As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[GTA V] Give Me Your Clothes, Your Boots, and Your... Scuba Tank?

2

Posts

  • Muddy WaterMuddy Water Quiet Batperson Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Hasn't that been true for all Rockstar games? The GTA III era was vastly superior on the PC, and although GTA IV wasn't well-optimized at all, it didn't take much to run it at 720p and 360/PS3 level fidelity. Moreover, I've heard mostly good things about LA Noire and Max Payne 3 on PC, especially the latter.

    I do still hope that we don't have to wait half a year for a PC version.

    Muddy Water on
  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    IIRC, GTAIV was horrendous at PC release. This is only anecdotally, cause I had no troubles personally, but my buddy went so far as to claim the specs on the box were bullshit, that his machine way beyond the desired specs had a lot of issues and that the game was barely playable. I'm assuming we're a lot of patches later now. ;D

    Also San Andreas' built in controller support is, from experience, bad.

    I will add a hope for the PC GTAV! I hope it isn't GFWL. D:

    Oh brilliant
  • LalaboxLalabox Registered User regular
    I also remember hearing that the gta4 port did stuff like limiting what you could put on high specs. As if you had a bunch of points that you could put into each graphics option, and there was no way of having them all maxed out even if your machine could easily handle it, and the engine could too.

  • Mr_GrinchMr_Grinch Registered User regular
    I'd love a tighter narrative/plot. I know I'm fairly alone but I always get caught up in Rockstar open world games, buy them as soon as they come out and then get burnt out on the plot after a couple of hours. It took longer for RDR but it still happened.

    Steam: Sir_Grinch
    PSN: SirGrinchX
    Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
  • SurikoSuriko AustraliaRegistered User regular
    edited August 2012
    More freeform missions that actually make use of the open world gameplay rather than trying to shoehorn in artificial limits.

    Eg: Guy gives you a mission to kill Bob. He tells you that Bob works at place y, and lives at place x. He keeps some bodyguards around him when he's in public. Making it flashy to set an example would be preferred.

    From here, you could:
    Stake out his house, follow him when he leaves, then ram his car off a bridge.
    Wait for him outside his work, and have a firefight in broad daylight.
    Sweettalk his secretary during work hours, then assassinate him inside his office.
    Set a bomb underneath his car, killing him when he turns it on after the workday has ended.
    Snipe him through his office window.
    Etc, etc, etc. With tracking of stats and methods, various bonuses and penalties could be given as required.

    This is something I keep wishing these games would do, but consistently fail at and instead go for the easier route of tightly-controlled linear mission structures and singular objective methods.

    Suriko on
    DrunkMcZilla360
  • Big ClassyBig Classy Registered User regular
    Watchdog sounds like that tbh.

  • HuntingNoobHuntingNoob Registered User regular
    A shitload of missions with greater variety.

  • DrunkMcDrunkMc Registered User regular
    Suriko wrote: »
    More freeform missions that actually make use of the open world gameplay rather than trying to shoehorn in artificial limits.

    Eg: Guy gives you a mission to kill Bob. He tells you that Bob works at place y, and lives at place x. He keeps some bodyguards around him when he's in public. Making it flashy to set an example would be preferred.

    From here, you could:
    Stake out his house, follow him when he leaves, then ram his car off a bridge.
    Wait for him outside his work, and have a firefight in broad daylight.
    Sweettalk his secretary during work hours, then assassinate him inside his office.
    Set a bomb underneath his car, killing him when he turns it on after the workday has ended.
    Snipe him through his office window.
    Etc, etc, etc. With tracking of stats and methods, various bonuses and penalties could be given as required.

    This is something I keep wishing these games would do, but consistently fail at and instead go for the easier route of tightly-controlled linear mission structures and singular objective methods.

