I bet GTA VI will feel like all the others and not be too innovative because why? Their player base is just degenerates. The game design is to fuck each other and the NPCs up while giving you the feeling that you can do anything without taking responsibility.
I’m not that gamer though. I like complicated thinking while smashing and grabbing. GTA doesn’t have that so I made up my own scenarios (RP before it was a thing with my friends in person typically while drinking) and played my own game when San Andreas was out. IV and V were just nice updates to the same game SA was.
The stories were bland at best. The missions are bland too. Makes sense how RP got popular because the game itself is just tropes and cliches and stuff we already see IRL. They just capitalized on it. Rockstar isn’t some amazing company they just show you what you already see but in a video game. It’s not creative, it’s just observant and opining.
RDR2 was a great story but that’s where that game ends. It’s another sandboxed GTA in old west times. Nothing special.
You can’t choose your destiny. You just sit in a sandbox trapped and stimulated by simple dopamine triggers without puzzles to work the mind and skill. Kind of like real life.
Overall it’s not a bad series. For what it is it is fun. To act out and be irresponsible in a vidya game is for sure fun. Maybe it’s even a work of art? I would agree. But it’s not something that is really innovative at this juncture. It’s not profitable.
I can tell from these 6 words the only game with a semblance of sandbox elements you can think of is Minecraft.
Since GTA 3.
GTA is both a narrative series and a sandbox game series but is primarily a sandbox series. In every GTA game you can just do whatever you want once you get past the first 1 or 2 boxed-in missions. I think GTA V is the one that takes the longest to get you going.
since Grand Theft Auto. The story missions were always designed to tutorialize the sandbox. They just started getting a lot of attention for being better stories than you usually get from AAA action games, especially in the ‘00s.
It’s the same “innovativeness” as Starfield; it’s not pushing the boundaries of game design or anything but it’s a tried and tested strategy that clearly lots of people enjoy and it makes them a lot of money.
It’s not profitable? How? Rockstar is estimated to earn $8 billion from GTA VI… that seems lucrative to me?
Echoing bermuda@beehaw.org. “Degenerates”? You mean a games series that pushed the boundaries when it was new, truly pushed what open world meant, and that it could be done with large, crowded cities technically as well. Sure if you play them nowadays the might not brush any strokes and feel flat but the GTA series has been defining a game for generations where “everybody” in that generation had played and been fond of. 1-2-3, San Andreas, and vice city and the ilks. There wasnt really any competitors to that when they were released.
I’m going to guess you are right that it won’t be too innovative. Story wise they have never been innovative, nor pretended to be. They have pushed the boundaries of open world in both engineering and social commentary/satire.
But calling several generations of gamers who grew up with this “degenerates”. Hard to take you seriously and your attitude can eff right off
Agreed. 3, SA, and VC were so successful that when similar original games came out, most people just called them “GTA clones.” Just like with Doom back in the 90s, where any FPS was a Doom clone.
Also are we just going to ignore the whole thing with GTAV where you had three characters with intertwined stories that you could switch between (mostly) at will? Multiple protagonists has been done, but not really like that, not in such a living breathing manner that they managed to pull off. Rockstar also manages to fill the world with many interesting characters for the story to play with, they manage to take really simple gameplay and make it engaging all the way through.
They also added the heists which were a pretty good way of adding more meaning to the old school mission structure they continue to use and while ultimately I don’t think it had they impact they wanted it did add some flavor and interest to the gameplay. I’m an absolute fiend for heist films and that was a lot of fun for me.
These games are characterized by superficial simplicity underlaid with surprising complexity to craft a smooth experience. LA Noire is a prime example of that kind of design where it becomes very obvious how much the game has to run like well oiled gearworks to function at all and have the cases work as narrative. (developed by Team Bondi, but with the help of a lot of the R* studios including North)
Also they manage to do all this without a second of it feeling like a cynical product, it’s clear the people doing this love the topic of pop culture crime, films, stories, legends and want to take the player along for a fun ride. I don’t know at this point, with everything that happened with GTAO, which mostly feels like a cynical product, if that’s the R* making GTAVI, I sure hope it is though.
