GTA V Impressions

Timmyctc

walrusgumble wrote: »

There was a bit of an anti climax to the STORY of GTA IV (Obviously the graphics were superior to the great GTA San Andreas), it is all about the story.

I accept that Nikko was an immigrant, smuggler, and may not be fully educated, so why expect him to be an expert in every form of combat, driving and flying (note the tough controls), maybe it was intended to make driving rubbish? THe supporting characters were annoying (stupid sop to an Irish American Family, one of whom sending money home for "the cause - IRA in GTA, now that would be interesting, Belfast Style, along with the rural Crossmaglen area) Nikko was a bit of a miserable bastard (character wise) Could not warm to him . Whereas in GTA 5, all the characters have a likable side to them

Actually, while I did like GTA IV (but not enough to go back playing it again and again) The Ballad of Gay Tony was fun.


Story longer? Which GTA 4 or 5?

Ah in general I felt GTA 4 so overrated. Its amazing to play for the first 5 hours or so but then the missions are dressed up repetitions of one another, maybe that sorta stuff flew back with SA and Vice city etc but when the graphics took such a huge leap I figured the gameplay would too. Found it to have no replay value, which is weird for a GTA game.

Wish GTA 5 story was longer. 4 hours and I was 20 missions through and had taken time to do sidequests and gun training etc,

Cienciano wrote: »

It is a bit of a cop out, but don't forget, if you don't agree with it, you don't have to use it!
I thought the same, but when you're miles away from anywhere in the mountains and you roll your car, it's handy. Maybe it should be disabled during missions, just usable for free roam.

Well, it's all opinions. But imho The Last of Us is the most over rated game of all time. GTA5 is ten times better.

GTA5 is a great game. I feel it isn't the groundbreaking experience it was initially made out to be. It is another GTA game, aint nothing wrong with that but pre-release it was made out to be something different for the series. In the end it is a better SA (Which is great, don't get me wrong) TLOU was something special imo.

Nerdlingr

The thing I've noticed the most is the colours in the game. I know its based on L.A. etc but driving round the city, coast or countryside is fantastic compared to the boring, dull monochrome of GTA IV. Think it reflects in the game that this one is soooo much more enjoyable to play than the last. There's just something about cruising down the highway in bright sunshine, blue waters on one side, mountains on the other... (it actually kinda reminded me a bit of OutRun!!!). Loving it so far.

krudler

desaparecidos wrote: »

Any game with anti-aliasing.

Specifically, something in a world as details and varied as GTAV's.

kryogen

Im very very early in the game, I have travelled around a bit exploring but in terms of missions I am only where the yacht gets stolen, keeping Franklin from dying is a pain in the whole while trying to keep him steady and close to the feckin thing!!

Really enjoying it so far thoug

krudler

desaparecidos wrote: »

I couldn't care less what system it runs on, or how old the hardware is. Simple fact is that all of the pre-release media was a lie (go back and look at all of those perfect screenshots and videos) and people who say the game looks amazing are wrong. Without anti-aliasing it looks poor in many areas. It may look good for an 360 or PS3 game, but that's about it.

Maybe if people weren't so easily pleased this generation of consoles would have been replaced sooner. You people are holding the industry as a whole back. For shame.

Because it is a 360 and ps3 game? I'm not up on my pc specs much anymore since it's been a long time since I owned a gaming rig, but I seriously doubt the pc I owned back in 2006 could run GTAV as well as it looks on my ps3.

As for people "holding back the industry" that's actually laughable trolling.

ZiabR

krudler wrote: »

Because it is a 360 and ps3 game? I'm not up on my pc specs much anymore since it's been a long time since I owned a gaming rig, but I seriously doubt the pc I owned back in 2006 could run GTAV as well as it looks on my ps3.

As for people "holding back the industry" that's actually laughable trolling.

Completely agree with this, as I have been saying already.

EazyD

desaparecidos wrote: »

I couldn't care less what system it runs on, or how old the hardware is. Simple fact is that all of the pre-release media was a lie (go back and look at all of those perfect screenshots and videos) and people who say the game looks amazing are wrong. Without anti-aliasing it looks poor in many areas. It may look good for an 360 or PS3 game, but that's about it.