    I would love this! Sandbox games seem to not be Sandboxes during missions and that's annoying as hell. I don't want to be timed or limited in where I need to go! I'd love some Assassination type missions where a mysterious person puts transmitters on people and when you get within say 50 feet of them your controller shakes. And you have to find them and kill them. And like Suriko says, each target should have special limitations, in public, in private, gun, suicide, car accident, etc.,

    I'd love to walk up to a guy, crack him in the head with a bat, put him in the driver's seat of a car and push teh car off a bridge to fake a suicide. Something like that!

  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    Hmm after mulling over it a bit

    - Enough with the chase the badguy to the climax.
    IV was my breaking point. That bullshit dirt bike jump was the last straw.

    On that note mid mission check points. I cannot stress that enough.

    More buildings you can enter. A huge ass city with maybe 50 buildings you can go in is sort of a waste.

    The drinking and crap is funny but worthless. How about instead of wasting time on that they improve the shitty combat ?

    A huge garage. And the ability to call for a car anywhere.

    Make a bully sequel er I mean add more quick travel options.

    I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
  • Skull2185Skull2185 Registered User regular
    Saint's Row has always had really good gunplay/melee mechanics. GTA V should just ape that.

    I loved getting shitfaced on whiskey in RDR, I hope they keep that in GTA V. I didn't like how the screen got all screwed up in IV when you got drunk.

    Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
  • Lindsay LohanLindsay Lohan Registered User regular
    I'm also for getting rid of the chase the bad guy mechanic. You know what would be great? On those "chase him down" missions if you lost track of the car instead of a big "Mission Failed" thing on the screen, how about having the chance to ask people around which way he went, or get a tip on your phone where he might have gone and have you get a chance to ask around, find some clues and track him down on foot? That way you're not being punished for having slightly less than perfect driving skills.

    It would be great, if you can't beat the mission by driving you could be given a few other ways to get the same result.

  • Skull2185Skull2185 Registered User regular
    You know what? Just give me this in GTA V and we'll call it even:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m3-xw_BOwo

    Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
    Corsini
  • KadokenKadoken Giving Ends to my Friends and it Feels Stupendous Registered User regular
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    I want to have more stuff to do in the sandbox gameplay that isn't missions.

    GTA has always suffered from "you can drive anywhere and do anything but outside of random acts of violence, there's nothing to do except missions"

    They should take a leaf from Just Cause 2 and have random things you can do.

    What random things? Blow stuff up, do story missions, side missions, and races? JC2 isn't that diverse.

  • KlashKlash Lost... ... in the rainRegistered User regular
    edited August 2012
    I'm also for getting rid of the chase the bad guy mechanic. You know what would be great? On those "chase him down" missions if you lost track of the car instead of a big "Mission Failed" thing on the screen, how about having the chance to ask people around which way he went, or get a tip on your phone where he might have gone and have you get a chance to ask around, find some clues and track him down on foot? That way you're not being punished for having slightly less than perfect driving skills.

    It would be great, if you can't beat the mission by driving you could be given a few other ways to get the same result.

    Yes. This.

    For me, the last straw is being right on the target's bumper, when the cheating-computer means they pull a perfect 90 degree turn. Then thanks to GTAIVs awful (and yet very fun for it's zaniness, outside of missions) car physics, I spin out completely and lose the mission. Boo!

    Also terrible about that is I have caught this guy, he should totally be dead/his car should explode/tires should pop and spin out/whatever, but nope, because the mission demands I chase him to some arbitrary point for the sake of Rockstar feeling in control, it just keeps going and going.

    Klash on
    We don't even care... whether we care or not...
    DrunkMc
  • KlashKlash Lost... ... in the rainRegistered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Oops. Double post.

    Klash on
    We don't even care... whether we care or not...
  • LalaboxLalabox Registered User regular
    Kadoken wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    I want to have more stuff to do in the sandbox gameplay that isn't missions.

    GTA has always suffered from "you can drive anywhere and do anything but outside of random acts of violence, there's nothing to do except missions"

    They should take a leaf from Just Cause 2 and have random things you can do.

    What random things? Blow stuff up, do story missions, side missions, and races? JC2 isn't that diverse.

