GTA V Megathread *READ OP*

Agricola

Very hard to see how thats running on current gen systems. It has to be on a pc build. Can they really ring that much out of this ancient hardware!

Passenger

Agricola wrote: »

Very hard to see how thats running on current gen systems. It has to be on a pc build. Can they really ring that much out of this ancient hardware!

Well they said on the gameinformer interview that the trailer was captured on a PS3.

Retr0gamer

I felt they dialled back the crazy with the missions in GTA IV and instead of having a lot of variety they were all just car chases or shooting people. Also the world became scripted during all missions.

Varik

ShadowHearth wrote: »

And we all know that majority of sales on PC are Digital. I dont remember last time I bought non digital for my PC. Just because digital sale information is not published does not mean it does not sale.

edit: So if PC sales are shiet, why on earth They are hiring extra manpower to port games to pc?

Where did I say that not publishing the digital sales number meant they were low, I said that they know what those numbers are unlike you who are just guessing.

They know if something is worth their time more than you do, it's the same reason they've not release Red Dead on PC after 3 years and that GTA4 was not a priority.

ShadowHearth

Varik wrote: »

Where did I say that not publishing the digital sales number meant they were low, I said that they know what those numbers are unlike you who are just guessing.

They know if something is worth their time more than you do, it's the same reason they've not release Red Dead on PC after 3 years and that GTA4 was not a priority.

They know better, yes. And they still hiring staff to make a PC port of it. It means they see it as profitable.
You dont need to be a rocket scientist to understand why GTA 5 is a good game for PC. So yes, Not releasing it on PC is Stupid.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Reading an article on Eurogamer, seems they aren't taking themselves seriously with this game which is a good thing because it's what let GTAIV down.

I imagine that they saw the positive response that Saints Row 3 got and realised that a lot of gamers wanted a game that wasn't afraid of pushing the ridicolous and revelling in the fact that it was a game and there was no need to strive for too much realism.

ShadowHearth

Deleted User wrote: »

I imagine that they saw the positive response that Saints Row 3 got and realised that a lot of gamers wanted a game that wasn't afraid of pushing the ridicolous and revelling in the fact that it was a game and there was no need to strive for too much realism.

Sand

Saints Row 3 already exists to serve the demographic that want ridiculously OTT stuff in their games. Looking at sales, SR3 was up to just under 4 million copies sold up to late last year over its entire sales period to that point. GTA IV sold just over 3.5 million copies on its first day of sales. As of late 2012, GTA IV sold over 25 million copies and it was *still* selling millions over the period SR3 was released.

My point is there is a lot of vocal complaining about GTA IV being too serious and too realistic, with SR3 being hailed as the cure for the silent majority out there. Sales don't seem to back this narrative up. If GTA V has anything like the sales of SR3 it would be an unmitigated disaster of a release so I dont think Rockstar would be wise to draw any lessons from SR3. GTA IV had flaws (Hey, Niko, do you want to go bowling? No! Hey, Niko, do you want to go for a drive? No! Hey Niko...) but being overly serious wasn't one of them.

ShadowHearth

Sand wrote: »

Saints Row 3 already exists to serve the demographic that want ridiculously OTT stuff in their games. Looking at sales, SR3 was up to just under 4 million copies sold up to late last year over its entire sales period to that point. GTA IV sold just over 3.5 million copies on its first day of sales. As of late 2012, GTA IV sold over 25 million copies and it was *still* selling millions over the period SR3 was released.

My point is there is a lot of vocal complaining about GTA IV being too serious and too realistic, with SR3 being hailed as the cure for the silent majority out there. Sales don't seem to back this narrative up. If GTA V has anything like the sales of SR3 it would be an unmitigated disaster of a release so I dont think Rockstar would be wise to draw any lessons from SR3. GTA IV had flaws (Hey, Niko, do you want to go bowling? No! Hey, Niko, do you want to go for a drive? No! Hey Niko...) but being overly serious wasn't one of them.

