Grand Theft Auto

[Strangelove]

Yeah they were cool, but there were only like 3 or something. 

[madbassman39]

I enjoyed GTA IV a lot, but V was leagues better. However the online in GTA V sucks. Want to go and cause chaos in true GTA fashion with your friends? Well don't get killed, use too many bullets, or get your car damaged cause you'll have to pay for it with your persistant GTA money.

 

I like the MMO-izing games like GTA, but RDR's online was far superior to what GTA V tried to do. RDR had a good unlocking system and a feeling of how grand the world can be, and GTA V just made everything a monetary punishment.

 

GTA IV's online was a good playground, which I prefer over GTA V. Although online car customizing is pretty cool

[Hot Heart]

I've been underwhelmed by every Rockstar game after GTA IV, though chances are that benefitted from the 'next-gen sheen' it had for me at the time, since it was the first game I played after getting an HDTV. Though, I really like the Liberty City setting and some of the atmosphere and views you got compared to GTA V's.

 

I am probably sick of sandbox games for precisely the reasons you stated, Strangelove. Most are just so disjointed and 'empty'. Of all the recent open-world games I've played, only Arkham City comes to mind as getting it right.

[Strangelove]

I ranted a lot but I guess my point is that Im tired of sandbox and open world games being something you can put on the back of the box as a main feature. Its not special anymore. It used to be when it was new, but its been done to death and aside from Rockstar and the guys who make Saints Row, everyone else has fallen incredibly short. Other people can do it, but its just not special. Its nothing to be excited about anymore, unless developers not fully realizing a feature of the game is something people look forward to experiencing.

The fact that people still see open world/sandbox as a "plus" of ANY game makes me shake my head. It has nothing to do with the quality of the game. It's no different than equating hours of gameplay to quality....which a lot of people fucking do. It's annoying and does gaming no favors. It makes people look less than intelligent.

The messed up part is that developers keep trying to one up each other with these large games and just end up wasting tons of money and time...because people want to walk or drive to different missions and see stuff on their way, or just know that there are minigames out there for them to ignore...for the sake of their "immersion." It's kind of fucked up.

 

I just think there has to be another way.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Strangelove

[SomTervo]

RDR's last act totally killed it, but aside from that I found it just to be a regular GTA game. Read: pretty dull after a while of gameplay. Rockstar really have to mix stuff up to make it more fun. 

 

I did find GTAV a fairly big improvement though. A lot of the side content was very fun, it just wasn't deep enough. As usual they wasted energy making the campaign 4x longer than it needed to be and making broad, not deep side content. 

 

Cool story:

 

At a party the other week I met a dude who's a QA tester at Rockstar North. I'm from Edinburgh, where they are based. I used to get the bus past the Rockstar North offices every day. 

 

He was a nice guy, and obviously NDA'd up to the nines. I'd ask him really basic stuff, which wouldn't be problematic, like "How's the Remaster coming?" and he'd just pull a tragic frown and say "I'm not allowed to say."

 

After working out that I'm fairly clued into gaming etc., the guy asked me sincerely to tell him everything I think is wrong with the GTA games. It's his job, and he wants to hear thoughts. So I did.

 

And after I had a little rant, he said they know. He said everyone at the office who works on GTA knows that fundamentally, the series has become dull. They know the stories are all basically shit. They know the gameplay mechanics are often dead end and get quickly repetitive. He even said that the job interview to be a QA tester fundamentally came down to having a chat about games with a couple of the team- and he said he ripped GTAIV to shreds. And that he thinks this was a big + point in getting the job.

 

I said the stuff I thought would fix it- like the Chinatown Wars drug economy system, or slightly procedural/ random content, and he said, predictably, that those things are absurdly difficult to do. Like, building a pyramid with no manpower or horsepower difficult. They want to, they know it would make the games better, but it would just be unfathomably complicated with their existing systems. 

 

I think they're tied into doing what they know sells- and whatever they're doing, it certainly sells. He seemed pretty apologetic about it.

 

Third encounter I've had with Rockstar staff. Real cool. Before he moved, one of my bandmates lived nextdoor to a Rockstar North programmer. The one time he got the guts to ask what the guy was doing, the guy said he spent about 4 weeks tweaking the suspension physics on two cars. Apparently the guy hated talking about it, and immediately got very distant. Haha. 