    Just the act of exploring and blowing things up is fun. Driving is a challenge, and it's still fun when you fail because something will inevitably blow up, and it's easy to find another car. It's just fun to mess around. It may not be all that diverse, but you can make your own fun much more than you can in gta4. I reckon.

    Big Classy
  • KadokenKadoken Giving Ends to my Friends and it Feels Stupendous Registered User regular
    Lalabox wrote: »
    Kadoken wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    I want to have more stuff to do in the sandbox gameplay that isn't missions.

    GTA has always suffered from "you can drive anywhere and do anything but outside of random acts of violence, there's nothing to do except missions"

    They should take a leaf from Just Cause 2 and have random things you can do.

    What random things? Blow stuff up, do story missions, side missions, and races? JC2 isn't that diverse.

    Just the act of exploring and blowing things up is fun. Driving is a challenge, and it's still fun when you fail because something will inevitably blow up, and it's easy to find another car. It's just fun to mess around. It may not be all that diverse, but you can make your own fun much more than you can in gta4. I reckon.

    I had more fun in GTA4 and Just Cause 1 then in Just Cause 2. Driving isn't a challenge, it's floaty and is usually useless. I would think that parachuting around would be fun, but it isn't. Blowing things up in Just Cause 2 isn't really that much fun because it feels pre-set and doesn't really give you much eyecandy besides a few of the bigger explosions. Just Cause 2's Gunplay is also floaty and awkward. It's not bad, just only decent. Also no, I don't find exploring fun in JC2. Everything just blends in to whatever section of world you're in. Desert area? Bland. Jungle areas? Repetitive. One town looks almost exactly like the other. The world feels like it has no life.

    I had more fun in GTA4 because of the heavier gunplay and movement. Driving really should have been tweaked so you can make a turn without hitting a wall while going at a moderate speed, but AI enjoyed it. I liked the story and characters, even if they are contradictory from gameplay to cutscenes. Kind of like how I enjoy MGS4's cutscenes, because even though they are cheesy, the story is hard to follow, and everything Is weird, the VA and stuff happening on the screen is very enjoyable and can be funny.

    I need things in my sandbox shooters to be more tight and concise I guess. Blowing up stuff isn't a reward unto itself, I'd like a benefit to it more than more money on that awkward black market shop and proceeding to the next mission. I would say Red Faction: Guerilla did the job better than JC2 for the "Rebel against government and blow shit up" theme. At least in RF:G, there were sometimes consequences for your actions, like a base getting assaulted or you having to defend a base from EDF. Rescuing hostages and blowing up key buildings was more fun in that game because all of its mechanics worked and worked well. Not superbly mind you, with all those fancy gadgets and guns only being able to carry 3 besides your sledgehammer is a kick to my creative exploding things part of my nut sack. Not to mention RF:G's world felt somewhat alive, and when people start backing you when they see you fighting EDF soldiers, that makes me feel like I accomplished something in that world. Unlike JC2 where they might send one or two grunts to barely help you. The factions didn't do shit without your input. You could say that in RF:G that was a similar case, but at least they would get attacked or they would call you to do something special for them. Also Mars was much prettier to look at. I guess JC2 was just not satisfactory in enough fronts for me.

    Though I had more fun in The Godfather: Black Hand Edition on the Wii than with GTA4 or Just Cause 2.

    To get this back on topic, I think Rockstar has learned from it's experience with Red Dead, L.A. noire, and Max Paune 3. If it tightens up the gunplay, maybe give you more weapons, bring back safehouses, a way to heal other than food, and all the things it's learned from RDR, like dynamic events, making a great setting and having a plethora of side activities like Bounty hunting, poker, races, card games, and such, it will come together. I just wish they would make the main campaign co-opable.