If what I actually want GTA5 to be more serious then goofy. For goofy shiet I got SR3 and soon SR4. I just dont want a hybrid again.

Jim

Azza wrote: »

Well Blizzard could give you a few, like 12 million copies of Diablo 3 sold and 6 million copies of Starcraft 2 sold.
I'm sure Bohemia Interactive could give you some as well after a mod drove up sales of over 300,000 for Arma 2.
How about ArenaNet and its 3 million copies of Guild Wars 2 sold.
What about Minecraft?
Or Kickstarter allowing developers like Obsidian and others to make the games they actually want to make.
etc etc.

Back on GTA 5. The game will come to PC almost certainly, probably the middle of next year. The trailer looks pretty good, I'll probably end up picking it up on both console and PC.

While I see your point all the examples are games people buy to play online, so therefore piracy is much less of a factor, and none of those games profits are canalized by Steam Sales since you can't buy them there (with the exception of Arma). GTA is always about the single player, so therefore its harder for a company to justify the cost of development for the PC platform. Of course this could change when they reveal more about the multiplayer mode, but I doubt it will have too much of an impact.

krudler

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I felt they dialled back the crazy with the missions in GTA IV and instead of having a lot of variety they were all just car chases or shooting people. Also the world became scripted during all missions.

Big time, it was all escort missions and chases and tailing and stuff, now thats fine and its a staple of the previous games too, but you need the crazy stuff in it. Not having a parchute in IV was a big mistake too, least they rectified it with the DLC. There was a hilarious mission involving strapping a guy to a golf cart and driving him around trying to get into out of him, that's the kind of stuff GTA was fun for

Deano7788

Sand wrote: »

Saints Row 3 already exists to serve the demographic that want ridiculously OTT stuff in their games. Looking at sales, SR3 was up to just under 4 million copies sold up to late last year over its entire sales period to that point. GTA IV sold just over 3.5 million copies on its first day of sales. As of late 2012, GTA IV sold over 25 million copies and it was *still* selling millions over the period SR3 was released.

My point is there is a lot of vocal complaining about GTA IV being too serious and too realistic, with SR3 being hailed as the cure for the silent majority out there. Sales don't seem to back this narrative up. If GTA V has anything like the sales of SR3 it would be an unmitigated disaster of a release so I dont think Rockstar would be wise to draw any lessons from SR3. GTA IV had flaws (Hey, Niko, do you want to go bowling? No! Hey, Niko, do you want to go for a drive? No! Hey Niko...) but being overly serious wasn't one of them.

One key point though is that the name GTA alone will guarantee plenty of sales, the Saints Row name is nowhere near as strong. And that name was built on the likes of Vice City and San Andreas, which were nowhere near as serious as IV.

ShadowHearth

Sand wrote: »

Saints Row 3 already exists to serve the demographic that want ridiculously OTT stuff in their games. Looking at sales, SR3 was up to just under 4 million copies sold up to late last year over its entire sales period to that point. GTA IV sold just over 3.5 million copies on its first day of sales. As of late 2012, GTA IV sold over 25 million copies and it was *still* selling millions over the period SR3 was released.

My point is there is a lot of vocal complaining about GTA IV being too serious and too realistic, with SR3 being hailed as the cure for the silent majority out there. Sales don't seem to back this narrative up. If GTA V has anything like the sales of SR3 it would be an unmitigated disaster of a release so I dont think Rockstar would be wise to draw any lessons from SR3. GTA IV had flaws (Hey, Niko, do you want to go bowling? No! Hey, Niko, do you want to go for a drive? No! Hey Niko...) but being overly serious wasn't one of them.

