Grand Theft Auto 5 PC in 'final stages' of development - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=RichyZ;46758925]tbogt had mission checkpoints btw[/QUOTE] Really? Never noticed it. The [URL="http://gta.wikia.com/Sexy_Time"]mission that made me ragequit[/URL] certainly didn't have, I shiver just from remembering all the time wasted because I got wasted.

I hope they stress test their servers. Too many launches have been plagued by that shit.

[QUOTE=kisaraji;46759855]Really? Never noticed it. The [URL="http://gta.wikia.com/Sexy_Time"]mission that made me ragequit[/URL] certainly didn't have, I shiver just from remembering all the time wasted because I got wasted.[/QUOTE] Oh fucking hell, I remember this mission. You were supposed to shoot down some goons in boats, but thanks to the incredibly awkward helicopter controls it was barely possible. In the end I figured out that the goons would eventually go to shore after a while, so I flew over to that spot and killed them when they got out of their boats.

MGSVGZ being great on PC has restored my faith a bit in rereleases. I feel like most games that are on console, and later ported to PC are less buggy than first day PC games.

[QUOTE=kila58;46759112] With all the childish humor in GTA V I feel like they are trying to cater to 13 yearold boys who still make fart jokes.[/QUOTE] what

[QUOTE=kila58;46759112]I liked it serious, it actually felt like the game was made for adults to play.[/QUOTE] Congratulations, go play Max Payne and L.A. Noire, then. GTA was never as serious as GTAIV until GTAIV and TLAD, and it went back to normal through TBoGT. [QUOTE]The ragdoll physics system was amazing and I spent hours on end fucking around with them.[/QUOTE] Good thing that's the one thing I praised it for. [QUOTE]The driving was amazing, I loved being able to flip my car from turning too hard.[/QUOTE] I never mentioned the driving, but I'd just like to point out that it's great if you want a realism simulator and shit if you want to finish any mission involving driving or high speeds. [QUOTE]With all the childish humor in GTA V I feel like they are trying to cater to 13 yearold boys who still make fart jokes.[/QUOTE] Going to have to agree to disagree, then. I laughed my ass off at it, especially when shit like the [sp]see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil[/sp] thing happened. [QUOTE=Bruhmis;46759238]I'm so sick of hearing this. just because you only care about over the top sandbox gameplay that doesn't mean it was a bad game.[/QUOTE] I actually don't care about sandbox gameplay. Like, at all really. In the open-world sandbox games I do enjoy like Saints Row and every other GTA, I still don't really just go and fuck about. [QUOTE]GTA IV was an incredible game for its time. Not only was it revolutionary from a technical standpoint,[/QUOTE] At no point did I argue that it had shit technology. The worst I said was that the PC port was awful because it is, and in fact, it was the only thing I praised it for. [QUOTE]but the aesthetics and narrative were both great despite some occasional hiccups.[/QUOTE] Sure, the narrative was a good crime drama. Unfortunately, the most comic relief that the game had was fucking Bernie, and he was annoying as fuck. [QUOTE]people also like to forget how big of a deal it was to have a multiplayer free roaming sandbox game of that calibre at that time, nobody had done it before and nobody did it again until long after.[/QUOTE] That was fun, but it's completely disconnected from the actual game. You're comparing CoD SP to CoD MP, and honestly, GTA is a primarily SP series.

I loved Grand Theft Auto 4; in a few minor areas, like the rag doll physics and the car handling I prefer it to 5. Also, I think Niko Bellic is Rockstar's best GTA protagonist and I actually cared about the story. Grand Theft Auto 5 still trumps 4 though in terms of scope and detail; and the character swapping mechanic is pretty amazing when you first play it. I do think that it has one of the weakest stories in the series and it lacks a memorable supporting cast outside of Lamar (Please, correct me if I'm forgetting any stand outs).