I tend to agree with what you’re saying about the shallowness of the story and missions. GTA5 is beautiful in terms of landscape and visual design, but there’s not much substance there. I like to play once in a while just to kind of wander around and enjoy the scenery, but it isn’t very engaging to me beyond that. To each their own I suppose.
I think the story of San Andreas was pretty nice. It’s very much scarface (in fact all the GTA’s were like this).
The online missions of GTA V were terrible IMO. They’re pretty degenerate yes. But the Singleplayer was nice. I also love the social commentary on US society. I really miss the roleplaying that people used to do in GTA:SA MP (third-party multiplayer mod) but of course rockstar had to go and kill it so they could sell their shark cards.
I’m cautiously optimistic. I really hope this isn’t the first GTA game they ruin. I hate that they discarded the additions to GTA V’s single-player in exchange for GTA Online updates, I hope they won’t do that here, even though I did actually enjoy GTA Online too.
And that’s why this is a console only release for now.
That’s what doomed cyberpunk. I got my Series X halfway through the campaign, and it was a different game on the X vs the One. I wish they had scrapped current gen plans for that game and went next gen only. It would have been a more successful launch.
I won’t be pre-ordering (because they likely won’t be releasing on PC at launch, ugh), but I have high hopes. There hasn’t been a R* game without a killer story. I kinda expected RDR2’s story to be an afterthought to the online, as that was their first game since GTAOnline, however it was still an awesome single player campaign.
IMO almost every GTA has had derivative writing and set ups, but it’s okay because of everything else taking the spotlight. 3 was just Claude doing random missions until one mission lets you get revenge on Catalina and then the game just ends. Vice City is a revenge plot sort of but it’s just Tommy doing random jobs until Sonny’s like “oh you fancy huh?”. SA’s story was just batshit crazy all over the place. 4 IMO had the actual good story and didn’t seem derivative. Niko was a genuinely interesting character. V’s story was just straight forward “criminals finding out who snitched”, satisfying, but a bit scant. I just ask for a serviceable crime plot set in a vibrant and lived in world.
IV was the one I spent the most time on, so that makes sense. But with V it’s not a lack of depth, more a lack of continuity. Of course it’s been so long since I played it I can’t remember any specific examples, I just remember being disappointed, and thinking they spent so much time/money on the physics, they had nothing left for the story …
They didn’t yet, but they could at any time. Enshitification is a real thing and it’s starting to become more widespread. I just have to hope that GTA 6 will be good. I think it probably will be.
Overreaction much? GTA4 online granted didn’t even work, but V online is exactly how you want GTA online to behave, minus the load times. No one is forcing you to play online. You’ll easily get 100 hours just fucking around in single player.
I always thought I wanted GTA Online during the GTA3 era. Then when it became a reality, I realized I really didn’t want it and preferred the single player. The moment the story ends though, I have zero interest. Same with RDR2. Don’t care much to run around an empty world trying to collect 100% completion. Online is toxic and boring. Anything with an in game currency that you can buy with real money is a no from me. I guess I grew up in a different era when games were games and not gambling scams.
Well I guess this is where different Motivations for gaming come into play. I spent 800+ hours in GTA Online and most of that time was just spending time with my friends. Never spent a single Euro for Shark Cards.
It really isn’t. The idea started great, but they focused way too much on lobby play instead of missions. And lobbies were just not good, because of tech problems and because they just gave out overpowered stuff there you can’t counter. It all just felt too much, instead of your character just being a trailer gangster. And it’s very obvious that everything is focused on you having to buy shark cards. I enjoyed 3rd party clients way more.
I’ve waited so long for this and it was just ok. It is only a reveal but nothing stood out as something I need to be a part of. Maybe it’s marketed toward their online cohort.
Knowing Rockstar put off development of this game for as long as they did just so they could milk GTAO for every last penny makes me hesitant at best.
