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

#31hellfire582(Topic Creator)Posted 2/21/2013 6:59:30 PM
nativengine posted...
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.


Well you're top down view analogy makes no sense because obviously a 3D game is an improvement over a 2D one. Moreover, it's the kind of thing you would know before you bought the game, so even if someone somehow liked 2D views better, he would know not to buy Vice City. As I mentioned before, this guy was complaining about more subtle problems with GTA IV, like the smaller map size and the lack of planes. Those aren't things you would just know from looking at the game box, but they're both objective declines in quality.

Also, it doesn't really matter to me whether you say he is buying the game or the "right to play the game." Either way, he is one of the millions of people paying $60 so Rockstar can make a huge profit. He isn't asking for Rockstar to blindly do what he wants and ignore all the other people buying the game (that would be entitlement). All he is asking is that they don't reduce the quality of certain parts of the new game. This kind of consumer criticism is good for all of us, because it forces companies to work harder to keep our business.
#32LordPonchoPosted 2/21/2013 9:20:58 PM
hellfire582 posted...
nativengine posted...
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.


Well you're top down view analogy makes no sense because obviously a 3D game is an improvement over a 2D one. Moreover, it's the kind of thing you would know before you bought the game, so even if someone somehow liked 2D views better, he would know not to buy Vice City. As I mentioned before, this guy was complaining about more subtle problems with GTA IV, like the smaller map size and the lack of planes. Those aren't things you would just know from looking at the game box, but they're both objective declines in quality.

Also, it doesn't really matter to me whether you say he is buying the game or the "right to play the game." Either way, he is one of the millions of people paying $60 so Rockstar can make a huge profit. He isn't asking for Rockstar to blindly do what he wants and ignore all the other people buying the game (that would be entitlement). All he is asking is that they don't reduce the quality of certain parts of the new game. This kind of consumer criticism is good for all of us, because it forces companies to work harder to keep our business.


He's paying $60 for what was advertised. There is no defining notion for what makes GTA, GTA, so whining because it doesn't have something you liked previously is not a reason to feel entitled. And, by the way, the power to get what you want is in your hands. If enough people share your point of view and don't buy the game, then the subsequent game will likely have things you whine for it to have. That obviously won't happen, but that's because you share a very unpopular opinion. (Sorry, brutal honesty, even if there's a small vocal minority on here)
---
"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
#33puffinslaughterPosted 2/22/2013 4:02:20 AM
From: hellfire582 | Posted: 2/21/2013 9:59:30 PM | #031
Well you're top down view analogy makes no sense because obviously a 3D game is an improvement over a 2D one. Moreover, it's the kind of thing you would know before you bought the game, so even if someone somehow liked 2D views better, he would know not to buy Vice City. As I mentioned before, this guy was complaining about more subtle problems with GTA IV, like the smaller map size and the lack of planes. Those aren't things you would just know from looking at the game box, but they're both objective declines in quality.

Also, it doesn't really matter to me whether you say he is buying the game or the "right to play the game." Either way, he is one of the millions of people paying $60 so Rockstar can make a huge profit. He isn't asking for Rockstar to blindly do what he wants and ignore all the other people buying the game (that would be entitlement). All he is asking is that they don't reduce the quality of certain parts of the new game. This kind of consumer criticism is good for all of us, because it forces companies to work harder to keep our business.


1) Then rent the game or something. If you're gonna spend $60 on a game and not do any research on it, don't expect it to be what you want. And don't get pissed when it isn't. Research it before you buy it, then decide if you wanna shell out money for it.

2) GTA IV was way better quality than SA, that isn't even an argument. Just because it doesn't have jetpacks and hovercrafts doesn't mean it's a downgrade.
---
Kris Letang stat tracker ~ 3 Goals, 9 Assists, +5. Pittsburgh Penguins: 11-6
http://i49.tinypic.com/20l12ld.png ~grape_purple ^_^
#34nativenginePosted 2/22/2013 7:44:16 AM
hellfire582 posted...

Well you're top down view analogy makes no sense because obviously a 3D game is an improvement over a 2D one. Moreover, it's the kind of thing you would know before you bought the game, so even if someone somehow liked 2D views better, he would know not to buy Vice City. As I mentioned before, this guy was complaining about more subtle problems with GTA IV, like the smaller map size and the lack of planes. Those aren't things you would just know from looking at the game box, but they're both objective declines in quality.

Also, it doesn't really matter to me whether you say he is buying the game or the "right to play the game." Either way, he is one of the millions of people paying $60 so Rockstar can make a huge profit. He isn't asking for Rockstar to blindly do what he wants and ignore all the other people buying the game (that would be entitlement). All he is asking is that they don't reduce the quality of certain parts of the new game. This kind of consumer criticism is good for all of us, because it forces companies to work harder to keep our business.


1. GTA3 was 3D and still had a top down view
2. 3D is not always an improvement, Mortal Kombat for example suffered greatly from a 3D plain and went back to 2D and was very successful.
3. Renting games is a option, if you're unsure of what to expect from a game, rent it, simple
4. Not having planes and a smaller map is not a quality issue, that's a content issue and GTA4 is a much higher quality game then any GTA before it.
5. I used the top down view as an example because that is in fact something that was in GTA3(a 3D game) that wasn't in the others. I could also say that SA didn't have a streamlined gaming experience like GTA3, Vice City and 4. San Andreas took things to the extreme, and while it provided a great sandbox experience, it wasn’t necessarily a good GTA experience. Especially when they integrated some of the extra stuff into the main story to pad out the content. Flight school was particularly frustrating, and not passing that meant it took some players longer than it should have to advance the story and in fact, caused alot of players to quit playing the game.