  • Muddy WaterMuddy Water Quiet Batperson Registered User regular
    I don't know why they removed the odd jobs like taxi missions, pizza delivery, etc. Those were very useful for getting acquainted to the city and wouldn't clash with their design philosophy of keeping things grounded either. I hope they invest their time and energy into distractions like these, rather than anime parodies and stand-up acts.

  • KlashKlash Lost... ... in the rainRegistered User regular
    Speaking of those random activities, for God's sake, make doing extra-stuff worth while!

    All you ever got in GTAIV was cash and then more cash! Why didn't I get the ability to order any of those cars I stole (like in GTAIII)? Why didn't shooting pigeons help me become a better marksman or something? I should've been able to unlock items at my hideouts.

    As well, hideouts should have been upgradable. Buy a bigger garage, a computer to check your e-mails, etc. Instead of being forced to go to an E-cafe, while walking around with over a million in pocket change.

    We don't even care... whether we care or not...
  • KadokenKadoken Giving Ends to my Friends and it Feels Stupendous Registered User regular
    Klash wrote: »
    Speaking of those random activities, for God's sake, make doing extra-stuff worth while!

    All you ever got in GTAIV was cash and then more cash! Why didn't I get the ability to order any of those cars I stole (like in GTAIII)? Why didn't shooting pigeons help me become a better marksman or something? I should've been able to unlock items at my hideouts.

    As well, hideouts should have been upgradable. Buy a bigger garage, a computer to check your e-mails, etc. Instead of being forced to go to an E-cafe, while walking around with over a million in pocket change.

    I know right? Three Leaf Clover was pretty awesome but basically the ending would be like putting in a cheat code for $10,000 over and over to buy weapons. Why not have safehouses or places you can buy to make you money and give you benefit? I remember in Vice City you could buy a pretty snazzy club. Me and my friend would grind forever to get that safehouse with the heli-pad just because helicopters would be cool (And two garages didn't hurt either). Why did they forgo that concept? I would imagine Niko would like to own a few places to get him out of being a thug. Maybe they offer AI crew or modded weapons or an awesome bullet proof sturdy sports car.

  • KlashKlash Lost... ... in the rainRegistered User regular
    edited August 2012
    You know what the best thing about buying Vice City property was? The missions! That club, The Malibu, basically provided the VC version of Three Leaf Clover. The build up to it was awesome, as well, getting to assemble your crew, meeting Cassidy, etc.

    The entire point of GTAIV was living the American dream. You start the damn thing coming to Liberty so you can live well and be rich, blahblahblah. By the end of it, I was rich, except the only decent place I had was a dinky apartment I got for killing that one guy.

    Why couldn't I own one of those big houses the Mafia or Russians had? Why couldn't I buy that amusement park to turn a profit/run an illicit business from? Buying the ice cream factory to sell drugs in VC was great.

    Modified weapons would be fantastic, though. Being able to get red-dot sights or something simple would just make me feel like a badass amongst the generic-gun toting baddies I face.

    Klash on
    We don't even care... whether we care or not...
  • stigweardstigweard Registered User regular
    There is far too mush hate for the gta iv driving physics. I much prefer it to games where your car tires have infinite gripo and you can turn on a dime at full speed. The lower end vehicles worse exaggeratedly worse to allow for the sportier vehicles to have comparatively better handling. With a few minutes to acclimate, you could get around nearly as fast and look all the flashier for it. The only thing that was really wrong with it is the ai vehicles didn't have to follow the same physics model.

  • NuzakNuzak Registered User regular
    anyone who wants less linearity and railroading in their story structure and missions isn't going to get it. GTA4 was pretty bad for this, despite having cool stuff in other areas like the feel of the city. since then, rockstar games (LA noire, RDR) have only gotten more so, and been lauded anyway, if not because of the railroading. more meaningless distraction in the overworld, more scripted action in the missions. less humour, more dragged out pacing, less emphasis on an evolving game experience and more emphasis on the same cover shooting you were doing at hour 1.

  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    Kadoken wrote: »
    Klash wrote: »
    Speaking of those random activities, for God's sake, make doing extra-stuff worth while!