I have never been let down by a GTA campaign, but they know where the money is, I’m hesitant to believe they will give this one the attention it deserves after seeing the profits from GTAO. Or maybe I’m just pessimistic
I just wonder if they can actually figure out a way to make GTA online actually fun. Because It really isn’t a good game mode.
All of the online modes that are actually fun are all modded servers. The mental servers are awful you spawn in and get blown up instantly, how’s that fun?
GTAOnline has suffered from feature pile-on. I think there’s an official software development term for it, but I can’t remember it. It’s fun, aside from the astronomical grind and push for shark cards (but there are ways around that wink wink) Even considering that, getting into it as a new player is wild.
That’s probably the wrong term. Scope creep is when you’re working on a project and you keep adding new requirements to the design before you finish the existing ones. Your scope creeps further and further into the future. GTAO is a project that is available, and increasing scope hasn’t seemed to delay new content.
That said, I don’t know what the “correct” term would be either.
I usually think of scope creep as adding more and more work items, like this: you’re building a bridge between two buildings. During design, you find out one of the buildings has terrible foundations that should really just be replaced. Scope creep would be deciding to replace the building foundations as part of the bridge project.
It’s possible I’m not using the term correctly either though. Maybe what I’ve described instead is design creep, or something.
GTA5’s campaign was fairly good, but it sucks they abandoned the planned additions and shoved the assets into GTAO only. I do not care to play GTAO, but I would have liked more things to do in single player. Knowing that this is likely going to have single player solely as a pipeline into GTAO though, yeah I’m sceptical too.
I think GTAO (and RDR2-O) is pretty much unplayable with all the obvious cheaters in each session. Rockstar doesnt even care if someone runs around with a K:D of > 1000:1, ruining the game for everyone else …
Yep. I hate to say this, but they should maybe but MTX into the singleplayer game. I really don’t like the idea of it, but if it’s between that and nothing, I guess it’s better than nothing. One time purchase DLC is clearly not appealing enough to them. That said, I could totally see it ruining singleplayer so maybe that’s not the best idea…
My expectation is that it will be very good, but will have no single player DLC whatsoever in lieu of GTAO2 or whatever they call it. And no, I’ve never forgiven them for doing that with V. At least this time I won’t be expecting it.
What if it doesn’t need DLC? When the concept of DLC first came out, everyone complained that devs were just releasing unfinished games and that you were obligated to buy DLC to enjoy a full experience. Now people only buy games because they’re expecting DLC?
Because Rockstar did some good DLC for GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption. I agree that DLC isn’t a good thing if it’s carved out of the base game, but Rockstar had a good track record of making good DLC for already feature-complete games.
I explicitly said that I have never been let down by a GTA campaign. What I was saying was that RDR2 is a different series that plays by different rules. For that reason I don’t feel like it’s necessarily fair to use RDR2 as an example of how they will treat GTA with the respect the series deserves.
It’s 10 fucking years. GTA 3, Vice City, and San Andreas were all less than a couple years apart. They need to reuse that strategy of working in parallel and reusing the game engine for a few sequels before moving to the next generation.
I’m confident they would’ve released more games if GTA Online wasn’t such a money printer for them. For those of us that liked the single player though and didn’t touch online, it’s been a while!
The earlier GTA games where quicker to develop because the computers did not have the CPU power or RAM to support large cities, many different NPC models, detailed cars, objects or enviroments. This means levels, assests and the engines where much quicker to develop.
if you double width+height of your map, you have to fill 4x the area with meaningfull content, belivable cities, scripted events, nature, streets, shops, maybe NPS who have a daily routine to walk from one place to another.
Plus, you have to create a large amount of different(!) buildings to place around your map, because you dont want to recognize the same house, shop, park or Parking lot multiple times in the same street. On top of that is car physics, traffic simulation, cop chase behavior and now apparently NPCs interact with each other.
None of this has been done before, and getting this right and bugfree is not trivial - see cyberpunk.
There was an article on here a little while ago that said games are getting so massive that a 10 - 12 year development cycle is not only unexpected, but should become the norm soon
My backlog is so large, I’m definitely going to die before getting through it.