Just to add. Have a look at this video. He talks about "there is no perfect game, there are only perfect games". There is a place for Serious open world game and there is place for stupid over the top goofy open world game, even if does not sell more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irZ-159xsZY

Sand

Sand wrote: »

Saints Row 3 already exists to serve the demographic that want ridiculously OTT stuff in their games. Looking at sales, SR3 was up to just under 4 million copies sold up to late last year over its entire sales period to that point. GTA IV sold just over 3.5 million copies on its first day of sales. As of late 2012, GTA IV sold over 25 million copies and it was *still* selling millions over the period SR3 was released.

My point is there is a lot of vocal complaining about GTA IV being too serious and too realistic, with SR3 being hailed as the cure for the silent majority out there. Sales don't seem to back this narrative up. If GTA V has anything like the sales of SR3 it would be an unmitigated disaster of a release so I dont think Rockstar would be wise to draw any lessons from SR3. GTA IV had flaws (Hey, Niko, do you want to go bowling? No! Hey, Niko, do you want to go for a drive? No! Hey Niko...) but being overly serious wasn't one of them.

GTA much like Fifa and COD is a franchise whose name alone guarantees massive numbers. It's in a whole different league to Saints Row and is kinda like comparing the box office of the latest Batman film to something like the new Coen brothers. Both will do well but the one with the biggest name brand will do substantially better.

Using sales to gauge how well reviewed a game is, is unfair. When it launches GTAV could be critically despised and score in the low 20s but will still ship more copies in its first hour on sale than most games manage in their lifetime. People will queue up for hours in order to get a copy before reading a single review based on the name. It's the same reason that the two best selling games of each year are usually the latest COD and Fifa.

GTAIV took itself far too seriously. Yes there was a number of ridicolous and odd moments and missions but the whole thing felt like Rockstar trying to make something more than a "game". It wasn't the least bit fun and more often than not I was frustrated or bored when playing it. Saints Row 3 on the other hand was rarely anything but fun. It embraced the ridiculousness and arrived only to entertain. I really hope that GTAV takes a similar route and just tries to be fun.

Sand

Deano7788 wrote: »

One key point though is that the name GTA alone will guarantee plenty of sales, the Saints Row name is nowhere near as strong. And that name was built on the likes of Vice City and San Andreas, which were nowhere near as serious as IV.

Saints Row had SR1 and SR2 to build up a following. If GTA IV was this desert of fun, whereas SR3 was what the punters really wanted then it would be SR3 with the 25 million sales. You're right that Saints Row is nowhere near as strong as the GTA brand - like I said, despite the very vocal complaints about GTA and the supposed cure represented by SR3, its Saints Row that's the (relative) niche title and GTA that is the 20 foot tall gorrilla.

A 25 million sales game trying to learn lessons from a 4-6 million sales game would be a huge, huge, huge mistake. The market for OTT nonsense in a GTA style game has been tested: it's 6 million sales max and that would be a disaster for GTA V.

@ShadowHearth

Just to add. Have a look at this video. He talks about "there is no perfect game, there are only perfect games". There is a place for Serious open world game and there is place for stupid over the top goofy open world game, even if does not sell more.

I fully agree. I'm very supportive of the idea that all games and game developers cant go chasing the same market. Some people want a more immersive experience, others want to beat clowns to death with phallic style clubs. My point is only that SR3 exists and has tested the market (successfully imo) for the OTT stuff. Its small, but profitable. Long may the SR franchise continue. But it would be an incredible mistake for GTA V to try to learn anything from SR3 despite other posters claiming they had, could or should.

CastingCouch

I love the way you can switch between the 3 characters.

and the golf and tennis! YES.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

Saints Row had SR1 and SR2 to build up a following. If GTA IV was this desert of fun, whereas SR3 was what the punters really wanted then it would be SR3 with the 25 million sales. You're right that Saints Row is nowhere near as strong as the GTA brand - like I said, despite the very vocal complaints about GTA and the supposed cure represented by SR3, its Saints Row that's the (relative) niche title and GTA that is the 20 foot tall gorrilla.