    All you ever got in GTAIV was cash and then more cash! Why didn't I get the ability to order any of those cars I stole (like in GTAIII)? Why didn't shooting pigeons help me become a better marksman or something? I should've been able to unlock items at my hideouts.

    As well, hideouts should have been upgradable. Buy a bigger garage, a computer to check your e-mails, etc. Instead of being forced to go to an E-cafe, while walking around with over a million in pocket change.

    I know right? Three Leaf Clover was pretty awesome but basically the ending would be like putting in a cheat code for $10,000 over and over to buy weapons. Why not have safehouses or places you can buy to make you money and give you benefit? I remember in Vice City you could buy a pretty snazzy club. Me and my friend would grind forever to get that safehouse with the heli-pad just because helicopters would be cool (And two garages didn't hurt either). Why did they forgo that concept? I would imagine Niko would like to own a few places to get him out of being a thug. Maybe they offer AI crew or modded weapons or an awesome bullet proof sturdy sports car.

    The problem with letting you use that wealth is that it gets a bit dissonant with the main storyline after awhile.

    By the time you get your brother out of prison in San Andreas, CJ is a millionaire, owns several houses, is bankrolling a famous rapper, has allies in the CIA and could basically buy Grove Street, but for some reason you can't do anything about one corrupt Police lieutenant who doesn't even have jurisdiction over where you live now.

  • NightslyrNightslyr Registered User regular
    Yeah, in-game wealth was really handled the best in VC where the point was to take over Miami. I think it could have worked well in IV, if they tweaked the story so Niko actually became a gangster with ambition instead of merely a hitman with not a lot of will of his own. The whole "Become what you hate" angle.

    It was ridiculous in SA. I can't help but wonder if that dissonance was intentional, in order to spoof the X-TREEM 90s.

    All that said, it was disappointing that Niko only had two safehouses that were nice. The first two were absolute shitholes, but that fit into the story. The third was nice, and was the one I always used because it had a computer. Playboy X's place wasn't as nice (no computer, IIRC), but still solid. One would think that the last one, on the last island, would be good, especially since by that point Niko had successfully pulled off the heist. Nope, another shithole. I would have loved a small house in the suburb area of the third island.

  • darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited August 2012
    stigweard wrote: »
    There is far too mush hate for the gta iv driving physics. I much prefer it to games where your car tires have infinite gripo and you can turn on a dime at full speed. The lower end vehicles worse exaggeratedly worse to allow for the sportier vehicles to have comparatively better handling. With a few minutes to acclimate, you could get around nearly as fast and look all the flashier for it. The only thing that was really wrong with it is the ai vehicles didn't have to follow the same physics model.

    I will champion this cause forever, the cars in GTA IV were wonderful to drive. Yes they're not immediately welcoming because that is boring as hell. Every car has a different weight and grip, they all feel unique, and learning how to manage that and drive at high speed was an absolute delight because they all feel so wonderfully tactile. It just helps you connect with the world even more.

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    darleysam wrote: »
    stigweard wrote: »
    There is far too mush hate for the gta iv driving physics. I much prefer it to games where your car tires have infinite gripo and you can turn on a dime at full speed. The lower end vehicles worse exaggeratedly worse to allow for the sportier vehicles to have comparatively better handling. With a few minutes to acclimate, you could get around nearly as fast and look all the flashier for it. The only thing that was really wrong with it is the ai vehicles didn't have to follow the same physics model.

    I will champion this cause forever, the cars in GTA IV were wonderful to drive. Yes they're not immediately welcoming because that is boring as hell. Every car has a different weight and grip, they all feel unique, and learning how to manage that and drive at high speed was an absolute delight because they all feel so wonderfully tactile. It just helps you connect with the world even more.

    Which would be fine if the computer couldn't go-fast and turn on a dime. Or magically stop.traffic spawns
    Or not draw police attention despite driving recklessly.
    Its annoying and makes the driving seem flawed.

