If I remember correctly, they announced the PC version of Episodes From Liberty City and GTA V with a trailer. So who knows.
[editline]24th September 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52712394]I hardly played the multiplayer of GTA V if at all because even in the game's early months it was already a clusterfuck of grinding that only got worse with time, each new update adding more expensive shit to try and convince the player to spend more money on it. When I said the game was a mess I wasn't talking about Online.
The Single Player is a schizophrenic experience that doesn't know what to do with itself. The story is a humongous step back from GTA IV. It's a series of events which appears to mostly just be a checklist of stupid and wacky things the writer came up with. The technical aspect of the game is an upgrade in terms of raw visual fidelity but a downgrade in many other ways, with dozens of smaller details and aspects of its predecessor that many people considered fun to be gone for no real purpose.
The characters have potential but are never developed. It just doesn't know what it's trying to do besides vaguely spoof heist films. Its multiple endings are an utter joke since the supposed "death wish" ending is an absurd cakewalk - in fact most of the missions are just absurd cakewalks. Generally speaking it's obvious the game is trying to hit the same notes but refuses to invest the same kind of emotional baggage that GTA IV created around its own characters. When Niko Bellic cares about what little family he has and the story becomes about how poorly he protects them and the consequences of his actions, it feels genuine because they spent this much time building character. When Michael gets sad his family leaves him it's just a mess because it happens so fast, his family's a bunch of dislikable pissants to everyone including Michael and themselves, and Michael's relationship with them stops at "married a whore, betrayed gang for her".
And this last point, in itself, [I]is already[/I] a rehash of RDR. And comes down to it, that's my problem with the game: it's a safe rehash of Rockstar's past successes, without understanding what made them good or why the risks taken at the time paid off the way they did. RDR had a compelling story because you had time to develop a connection to a character from literally nothing to some of the most poignant moments in gaming history, and it was a legitimate risk to make a game this huge with only a horse to go around. GTA IV's success was very much caused by the same factors: a compelling story that takes its time with a daring, risky change in scenery and tone.
You can even look at Max Payne 3 for that matter: it was a game with its issues but it's also legitimately one of the most odd and outstanding third person shooting experiences of its time, and the story taking such a massive turn from the grimy streets of new york to South America was as controversial as it was well-written. They could have gone for a rehash of Max Payne 2 without as drastic a turn in terms of design and story but they took the bumpy road forward instead and the end product was better as a result.
GTA V is a game which encompasses Rockstar's, both North and its subsidiaries, incapability to one-up themselves after years of one-upping themselves. And in light of this complete clusterfuck of a story, this schizophrenic cacophony of design decisions, this [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWVtZJo-HqI]technically confused[/url] half-cooked dish that takes as many steps backwards as it took forward, I'm not going to pretend I'm excited for a game whose first impressions it gave me was that it was so creatively bankrupt they could not even figure out a way to go on with the series' established naming convention, or that they were so unwilling to take risks they did not want people to possibly confuse this as not part of the same series, despite Red Dead Redemption taking up the name of a game that most people barely even knew existed.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like a pretty unrelatable opinion to me. I can only assume people [I]pretend[/I] to agree with you but it's cool to hate on GTA V. It doesn't try to be GTA IV or RDR: it's its own thing and it's very easy to say "look at those things those games did better somehow, GTA V is so terrible!" You are biased because you can only compare GTA V to other Rockstar titles, without considering that for the whole of the video game industry, GTA V is a staple of the video game industry. And showing that ridiculous video of Crowbcat does no credit at all to disprove this.
GTAO being a godawful piece of trash and the single player having a forgettable confusing story with pretty bad writing and characters is far from being an unpopular opinion, nor is it an opinion that only works when compared to other R* titles.
As for RDR2 coming out on PC, it's obviously gonna be out on PC...with a delay, naturally. GTA V's delay was exacerbated by shoehorning in the next gen release of GTA V, now that they're comfortable with RAGE on PC we're not going to have nearly the problems of GTA IV or even V unless they decide to do something funky.