That's funny that you mention that because SA was more mature than five too. 4 was the story of two immigrants straight off the boats who we're trying to live the American dream. SA was the story of a man returning to him birthplace after his mother died and he left years ago. Five, I haven't plaid it yet but where is the hard ship? Doesn't it start out as robbing a bank? Plus who are you to claim what GTA should be? Sorry about the weird formatting on my phone.

Brother and his friend recently bought PS4s from GAME and used my GAME Rewards Card when buying them. I went from having around £8 worth of points to £31. I think I be getting myself a copy of GTA V PC on launch day.

Times like this when I wish I had a PC capable of running it, I'm just imaging all the beautiful, beautiful mods

[QUOTE=gk99;46761193] I never mentioned the driving, but I'd just like to point out that it's great if you want a realism simulator and shit if you want to finish any mission involving driving or high speeds. [/QUOTE] It wasn't realistic. Cars had [I]far[/I] too little traction and their suspension was far too floaty to be realistic (when set in the modern day). The vast majority of vehicles felt like meandering land arks from the 1950s.

Oh yeah GTA4 was completely over the top with vehicle handling, though it was certainly enjoyable. I honestly don't get the whole "SA is the best GTA" thing people have got going on, I've been playing GTA since 3 and SA had a lot of cool shit, sure, but it lost itself in that. The world itself was barren and served exclusively as a backdrop for you travelling from one mission to the next. The little features were nice, but overall it was just a meh game. Its real stand out feature was just sheer size, but even then half of it was literally nothing.

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;46768784]I honestly don't get the whole "SA is the best GTA" thing people have got going on, I've been playing GTA since 3 and SA had a lot of cool shit, sure, but it lost itself in that. The world itself was barren and served exclusively as a backdrop for you travelling from one mission to the next. The little features were nice, but overall it was just a meh game. Its real stand out feature was just sheer size, but even then half of it was literally nothing.[/QUOTE] I find it weird how a game like Mafia II captures their open world so accurately that it feels alive. There are many places to visit that actually had people doing things in them. Bars, diners, cafes, gun shops, clothing stores, gas stations, the docks, a junk yard where you can sell cars for money, and a couple other places that I can't put my finger on. But all that was locked away because the game was so instanced between its missions. There was no free roam. But from what I've played of GTA5, I feel that GTA5 tries to capture that San Francisco feel, but isn't as alive as Mafia II, as there are barely anyone on the sidewalks in the city, and the only places to visit are barbers, clothing shops, and gun-shops. It's funny how Mafia II accomplished that weird Boston-New York-Detroit feeling so well. I haven't played enough of GTA 5 to see if it pictured San Francisco as well as it's stereotype should be captured, seeings how GTA5 is a parody of San Fran.

[QUOTE=isnipeu;46749918]I hope they don't fuck up the port for PC like they did with IV.[/QUOTE] To be fair with them, GTA4(after mods) can hold up pretty well nowadays.

[QUOTE=ClarkWasHere;46768956]I find it weird how a game like Mafia II captures their open world so accurately that it feels alive. There are many places to visit that actually had people doing things in them. Bars, diners, cafes, gun shops, clothing stores, gas stations, the docks, a junk yard where you can sell cars for money, and a couple other places that I can't put my finger on. But all that was locked away because the game was so instanced between its missions. There was no free roam. But from what I've played of GTA5, I feel that GTA5 tries to capture that San Francisco feel, but isn't as alive as Mafia II, as there are barely anyone on the sidewalks in the city, and the only places to visit are barbers, clothing shops, and gun-shops. It's funny how Mafia II accomplished that weird Boston-New York-Detroit feeling so well. I haven't played enough of GTA 5 to see if it pictured San Francisco as well as it's stereotype should be captured, seeings how GTA5 is a parody of San Fran.[/QUOTE] GTA 5 is LA not San Fran.

[QUOTE=redsoxrock;46770508]GTA 5 is LA not San Fran.[/QUOTE] I fucked up. And I just remembered that I fucked up.

