Rockstar could have released a new GTA every year

CMpunked

http://www.egmnow.com/articles/news/rockstar-we-could-have-easily-released-a-new-grand-theft-auto-every-year/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+egmnow%2Fmheh+%28EGMNOW%29

Rockstar has revealed that it could have easily churned out a new Grand Theft Auto title every year, but decided against doing so over fears that fans would lose interest in the series.

“When we were working on GTA III we were a much smaller team doing something new and experimental. We had no idea how the game would be received, just a belief that what we were working on was really special,” Rockstar North boss Leslie Benzies told IGN (Via Videogamer). ”Since then we have grown in to a much larger team and our games have much higher expectations. It’s not just our own faith in each project we’ve had to repay, but our fans’ too.”

“We could easily have churned out a new version year after year without really progressing as a franchise but if we did that eventually the fans would lose interest.”

I think this was a really smart move on Rockstar’s part, the fact that we have to wait years for a new title builds hype and excitement that an annual release simply couldn’t generate. Plus with how the open-world gameplay is set-up if there was no innovation between entries the series would quickly become a boring grind.

Benzies added that Rockstar wants “every one of [its] games to meet and exceed the players’ expectations so they always want more.”

I'm soooo glad they didn't do that.

Passenger

When he says 'release a new title every year' he hardly means a completely new environment, does he?! I'd say an annual GTA release would be akin to an update to one environment ala TBOGT, etc.

gnfnrhead

Glad they didn't do that anyway. You can get easily two or three years out of each game if you take your time with them and explore them fully.

Having it be yearly would just mean small changes every year and that doesn't seem to work too well these days if the likes of FIFA are anything to go by.

Penn

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Glad they didn't do that anyway. You can get easily two or three years out of each game if you take your time with them and explore them fully.

Having it be yearly would just mean small changes every year and that doesn't seem to work too well these days if the likes of FIFA are anything to go by.

Even Assassin's Creed. The difference between AC1 and AC2 was huge. Then came AC:Brotherhood a year after AC2, which had some new features but was still pretty good. Then a year later came AC:Revelations, which had even less new features and just started to feel a bit stale. Then a year later came AC3, but it had been a new team working on it since AC2 while another team did AC:B and AC:R, and AC3 felt like a proper jump in the series, just like the difference between AC1 and AC2

I still bought them all as soon as they came out, as did most fans of the series. But it started to lose fans along the way as it had become same old, same old.

You can't expect a game with pretty much a one-year development time to feel like a true sequel. Most times, it just ends up feeling like Malibu Stacey with a new hat

steve_r

Penn wrote: »

You can't expect a game with pretty much a one-year development time to feel like a true sequel. Most times, it just ends up feeling like Malibu Stacey with a new hat

Agreed. I don't get as much time for games as I would like, but ever since I've been gaming I've played nearly every game in the GTA series (with the exception of the PSP ones).

Because there is such a gap between games, it does build serious anticipaton plus for people like me I know that I'll have the previous game finished!

If titles came out every year, I wouldn't be able to keep up and I think that would push me away.

I like the AC analogy, I loved AC2 but I couldn't keep up with the series so it'll be a while before I get AC3.

I see games like the COD series and I've no idea how people manage to play all of them, and how the producers can make any serious leaps in such a short stretch of time.

Disclaimer: I am a very casual gamer so the above is likely laced with misinformed conjecture!

Blisterman

They could easily knock out a new city every year. The difficulty is in making it as detailed and intricate as the GTA ones.

Hogzy

steve_r wrote: »

I see games like the COD series and I've no idea how people manage to play all of them, and how the producers can make any serious leaps in such a short stretch of time.

They dont, they are still using the same engine that they created for COD 4. Which IMO was the best COD of the series. COD is just a money making machine, Its only released every year so they can make as much money as they can.


Im glad GTA isnt released every year but they could still do it every 3years. Waiting 5 years is a bit much IMO. But if they need that much time to make a great game then I will gladly wait. But if they're sitting on their hands for a year between releases then that makes me a sad panda.

gnfnrhead

Hogzy wrote: »

They dont, they are still using the same engine that they created for COD 4. Which IMO was the best COD of the series. COD is just a money making machine, Its only released every year so they can make as much money as they can.


Im glad GTA isnt released every year but they could still do it every 3years. Waiting 5 years is a bit much IMO. But if they need that much time to make a great game then I will gladly wait. But if they're sitting on their hands for a year between releases then that makes me a sad panda.

I'd say it will be another five before the next GTA game. It'll almost definetly be PS4 which is a new system and probably allows for much more to be done in the game.

ScumLord

I thought they could have gotten much more use out of GTA IV, it's such a big environment and like the two episodes showed the city can be the backdrop for story driven games where you don't need heaps of new features. The storeys can give you reasons to explore the city and get to know it better.