My main gripe with the SP is how disappointing the protags were. It felt like they could of developed them much more but couldn't due to having to focus on three of them instead of one. The only one that really felt like an actual GTA protagonist was Franklin.
Compared with previous protags they felt really underwhelming, looking at it just as a gameplay mechanic it was really cool but it felt like it effected the writing as well
[QUOTE=Loadingue;52712610]
Sounds like a pretty unrelatable opinion to me. I can only assume people [I]pretend[/I] to agree with you but it's cool to hate on GTA V. It doesn't try to be GTA IV or RDR: it's its own thing and it's very easy to say "look at those things those games did better somehow, GTA V is so terrible!" You are biased because you can only compare GTA V to other Rockstar titles, without considering that for the whole of the video game industry, GTA V is a staple of the video game industry. And showing that ridiculous video of Crowbcat does no credit at all to disprove this.[/QUOTE]
I really like GTA V (in fact the only GTA I don't like is Chinatown Wars, because it's shit) and I think everything he said is right. In previous GTAs the mission givers were the focus of the characterisation and we got a lot of memorable personalities. In GTA IV they focused on Niko and his close friends and family, which meant the minor characters were less developed but as a trade off the more major characters were pretty fully fleshed out people.
In GTA V only the three protagonists and one of their friends/family are expanded upon. Franklin's whole life may as well be Lamar, since his not-relationship with Tanysha only comes up like 4 times in the entire game. Trevor runs a 'business' with Ron, Wade, and Chef, but Ron gets pretty much abandoned after Trevor heads to Los Santos and Chef may as well not exist. The De Santa family are the most fleshed out, but Jimmy is the only one with any development, Tracey only wants to be famous for doing nothing, and Amanda just wants to spend Michael's money and cheat on him.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;52712770]I really like GTA V (in fact the only GTA I don't like is Chinatown Wars, because it's shit) and I think everything he said is right. In previous GTAs the mission givers were the focus of the characterisation and we got a lot of memorable personalities. In GTA IV they focused on Niko and his close friends and family, which meant the minor characters were less developed but as a trade off the more major characters were pretty fully fleshed out people.
In GTA V only the three protagonists and one of their friends/family are expanded upon. Franklin's whole life may as well be Lamar, since his not-relationship with Tanysha only comes up like 4 times in the entire game. Trevor runs a 'business' with Ron, Wade, and Chef, but Ron gets pretty much abandoned after Trevor heads to Los Santos and Chef may as well not exist. The De Santa family are the most fleshed out, but Jimmy is the only one with any development, Tracey only wants to be famous for doing nothing, and Amanda just wants to spend Michael's money and cheat on him.[/QUOTE]
And all that is rather true, but it doesn't mean GTA V's writing is garbage as Ganerumo seems to imply. Let's not forget that GTA IV was a completely different tone, and GTA V is meant to be wacky. Whether you like that wackiness is up to everyone.
[editline]24th September 2017[/editline]
There was one thing that most people can agree was pretty bad as far as the writing is concerned: Trevor's moralizing monologue about how torture is inefficient. While it does let you perceive an interesting part of his character, it's still rather inappropriate and terribly lacking in the usual subtlety Rockstar uses to criticize the American society and government.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52712394]I hardly played the multiplayer of GTA V if at all because even in the game's early months it was already a clusterfuck of grinding that only got worse with time, each new update adding more expensive shit to try and convince the player to spend more money on it. When I said the game was a mess I wasn't talking about Online.
The Single Player is a schizophrenic experience that doesn't know what to do with itself. The story is a humongous step back from GTA IV. It's a series of events which appears to mostly just be a checklist of stupid and wacky things the writer came up with. The technical aspect of the game is an upgrade in terms of raw visual fidelity but a downgrade in many other ways, with dozens of smaller details and aspects of its predecessor that many people considered fun to be gone for no real purpose.