Maybe if people weren't so easily pleased this generation of consoles would have been replaced sooner. You people are holding the industry as a whole back. For shame.

Holding the industry back? You do realise that hardware advancements take years upon years of innovation and development to get them to production? Your talking nonsense mate.

TheDoc

Some amount of windowlickers in this thread

bitch please

i switched to trevor and found him up a mountain in a dress thats all il say

DarkJager

Here's an idea for the PC trolls - why don't you go play something on your PC that has "anti aliasing" or whatever other ****e your fawning after and stop taking sly digs at how this game looks or runs on the consoles it has been designed and released for?

desaparecidos

DarkJager wrote: »

Here's an idea for the PC trolls - why don't you go play something on your PC that has "anti aliasing" or whatever other ****e your fawning after and stop taking sly digs at how this game looks or runs on the consoles it has been designed and released for?

You sound angry

Timmyctc

Dont like the ability to control the car mid air. Kinda ruins the old "hit this ramp at max speed and see how many flips ill do" of older games.

Loughc

desaparecidos wrote: »

You sound angry

And you sound desperate for attention!

EazyD

desaparecidos wrote: »

You sound angry

You sound clueless, utterly clueless

VinylJunkie

desaparecidos wrote: »

You sound angry

You sound like you need to get your hole. It's simple, pull up beside them an beep.

Kirby

DarkJager wrote: »

Here's an idea for the PC trolls - why don't you go play something on your PC that has "anti aliasing" or whatever other ****e your fawning after and stop taking sly digs at how this game looks or runs on the consoles it has been designed and released for?

Its not a sly dig. Its just what the experienced gamer see's versus what the inexperienced doesnt.

You've said yourself you dont actually know what anti alasing is so would you not accept that perhaps you might not be the best judge in a graphical comparison debate? Theres no shame in that, it just the truth.

Im not going to pretend I can tell the difference between a steak I cook and a Michelin star steak from some fancy chef........because I dont know enough to make an informed opinion.

Now, GTAV is a bloody fantastic achievement. How they have managed to produce this sprawling city and make it look good on ancient hardware is a true triumph. Id love to sit down and have one of their developers explain how their black magic works. They did a great job and im thouroughly enjoying the game. Ive sunk over thirty hours into it since release. Its great.

But people claiming it has superb graphics and shouting down those who disagreea are being blinded to the reality....in the same way that every reviewer gave gta4 a perfect ten when ir didnt deserve it........They got caught up in the excitement.

Yes, it looks great for a 360 game but that doesnt mean it holds up to some of the modern pc games of the last few years. It doesnt. People suggesting it does are being silly. Thereis really, realy bad texture scrawl, the limited AA really hurts aswell.....jaggness everywhere. It also chugs along at 15 fps every minute or so due to the massive amount of detail that the console cant handle. When I comes out on ps4 and xbone in a year you will realise that this doesnt actually hold up very well. Now, its stil an achivement to get it running this well on old tech......but its ugly in alot ways.

These are just the facts and calls of "z0mg grafix are da b3st evAr. Stop tr0lling LoL!" Are not only inaccurate but juvenile.

mikom

VinylJunkie wrote: »

You sound like you need to get your hole. It's simple, pull up beside them an beep.

Pointless, as the prostitutes fanny has no anti-aliasing.............

DarkJager

Kirby wrote: »

Its not a sly dig. Its just what the experienced gamer see's versus what the inexperienced doesnt.

You've said yourself you dont actually know what anti alasing is so would you not accept that perhaps you might not be the best judge in a graphical comparison debate? Theres no shame in that, it just the truth.

Im not going to pretend I can tell the difference between a steak I cook and a Michelin star steak from some fancy chef........because I dont know enough to make an informed opinion.

Now, GTAV is a bloody fantastic achievement. How they have managed to produce this sprawling city and make it look good on ancient hardware is a true triumph. Id love to sit down and have one of their developers explain how their black magic works. They did a great job and im thouroughly enjoying the game. Ive sunk over thirty hours into it since release. Its great.

But people claiming it has superb graphics and shouting down those who disagreea are being blinded to the reality....in the same way that every reviewer gave gta4 a perfect ten when ir didnt deserve it........They got caught up in the excitement.