 

EDIT: On the "sandboxes are empty" line of argument, I totally agree, and that's the main reason I'm so excited for MGSV The Phantom Pain. Apparently the whole level design team have built areas around no player commands and no linear objective, but frequent opportunity for interactions which will affect other interactions. They say they looked at GTA and other sandbox games' models and found them terribly wanting. In their opinion, GTA isn't sandbox at all, because most of the time it's telling you where to go and how to get there in a straight line.

Edited August 18, 2014 by kenshi_ryden

[Eleven]

Arkham city got open world right???

 

I guess we view that differently. But for me, when you say sandbox/open world, you should be able to do stuff, a lot of stuff on an open game world. It doesn't even matter if missions point you to specific objectives. As long as you're not being forced to NOT explore the game world. GTA let's you do tons of cool, fun, silly things outside of missions. That's an open world sandbox game. Open world games don't have to have multiple paths to take to finish missions. That's a whole other feature. Though usually having the freedom to do lots of things inadvertently introduce clever ways of completing stuff.

 

What do you do in Arkham City? You find easter eggs, some side quests, and you beat up thugs. The missions are still all pretty linear. That's not an open world/sandbox. It just has a big map.

[Hot Heart]

I think we're making a distinction between 'sandbox' and 'open-world'?

 

Not really up for discussing the various merits, but I can see GTA as more sandbox-y because you can do all sorts of irrelevant shit whereas some games just have an open-world with a tighter-knit of gameplay elements.

[Eleven]

I guess technically we could argue the differences, but I think the use these terms are interchangeable as far as publishers and devs use them. They basically mean the same thing.

 

Arkham City benefitted from being a metroid-vania too. I think that did a lot in making it feel like it's more put together. (Though i'd say it's not necessarily better, it's just different)

 

Most sandboxes just puts you on different places on the big map. Games like GTA wouldn't make sense in making you go back to the same places.

[SomTervo]

I think PR people use the terms interchangeably, but developers definitely know "sandbox" means emergently interacting mechanics and "open world" means one big level.

 

Ie BArkham isn't sandbox because there's only you and thugs in preset places and preset things that happen. If thugs from different factions duked it out dynamically and could chase you across the city and police went at them and more junk just happened, then it would be sandbox gameplay. But that's not really what Batman's about. So it ain't. It's open world, but with tight gameplay. I thought Arkham City's map was laughable, but it was still open world.

Edited August 19, 2014 by kenshi_ryden

[Mal]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/11/04/grand-theft-auto-v-a-new-perspective?utm_campaign=ign+main+twitter&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

 

So the current gen version will have 1st person mode which doesn't seem tacked on. Plus more songs and cars. I'm not sure if the last gen will get it? Anyways, more reason for me to get it now I suppose. Can I hope for a decent PC port because...

 

[deanb]

 

Visual comparison between the PS3 and PS4 version.

[deanb]

[SomTervo]

Flawless

 

Just played that bit the other day too

 

Though apparently they fully planned on having FPS mode in the original but found the tiny processors wouldn't allow for it at quite a late stage

[madbassman39]

What is traffic like online in the new versions of the game online? I played some online on the PS3 and I would see 3 different cars and that was it, and the streets looked like the scene from a disaster movie where you would rarely see any cars on the road. I hope GTA V on the PC allows for more cars online because otherwise I won't play online.

[Eleven]

PS4. I didn't notice that much less traffic online. I drive on highways a lot since my garage is in the desert and I need to get to my friends in the city, and there are always a lot of cars I need to bypass. We play on private though, so I don't know if that affects traffic spawns.

 

There probably is less than single player, but I don't think it's like a post-outbreak type scenario. I still land on top of cars when my car jumps on upward slopes or run into cars when driving on oncoming traffic.

[SomTervo]

Yeah, traffic online seems to be about 70-90% the amount of traffic in singleplayer. The difference is only noticeable every so often, for the most part it's the same. I need to add you, Eleven!

 

Multiplayer is still a generally broken thing, though. In concept, I mean. I think they really need to get Heists out for it to work. The idea of GTA Online being a free-form online crime simulator is great, but that's not what it is right now. I struggle to find any good (read: fun) competitive multiplayer matches. I think they should offer Lawful and Lawless rooms, similar to Eve Online's level of Regional Security. This would mean that if you do a small crime in a Lawful room you'd go to higher star ratings quicker, get higher bounties on your head quicker, and generally be penalised for doing bad things more. Maybe you'll get worse Mental State ranking too for doing bad things. Lawless would have no/very minimal negative feedback for doing bad stuff. This would help keep the Online free roam more focused for players - if you wanna mess about, go Lawless, if you wanna actually do things without other players messing it up, go Lawful.

