[QUOTE=CruelAddict;52835061]Which was the core idea behind the concept. No matter what you are trying to do, you can't reshape your life, not even with the help of the "American Dream".
Niko was entire life a murderer and criminal and wanted to run away from that life coming to America, where Roman was rich and luxurious; that never happened so he took his matter into his own hands and tried conquering the American Dream, and when it happened, it all went to shitter because you simply can't leave that life behind you. And neither will it.[/QUOTE]
i'm really glad i went through the story of iv before messing around in the sandbox
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52834944]Maybe cut back on the budget then.
I mean personally, i play games if they're good, not if they spent a billion dollars on making it.[/QUOTE]
Which is a better use of time, money and the end product. Three times the game content, or a third of that content that's outwardly aesthetically different for the sake of a novel plot?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52834985]What?[/QUOTE]
It's not like they can just cut budge as they want to, if they want to take the direction of different time eras, this will have a cost to make, it's not like they can simply slash the budget
I don't think its any coincidence this video used a song from the best GTA's soundtrack
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52835347]Which is a better use of time, money and the end product. Three times the game content, or a third of that content that's outwardly aesthetically different for the sake of a novel plot?[/QUOTE]
Whatever makes for a better game.
You dont need 265 million dollars to make a good game, or even a big game. I'd rather a budget that let developers do creative and experimental things instead of playing it safe so the publisher can make their huge investment back or supplementing it with microtransactions.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52835396]Whatever makes for a better game.[/QUOTE]
That is exactly my point, yes. Doing that will do nothing but harm the game
And for a game as big as GTA, you absolutely need that much money. There is absolutely no question about that.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52835431]That is exactly my point, yes. Doing that will do nothing but harm the game[/QUOTE]
How do you mean.
[editline]29th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52835431]
And for a game as big as GTA, you absolutely need that much money. There is absolutely no question about that.[/QUOTE]
For what? Making a stupidly massive map with only a handful of actually interesting locations and a completely modeled ocean floor practically nobody ever bothers to look at? [I]240 [/I]licensed songs?
For all the money pumped into GTAV, i wouldnt rank it higher than GTA IV or San Andreas. Sure, its not a cheap series, it really never was, but does it actually need to have a quarter of a billion dollars pumped into it? Is that actually necessary to make a good game? Like i'm not complaining that the stuff is already there, but if the fact that they're like that is resulting in (hypothetically) more interesting ideas just not being considered, then it can go.
A base wage for a triple A 3d job is minimum 70,000 grand a year. And rockstar basically lives off the elite cream of that market, so they're probably getting more than that. Senior artists will probably get more than $110,000 a year. Each of them also has a slew of software that needs liscencing. 3ds, maya, substance, photoshop, on and on. Each about 1,000 bucks per year per head. Wages and personel costs alone account for hundreds of millions. Plus hardware, plus the building, plus liscencing, plus unused work, plus equipment, plus marketing, plus manufacturing costs plus whatever the hell little other death by a thousand cuts expenses finds its way into the budget.
And as for how making three completely seperate versions of the same city would drag down the actual game. Well you're making three entirely disparate trees of assets that also have to directly reflect each other. And three master 'settings' and it's associated infastructures that have to interact properly. Juggling that alone would be prohibitively complicated. You can't just make one town and press a button that says "1945" and convert the assets. For all intents and purposes you're making one city three times, because though it's the "same" building and the "same" street map, as far as the game is concerned, that's three separate assets for the "same" building. That more often then not will need three bespoke textures/procedural mask set, three distinct models that will reflect the difference in time period, which will also be subject to art/game direction to make sure it's congruent with the world and story, and that "one" building will have to interact well with three separate trees of assets. As a building that stands through all three time periods will have to both interlink geometrically with three entire trees of assets reflecting fundamentally different times, but also aesthetically, texture wise, while also being visually pleasing. Now expand that to [I]every single asset in the fucking game[/I].
Also you're setting up three entirely paralell trees of development for the world. Any change you make to one time period for whatever reason will also have to be made in exactly the same way to every other time period. And let's presume there's difference to the world height maps due to changes between time periods. Like hypothetically, a fuckload more buildings springing up between '45 and 20XX. They can't share assets so all three trees will need any changes to be manually made to each. Plus three trees of building models and prefabs, three trees of cars, three trees of props, like trees, stoplights, trash cans etc, which is the lion's share of the work and is already going to be thousands of assets in a game like GTA IV or V. Three trees of materials that most likely can't be shared between time periods, three trees of character assets, three trees of plants most likely, three trees of weapon models and types (and therefore what needs to be balanced for, by the way), and so on and so on and so on.