    I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
  • Jimmy MarkuJimmy Marku LondonRegistered User regular
    I'm just really fucking bored of the setting - LA AGAIN? I can only drive my virtual modern car around a virtual modern city looking at virtual modern billboards and do virtual modern boring shit for so long before i've had enough.

    Future city GTA? Yes please.

  • Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    I also loved GTA IV's driving physics. It managed to make most vehicles feel distinct yet still very fun to drive. Even some of the junkers were a blast.

  • SurikoSuriko AustraliaRegistered User regular
    Nuzak wrote: »
    anyone who wants less linearity and railroading in their story structure and missions isn't going to get it. GTA4 was pretty bad for this, despite having cool stuff in other areas like the feel of the city. since then, rockstar games (LA noire, RDR) have only gotten more so, and been lauded anyway, if not because of the railroading. more meaningless distraction in the overworld, more scripted action in the missions. less humour, more dragged out pacing, less emphasis on an evolving game experience and more emphasis on the same cover shooting you were doing at hour 1.

    Et tu, Brutus?

  • darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    darleysam wrote: »
    stigweard wrote: »
    There is far too mush hate for the gta iv driving physics. I much prefer it to games where your car tires have infinite gripo and you can turn on a dime at full speed. The lower end vehicles worse exaggeratedly worse to allow for the sportier vehicles to have comparatively better handling. With a few minutes to acclimate, you could get around nearly as fast and look all the flashier for it. The only thing that was really wrong with it is the ai vehicles didn't have to follow the same physics model.

    I will champion this cause forever, the cars in GTA IV were wonderful to drive. Yes they're not immediately welcoming because that is boring as hell. Every car has a different weight and grip, they all feel unique, and learning how to manage that and drive at high speed was an absolute delight because they all feel so wonderfully tactile. It just helps you connect with the world even more.

    Which would be fine if the computer couldn't go-fast and turn on a dime. Or magically stop.traffic spawns
    Or not draw police attention despite driving recklessly.
    Its annoying and makes the driving seem flawed.

    The only times I noticed these things happening would be during the horrible scripted chases where the car in front was locked to a path and distance from you, so it moved like it was on a Scalextric track, rather than a car with friction and momentum. The rest of the cars all seemed to obey reasonably consistent rules.

    forumsig.png
  • Big ClassyBig Classy Registered User regular
    I'm all for linear focused missions in open world games providing the developers take the game mechanics into account when directing them. For instance the Chase sequences where the lead AI car just glides around effortlessly. Or when you cant kill someone until the right moment. Its horrible and completely annoying..


    The driving in GTA IV was great. Took some practise and skill. I actually prefer the more realistic angle they took with the series but only because I can get my jolly elsewhere like Saints Row now. Id rather GTA V be different tbh. And lose the 69 jokes, they were never funny.

  • NuzakNuzak Registered User regular
    darleysam wrote: »
    stigweard wrote: »
    There is far too mush hate for the gta iv driving physics. I much prefer it to games where your car tires have infinite gripo and you can turn on a dime at full speed. The lower end vehicles worse exaggeratedly worse to allow for the sportier vehicles to have comparatively better handling. With a few minutes to acclimate, you could get around nearly as fast and look all the flashier for it. The only thing that was really wrong with it is the ai vehicles didn't have to follow the same physics model.

    I will champion this cause forever, the cars in GTA IV were wonderful to drive. Yes they're not immediately welcoming because that is boring as hell. Every car has a different weight and grip, they all feel unique, and learning how to manage that and drive at high speed was an absolute delight because they all feel so wonderfully tactile. It just helps you connect with the world even more.

    yeah boo hoo they don't do perfect 90 degree handbrake turns anymore. what the cars do do is much, much more interesting now.

  • DrunkMcDrunkMc Registered User regular
    I also loved GTA IV's driving physics. It managed to make most vehicles feel distinct yet still very fun to drive. Even some of the junkers were a blast.