A 25 million sales game trying to learn lessons from a 4-6 million sales game would be a huge, huge, huge mistake. The market for OTT nonsense in a GTA style game has been tested: it's 6 million sales max and that would be a disaster for GTA V.

@ShadowHearth


I fully agree. I'm very supportive of the idea that all games and game developers cant go chasing the same market. Some people want a more immersive experience, others want to beat clowns to death with phallic style clubs. My point is only that SR3 exists and has tested the market (successfully imo) for the OTT stuff. Its small, but profitable. Long may the SR franchise continue. But it would be an incredible mistake for GTA V to try to learn anything from SR3 despite other posters claiming they had, could or should.

Why would it be ridicolous for a big game to take lessons from a smaller one? That's the kind of narrow mindedness that holds gaming and for that any art form back. A smaller title has far more leeway when it comes to trying something different. Take Spec Ops, it appears at first to be another generic FPS but goes places that neither COD or Battlefield would ever dare. The developers would be far too afraid of rocking the boat too much as it could affect sales. They much rather play it safe and deliver the same generic experience year in, year out. The GTAIV add ons were far more enjoyable than the base game as they actually tried to be fun. They were far less serious and as such a much more rewarding gaming experience.

Deano7788

Sand wrote: »

Saints Row had SR1 and SR2 to build up a following. If GTA IV was this desert of fun, whereas SR3 was what the punters really wanted then it would be SR3 with the 25 million sales. You're right that Saints Row is nowhere near as strong as the GTA brand - like I said, despite the very vocal complaints about GTA and the supposed cure represented by SR3, its Saints Row that's the (relative) niche title and GTA that is the 20 foot tall gorrilla.

A 25 million sales game trying to learn lessons from a 4-6 million sales game would be a huge, huge, huge mistake. The market for OTT nonsense in a GTA style game has been tested: it's 6 million sales max and that would be a disaster for GTA V.

Considering that Rockstar have said San Andreas has sold over 27.5 million copies, I'd disagree. Also, there's always things to be learned, otherwise there'll never be any improvements. There's also a lot more to sales than just the quality of the game, and a Saints Row game will probably never sell as well as a GTA, no matter how good it is, simply due to brand name.

Retr0gamer

I know more people bought GTAIV (which is affected by a hell of a lot more than if it was silly or not). All I know is that I enjoyed Saints Row 2 a lot more.

For all their technical flaws I would also prefer to go back and play GTA vice City and San Andreas than GTAIV. They were just more fun.

Bozo Skeleton

Retr0gamer wrote: »

For all their technical flaws I would also prefer to go back and play GTA vice City and San Andreas than GTAIV.

Ace soundtrack on GTA Vice City. I could play that game now, just rob a car and pull in somewhere quiet, turn on the radio...

DUBLINHITMAN

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I know more people bought GTAIV (which is affected by a hell of a lot more than if it was silly or not). All I know is that I enjoyed Saints Row 2 a lot more.

For all their technical flaws I would also prefer to go back and play GTA vice City and San Andreas than GTAIV. They were just more fun.

sr2 was the best coop full campaign iv played.
on a mission in sr3 if you killed the boss the cut scene would start even thou there was still enemies to kill
that alone ruined alot of gameplay for me

wandatowell

Bought GTA IV this morning from PS+, spent the day downloading and got an hour on it tonight.


When I last played it I didn't have a Full HD tv so the game looks prettier than I remember but that is down to the telly. Its aged pretty well considering how long its been out.


Oh ya and the first song I heard tonight, it brought me back!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y46_2MI72w

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would it be ridicolous for a big game to take lessons from a smaller one?

It'd be ridiculous for a game with 25 million sales to go chasing after the game with 4 million sales as if the smaller game had cracked the code. SR3 didnt crack the code. It offered an alternative for the relatively small amount of people who complain quite loudly about GTA IV being too realistic - GTAIV being a game where you can come straight over the handlebars of a bike, roll a hundred meters down the street and then just walk it off.