The characters have potential but are never developed. It just doesn't know what it's trying to do besides vaguely spoof heist films. Its multiple endings are an utter joke since the supposed "death wish" ending is an absurd cakewalk - in fact most of the missions are just absurd cakewalks. Generally speaking it's obvious the game is trying to hit the same notes but refuses to invest the same kind of emotional baggage that GTA IV created around its own characters. When Niko Bellic cares about what little family he has and the story becomes about how poorly he protects them and the consequences of his actions, it feels genuine because they spent this much time building character. When Michael gets sad his family leaves him it's just a mess because it happens so fast, his family's a bunch of dislikable pissants to everyone including Michael and themselves, and Michael's relationship with them stops at "married a whore, betrayed gang for her".
And this last point, in itself, [I]is already[/I] a rehash of RDR. And comes down to it, that's my problem with the game: it's a safe rehash of Rockstar's past successes, without understanding what made them good or why the risks taken at the time paid off the way they did. RDR had a compelling story because you had time to develop a connection to a character from literally nothing to some of the most poignant moments in gaming history, and it was a legitimate risk to make a game this huge with only a horse to go around. GTA IV's success was very much caused by the same factors: a compelling story that takes its time with a daring, risky change in scenery and tone.
You can even look at Max Payne 3 for that matter: it was a game with its issues but it's also legitimately one of the most odd and outstanding third person shooting experiences of its time, and the story taking such a massive turn from the grimy streets of new york to South America was as controversial as it was well-written. They could have gone for a rehash of Max Payne 2 without as drastic a turn in terms of design and story but they took the bumpy road forward instead and the end product was better as a result.
GTA V is a game which encompasses Rockstar's, both North and its subsidiaries, incapability to one-up themselves after years of one-upping themselves. And in light of this complete clusterfuck of a story, this schizophrenic cacophony of design decisions, this [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWVtZJo-HqI]technically confused[/url] half-cooked dish that takes as many steps backwards as it took forward, I'm not going to pretend I'm excited for a game whose first impressions it gave me was that it was so creatively bankrupt they could not even figure out a way to go on with the series' established naming convention, or that they were so unwilling to take risks they did not want people to possibly confuse this as not part of the same series, despite Red Dead Redemption taking up the name of a game that most people barely even knew existed.[/QUOTE]
I absolutely loved GTA IV, not only because of how huge of a technological leap it was from San Andreas, but mainly because of the great story and atmosphere. However, you seem to forget how many people back then shat all over GTA IV for being "too serious" and story heavy, pointing towards the Saints Row series as an apparently superior example, as well GTA SA. I'm pretty sure that played a major role in why GTA V is the way it is. With that said, I very much enjoyed the SP, it may not have been as good as GTA IV in that regard, but it was far from being a 'disaster'. GTA IV was a disaster on the technical front, though, with the PC version struggling to reach a consistent 60FPS even on high-end systems. I had an HD 4870 and i5 750 system back then, sort of comparable to having an i7 7700K and GTX 1070 system today, and I had to run it on medium or else the framerate would completely shit itself, with the console versions regularly dropping below 20FPS. This was improved massively with GTA V, and is also why they delayed the PC version, it both looks and runs great even on low-end systems
[QUOTE=Loadingue;52712610]
Sounds like a pretty unrelatable opinion to me. I can only assume people [I]pretend[/I] to agree with you but it's cool to hate on GTA V. It doesn't try to be GTA IV or RDR: it's its own thing and it's very easy to say "look at those things those games did better somehow, GTA V is so terrible!" You are biased because you can only compare GTA V to other Rockstar titles, without considering that for the whole of the video game industry, GTA V is a staple of the video game industry. And showing that ridiculous video of Crowbcat does no credit at all to disprove this.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe people are just really disappointed with the game seeing as it's not really a linear improvement but rather sort of a lateral motion with some odd step backs.
Calling GTA V a "staple" of the industry is legitimately weird to me because the game seems to have made relatively few waves. GTA may have been the gold standard circa 2008 when GTA IV was legitimately an accomplishment and the jankiness of its predecessors was excused by the often underpowered hardware provided by consoles at the time, but the open world sandbox genre exploded between 2008 and 2013, notably with Ubisoft managing to both innovate in that market and making everyone sick and tired of it faster than it took Rockstar to make one sequel.