Yes, it looks great for a 360 game but that doesnt mean it holds up to some of the modern pc games of the last few years. It doesnt. People suggesting it does are being silly. Thereis really, realy bad texture scrawl, the limited AA really hurts aswell.....jaggness everywhere. It also chugs along at 15 fps every minute or so due to the massive amount of detail that the console cant handle. When I comes out on ps4 and xbone in a year you will realise that this doesnt actually hold up very well. Now, its stil an achivement to get it running this well on old tech......but its ugly in alot ways.

These are just the facts and calls of "z0mg grafix are da b3st evAr. Stop tr0lling LoL!" Are not only inaccurate but juvenile.

So to be an experienced gamer you have to play games on PC? What a ridiculous comment. Fact is I couldn't give a **** about the PC or it's graphical capabilities or the fact such and such isn't present in GTA V. I enjoy console gaming only and this game is superb in every way to me. The hardware is old and obviously will creak a bit under such strain as this game pushes but I play games first and foremost for the experience I have with them. I don't care if a few trees, or a wall or whatever has a split second of pop in graphics, it does not bother me in the slightest.

So from an "experienced" console gamer and fan of GTA, and a person who could not give any less of a **** about graphical terminology, this game is fully deserving of 10/10.

EazyD

Kirby wrote: »

Its not a sly dig. Its just what the experienced gamer see's versus what the inexperienced doesnt.

You've said yourself you dont actually know what anti alasing is so would you not accept that perhaps you might not be the best judge in a graphical comparison debate? Theres no shame in that, it just the truth.

Im not going to pretend I can tell the difference between a steak I cook and a Michelin star steak from some fancy chef........because I dont know enough to make an informed opinion.

Now, GTAV is a bloody fantastic achievement. How they have managed to produce this sprawling city and make it look good on ancient hardware is a true triumph. Id love to sit down and have one of their developers explain how their black magic works. They did a great job and im thouroughly enjoying the game. Ive sunk over thirty hours into it since release. Its great.

But people claiming it has superb graphics and shouting down those who disagreea are being blinded to the reality....in the same way that every reviewer gave gta4 a perfect ten when ir didnt deserve it........They got caught up in the excitement.

Yes, it looks great for a 360 game but that doesnt mean it holds up to some of the modern pc games of the last few years. It doesnt. People suggesting it does are being silly. Thereis really, realy bad texture scrawl, the limited AA really hurts aswell.....jaggness everywhere. It also chugs along at 15 fps every minute or so due to the massive amount of detail that the console cant handle. When I comes out on ps4 and xbone in a year you will realise that this doesnt actually hold up very well. Now, its stil an achivement to get it running this well on old tech......but its ugly in alot ways.

These are just the facts and calls of "z0mg grafix are da b3st evAr. Stop tr0lling LoL!" Are not only inaccurate but juvenile.

Batting on about anti-alasing is pointless, it's a current gen title on a console,arguably the best ever made. As I've stated previously, every major publication has affirmed this in their reviews

VinylJunkie

Comparing the latest PC games against a game on 8 year old hardware is laughable! The reviewers reviewed the game as an xbox game being played on an xbox, the latest PC games have nothing to do with it.

Kirby

DarkJager wrote: »

So to be an experienced gamer you have to play games on PC? What a ridiculous comment. Fact is I couldn't give a **** about the PC or it's graphical capabilities or the fact such and such isn't present in GTA V. I enjoy console gaming only and this game is superb in every way to me. The hardware is old and obviously will creak a bit under such strain as this game pushes but I play games first and foremost for the experience I have with them. I don't care if a few trees, or a wall or whatever has a split second of pop in graphics, it does not bother me in the slightest.

So from an "experienced" console gamer and fan of GTA, and a person who could not give any less of a **** about graphical terminology, this game is fully deserving of 10/10.

I would agree it deserves the ten. Its a great game. But as you yourself have admitted, you dont know anything about graphics. So why are you arguing about them? You dont care about them.....you enjoy the game anyway. That doesnt give you carte blanch to scream and shout at those who do.

Ush1

VinylJunkie wrote: »

Comparing the latest PC games against a game on 8 year old hardware is laughable! The reviewers reviewed the game as an xbox game being played on an xbox, the latest PC games have nothing to do with it.