So not only are you tripling your workload, you're tripling the [I]time and effort it would take to tackle any single subject[/I]. All of which also has to be managed and directed by the project directors/leads to be internally congruent with the experience they're trying to craft, which is probably the most underappreciated and difficult tasks in game design. So fuck it, let's triple the volume and complexity of what they have to do, why not. And let's just generally just adding a fuckload of convolution to the development process for what in the end is, in a perfect situation, a product 33% in scale to what you could just make normally. There is no reason to do this, and if you can't see how all this trouble would impact the actual quality of the game for what's effectively a gimmick, i don't know what more i could say to convince you.
Do people dislike the "Lost and the Damned" and "The Ballad of Gay Tony"?
I enjoyed them
I still see GTA as something that holds a lot of potential if it doesn't succumb to the micro transaction cancer.
However so far they have been sticking to the GTA 'lore' of the first GTA game which takes place in 3 regions; Vice City, San Andreas and Liberty City.
All three are done now with Liberty City being a bit overdone.
[editline]30th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lollipoopdeck;52835579]Do people dislike the "Lost and the Damned" and "The Ballad of Gay Tony"?
I enjoyed them[/QUOTE]
Personally found Lost and the Damned a bit boring, perhaps it could be because there was a heavy focus on motorcycles which i don't find interesting nor do i enjoy riding them in-game. Ballad of gay tony was fucking wonderful though.
toni cipriani and niko will always have a place in my heart
[QUOTE=Lollipoopdeck;52835579]Do people dislike the "Lost and the Damned" and "The Ballad of Gay Tony"?
I enjoyed them[/QUOTE]
I'll give LatD props for actually making bikes worth a shit, if nothing else.
I mean, in vanilla GTA 4, a stiff breeze can almost knock you off your bike.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;52834559]GTA:SA is honestly one of the best games ever made, in my opinion. At the time it was the biggest game world with the most authentic feeling I'd explored and there was never a dull moment while exploring it.
I really liked CJ as a character and the story progression to be really enjoyable. Vice City probably had the best story though, at least in the sense that it felt more like a focused plot akin to an action movie.[/QUOTE]
I haven't played San Andreas yet but out of all the GTAs I like the concept of that the most. The fact that it's not just about dudes in the hood but dudes in the hood in the 90s is super interesting to me. Only problem is the fact that it's GTA tells me that I'm probably not going to get a mostly grounded story about 90s gangs in California like I want, because it's GTA, so by the end of it I'm going to be driving around in tanks and flying jets and shit.
GTA 1 was my childhood and always will have a special place in my heart.
I teared up a bit when I saw the recreated scene in V's engine.
It's a shame Rockstar didn't make this, rather a fansite. All Rockstar said about the 20th anniversary of GTA was something about more Online shit.
But other than that, it was a good 20 years. It sure as hell kept me entertained.
I fucking loved TLAD's atmosphere tbh, it was bleaker and grittier than GTA 4 sure, but that's what made it more memorable to me.
TBOGT had a good atmosphere as well, but I prefer TLAD's.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52836391]I haven't played San Andreas yet but out of all the GTAs I like the concept of that the most. The fact that it's not just about dudes in the hood but dudes in the hood in the 90s is super interesting to me. Only problem is the fact that it's GTA tells me that I'm probably not going to get a mostly grounded story about 90s gangs in California like I want, because it's GTA, so by the end of it I'm going to be driving around in tanks and flying jets and shit.[/QUOTE]
It becomes bigger and bigger but right at the end it resizes itself. The last mission is as far as "over the top" as you can get.
GTA SA is the most vast of the series since it has many tone and atmosphere changes. It starts off in a ghetto, the character falls into the country, makes it to the big city, is forced into the desert and ends up in a bigger and shinier city.
The following games didn't have this tone shift since they stuck into a single city when SA had multiple large cities and country side inbetween them.
GTA IV or V would've one-upped SA if it wasn't for "Muh engine limitations" and all that shit. They created dull cities with nothing to do, but GTA SA had something behind every corner. They spent so much time on useless shit that only made the FPS drop.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52834295]You could even integrate some kind of system where depending on what you do, stuff changes in the other time periods, like someone you dont kill gives you missions in the other time frame or something.
[editline]29th October 2017[/editline]
Like Spider-Man Edge of Time but not half-assed.[/QUOTE]
Although a great concept, I wouldn't want it in a GTA game.
Rather incredible to imagine all of the controversy this series has caused and how its still going strong.
[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;52836853]I fucking loved TLAD's atmosphere tbh, it was bleaker and grittier than GTA 4 sure, but that's what made it more memorable to me.
TBOGT had a good atmosphere as well, but I prefer TLAD's.[/QUOTE]
The ending of TLAD with that soundtrack almost made me tear up.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