And, yes, I'm biased about GTA V by comparing it to GTA IV, that's kind of a natural consequence of games being in a series. If Rockstar wanted GTA V to be judged on its merits, then maybe they shouldn't have called it GTA V and they shouldn't have made it the same continuity.
[QUOTE=Loadingue;52712885]And all that is rather true, but it doesn't mean GTA V's writing is garbage as Ganerumo seems to imply. Let's not forget that GTA IV was a completely different tone, and GTA V is meant to be wacky. Whether you like that wackiness is up to everyone.
[/Quote]
Vice City was also wacky, but it was funny. San Andreas was wacky in many regards, treating the rather serious subjects of poverty and gang violence with humor and just enough irreverence. San Andreas is infinitely more quotable than GTA V has ever been. It's not to say GTA V doesn't have some good moments, both [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZoAYW_nJAQ]funny[/url] or [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xXmndx1mgY]serious[/url]; but these moments are few and far between.
The "oh it's meant to be wacky you're just not in the right mindset" excuse is weak. Wacky writing can be bad and GTA V's wacky writing is for the most part bad.
[QUOTE=Loadingue;52712885]There was one thing that most people can agree was pretty bad as far as the writing is concerned: Trevor's moralizing monologue about how torture is inefficient. While it does let you perceive an interesting part of his character, it's still rather inappropriate and terribly lacking in the usual subtlety Rockstar uses to criticize the American society and government.[/QUOTE]
That's the problem with all of GTA V though, its tone deafness isn't an intended quality of its writing but a complete incident which can sap the power from a scene in no time. Michael's familial struggles would have been much more powerful had they been more realistic, instead of stupid shit like his son getting involved in a wacky high speed chase on a ship's mast or sending his father into a crazy drug trip to steal his car.
Then there's the ending in which you're """forced""" to make a dramatic choice but the characters have at this point survived and been through so much absurd shit that the choice has no impact, no bearing whatsoever. The scenes themselves aren't even bad, but who the fuck would choose them ?
[editline]24th September 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;52713026]I absolutely loved GTA IV, not only because of how huge of a technological leap it was from San Andreas, but mainly because of the great story and atmosphere. However, you seem to forget how many people back then shat all over GTA IV for being "too serious" and story heavy, pointing towards the Saints Row series as an apparently superior example, as well GTA SA. I'm pretty sure that played a major role in why GTA V is the way it is. With that said, I very much enjoyed the SP, it may not have been as good as GTA IV in that regard, but it was far from being a 'disaster'. GTA IV was a disaster on the technical front, though, with the PC version struggling to reach a consistent 60FPS even on high-end systems. I had an HD 4870 and i5 750 system back then, sort of comparable to having an i7 7700K and GTX 1070 system today, and I had to run it on medium or else the framerate would completely shit itself, with the console versions regularly dropping below 20FPS. This was improved massively with GTA V, and is also why they delayed the PC version, it both looks and runs great even on low-end systems[/QUOTE]
GTA V ran very poorly at release and took a lot of patching to be fixed. Rockstar's never been too good with PC versions.
And while GTA IV was poorly received at release and was then appreciated some time later once people took the time to breathe in the content presented to them, GTA V went on the complete opposite path and started out incredibly overhyped before dying down in popularity as people started to realize what they were playing wasn't that good.
It took me a while to realize GTA V wasn't a good game. As I played it I enjoyed it, but when I was done with it and I had some time between myself and the game I realized that I had spent far less time on it before getting bored of the game than almost any other open world title of that era, and that my enjoyment of the game during it and afterward was minimal compared to the lasting impact of previous Rockstar titles.