It may well be a 10 on that criteria, but the thread is all about impressions people got off the game. Some people would be more used to seeing better graphics and frame rates etc..

stevenmu

I think the graphical design is fantastic. There's so much variety in terms of buildings and objects, pedestrians, vehicles etc. The scenery is amazing in places. The city looks alive and brimming with activity. The colour palette is vibrant and varied. There's lots of good things to like about how the game looks.

But, the fecking jaggies are driving me nuts. At times they make everything seem almost blurry, I feel like I'm squinting at the screen, and my eyes get quite tired after an hour or two. I've heard people complaining about jaggies in games for years, but this is the first time I've really had a problem with them, they really are quite bad. I'd go as far as saying I would prefer if they had toned back on some of the details and fidelity elsewhere if it let them apply even some basic AA.

In many ways the game is a technical marvel, but the jaggies do detract from it for me.

Kirby

EazyD wrote: »

Batting on about anti-alasing is pointless, it's a current gen title on a console,arguably the best ever made. As I've stated previously, every major publication has affirmed this in their reviews

Im playing devils advocate here a little bit as personally I love the game......but claiming to back up your opinion based on what the critics gave the game is a bit foolhardy.

They all gave gta 4 perfect tens too. I liked four alot but alot of people has gripes with it.....some of them fairly substantial. Didnt stop the reviewers fromthe major sites giving the tens.

They also gave games like simcity, diablo3, halo4, massive scores even tho they had fairly big issues according to the fans. What does a reviewer score prove exactly?

EazyD

Kirby wrote: »

Im playing devils advocate here a little bit as personally I love the game......but claiming to back up your opinion based on what the critics gave the game is a bit foolhardy.

They all gave gta 4 perfect tens too. I liked four alot but alot of people has gripes with it.....some of them fairly substantial. Didnt stop tje reviewers fromthe major sisites giving the tens.

How is it foolhardy? The majority of opinions that actually matter(within the industry) have raved over this title and rightly so. GTA4 despite it's flaws, was an excellent game and warranted such reviews at the time of its release. Likewise with V. Likewise with GTA SA/VC etc. At the time these titles were released, they far exceeded expectations and what was thought to be possible on the relevant hardware.

Reception
Aggregate scores
Aggregator Score
GameRankings (PS3) 97.17%[63]
(X360) 96.95%[64]
Metacritic (X360) 98/100[65]
(PS3) 97/100[66]
Review scores
Publication Score
Computer and Video Games 10/10[67]
Edge 10/10[68]
Eurogamer 9/10[69]
Game Informer 9.75/10[70]
GameSpot 9/10[71]
GamesRadar [72]
GameTrailers 9.8/10[73]
Giant Bomb [74]
IGN 10/10[75]
Joystiq [76]
Official PlayStation Magazine (UK) 10/10[77]
Official Xbox Magazine 10/10[78]
Play 97/100[79]
Polygon 9.5/10[80]
The Guardian [81]
The Independent [82]
The Mirror [83]
The Telegraph

Kirby

EazyD wrote: »

How is it foolhardy?

Because they get it wrong so often....for a variety of reasons. Firstly is shilling. A website is under pressure to give a favourable review to games who's publishers purchase ad space on their sites. Reviewing sites are at the mercy of the publishers. They get given copies of games to review weeks before the public does. Slate a big game, and you risk getting blacklisted.....the publisher wont send you the free games weeks early, wont give you quotes and wont give interviews. This happens all the time and a little digging highlights this as a fairly seedy side to online reviews.

Secondly, there is a bit of sheep syndrome in this. If everybody else says it's great, it must be great. So one review snowballs into another and into another and so on. Nobody wants to risk being contrary so they all nod their heads together.

This also ties into the simple fact that a lot of these games journo's are expected to review dozens of games a month and therefore can't actually put the time into playing them.......it's simply not feasible. So they just parrot what everyone else has said because they don't have the time to delve deeper and see the flaws for themselves. Sim City was a great example of this. It looks great on the surface.....which is why it got such good reviews. But spend more than 5 hours with it and you begin to see how deeply flawed and broken it is.

