still have all the disc versions of the original games. Vice City, III & San Andreas. The product, the art realized by an artist, becomes it's own, seperate, entity once it's released to the public, and it surpasses the artist. It's no longer his property.

 

I don't trust Rockstar to take care of these IPs, it will be more likely the community will take care better care of these classic titles than Rockstar ever will. Proof is Expanded & Enhanced, they blocked access to the OG games in their launcher, for the sole purpose of boosting the sale of their 'remasters'. If game developers really had their will, and could exercice central control over all the game's they've ever released, we would be at their mercy to enjoy classic titles like San Andreas, GTA III or Vice City in their original form. The day they decide it's more profitable to them to take the originals we know and love off their marketplace, they'd be nothing we could do.

 

Moral of the story, always own a physical copy of a game if you really like it, don't rely on launchers to make them available to you, because one day, if it's not financially expedient to the publisher, they won't be available anymore. E&E proved that. Nuke OG games from the launcher, just for the sake of selling their new product. SMH

Edited August 25 by Spadge

[Transpulse]

3 hours ago, jdfsociety said:

 

 

I can't imagine Rockstar doing it (I'll be happy as long as they optimise the DE) but with the 2003 game XIII, the reception upon release of the remaster in 2020 was so bad that they eventually hired a different studio to remake the game again and get it right. That's for XIII, which was a great game but no where near as well known or on the levels of cultural impact and legacy that III, VC and SA are. 

Just the difference between someone caring and someone not. Modders "solved" the atmosphere problems in a matter of days, while the last patch was almost 6 months ago.

[jdfsociety]

21 minutes ago, Transpulse said:

Just the difference between someone caring and someone not. Modders "solved" the atmosphere problems in a matter of days, while the last patch was almost 6 months ago.

 

100%, sad to see the trilogy didn't get the same level of respect from Rockstar. On the plus side, the steamdb activity that has been occurring periodically since the last patch indicates the next patch is in the works. Hopefully it will be the biggest one yet. 

[D T]

Check it lads Super Mario Bros: Definitive Edition trailer just dropped

 

 

Based GSG

[H-G]

7 minutes ago, D T said:

Check it lads Super Mario Bros: Definitive Edition trailer just dropped

 

 

Based GSG

Watch how Nintendo nukes it... 

[jdfsociety]

As well as the steamdb updates, I recall @Tez2 confirming a while back that bug fixes are indeed still being worked on. If by any chance you see this, do you have any idea or guesses as to when we may see the new patch?

[VCPR]

15 hours ago, D T said:

Check it lads Super Mario Bros: Definitive Edition trailer just dropped

 

 

Based GSG

NINTENDO HIRE THIS MAN

[jdfsociety]

Just because I'm desperate for patch news...for the sake of discussion, when do you think the next patch will arrive? We can see the games are being worked on so it seems a matter of when and not if. Also @Tez2 indicated a while back that bug fixes are still being worked on. 

[Transpulse]

Maybe for the anniversary of the game in November...

[cp1dell]

While we're on the topic of Take-Two being a terrible influence for Rockstar's development and decisions, I've still never fully understood the why of this whole thing.

 

We've seen Rockstar publish games for other devs in the past. So if they're capable of publishing other developers' games, why do they need to be trapped under Take-Two's thumb and have their games published by them? Do they just outright own Rockstar Games? It's strange to think they flew under the radar for so long until The Benz opened the Pandora's Box that is GTAO.

[VCPR]

7 hours ago, cp1dell said:

Do they just outright own Rockstar Games?

Yep, but I think Defective Edition problem is R* fault anyway

[jdfsociety]

16 hours ago, Transpulse said:

Maybe for the anniversary of the game in November...

 

I'm all in for a big anniversary patch. I would hope (possibly naively) that they would want to get it out around the anniversary due to the inevitable '1 year later' retrospective reviews, YouTube videos, etc. 

[Transpulse]

51 minutes ago, jdfsociety said:

 

I'm all in for a big anniversary patch. I would hope (possibly naively) that they would want to get it out around the anniversary due to the inevitable '1 year later' retrospective reviews, YouTube videos, etc. 

They would still get the backlash though. We've been having this visual glitch in the radial menus and lightning during storms lighting only the right part of the sky for half a year

[MrPringle]

17 hours ago, jdfsociety said:

 

I'm all in for a big anniversary patch. I would hope (possibly naively) that they would want to get it out around the anniversary due to the inevitable '1 year later' retrospective reviews, YouTube videos, etc. 

 

If the expectations for the remaster were as high as those of Cyberpunk 2077, one could hope so. Alas, this garbage edition is already forgotten by pretty much everyone but the fans.