Don’t call it that, man! games are an escape, a leisure activity. Not some work assignment you need to compulsively finish. It’s OK if you don’t play everything there is. 🙂
Lol I know it sounds like I’m treating it like a job, but it’s more like wanting to travel the world but knowing I’m not going to have time in my life to see everything (which is both a metaphor, and also a thing I would actually like to do that competes for time lol).
We have to prioritize some experiences in life over other experiences we also want to have, and that’s just how it is. So if they could just stop making new things for a while, that would really make my job easier 😝.
Absolutely unreal. 50 million views in 9 hours. The game looks amazing! First viewing I was a little underwhelmed, but watching the trailer again on a bigger screen and it does really look fucking great! This is going to be the biggest selling game in history, without a doubt.
I was thinking the same, but then again taking a long time to put games out isn’t the same as putting out broken games. I mean rdr, rdr2, and gtav are stellar games that launched without any glaring faults iirc. Taking time is fine as long as we get a complete product.
As someone who grew up with block graphic games and sprites on a 320x240 pixel screen in 16 colors, this looks impressive. Not my kind of game or genre, but still well done.
I have a strange feeling about the story for this game. Here’s my prediction:
Lucia breaks out of prison with the help of Jason and an outside character. Lucia and Jason then go on the run turning into a Bonny and Clyde story. Doing heists and robbing people to make some cash to get away from the cops. But then, they rob the wrong person or they were forced to rob the person by the other character and are forced into the drug trade. Maybe the other character was a narco that either Lucia or Jason knew. The FIB or DEA catch wind of this and since Lucia and Jason prove to be very good criminals, they then rope them into taking down the drug trade by robbing and pulling heists.
This goes on until they both eventually find a way out or plan to pull “one last heist” that’ll free them from both the narcos and the FIB or DEA. But then, whoopsie, turns out either Lucia or Jason had some ulterior motive for tagging along with one another. While Lucia or Jason was in prison, they struck a deal with either the narcos or FIB to either escape the country or wipe their record. The catch? They had to bring the other person in, kill them, or just generally betray them.
Then the final act would be one of three options. Lucia kills Jason, Jason kills Lucia, or they both fight the narcos and FIB together Bonnie and Clyde style. Either way, bullets are gonna be flying.
The end game would be only Lucia or Jason are left alive and free of both the narcos and FIB. But, Maybe they became a crime Lord in the drug trade thanks to the other person dying or the FIB unknowingly.
Based on how Rockstar makes their stories, I predict one of the two is gonna bite the bullet by the end.
Best part of GTA V for me was the social satire and Trevor being a total sociopath. The story isn’t anything special, the final mission hits the wrong story beats (it should have ended with the big shootout of government bureaucracy pileup), and the gameplay has some design mistakes (like business income being completely useless, and money in general being a non-issue after the first big heist). It had bugs that prevented story progress without workarounds that were never fixed. It got a lot of praise at the time for having crazy draw distances in an open world game while working on an XBox 360. That’s no longer a big deal.
I don’t think it deserved all the five-star reviews it got back then.
Conversely, if the social satire is on point and the character building is solid, then I’ll be happy.
I think the “escape from prison” part won’t happen, because we see Lucia with an ankle monitor in the promo pic. Implying she’s on parole or something. The rest sounds plausible though.
Vice City was my favourite, the soundtrack alone was amazing. I have literally skipped V after IV was too big, and never finished rdr2, depsite rdr being one of my favourite ever games. Hoping for a tighter, tastier VI, not just “more”
same here, it already looks full of crowded places and tons of cool stuff jammed into this huge city, but most of them were animated cinematic Instagram looking stuff so I guess we have to wait 4 years to see.
Does it improve towards the end? I was playing it and got about half way but stopped. The world is beautiful but the quests are boring af. It’s a movie with repetitive actions from time to time.
It gets a little better in its last 3rd, but only story wise. It is a remarkably bland experience compared to the first game. If riding around on a horse and chest-high wall cover-based shooting wasn’t fun for you after the first hour, there’s nothing for you later on either.
youtube.com
Najnowsze