Lastly is fear of fan backlash. A large triple A title will nearly always get favourable reviews. It doesn't matter how good or bad the next halo, cod, fifa, madden, smash bro's, etc. game is......it will be given a high score because that's what fans expect and site traffic is king. It takes a brave publication to risk losing their customer fan base over a review. It's a lot easier to just placate them. The indies don't have this problem but for a lot of the larger sites, many of which you have listed, it's an on going issue.

All of which can be seen by just going onto metacritic and comparing the professional review scores to the user scores. Great games like Ocarina of time, Mario 64, Half-life etc. The reviews scores will match. Other games will have high critic scores and low user scores. Now, butt hurt fanboys often dole out ones and two's in rage but this is only a part of the overall score and that usually gets drowned out by the honest reviewing of the masses.

Now again, devil's advocate here. I love GTAV and think it deserves its high scores. But that's because I've played it. It's my opinion and I'm not backing it up by saying i'm right because publication X,Y and Z all gave it high scores.

walrusgumble

Nerdlingr wrote: »

The thing I've noticed the most is the colours in the game. I know its based on L.A. etc but driving round the city, coast or countryside is fantastic compared to the boring, dull monochrome of GTA IV. Think it reflects in the game that this one is soooo much more enjoyable to play than the last. There's just something about cruising down the highway in bright sunshine, blue waters on one side, mountains on the other... (it actually kinda reminded me a bit of OutRun!!!). Loving it so far.

Has that got more to do with the Cities that these games protray?

New York (Liberty City) even in films is considered dark , grim, busy, noisy, while LA is sunny n breezy?

Would that be fair to suggest on the cities? If so, then maybe GTA got it spot on?

EazyD

Kirby wrote: »

Because they get it wrong so often....for a variety of reasons. Firstly is shilling. A website is under pressure to give a favourable review to games who's publishers purchase ad space on their sites. Reviewing sites are at the mercy of the publishers. They get given copies of games to review weeks before the public does. Slate a big game, and you risk getting blacklisted.....the publisher wont send you the free games weeks early, wont give you quotes and wont give interviews. This happens all the time and a little digging highlights this as a fairly seedy side to online reviews.

Secondly, there is a bit of sheep syndrome in this. If everybody else says it's great, it must be great. So one review snowballs into another and into another and so on. Nobody wants to risk being contrary so they all nod their heads together.

This also ties into the simple fact that a lot of these games journo's are expected to review dozens of games a month and therefore can't actually put the time into playing them.......it's simply not feasible. So they just parrot what everyone else has said because they don't have the time to delve deeper and see the flaws for themselves. Sim City was a great example of this. It looks great on the surface.....which is why it got such good reviews. But spend more than 5 hours with it and you begin to see how deeply flawed and broken it is.

Lastly is fear of fan backlash. A large triple A title will nearly always get favourable reviews. It doesn't matter how good or bad the next halo, cod, fifa, madden, smash bro's, etc. game is......it will be given a high score because that's what fans expect and site traffic is king. It takes a brave publication to risk losing their customer fan base over a review. It's a lot easier to just placate them. The indies don't have this problem but for a lot of the larger sites, many of which you have listed, it's an on going issue.

All of which can be seen by just going onto metacritic and comparing the professional review scores to the user scores. Great games like Ocarina of time, Mario 64, Half-life etc. The reviews scores will match. Other games will have high critic scores and low user scores. Now, butt hurt fanboys often dole out ones and two's in rage but this is only a part of the overall score and that usually gets drowned out by the honest reviewing of the masses.

Now again, devil's advocate here. I love GTAV and think it deserves its high scores. But that's because I've played it. It's my opinion and I'm not backing it up by saying i'm right because publication X,Y and Z all gave it high scores.

So the 20 odd reviews stated above are wrong. Right, ok

Kirby

EazyD wrote: »

So the 20 odd reviews stated above are wrong. Right, ok

That's not what I said....so you can that strawman and put it out in the field where it belongs. If you aren't going to bother to read other peoples posts, don't bother responding to them.

SweepTheLeg

Why are PC gamers hijacking this thread to whine about the graphics? Just wait a few months then you can have all the modded 1600p perfect specs of dirt AAAA detail you want.

Anyway, this game is amazing so far. I can't believe how well done the main characters are and i haven't even got to Trevor yet! I do get sad when i switch to Mike and he's just sitting in a car with his head in his hands, poor guy.