I wish there'd been more stuff to do in SP after the ending, like more side missions Trevor could do for his company or other minor heists. Instead of just stealing a truck full of pills for your mom
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;52713026]I absolutely loved GTA IV, not only because of how huge of a technological leap it was from San Andreas, but mainly because of the great story and atmosphere. However, you seem to forget how many people back then shat all over GTA IV for being "too serious" and story heavy, pointing towards the Saints Row series as an apparently superior example, as well GTA SA. I'm pretty sure that played a major role in why GTA V is the way it is. With that said, I very much enjoyed the SP, it may not have been as good as GTA IV in that regard, but it was far from being a 'disaster'. GTA IV was a disaster on the technical front, though, with the PC version struggling to reach a consistent 60FPS even on high-end systems. I had an HD 4870 and i5 750 system back then, sort of comparable to having an i7 7700K and GTX 1070 system today, and I had to run it on medium or else the framerate would completely shit itself, with the console versions regularly dropping below 20FPS. This was improved massively with GTA V, and is also why they delayed the PC version, it both looks and runs great even on low-end systems[/QUOTE]
I'm one of them.
After San Andreas, I coulden't enjoy GTAIVs story. In general, it was too slow. Lots of missions where you do little but driving, and I haven't even gotten to any point where you have serious gunfights.
The two Episodes are a bit better in this regard (primarily TLAD) and while I (ironically) would have enjoyed more missions that are more atmospheric in 5, I like how it actually gets to the fun stuff rather quickly as opposed to feeling like a slog.
My only serious complaint about GTA5s story is Franklin. He's borderline useless and the character which I played as the least by a fair margin because of this. CJ from SA didn't have a ton of character personality either (although I'd say he had a lot more then Franklin) but he also wasn't overshadowed by two other characters who actually did have a serious conflict in the story. I'm pretty sure that you could remove Franklin from the game's script and you'd only have to change up maybe one or two things tops as the focus is really on Micheal and Trevor.
I'd play GTA5 a lot more if i could play it without the Rockstar Social Club launcher.
It's one of the worst possible launcher you could have, it's totally unnecessary, and doesn't even have tight security,one day i received an email telling me that my nickname and credentials were changed, apparently my account was bought by some russian dude, i managed to get it back because he couldn't change the mail, but still, that never happened with anything else, and two step authentification isn't even possible. Atleast if you get the console version of a Rockstar game, you only need that for the multiplayer.
Still, i'm pretty hyped for RDR2, i've really enjoyed the first one, and if it doesn't come out for PC i'll probably buy a PS4 to play it.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52713030]
GTA V ran very poorly at release and took a lot of patching to be fixed.[/QUOTE]
I don't remember that being the case at all, all I remember is a bunch of people trying to make it seem like a shitty port by delibirately making it utilize more VRAM than their systems could spare, resulting in invisible terrain and what not
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52713030]Calling GTA V a "staple" of the industry is legitimately weird to me because the game seems to have made relatively few waves.[/QUOTE]
Respectfully (really), the fact that you can say that seriously is baffling to me knowing that [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_V"][I]extensively marketed and widely anticipated, the game broke industry sales records and became the fastest-selling entertainment product in history, earning US $800 million in its first day and US $1 billion in its first three days.[/I][/URL]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52713030]The "oh it's meant to be wacky you're just not in the right mindset" excuse is weak. Wacky writing can be bad and GTA V's wacky writing is for the most part bad.[/QUOTE]
Not what I meant. Simply that not everyone will enjoy its sort of humor, which is a bit special.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52713030]That's the problem with all of GTA V though, its tone deafness isn't an intended quality of its writing but a complete incident which can sap the power from a scene in no time. Michael's familial struggles would have been much more powerful had they been more realistic, instead of stupid shit like his son getting involved in a wacky high speed chase on a ship's mast or sending his father into a crazy drug trip to steal his car.[/QUOTE]
That was exactly the point though: an over-the-top game that's also meant to be relatable. But yes, how much it's succeeded at that is debatable, but it didn't bother me.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52713030]Then there's the ending in which you're """forced""" to make a dramatic choice but the characters have at this point survived and been through so much absurd shit that the choice has no impact, no bearing whatsoever. The scenes themselves aren't even bad, but who the fuck would choose them ?[/QUOTE]
The ending choice was mostly added to give the player the ability to get rid of one of the two most detestable player characters if the player really hates them to a point where they want them to die. It also serves as shock value for the player, but that vanished pretty quickly after launch, expectedly. Rockstar wanted to make it memorable like Marston's death, but they didn't succeed.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52713030]It took me a while to realize GTA V wasn't a good game. As I played it I enjoyed it, but when I was done with it and I had some time between myself and the game I realized that I had spent far less time on it before getting bored of the game than almost any other open world title of that era, and that my enjoyment of the game during it and afterward was minimal compared to the lasting impact of previous Rockstar titles.[/QUOTE]
It's a weird thing to say. You enjoyed it while you played it, but then you realized it wasn't good? Don't you think it's possible you succumbed to an exterior bias of some sorts? Or that you simply got bored of it?