Can't wait. GTA IV and V was great on the PS3, and i have a ton of hours with the trainer on IV. I hope they make it easier to mod, because modding IV was a pain in the ass.

[QUOTE=Inspector Jones;46761564]I loved Grand Theft Auto 4; in a few minor areas, like the rag doll physics and the car handling I prefer it to 5. Also, I think Niko Bellic is Rockstar's best GTA protagonist and I actually cared about the story. Grand Theft Auto 5 still trumps 4 though in terms of scope and detail; and the character swapping mechanic is pretty amazing when you first play it. I do think that it has one of the weakest stories in the series and it lacks a memorable supporting cast outside of Lamar (Please, correct me if I'm forgetting any stand outs).[/QUOTE] I prefer a bit of both GTA 4 and 5's storylines. GTA 4's missions were more cohesive to the storyline and plot development continues at a steady pace with a common link between each mission. GTA 5's bank heists were extremely fun and adding three characters give player a chance to relate to at least one character but good portion of the missions were erratic. The story tends go on tangents to flesh out the characters and world before jumping back halfway through its potential, leaving the storyline with "frayed edges". It's a issue with having three focus characters with limited screen time but I'd take that than be left with one character. And no, don't go all "one great character or three good characters: choose one"(directed to the reader, not Inspector). Any adequate writer can still write three great characters. The trick is piecing them together and having each of their storylines provide momentum to an end goal, preferably related to the beginnings or ambitions of all three characters.

[QUOTE=Cypher_09;46756365]Holy fuck! ACHIEVEMENTS! Sometimes I only buy games for the achievements, but this game really will be perfect[/QUOTE] [URL="http://gib.me/sam/"] You are welcome![/URL]

[QUOTE=Jericho_Rus;46761030]what[/QUOTE] I think he means this (slight story spoilers) [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMYkP8t-8Sk[/media]

It's a good thing i have a birthday in January so i can save some money to buy it.

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;46768784]Oh yeah GTA4 was completely over the top with vehicle handling, though it was certainly enjoyable. I honestly don't get the whole "SA is the best GTA" thing people have got going on, I've been playing GTA since 3 and SA had a lot of cool shit, sure, but it lost itself in that. The world itself was barren and served exclusively as a backdrop for you travelling from one mission to the next. The little features were nice, but overall it was just a meh game. Its real stand out feature was just sheer size, but even then half of it was literally nothing.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RichyZ;46766784]anyone who thought 4 was realistic has never driven a car before i swear[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Saber15;46766748]It wasn't realistic. Cars had [I]far[/I] too little traction and their suspension was far too floaty to be realistic (when set in the modern day). The vast majority of vehicles felt like meandering land arks from the 1950s.[/QUOTE] This is like the opposite of every GTAV-IV car handling discussion ever

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drp9o4E7G7U[/media] how can anyone find this car handling realistic

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46796396][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drp9o4E7G7U[/media] how can anyone find this car handling realistic[/QUOTE] well generally kids go straight from Mario Kart to GTA, so I can see where the confusion can come into play. [editline]26th December 2014[/editline] i mean don't you see flying cards everywhere irl?