    Yeah, it took a while to get used to it, but once I did it was amazing. I now play other games like Just Cause 2 or L.A. Noire and the driving just feels so old and boring.

  • NuzakNuzak Registered User regular
    Suriko wrote: »
    Nuzak wrote: »
    anyone who wants less linearity and railroading in their story structure and missions isn't going to get it. GTA4 was pretty bad for this, despite having cool stuff in other areas like the feel of the city. since then, rockstar games (LA noire, RDR) have only gotten more so, and been lauded anyway, if not because of the railroading. more meaningless distraction in the overworld, more scripted action in the missions. less humour, more dragged out pacing, less emphasis on an evolving game experience and more emphasis on the same cover shooting you were doing at hour 1.

    Et tu, Brutus?

    don't get me wrong, i still have a lot of love for gta4. the radio stations, niko, roman, little jacob and brucie (latter three under-utilised in favour of one-note characters introduced 2/3 of the way through though) liberty city in the rain, liberty city generally (the filthy streets, the blowing paper bags, people with umbrellas) the cars, hitting people with cars, the "take cover behind anything" stuff. but it's got a lot of flaws and in RDR and LA noire they seemed to carry those flaws forward with them. rockstar desperately want to make a movie and they don't trust the player to make a dramatic experience for themselves, which in a sandbox game, is kind of silly.

  • darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    Nuzak wrote: »
    darleysam wrote: »
    stigweard wrote: »
    There is far too mush hate for the gta iv driving physics. I much prefer it to games where your car tires have infinite gripo and you can turn on a dime at full speed. The lower end vehicles worse exaggeratedly worse to allow for the sportier vehicles to have comparatively better handling. With a few minutes to acclimate, you could get around nearly as fast and look all the flashier for it. The only thing that was really wrong with it is the ai vehicles didn't have to follow the same physics model.

    I will champion this cause forever, the cars in GTA IV were wonderful to drive. Yes they're not immediately welcoming because that is boring as hell. Every car has a different weight and grip, they all feel unique, and learning how to manage that and drive at high speed was an absolute delight because they all feel so wonderfully tactile. It just helps you connect with the world even more.

    yeah boo hoo they don't do perfect 90 degree handbrake turns anymore. what the cars do do is much, much more interesting now.

    And the motorbikes in Lost and Damned were a tonne of fun to ride. I will admit that they were a gigantic step away from the realism I love in the cars, but that made them actual, viable modes of transport that allowed you to dart through traffic like a nimble rocket. Basically whatever else they do, keep the vehicles as they are with just the right amount of challenge required in their handling.

    forumsig.png
  • SurikoSuriko AustraliaRegistered User regular
    Nuzak wrote: »
    Suriko wrote: »
    Nuzak wrote: »
    anyone who wants less linearity and railroading in their story structure and missions isn't going to get it. GTA4 was pretty bad for this, despite having cool stuff in other areas like the feel of the city. since then, rockstar games (LA noire, RDR) have only gotten more so, and been lauded anyway, if not because of the railroading. more meaningless distraction in the overworld, more scripted action in the missions. less humour, more dragged out pacing, less emphasis on an evolving game experience and more emphasis on the same cover shooting you were doing at hour 1.

    Et tu, Brutus?

    don't get me wrong, i still have a lot of love for gta4. the radio stations, niko, roman, little jacob and brucie (latter three under-utilised in favour of one-note characters introduced 2/3 of the way through though) liberty city in the rain, liberty city generally (the filthy streets, the blowing paper bags, people with umbrellas) the cars, hitting people with cars, the "take cover behind anything" stuff. but it's got a lot of flaws and in RDR and LA noire they seemed to carry those flaws forward with them. rockstar desperately want to make a movie and they don't trust the player to make a dramatic experience for themselves, which in a sandbox game, is kind of silly.

    To be clear, I entirely agree with everything you've said. It's just sad to be reminded of.