Personally, I've seen a lot of people go from "GTA V is awesome!" to "GTA V is okay I guess" to "GTA V is shit and has never been fun", all in the space of a couple of months. And it's hard for me to believe that all the bad press regarding the multiplayer and Rockstar had nothing to do with it.
Something selling well doesn't make it a "staple" of an industry, it makes it a financial success. You need more than a financial success to become that important. For instance most people would have difficulties considering Avatar a "staple" of the film industry despite being one of the highest grossing movies of all time. It was forgotten rather quickly after its release and the 3D gimmick it spawned outlasted the film by what's soon to be a decade.
GTA as a franchise is a staple of the industry because of a combination of its influence, impact, hype and overall critical appraisal. GTA V is one of the weakest links of that franchise and in large parts only inherits its status from mere brand recognition, not from quality.
And games, just like films and music and any other entertainment medium, have a lasting impact which most people take into account when talking about a specific product. Some films are very well done but leave no lasting impression and you forget them as soon as you saw them, for many people that makes them bad films. The same goes for games, that's why Spec Ops: The Line is praised as highly as it is despite being a rather simplistic Third Person Shooter: it left a very long lasting impact on people.
[QUOTE=Loadingue;52712610]
Sounds like a pretty unrelatable opinion to me. I can only assume people [I]pretend[/I] to agree with you but it's cool to hate on GTA V. It doesn't try to be GTA IV or RDR: it's its own thing and it's very easy to say "look at those things those games did better somehow, GTA V is so terrible!" You are biased because you can only compare GTA V to other Rockstar titles, without considering that for the whole of the video game industry, GTA V is a staple of the video game industry. And showing that ridiculous video of Crowbcat does no credit at all to disprove this.[/QUOTE]
Man i liked GTA V and i agree with everything he said.
I'd for sure rate it lower than GTA IV and SA, maybe even Vice City in terms of my liking the actual game as a whole.
[editline]24th September 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52713191]Something selling well doesn't make it a "staple" of an industry, it makes it a financial success. You need more than a financial success to become that important. For instance most people would have difficulties considering Avatar a "staple" of the film industry despite being one of the highest grossing movies of all time. It was forgotten rather quickly after its release and the 3D gimmick it spawned outlasted the film by what's soon to be a decade.
GTA as a franchise is a staple of the industry because of a combination of its influence, impact, hype and overall critical appraisal. GTA V is one of the weakest links of that franchise and in large parts only inherits its status from mere brand recognition, not from quality.
And games, just like films and music and any other entertainment medium, have a lasting impact which most people take into account when talking about a specific product. Some films are very well done but leave no lasting impression and you forget them as soon as you saw them, for many people that makes them bad films. The same goes for games, that's why Spec Ops: The Line is praised as highly as it is despite being a rather simplistic Third Person Shooter: it left a very long lasting impact on people.[/QUOTE]
GTA V was very safe, i felt.
Even the main character switching gimmick is more or less just a reused expanded on feature from the first game. Its cool, but its not really used like it should have been.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52713191]Something selling well doesn't make it a "staple" of an industry, it makes it a financial success. You need more than a financial success to become that important. For instance most people would have difficulties considering Avatar a "staple" of the film industry despite being one of the highest grossing movies of all time. It was forgotten rather quickly after its release and the 3D gimmick it spawned outlasted the film by what's soon to be a decade.