@Deano7788

There's also a lot more to sales than just the quality of the game, and a Saints Row game will probably never sell as well as a GTA, no matter how good it is, simply due to brand name.

GTA started from an ugly practically 2d top down mess. It's built itself up to its current level via a mix of good game design choices + marketing. It wasn't given its perch, it earned it. And if they were making joyless, bad games (like GTA IV apparently was) it would quickly lose it. SR3 is the third in a series, a series which has had several years to establish itself in the public mind if absurdity in GTA was what the paying public were looking for. It's not and it cant keep claiming to be the game of the silent majority when sales figures just aren't backing it up. Its the game of the vocal minority.

@Retrogamer

I know more people bought GTAIV (which is affected by a hell of a lot more than if it was silly or not). All I know is that I enjoyed Saints Row 2 a lot more.

For all their technical flaws I would also prefer to go back and play GTA vice City and San Andreas than GTAIV. They were just more fun.

Totally fine - everyone has their own tastes. SR3 exists to serve the absurd, I feel GTAIV got the balance mainly right on humour/satire.

For what its worth I don't see any sign GTAV is adding anything revolutionary in the style of SR3. I think it will just be GTA 4.5 in a new city, with new characters (looks like they're covering the gangsta/gangster/psycho fanbase all in one game) and a new story. If people want to play golf, go bike riding in the countryside or whatever side activities were apparently missing from San Andreas that's cool. The only real change I'm seeing is the ability to plan missions which is a direction I'm glad to see the game going in.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

It'd be ridiculous for a game with 25 million sales to go chasing after the game with 4 million sales as if the smaller game had cracked the code. SR3 didnt crack the code. It offered an alternative for the relatively small amount of people who complain quite loudly about GTA IV being too realistic - GTAIV being a game where you can come straight over the handlebars of a bike, roll a hundred meters down the street and then just walk it off.

It would be ridiculous for Rockstar not to look at what their competition is doing and then seeing if it's what the market wants. A major franchise such as GTA or Fifa or COD will never be at the front of innovation. They are simply far too big to fail and as such originality is often stiffled in favor of delivering more of the same. It's for this reason that a game such as SR3 or Spec Ops the line can deliver something so startlingly different. They aren't burdened with having to make half a billion dollars in sales.

It's not the realism that people dislike about GTAIV but rather that it takes its self far too seriously. It's all rather po-faced and not the least bit fun. The reason so many people like SR3 is because it embraces the fact that it's a game. There are no delusions of grandeur and it exists simply to entertain.

Big franchises such as GTA need to look at what their competition is doing and follow suite. By that I don't mean they need to copy but rather see how they can innovate. We saw it with the GTAIV DLC. They took themselves far less serious than the base game and far as I'm concerned were a hell of a lot more enjoyable but then again I'm the kind of person who given the choice between GTAIV and Vice City would take Vice City every time.

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

It would be ridiculous for Rockstar not to look at what their competition is doing and then seeing if it's what the market wants.

Then we're back to 25 million sales vs. 4 million sales. The market has spoken. Several million of those GTA IV sales were in direct competition with SR3. A 3-4 year old, apparently joyless game going toe to toe with the game that supposedly got it right.

We saw it with the GTAIV DLC. They took themselves far less serious than the base game and far as I'm concerned were a hell of a lot more enjoyable but then again I'm the kind of person who given the choice between GTAIV and Vice City would take Vice City every time.

I've yet to see anyone actually put their finger on what made GTAIV less enjoyable than its DLC, or Vice City for that matter. I played them all and I enjoyed GTA IV just as much as I enjoyed its DLC. They all took themselves just as seriously.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

Then we're back to 25 million sales vs. 4 million sales. The market has spoken. Several million of those GTA IV sales were in direct competition with SR3. A 3-4 year old, apparently joyless game going toe to toe with the game that supposedly got it right.

