I really love the world of GTA V, it has a lot to explore and is beautiful. I just wish the driving physics to explore it weren’t so utterly boring. GTA IV had great arcade driving.
When you say “Arcade driving” if you mean “zero friction simulation” then yes, sure. I went back to GTA4 recently because I loved the story and after 2k hours in GTAV, driving in 4 makes me want to kill myself
After coming off San Andreas when 4 came out, I figured it was the same as SA with the skill system that made the cars less slidey the better CJ got. But nope. It’s just like that. It gives the vehicles more sense of weight, but it’s too slidey unless the road is meant to be black ice. I feel like 5 has the best arcade like driving. Especially with the addition of being able to control your pitch and roll in a car and not just on a bike. It’s not too real, but it’s not super cartoonish. It’s a perfect middle area.
I mean real damage, spinning out, hitting a curb actually feeling like hitting a curb and overall feel. Gta V has too much grip and you can easily just take a sports car up a mountain offroad. It’s soulless.
“Okay, I know you weren’t too happy about my plan to retroactively charge you for every mile you drive in the car I already sold you… What if I told you, I’ll only charge you for a maximum of… uh… 30,000 miles per year?”
It doesn't work the same here as with B2C products. Excluding hobby developers who wouldn't been hit either way. most people paying for Unity are trying to make a living and a company eradically throwing the pricing model around is not a good look when there are altrnatives around.
People can and will go to alternatives for new projects. Unreal, if you want a marketplace and impressive 3D and Godot if you want FOSS. Not to mention the otber game engines.
It's about money here, in some cades not little amount of money.
How about you don’t change the terms people agreed to retroactively. How about if you said “no royalties”, you stick with no royalties and don’t come up with some bullshit fee that works exactly like a royalty.
It probably cost more in development to port the game to Switch than any other console. Graphics quality is irrelevant when users willingly buy a device with worse hardware than consoles. This seems like a case of “fans” wanting to eat their cake and have it too.
To all people who buy switch and say it’s not about the graphics, it’s about the experience, this is what you get.
I’m not criticizing them saying this , I’m just making a point that switch as inferior hardware and you can’t expect to have the game with the same graphics as ps5. The game price is not tied to the graphics, it’s tired to the amount of work they had to put in it, which I’m sure is a lot
eurogamer.net
Najstarsze