GTA as a franchise is a staple of the industry because of a combination of its influence, impact, hype and overall critical appraisal. GTA V is one of the weakest links of that franchise and in large parts only inherits its status from mere brand recognition, not from quality.[/QUOTE]
I really don't know about that. I could link you to the 97% in average review ratings on Metacritic, but you might just say it doesn't mean anything for any number of reasons.
Ah [URL="http://store.steampowered.com/app/271590/#app_reviews_hash"]thank you Steam[/URL]. Until the big Rockstar backlash, I see on average something like 75% positive reviews, and as expected, most of the 25% remaining are about Online and mods. I'm sure those 75% all come from brand recognition, not quality.
GTA V felt overly safe because it tried way too hard with shock value instead of taking risks where it mattered, ie in terms of story and gameplay.
Like, RDR is good because it took huge risks with its presentation, gameplay and story and those risks paid off in legitimate game-changing ways. The biggest risk GTA V takes in terms of presentation is that it shows you a bit of anal sex and a couple torture scenes, neither of which are particularly shocking at this point.
[editline]24th September 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Loadingue;52713227]I really don't know about that. I could link you to the 97% in average review ratings on Metacritic, but you might just say it doesn't mean anything for any number of reasons.
Ah [URL="http://store.steampowered.com/app/271590/#app_reviews_hash"]thank you Steam[/URL]. Until the big Rockstar backlash, I see on average something like 75% positive reviews, and as expected, most of the 25% remaining are about Online and mods. I'm sure those 75% all come from brand recognition, not quality.[/QUOTE]
Both communities are known for kneejerk/reactionary ratings with very little substance.
Steam in particular has an awful recommend/not recommend system which doesn't really indicate quality unless you read the review, and most of them tend to be "yeah it's good just buy it I won't elaborate" or "I DID THE FUNNY THING AND DIED, 10/10 MASTERPIECE" meme shit.
Might as well call Bad Rats a masterpiece if we're going by Steam reviews.
GTA V's story was pretty bad in my opinion, the villain was completely forgettable and I can barely remember anything he actually did other than make you steal some cars and make vague threats.
[QUOTE=Loadingue;52713227]I really don't know about that. I could link you to the 97% in average review ratings on Metacritic, but you might just say it doesn't mean anything for any number of reasons.
Ah [URL="http://store.steampowered.com/app/271590/#app_reviews_hash"]thank you Steam[/URL]. Until the big Rockstar backlash, I see on average something like 75% positive reviews, and as expected, most of the 25% remaining are about Online and mods. I'm sure those 75% all come from brand recognition, not quality.[/QUOTE]
Comparatively, GTA San Andreas is at about 89% with 21,274 reviews, Vice City is at a 91% with 6,956 reviews, and GTA III is at 86% with 3,754 reviews on Steam. GTA IV is at 64% because of the bad port.
Next week? Looks like it's being teased now.
[QUOTE=Griffster26;52713247]GTA V's story was pretty bad in my opinion, the villain was completely forgettable and I can barely remember anything he actually did other than make you steal some cars and make vague threats.[/QUOTE]
What I found telling was when you finally killed him. He gets pushed off a cliff and explodes and their only reaction was "so now what". It was completely unceremonious for a general letdown of a villain
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52713254]Comparatively, GTA San Andreas is at about 89% with 21,274 reviews, Vice City is at a 91% with 6,956 reviews, and GTA III is at 86% with 3,754 reviews on Steam. GTA IV is at 64% because of the bad port.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, let's make sure we know what we're arguing for here. You're saying that GTA V's good but not as good as previous games in the series, that's understandable. But unless I'm deeply mistaken, Ganerumo is saying GTA V is downright, factually [I]bad[/I], and that I can't get behind.