[QUOTE=gk99;46758228]Technology was ALL IV brought. The storyline was too serious, the PC port was horrid, the mission checkpoints were nonexistent (even though this was a problem up until V, San Andreas at least had Trip Skip, which was absent from IV), character customization was a huge letdown, the characters weren't enjoyable, all the RPG elements that were actually pretty cool (and the rewards they brought, like being fireproof and dual wielding and shit) disappeared, the city was grey and boring, the guns were all weak and felt the same, and the movement fucking sucked. Like why did it take more than a second to turn around, and why did Niko always feel the need to run forward first, killing me on multiple occasions, instead of just turning his feet to the right or left like a normal human being would? I feel like everyone lets this shit slide because it was the first "next-gen" GTA that had the technology for animating all five fingers. Like, at least TBoGT brought back the humor after I guess they realized it still wasn't working for TLAD, but the game's already overshadowed by its [I]predecessor[/I]. The only enjoyable thing is Euphoria and the high quality animations, the gameplay and everything else was awful.[/QUOTE] I don't agree with you. While the storyline definitely was a step to the side from what we're accustomed with, it was still very intriguing and well presented. Sure, it dragged on a bit too much, but it was still a fun experience. The PC port was and still is horrible, I'll give you that. Mission checkpoints were absolutely there, just not as often as needed. And while SA had trip skip, IV had taxis and the option to directly replay a mission from your phone when you failed it. Character customization was more limited than what we were used to from SA, but it was still there. I'd say the characters were very enjoyable - at least the protagonist wasn't as bland as CJ. I do agree that SA had some of the best characters in any of the GTA games, but that doesn't make IV's bad. The RPG elements in SA were pretty tacked on - you only noticed them when you [I]had [/I]to level them up for certain missions, which was pretty stupid. City might've been gray, but it was absolutely massive. I do miss the countryside, but you have to consider that they were going for a different direction. I think the controls were very nice and never had problems with them - they were just as responsive as any other game, especially when you're aiming. We let it slide, because it was truly an epic game with enormous amounts of content and so different from anything we had experienced before. Rose-tinted glasses yo. Yeah, GTA IV wasn't a perfect game and a lot could be improved. And here we are, eagerly anticipating GTA V. The improvement. Overall, it was still one of the best story-driven sandbox games ever made. [editline]26th December 2014[/editline] P.S. I don't understand why we can't judge the games in their own merit - they aren't connected to each other in any way other than sharing some locations and characters. I never saw San Andreas as a sequel to Vice City, just as I never saw IV as a sequel to SA. I really think all GTA games are amazing, and as long as you don't try to compare them so harshly against each other, you'll see that they shine in their own regard.

The only real consistency between the games is Lazlo :v: [editline]26th December 2014[/editline] The "HD" games 4 and 5 are in different universes then the 3D games. The 3D are supposedly the same "reality"

SA built up on VC which built up on 3 while 4 was totally new with all the engine shenanigans so it's very understandable that not all content will be moved over and some features will get cut. 5 on the other hand builds up on 4(from what I can tell) which is what happened VC->SA, map got bigger, more stuff was added.

[QUOTE=Tuskin;46797971]The only real consistency between the games is Lazlo :v: [editline]26th December 2014[/editline] The "HD" games 4 and 5 are in different universes then the 3D games. The 3D are supposedly the same "reality"[/QUOTE] It's multiple universes: the 2D Universe which contains GTA 1, 2 and London(s), the 3D which contains GTA 3, Vice City, San Andreas, Advance, Liberty City Stories and Vice City Stories, and finally HD, which contains GTA IV, TLAD, TBOGT and V. There's far more connecting things, such as Donald Love from GTA3/VC/LCS appearing in IV newspapers and having books in V, and OG Loc from SA having a CD in IV. The logic for universes is just the only excuse for Rockstar's stupid dividing of games, so it's basically, they all started out as the same, however the events differ, such as CJ never coming back and saving Grove in HD resulting in Ballas victory, or Niko not surviving the ambush in the 3D era, shit like that. [B]IT'S ALL STUPID SHIT[/B] EDIT: Why are folks rating facts dumb? If it`s because of the STUPID SHIT part, then I'm impressed nobody considered it's sarcasm seeing as I even highlighted it. But oh well, it's Facepunch after all.

Its not stupid at all.

I preferred GTA4's car handling. Every car felt different, too. GTA5's every car feels the same with the only difference being how fast they reach their top speed. Car damage sucks dick in GTA5, too, by comparison. Can't wait for the PC version so I can tweak it. I would ramp up GTA4's to 5x the deformation so a real savage wreck looked like one, and it was deformation that would render the car useless instead of the explosion that killed it