This game really could appeal to both SA and GTA IV fans

#21GentlemenBlackPosted 2/19/2013 2:17:22 PM
LordPoncho posted...
Oh god, the entitlement is killing me.


His signature quotes the prequel trilogy, I don't think quality is high on his list of priorities.
---
Didn't you know? Apparently if your series of irrelevant numbers are higher, you win the internets
#22professor_choasPosted 2/19/2013 2:38:09 PM
LordPoncho posted...
Lol 4 posts in a row of bashing his idiotic opinion.


I wasn't bashing him. I just thought that him saying V will only be a tiny portion of SA was funny.

Maybe I'm a rarity but I think the mission variety of IV was more than enough. One guy said 40% of the missions were go here and kill this guy. If the other 60% of the missions weren't hitman missions, I don't get what all the hoopla is over the variety. I didn't at all feel like I was playing Grand Theft Hitman.
---
They see me trollin, they hatin
#23DarkLordMorsulPosted 2/19/2013 2:46:46 PM
I bet it'll be more like BoGT goodcompromise between the two/
---
Skit Tells is Really good
#24LordPonchoPosted 2/19/2013 3:31:54 PM
hellfire582 posted...
LordPoncho posted...
Offworlder1 posted...
It kind of will but the SA fans will be and probably are pissed that its only the one city, property is gone, we know next to nothing about the customization options, and the fact they are not really doing SA justice by not having the full state which an older game could and theres no good reason they couldn't with GTA V.

GTA V will be better then GTA IV but it could still prove to be a lesser game then GTA:SA content wise. GTA:SA had everything for everyone but with GTA IV they got rid of what so many fans liked and after hearing the complaints fixed some of it with the DLC but are repeating the same mistakes or making new ones with half assing a return to SA.

If you return to San Andreas give the fans ALL of SA again, not parts or pieces and try BSing with additions to the parts you decide to use. Fans would have been fine with one city had they done Vice City again and the new additions would be a nice thing as VC could use expanding but not a tiny part of SA like they have shown so far.


Oh god, the entitlement is killing me.


Why do you consider that entitlement? The man is paying $60 for the game, so I think he should be able to expect to get what he wants.

I really don't see why everyone is criticizing this guy. He made some good points. If people disagree, they can state that in a civil way without acting like dickheads.


He stated it in a very passive aggressive type of way. He also isn't entitled to something he doesn't invest in prior to the game being complete. He's invested in a product and is entitled to the product that was advertised. Nothing more, nothing less. If he wants further entitlement, perhaps he should invest in stock.
---
"lol der was a shdow on my carpet but ti looked like a stane and tried to clen it up but ti was a shadoow" -Ghost4800
#25NutralguyPosted 2/19/2013 3:37:32 PM
The property being taken out is fine by me, the dating being out is fine too. I don't have any complaints. There's a city, there's wilderness, there's small towns. If I can get out of the city, I'm fine.
---
My last sig was to someone who thought they could do no wrong.
#26DruffPosted 2/19/2013 3:43:52 PM
hellfire582 posted...
Why do you consider that entitlement? The man is paying $60 for the game, so I think he should be able to expect to get what he wants.


It would be reasonable if all he wanted was "an awesome high quality game" (which is almost certainly what we're going to get in GTA V.)

But it's not reasonable for someone to come up with a big list of specific bullet points of things they personally want to be in the game, and if they don't get them, then they'll throw a hissy fit. That's just lame.
---
Caution - You are approaching the periphery shield of Vortex Four
#27hellfire582(Topic Creator)Posted 2/21/2013 11:06:26 AM
holden4ever posted...
From: hellfire582 | #018
Why do you consider that entitlement? The man is paying $60 for the game, so I think he should be able to expect to get what he wants.


You're right. If the next Forza game doesn't have huge space battles and the ability to bake cakes I'm going to be pissed.


That would be a fair analogy if the last Forza game actually had space battles and cake baking. The guy's point about GTA IV was that it lacked significant features that SA had. Some of that could've been discovered before a person bought the game, such as the lack of planes. However, there's no way to really appreciate how much smaller the city was in GTA IV or how they took out a lot of the side missions. You only discover that after you buy the game, even though you'd expect that the game would at least have the same features as its predecessor.

Again, I don't think expecting a game to at least retain the positive features of its predecessor shows entitlement, especially when you're paying for the game.
#28nativenginePosted 2/21/2013 12:01:22 PM
hellfire582 posted...
holden4ever posted...
From: hellfire582 | #018
Why do you consider that entitlement? The man is paying $60 for the game, so I think he should be able to expect to get what he wants.


You're right. If the next Forza game doesn't have huge space battles and the ability to bake cakes I'm going to be pissed.


That would be a fair analogy if the last Forza game actually had space battles and cake baking. The guy's point about GTA IV was that it lacked significant features that SA had. Some of that could've been discovered before a person bought the game, such as the lack of planes. However, there's no way to really appreciate how much smaller the city was in GTA IV or how they took out a lot of the side missions. You only discover that after you buy the game, even though you'd expect that the game would at least have the same features as its predecessor.

Again, I don't think expecting a game to at least retain the positive features of its predecessor shows entitlement, especially when you're paying for the game.


That's it right there, you're not paying for the game, Rockstar and Take Two are, you're paying for THE RIGHT TO PLAY THE GAME. This is a very common misconception I see alot these days. So because Vice City and beyond lacked a top down view I should be pissed? I mean, every GTA before had it, why not the rest? What he showed was in fact a sense of entitlement.
---
Vegetarian- an old Indian word meaning bad hunter
Elected Leader of the GTA5 360 board
#29puffinslaughterPosted 2/21/2013 12:31:30 PM
From: hellfire582 | Posted: 2/21/2013 2:06:26 PM | #027
Again, I don't think expecting a game to at least retain the positive features of its predecessor shows entitlement, especially when you're paying for the game.


Then here's a thought, don't pay for the game. Nobody is making you buy it. And who are you to say what was positive and should have been carried to the next game? You realize not everyone agrees with what you think was positive.
---
Kris Letang stat tracker ~ 3 Goals, 9 Assists, +5. Pittsburgh Penguins: 11-6
http://i49.tinypic.com/20l12ld.png ~grape_purple ^_^
#30CaIiber345Posted 2/21/2013 2:33:50 PM
I enjoyed SA for its "whacky" elements and varied cities and landscape.

I enjoyed IV for its more serious tone and representation of Liberty City.

Both games satisfied with their social and political satire.

I hope that V gives us a blend of all these elements.
---
"Tonight was darker than technology." Warrior Soul, Chuck Pfarrer
Hail HYDRA!