I said GTA V is a mess and listed how that is the case. I didn't say it was objectively awful to the point of being irredeemable trash, I listed a list of reasons why I considered it to be a gigantic letdown over the past releases of Rockstar Studios, and the common thread linking all of these reasons together is that the game is just lacking an overall good direction. It's tone-deaf, misdirected, technically confused and incoherent, which makes it not as good, memorable or impactful as GTA IV or RDR.
It's still a [I]decent[/I] game, but it's not stellar. Since it's part of a series it's fair to compare it to its predecessors and it fails to shine as a worthy sequel of some of the most influential games of all time.
Well okay, now your point seems a bit more understandable to me. I still think you're exaggerating, but you're entitled to your opinion.
[QUOTE=Griffster26;52713247]GTA V's story was pretty bad in my opinion, the villain was completely forgettable and I can barely remember anything he actually did other than make you steal some cars and make vague threats.[/QUOTE]
The problem lies more with the fact that there's no central villain (except maybe Don Perceval, but he's not even in the game) and each character has more of a nemesis, who is more of an annoying dick than anything.
I'm gonna be the guy who defends GTA:O in that I like the customisation, & the game world itself is pretty beautiful & nice to look at, and a myriad of other factors
but despite all my hours in GTA:O I absolutely agree that the grinding and imbalances implemented to promote buying shark cards are fucking terrible, and most of the player base are clinically retarded
I'd be really disappointed to see RDR2 go down a similar route
[QUOTE=Megadave;52711925]PC Confirmation would be cool, but I have severe doubts. I'd shit myself if they announced it for Switch before PC.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty damn certain they'll release it on PC this time.
The game has some interesting history with long development time (originally PS2/XBOX title), high development costs, and some messy code that made them not port it over to PC.
Didn't R* San Diego get dissolved back into North sometime after GTA V's initial old-gen console run?
That was the only branch that didn't give one ounce of a shit about PC.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;52711959]Pretty literally judging a book by its cover there.[/QUOTE]
If an author's last work was a letdown and they don't seem to be trying any harder with their new work, I don't see a problem with having doubts about the quality.
[editline]24th September 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;52714038]Didn't R* San Diego get dissolved back into North sometime after GTA V's initial old-gen console run?
That was the only branch that didn't give one ounce of a shit about PC.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure Rockstar North never gave much of a fuck about PC, either. None of GTA's PC ports have ever been particularly good*.
*Up until V, that is. While the game itself leaves a lot to be desired, the port is really well-done.
I've been hurt by this too many times that I feel its my (new) duty to avoid the trap of buying games by the names alone and not waiting for solid reviews or gameplay footage. As an example: You could argue that Fallout 4 sucks because it misses a lot of what's great about Fallout 3. But from a sales point of view, it didn't. It has the little man, and the blue/yellow jumpsuits, and the old timey soundtrack... That's enough to convince people to pre-order. If the game had flopped we could say "See, we like it [I]this[/I] way not [I]that[/I] way!" but it probably made a lot of money before it was even released.
If you pre-order something like RDR2 you're telling R* that they can make whatever game they feel like because your purchase was[B] inevitable[/B]. Imagine selling a million pre-orders for an album you haven't written yet. What kind of music you would write if you knew that you were automatically going to top the charts when you released it. It's up to you whether or not you make something worthy of staying there, but you you know that no matter what you'll sell a million copies on day one. Do you pour your heart and soul into album dedicated to your most loyal fans or do you just collect a check? My point is this: If you have respect for something, don't pre-order it or mentally commit to buying it. Don't love it unconditionally, love it conditionally so it has a reason to be the thing you enjoy.
I'm not saying there's no room for pre-ordering or early access, its just that I think publishers lately double dip. They want to sell a watered-down game for casuals, so they can make that broad appeal money. But they also market it as if it's 'for the fans' so die-hard's will be tricked into thinking they're being catered to when they aren't. It doesn't feel like Bethesda cared what you liked about Fallout 3 and I worry that R* won't care what anybody liked about RDR. I don't think that matters anymore, not in todays industry.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