The market has spoken crap is just that, crap. It's narrow minded and misguided and if developers were to strive simply to appease the market then the gaming industry has a very bland future ahead of it. If everyone was to follow the market has spoken line of crap then every single FPS would be set in a bland brown world and sadly a lot of recent ones have. Thankfully a number of more interesting developers have looked at what others are doing and strived for some originality and as a result we've gotten titles such as Dishonoured and Spec Ops: The Line.

Any industry if it wants to survive has to look at what others are doing and see what they can learn from it. While Saints Row 3 may not have been anywhere near as big as GTAIV there is a lot that Rockstar could learn from it. To say other wise is down right wrong, it's like arguing that the producers of Transformers 4 shouldn't bother looking at what Monster or Pacific Rim or the upcoming Godzilla are doing because the last Transformers film made more money than them. Innovation is what keeps any industry fresh, it's because of smaller indie developers and those not afraid to do something new that I have so much faith that the gaming industry will only go from strength to strength.

Sand wrote: »

I've yet to see anyone actually put their finger on what made GTAIV less enjoyable than its DLC, or Vice City for that matter. I played them all and I enjoyed GTA IV just as much as I enjoyed its DLC. They all took themselves just as seriously.

What made GTAIV so unlikeable was the fact that it wasn't much fun to play and took itself far too seriously. Vice City and San Andreas were always fun and there was a sense of homour that was missing from part IV.

maquiladora

CastingCouch wrote: »

I love the way you can switch between the 3 characters.

and the golf and tennis! YES.

I really love the Google Maps / Enemy Of The State jump cuts as it zooms in and out of the map between characters.

Taylor365

Deleted User wrote: »

The market has spoken crap is just that, crap. It's narrow minded and misguided and if developers were to strive simply to appease the market then the gaming industry has a very bland future ahead of it.

Why do you think there's 3 characters instead of just 1?

Radiosonde

Sand wrote: »

For what its worth I don't see any sign GTAV is adding anything revolutionary in the style of SR3. I think it will just be GTA 4.5 in a new city, with new characters (looks like they're covering the gangsta/gangster/psycho fanbase all in one game) and a new story. If people want to play golf, go bike riding in the countryside or whatever side activities were apparently missing from San Andreas that's cool. The only real change I'm seeing is the ability to plan missions which is a direction I'm glad to see the game going in.

It's all speculative until we all play the game, but many hope Rockstar address problems that dogged IV (and in some cases the earlier ones) like poor gunplay and bad on-foot controls, murky visuals (many developers don't seem to understand that bright, vibrant colours look far better on the LCD/LED tvs most people opt for these days, and dark browns and blacks and greys don't work so well), rinse-and-repeat mission structures, crappy minigames (woeful pool sim and games-within-games) and tedious busywork (like going on dates and being forced to play the woeful pool sim.)

I'll be severely disappointed if V is just IV with bells on (I fully expect the story and characters to be just as dull and unlikable, but I want to see ambition and evolution for the rest of it.)

Also the fact that it's a numbered sequel instead of GTA: Los Santos suggests that there is more to this than just GTA 4.5. Of course, sales-wise you seem to be right about the series not needing to evolve, but GTA IV came out in a world before Red Dead Redemption, Just Cause 2, Last of Us, etc, etc, etc...gaming has moved on, and GTA has to too, or risk losing its hallowed status.

aha_sender

Gta 4 Was a good game. Nik was an interesting character to play with who was very reflective of the game in general. Which a bit sulry and dour and needed an injection of fun into him. That was the problem with the game in general , as other peple have pointed out, was not enough of rockstar's satirical look at the real world.Which is the rewson i i fell in love the original Gta 3 and have bought them ever since . I would rank the game in this order
1. Gta Sandreas (stilll play it so much fun still minus ps2 Graphics)
2. Vice city ( best soundtrack ever for a game)
3. Gta 4 ( Great game need an injection of fun and better shooting mechanics )
4. Gta 3 (Redefined open world gaming )