Rockstars Odd and Questionable Decisions with GTA5...

#1ill-thoughtsPosted 1/31/2013 10:52:04 AM
-giving us LA again for like the 4th time in 5 years....with No Venturas at all.

-giving us Two noteable protags in 2011....and then, adding another 40 year old protag and making Franklin bi-racial and then changing him to only African American.

-not giving the player the ability to buy properties, even though they KNOW people wanted that feature back....

-giving us Yoga and Golf as if anyone has EVER cared about Golf in GTA4....and who could rezist Yoga, poh my god fun -_-

-and now theyre delaying the game 8 more months (after about 3+ years of production mind you) to reportedly "give it alittle more polish"????

is it me or does it sound like Rockstar completely skrewed up with GTA5?? like they bit off waaayyy more than they could chew and now theyre making an excuse to cover up their tracks??? seriously, whos making these strange decisions??? Rockstar has put out successful GTA games Consistantly for 15 years but now, it seems as if theyre Rookies in the game making Rookie mistakes and wasting Valuable time and frustrating the fans.

this is especially disturbing considering that all they had to do was a fully realized Las Venturas with a strip full of enterable and interactable casinos, shops and hotels....north and south vegas suburbs and areas....some sprawling dezert and mountains surrounding for biking and hiking purposes....and mobsters from all over the world....a game they could have MASTERED COMPLETELY in 2 years TOPS......

lol i like Rockstars games, i cant think of One game theyve made in 5 years that hasnt been innovative in one way or another....but iv lost complete faith in them with this title at this point. nothing theyre doing with it is Innovative at all and its like theyve completely lost touch with what the fans want....and delaying it like this is just frustrating people even More and starting to bring about serious DOUBT in the minds of their fans. i think they should junk GTA5 all together and let Ubisoft take the throne with their new and innovative title WATCH DOGS.....i honestly have lost all interest in their ability to know what we as fans want.

anyone else feel this way???
---
True Crime New York City for the Original Xbox is PHENOMENAL.
#2mtron32Posted 1/31/2013 10:59:49 AM
not really
---
SSF4: Vega PSN: Supreeme_Allah
#3hellfire582Posted 1/31/2013 11:08:09 AM
Yea I feel pretty much the same. I thought that GTA IV was a significant step down from SA, and I'm starting to question GTA V too. After playing GTA IV, I can't say I'm surprised at what they're doing with V. For example, most people who played SA loved the planes and wanted then in GTA IV, but R* completely ignored its base there. Moreover, they traded the huge map of SA with three unique cities and a lot of cool desert/rural areas for the small, homogenous city of GTA IV. Then of course there are the properties you mentioned.

Even GTA V now looks like it's going to be a smaller map than SA. Why would they take such a blatant step backwards? I'm not saying GTA IV was a bad game, and I doubt V will be either, but I think SA might really mark R*'s peak. Since SA, they seem to have stopped caring what the consumers actually want, and I'm worried that they're doing the same with GTA V. I'm actually thinking I might not buy V if we see that the map is a lot smaller than SA's.
#4J03canPosted 1/31/2013 11:18:31 AM
topics like this solidify why gamers are the worst.
---
Jerry, it's Frank Costanza!!! Mr Steinbrenner's here George is dead - call me back!!!!
#5angeldeath21Posted 1/31/2013 11:19:31 AM
hellfire582 posted...
Yea I feel pretty much the same. I thought that GTA IV was a significant step down from SA, and I'm starting to question GTA V too. After playing GTA IV, I can't say I'm surprised at what they're doing with V. For example, most people who played SA loved the planes and wanted then in GTA IV, but R* completely ignored its base there. Moreover, they traded the huge map of SA with three unique cities and a lot of cool desert/rural areas for the small, homogenous city of GTA IV. Then of course there are the properties you mentioned.

Even GTA V now looks like it's going to be a smaller map than SA. Why would they take such a blatant step backwards? I'm not saying GTA IV was a bad game, and I doubt V will be either, but I think SA might really mark R*'s peak. Since SA, they seem to have stopped caring what the consumers actually want, and I'm worried that they're doing the same with GTA V. I'm actually thinking I might not buy V if we see that the map is a lot smaller than SA's.


1) It was a new game on a new engine on a new platform. Of course many of the features from SA were going to be taken out -- that's why they keep emphasizing in the sparse interviews or comments we've seen so far the wealth of new content being added to the game now that they have some experience with the engine. They also stated that GTA IV's Liberty City was simply too small for planes.