 

I was thinking today about what Rockstar could potentially achieve with their next GTA game on the new generation... Man the sky is the fucking limit.

 

Then I thought about the next ways they could improve GTA's gameplay... I think they're getting close with combat, though it's not quite there.

 

A big thing, though, would be the interiors for every building.

 

A year and a half ago I would have said this is a ridiculous idea, but if you look at what they achieved with GTA V on last-gen - eg a world bigger than RDR, San Andreas and GTAIV combined, very realistic graphics, almost fully implemented online mode, unbelievably masterful cinematics-gameplay symbiosis, loads of great activities - ... all on 10 year old hardware... Then a fully realised city, indoor and outdoor, isn't too much to ask for.

 

Like imagine how much of a difference it would make to police chases and general gameplay if you could run off the street, kick down a door (if your strength is high enough) to get into any random building, escape through it, or rob any shop or warehouse you pass through (probably with varying 'difficulty' levels, ie higher security and payoff)... It would literally be a gamechanger for what is already incredibly realistic and detailed world experience. It would also complete ideas they've brought in previously and properly integrate them into gameplay, eg the Burglary missions from San Andreas, and touches of open world interiors in GTA IV and GTA V. Assassin's Creed Unity has shown how good this can be, but frankly GTA would do it better now, with the police getting view cones once line of sight is broken, etc.

Edited November 28, 2014 by kenshi_ryden

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

The only way interiors for every building is happening is if it's procedurally generated. Which would be boring.

[TheMightyEthan]

Maybe they can come up with better procedures.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Well I find the open world randomness aspect boring to begin with so I'm probably not the best person to talk with about if the feature would actually be fun.

[Mal]

If we can enter all building and they have NPCs (That does shit) in them then I think the system (console or PC) will start catching on fire. Maybe when GTA VII comes out but for sure not anytime soon. The closest game I think think of is Arma II/III. The world are gorgeous but they're pretty lifeless. There are some NPCs but they mainly there for MP transactions. It somewhat works for Arma since the game is a warzone so you don't expect much people around. For something like GTA in a vibrant city, it won't work.

 

But for sure, a populated, vibrant and fully enter-able city is the holy grail of the open-world genre.

[Mister Jack]

Maybe when the PS9 is finally out. Teleport yours today!

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

There were tech demos years ago of procedurally generated interiors. I think it was for CryEngine 2.0. It's a lot closer than that.

[SomTervo]

Yeah and the procedurally generated interiors looked dang good in that CryEngine test... And were all 100% destructible.

 

Like, the procedures would only be used to create the skeleton of indoor areas. After that development staff would obviously tweak them, design stuff onto them, improve them. R* staff are notoriously OCD when it comes to making indoor environments look lived-in and realistic. Edit: but besides the point, Rockstar hate procedural things. They would probably hand craft all of it. And as said below, they have the manpower.

 

Pre-edit: Seriously I feel R* could do it. Look at how unbelievably ambituous GTAV was on PS360, and they pulled it off. A smaller city like GTAIV but fully realised indoors would totally be within their reach. They must throw hundreds of thousands of man-hours at every GTA game nowadays.

 

I suppose the 'look what they did on PS360' argument could be a little off, because apparently the only way they achieved it was with about a million tons of smoke and mirrors.

 

But still, that hardware was less than 1/10th as powerful as PS4/XBone. I reckon they could do it. If anyone has the resources to hand-craft a whole city, inside and out, it's Rockstar. Like their last game made billions. And they've categorically said they want to keep making these games until they have a 100% true to life, full representation of a city or even the whole USA.

Edited December 2, 2014 by kenshi_ryden

[Saturnine Tenshi]

I dunno. After the way some of the Rockstar studios treat their employees I don't think I'd wish something like this on them. Although it sure would be nice.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Saturnine Tenshi

[SomTervo]

Yeah I think that was... Rockstar San Diego? The one that made RDR. That was dark.

 

I've met 4-5 people who work at Rockstar North in Edinburgh, and they all seem very, very happy to be there. I hope the crunch isn't too bad on their end. They must be the studio that get the biggest share of funding, and they must hire at least a few more staff per GTA game.

 

PS I find folks' lack of faith in near-future game development disturbing

Edited December 4, 2014 by kenshi_ryden