[Ondr4H]

On 8/24/2022 at 9:36 AM, ChubbyB0b said:

It is. Vice City is bigger than III. It's just that LC is more compact and it creates an illusion of being bigger. Those are their sizes:

• GTA III: 8.12sq km
• GTA VC: 9.11sq km

Not much bigger.

 

Cut out that Vice City Sahara and we will talk...

[DoctorMike]

On 9/7/2022 at 8:16 PM, jdfsociety said:

 

I'm all in for a big anniversary patch. I would hope (possibly naively) that they would want to get it out around the anniversary due to the inevitable '1 year later' retrospective reviews, YouTube videos, etc. 

I doubt a company as out of touch as Rockstar would care about a bunch of youtube videos  

[Spider-Vice]

On 9/7/2022 at 2:42 AM, cp1dell said:

Do they just outright own Rockstar Games?

They do.

 

Their corporate info page has stated this pretty clearly over the years too, stating they are a "wholly owned subsidiary". That page even has a 2016 copyright.  

https://www.rockstargames.com/corpinfo

[universetwisters]

I’m just surprised they went with a non rockstar owned company to do the remasters as opposed to one of the several other ones that’s been under the radar for so long. Like what the f*ck is Rockstar New England or Rockstar Toronto doing these days? They could’ve done a better job than people from Florida (and before y’all jump down my throat, I live in Florida and I can attest for how bad the workmanship of people from here are since I’m one of them)

[Transpulse]

34 minutes ago, universetwisters said:

I’m just surprised they went with a non rockstar owned company to do the remasters as opposed to one of the several other ones that’s been under the radar for so long. Like what the f*ck is Rockstar New England or Rockstar Toronto doing these days? They could’ve done a better job than people from Florida (and before y’all jump down my throat, I live in Florida and I can attest for how bad the workmanship of people from here are since I’m one of them)

I guess it was even cheaper somehow

[NightmanCometh96]

7 hours ago, universetwisters said:

I’m just surprised they went with a non rockstar owned company to do the remasters as opposed to one of the several other ones that’s been under the radar for so long. Like what the f*ck is Rockstar New England or Rockstar Toronto doing these days? They could’ve done a better job than people from Florida (and before y’all jump down my throat, I live in Florida and I can attest for how bad the workmanship of people from here are since I’m one of them)

I assume the only reason Rockstar and/or Take-Two farmed the DE out to Grove Street Games (aside from likely being one of, if not the cheapest option) was their prior history. You would think they'd want to avoid giving a project of this caliber to the same developers that have been infamous among the GTA fandom for years due to the (varying degrees of) issues with their mobile ports, but what do I know? These trainwrecks still made some bank (although sales have thankfully slowed down quite a bit since launch) and have barely left a scratch on Rockstar's reputation, if they even made one to begin with. 

 

Sadly, the second GTA VI is formally announced, I guarantee the community at large will forgive R* and claim that the game's very existence "absolves" the company of all the scummy actions they and T2 have taken since GTAO took off around 2016; hell, people already make similar statements because of RDR2. And I say all of this as someone who loved Red Dead 2 to bits and believes a lot of the aspects Jason mentioned about VI in his article seem promising (with the main exception being the "expansions over time"; knowing post-GTA V Rockstar, it's almost certainly going to be an Online-only thing, while SP is left to rot for at least a decade as always).

 

No matter how much you love someone/something; a person, company, musician, etc., you should never be afraid to call them out for their screw-ups. How else will they learn and improve in the future? 

Edited September 12 by NightmanCometh96
Grammar

[ChiroVette]

On 9/12/2022 at 8:26 AM, DoctorMike said:

I doubt a company as out of touch as Rockstar would care about a bunch of youtube videos  

 

I would argue that behind closed doors, they do care, and very much. No way will Zelnick and company EVER come out and admit it. Their public announcements and all their tone-deaf post-DE-launch propaganda is nothing but political nonsense. One of the things that American politics has made fashionable these days is to completely reject the premise of any meaningful questions or criticisms and deflect, distract, and obfuscate. But this is only a public persona. I don't care how much money Rockstar devs make, particularly any of the ones on the team(s) who handle GTA, and who may have been working on Trilogy games 20+ years ago. These games mean so much to the gaming community, on such a universal level, the creators can't be happy.

 

Remember, they are still human beings, not robots. Sure, the corporate overlords of Rockstar and Take2 may only deal with the media using an aggressively duplicitous positive spin, no matter what's wrong, but the devs whose job it is to create content and build/improve games are probably none too happy, though, we will never hear any of this because there are probably very oppressive gag orders on ALL employees of Rockstar and Take2.

 

I know for a fact that if I was a dev working for Rockstar, and I was on the original III, VC, and SA teams, I would be devastated by the state of the Defective Edition. I may keep my big mouth shut if confronted by the media, in order to keep my job, but I would not be happy.

Edited September 18 by ChiroVette