2) While I'll give you that the three cities in SA were unique, they were all also "small" and there was basically a whole bunch of nothing in the deserts and the wilderness between cities. Mount Chiliad was cool, and yes the few towns and settlements were a neat edition, but there is more detail packed into Bohan alone on GTA IV than the cities of SA. Go to the southern end of Alderney and the middle part of Broker, or the center of Algonquin and the northern end of Alderney and then tell me they're "homogenous."

3) We haven't seen the map, and interviews have said that the exterior and interiors of GTA V combined are going to make up for the largest amount of playable space we've ever had in a Rockstar Game -- aka, ****ing massive. It won't be small, and even then you have to remember: size doesn't matter (too much).

4) Have you played RDR?

5) You just said it looks like it's going to be smaller than SA, despite their official comments, and now you're mentioning that you haven't seen the map yet? Well-thought post, dude.

And on properties -- yes, they're not including them, but they said there'll be plenty of stuff to spend our money on in the game. Let's wait and see what happens before making ridicudumb posts.
---
"All life begins with Nu and ends with Nu."
#6B0vrilPosted 1/31/2013 11:36:16 AM
So basically you're upset because GTAV isn't a gritty casino & property simulator set in the Las Vegas?
#7mtron32Posted 1/31/2013 11:36:41 AM
angeldeath21 posted...
hellfire582 posted...
Yea I feel pretty much the same. I thought that GTA IV was a significant step down from SA, and I'm starting to question GTA V too. After playing GTA IV, I can't say I'm surprised at what they're doing with V. For example, most people who played SA loved the planes and wanted then in GTA IV, but R* completely ignored its base there. Moreover, they traded the huge map of SA with three unique cities and a lot of cool desert/rural areas for the small, homogenous city of GTA IV. Then of course there are the properties you mentioned.

Even GTA V now looks like it's going to be a smaller map than SA. Why would they take such a blatant step backwards? I'm not saying GTA IV was a bad game, and I doubt V will be either, but I think SA might really mark R*'s peak. Since SA, they seem to have stopped caring what the consumers actually want, and I'm worried that they're doing the same with GTA V. I'm actually thinking I might not buy V if we see that the map is a lot smaller than SA's.


1) It was a new game on a new engine on a new platform. Of course many of the features from SA were going to be taken out -- that's why they keep emphasizing in the sparse interviews or comments we've seen so far the wealth of new content being added to the game now that they have some experience with the engine. They also stated that GTA IV's Liberty City was simply too small for planes.

2) While I'll give you that the three cities in SA were unique, they were all also "small" and there was basically a whole bunch of nothing in the deserts and the wilderness between cities. Mount Chiliad was cool, and yes the few towns and settlements were a neat edition, but there is more detail packed into Bohan alone on GTA IV than the cities of SA. Go to the southern end of Alderney and the middle part of Broker, or the center of Algonquin and the northern end of Alderney and then tell me they're "homogenous."

3) We haven't seen the map, and interviews have said that the exterior and interiors of GTA V combined are going to make up for the largest amount of playable space we've ever had in a Rockstar Game -- aka, ****ing massive. It won't be small, and even then you have to remember: size doesn't matter (too much).

4) Have you played RDR?

5) You just said it looks like it's going to be smaller than SA, despite their official comments, and now you're mentioning that you haven't seen the map yet? Well-thought post, dude.

And on properties -- yes, they're not including them, but they said there'll be plenty of stuff to spend our money on in the game. Let's wait and see what happens before making ridicudumb posts.



Preach on
---
SSF4: Vega PSN: Supreeme_Allah
#8B0vrilPosted 1/31/2013 11:39:03 AM
Also what's this deal with Watch Dogs? What's that got to with GTAV?

Watch Dogs doesn't look innovative, it looks, neat but gimmicky.
#9ill-thoughts(Topic Creator)Posted 1/31/2013 1:02:37 PM
B0vril posted...
Also what's this deal with Watch Dogs? What's that got to with GTAV?

Watch Dogs doesn't look innovative, it looks, neat but gimmicky.


the way the NPC's react to whats happening around them and how they interact with their environment shows Massive amounts of innovation in itself...and thats just the interaction without it being scripted.
---
True Crime New York City for the Original Xbox is PHENOMENAL.
#10enterthemadroxPosted 1/31/2013 2:36:30 PM
I can guarantee that you're only complaining as much because with the internet's popularity in the last decade, we now know more about everything such as movie making and game designing than we did 10 years ago.

Therefore, those of us old enough to remember when great games like Ocarina of Time were delayed for a couple of years remember the reaction being "cool, can't wait to see what else they've added and improved on".

These days, it's all "wahhh, they don't know what they're doing, I'm canceling my pre-order, screw you developer!".

It's pathetic really.
---
Getting awfully tired of GameFAQs mods removing my posts for being "offensive" when I've done nothing wrong