    R* make very fun sandboxes, and I too loved GTA IV's additions to the franchise (including the cars!) but the campaigns are a terrible flaw driven by a very singular and clear logic behind them - "cinematic" storytelling.

  • Muddy WaterMuddy Water Quiet Batperson Registered User regular
    I think their storytelling missteps aren't a chronic condition. The only game where it was a serious problem for me was GTA IV. I haven't played LA Noire or Max Payne 3, but I felt RDR and the GTA IV DLC got the storytelling right. Basically, the things the player cared about were the same things the character cared about.

    In RDR, you meet the man you're hunting down in the first half an hour. John Marston's character is slowly but deliberately fleshed out through the initial set of missions. The story loses a bit of focus in Mexico, but the final third has you directly interacting with the the men responsible for your current situation, and the man responsible for shaping your past. The game doesn't just tell you that you have to kill this man because of some tragedy that occurred years before the story is set. It shows you why you're in this situation, and how desperate the protagonist is to get out of it. It even lets you have a glimpse of the happy ending you've been working so hard for. And the final line of missions goes beyond "show, don't tell" to "do, don't show". These missions have you performing the most basic set of tasks, and they're the best missions in the game. Contrast this with GTA IV. I found the story very compelling up until the point you have to escape to Algonquin. The life of your little family is in danger because of your actions against a fully-realized antagonist. After that, the narrative just goes off the rails. Characters keep coming and going, asking you to kill this or that person, and you keep doing it, for a pie in the sky goal of moving up in the world or finding that special someone. This is where the pathos of the story is supposed to come from. Niko's passionate search for vengeance and hopefully, redemption. Instead, it ends up being nothing more than a macguffin. You spend two-thirds of the game committing murders for random people in the hope that they'll give you the number of the guy who might know Mr. Macguffin's neighbour. I know they try to raise the question of whether he only kills because he has to or because he's a natural born killer. They even let you choose the outcome of your actions, of the toll it's taken on Niko's soul. But I never saw the point of those choices. For fuck's sake, if it were up to me, I wouldn't have killed half the people I was told to. They keep telling us that Niko doesn't want to be a killer, but he's never shown trying to be anything else, except at the very beginning. The problem isn't that the story contradicts the open-world elements of the game. It's that it contradicts itself!

    Both RDR and GTA IV had the same basic story, of a man with a dark past trying to settle down, but being forced to repeat his sins to have a chance to redeem himself. The difference was that everything in RDR was geared towards that theme, even the setting. With GTA IV, they wanted to tell a particular story, but weren't willing to let go of their old GTA tropes. And I'm not talking about the mission design. I'm talking about the how and why you get those missions. They tried to fit a square peg in a round hole.

    The DLC didn't have these problems, I felt. They didn't change their formula to better suit that kind of story. Instead, they gave us stories that better fit that established formula. They found a happy medium between the wackiness of Area 69s and jetpacks and the heavy-handedness of IV. That, and the fantastic work they did in RDR, has me incredibly excited for GTA V.

  • KadokenKadoken Giving Ends to my Friends and it Feels Stupendous Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    I spoiled the ending of RDR for myself. I was disappointed in myself.

    But it was still FREAKING AWESOME!
    I just wish there was a way to let Jack go straight and narrow, rather than the only outcome. I would have liked a choice to be this. Jack can stay for as long as he wants without doing the mission, and can go to the ferry and join up for WW1 or become a policeman/detective. Or you can do the current choice. That would have been extremely satisfying, to finally be able to do what John wanted his son to turn out as. The problem with the current choice is that Jack has no set of skills to live in this world except for farming and killing. He killed a prominent US agent, and would be wanted. He has no escape now. By not making this choice, he has a chance for new life. He could become a soldier or a policeman. Or perhaps a mercenary. By the end of the story, the west is dead. That time is over. Jack needs to move on.

    Kadoken on
  • Big ClassyBig Classy Registered User regular
    Yeah thats not spoiling it for others or anything :P

Sign In or Register to comment.