What's considered good by some people may not be by others.
---
Vegetarian- an old Indian word meaning bad hunter
Elected Leader of the GTA5 360 board
#35art_of_the_killPosted 2/22/2013 11:08:51 AM
professor_choas posted...
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.


Coming off of SA, the drop in mission variety of IV is quite apparent. IV's missions fell into a predictable rhythm. I began to expect another "kill this guy" to be at least one of the next five missions in the game. Hell, at times I even got two of these missions in a row.

And as if there weren't enough missions in the game to make Niko feel like a freelance hitman, there's a payphone that only gives assassination missions. I'd say that "Grand Theft Hitman" is exactly what I was playing.

Niko's willingness to kill just about anyone (apart from his friends), his willingness to kidnap an innocent young woman and act like she's a total b**** just because she tries to fight back, and his apparent obsession with money ultimately made me incapable of feeling sympathy for him. So when Roman or Kate died, I felt much more sorry for them than I did for Niko's loss.

This is why I hope that V tones down greatly on the hitman missions. TBoGT also proved that Rockstar hasn't forgotten how to design great missions with actual variety.
---
"You've lost this argument!"
--- John Marston while lassoing/hogtying someone. Favorite quote this gen.
#36holden4everPosted 2/22/2013 1:26:53 PM
From: art_of_the_kill | #035
And as if there weren't enough missions in the game to make Niko feel like a freelance hitman, there's a payphone that only gives assassination missions. I'd say that "Grand Theft Hitman" is exactly what I was playing.


Grand Theft Auto would also be wrong as a title because the games have never just been about stealing cars. GTA4 could've done with a little bit more variety of missions but you can say the same thing about nearly every game out there. It all depends on the story and what type of mission makes more sense for the character involved. Niko was basically an errand boy, so most of his missions would naturally involve doing jobs for other people that don't want to get their hands dirty. GTA 5 should include a lot of missions that revolve around bank jobs. I'm sure there will still be the "go kill this guy" missions but there shouldn't be as much compared to GTA 4.
---
http://thebulldogs.com.au/media/logo_2010.png - 2012 NRL Season: Minor Premiers. Grand Final runners-up. Bring on 2013.
#37enterthemadroxPosted 2/22/2013 3:06:58 PM
This game really could appeal to both SA and GTA IV fans


Why, will V suck and have a terrible and boring plot with characters you just can't like no matter how much they want you to?
---
"If you don't like something, don't watch it again. Why whinge about it on a forum to a load of divs? Don't worry about it." - Karl Pilkington
#38hellfire582(Topic Creator)Posted 2/22/2013 6:05:13 PM
puffinslaughter posted...
From: hellfire582 | Posted: 2/21/2013 9:59:30 PM | #031
Well you're top down view analogy makes no sense because obviously a 3D game is an improvement over a 2D one. Moreover, it's the kind of thing you would know before you bought the game, so even if someone somehow liked 2D views better, he would know not to buy Vice City. As I mentioned before, this guy was complaining about more subtle problems with GTA IV, like the smaller map size and the lack of planes. Those aren't things you would just know from looking at the game box, but they're both objective declines in quality.

Also, it doesn't really matter to me whether you say he is buying the game or the "right to play the game." Either way, he is one of the millions of people paying $60 so Rockstar can make a huge profit. He isn't asking for Rockstar to blindly do what he wants and ignore all the other people buying the game (that would be entitlement). All he is asking is that they don't reduce the quality of certain parts of the new game. This kind of consumer criticism is good for all of us, because it forces companies to work harder to keep our business.


1) Then rent the game or something. If you're gonna spend $60 on a game and not do any research on it, don't expect it to be what you want. And don't get pissed when it isn't. Research it before you buy it, then decide if you wanna shell out money for it.

2) GTA IV was way better quality than SA, that isn't even an argument. Just because it doesn't have jetpacks and hovercrafts doesn't mean it's a downgrade.


Saying that there's no argument about whether SA or GTA IV was better is ridiculous, because that question is all about one's individual opinion. My argument has nothing to do with that, though. All I was saying is that certain things, like a bigger or comparable map size, would be normally expected. You shouldn't have to rent a game to see if they made the obvious improvements over its prequel.
#39holden4everPosted 2/22/2013 6:16:13 PM
From: hellfire582 | #038
Saying that there's no argument about whether SA or GTA IV was better is ridiculous, because that question is all about one's individual opinion.


Not really. MGS4 is a better quality game than MGS but I prefer MGS. GTA4 is the better quality game but you can still prefer SA over it. Preference should have nothing to do with how good something is, only what you like more.
---
http://thebulldogs.com.au/media/logo_2010.png - 2012 NRL Season: Minor Premiers. Grand Final runners-up. Bring on 2013.
#40hellfire582(Topic Creator)Posted 2/22/2013 8:32:41 PM
enterthemadrox posted...
This game really could appeal to both SA and GTA IV fans


Why, will V suck and have a terrible and boring plot with characters you just can't like no matter how much they want you to?


Ok that sentence just doesn't make sense.