GTA V

Cyridius

u r the same guy that I was arguing with for Total ROME 2, BTW:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/09/16/total-war-rome-2/

The problem with Rome 2 is that once you go Paradox you never go back. I made the jump in 2009.

CA is also gambling away their core audience with releases like these. It's like Relic's DoW II in a way. It's strategically not a good idea. I have not seen a single developer leaving his core know-how and expanding onto consoles and be successful, except for shooters and even there the cross-development between two platforms usually led to angry ex-fans. But what do I know.

The biggest problem with Rome 2 is that it didn't expand where it needs to: the strategic aspect. CA has been selling the same game for years with slightly different units and looks. For me, medieval II was the peak of the TW series. I don't see why I should buy Rome 2.

And I don't think consoles are completely to blame, PC only titles are being streamlined these days....*cough* CoH2 *cough* *cough* Sim City *cough*

Sim City failed because EA doesn't understand the game at all. I don't think any exec at EA even knows what the game is about.

blah blah Rome blah blah COH2 blah blah BF4


Now tell me about GTAV. Is it fun or is it GTAIV?

OT crap follows: Show Spoiler

How is it a good multiplatform if 4 of the 9 vanilla maps don't work on 64 players?

blah blah Rome blah blah COH2 blah blah BF4


Now tell me about GTAV. Is it fun or is it GTAIV?

because doggy

I look at every game I talk about. I'm not ignorant of information when I make statements.

And I've yet to be proven wrong on what I've said concerning Rome II, and if I get proven wrong with GTA V, colour me pleased because there's another game I can play and be satisfied with.

"I'm not ignorant of information when I make statements." so what is so bad about GTA V? you never explained why ? you didn't even answered if you watched any gameplay yesterday on Twitch because you probably didn't.

I actually think BF3 is the classic example of a good multiplatform release, and I've no doubt BF4 will only be an improvement.

lol dude, you must be trolling. Didn't you read all the problems with BF3 at launch I sent you in the other thread ? Same problems as ROME 2 but you know what ? Some peopel couldn't even launch the game! but you know what ? they fixed the problems! like they will fix ROME 2.

GTA V = the end of COH2 for me

This bothers me though, if so, why come on a COH2 forum and say this ? just leave dude. If you truly think COH2 is bad, the best way you can show it is to leave.

I actually think BF3 is the classic example of a good multiplatform release, and I've no doubt BF4 will only be an improvement.

Credibility = gone.


Also, I thought this is going to be a nice thread where people can discuss their experience and adventures in this great open world game. But NO, I guess this is too much for some people to comprehend.

@computerheat

I dont know what do you want me to tell you? Its a game, its supposed to be fun. With three character to chose from, I'm guessing you get a bit of everything: "the crazy, the hood and the family". There is a lot more to do besides the main story line.


Also, the driving has been changed and it does not feel like you said: "all cars handle like bank safes tied to office chairs".

For more insight check out this review on Kotaku.

I think its pretty balanced and well written.

"I'm not ignorant of information when I make statements." so what is so bad about GTA V? you never explained why ? you didn't even answered if you watched any gameplay yesterday on Twitch because you probably didn't.



lol dude, you must be trolling. Didn't you read all the problems with BF3 at launch I sent you in the other thread ? Same problems as ROME 2 but you know what ? Some peopel couldn't even launch the game! but you know what ? they fixed the problems! like they will fix ROME 2.

Assuming they fix all the issues, and assuming the game works flawlessly and is polished...

It's still shit. Rome II is a piece of shit in every single aspect. Its combat? BAD. Its AI? BAD. Its UI? CONSOLE BAD. Its campaign? BAD. Its features? BAD. It's BAD BAD BADDDDD.

The performance is just the scratch on the surface.

Maybe I'm just used to what a good developer is? You know, after playing Paradox and Eugen Systems games, I might just be used to what a good developer is and don't just gobble shit down as if its the fecal matter of God himself.

For GTA V? Yeah I saw the gameplay. Wasn't impressed. It's fundamentally the same as every other GTA game before it, with some slight improvements, I'll admit. Want my mind to be blown that I saw the same thing I saw last time but with better graphics? I'm not buying into the hype for a reason and it's because getting hyped up for anything is being a shitty consumer.

Credibility = gone.


Also, I thought this is going to be a nice thread where people can discuss their experience and adventures in this great open world game. But NO, I guess this is too much for some people to comprehend.

Not that I care some random internet stranger doesn't find me "credible", I would be fascinated to hear where exactly Battlefield 3 compromised to work with consoles, again?

Anybody with half a brain can tell you BF3 was an experimental game. The culmination of every BF game from BF2 up until its release. Proof of concept. BF4 will refine it, as is evidenced by bigger squad sizes and commander mode.

But we're getting off the beaten track, here. Where was the PC game limited for console? Graphics? BF3 still has the best graphics engine of this decade so far. There are two games coming out which may possible challenge that and it's Watch Dogs and The Division. Crysis 3 is the only existing competitor that you could say has better graphics, but given that the only allure for any Crysis game is its over the top graphics, I'm unsurprised.

So, graphics? No compromise. PC graphics was better than console graphics.

Gameplay? Console has a 24 player limitation with smaller maps. PC has larger maps with 64 players. Hmmm... seems limited to me because of the console!

You wanna know why BF3 was the neigh-on-perfect multiplatform release? It's because it was developed on the PC for the PC and ported to Consoles, not the reverse. Consoles were compromised, not the PC. And what happened? It was a gigantic blockbuster hit and it popularized the series more than ever before. Because it was developed on PC for PC.

And linking a Kotaku article? I'm more credible than them.

The biggest problem with Rome 2 is that it didn't expand where it needs to: the strategic aspect. CA has been selling the same game for years with slightly different units and looks. For me, medieval II was the peak of the TW series. I don't see why I should buy Rome 2.

This.

If CoH 3 isn't on a new engine, I'm definitely not buying it. if it's still standing on the shoulders of 2006's technical peaks it will be a real shame - and it will illustrate how sad this whole business is becoming.

I picked up call of duty Black Ops 2 the other day - currently playing through the single player now. Somehow it just feels.. sub-par, especially for the last year or so.

OT: Personally I'm not overhyped about GTAV. I would probably have played it given the chance. But I'm quite insulted that they've kept PC owners hanging in terms of whether it will even be released Even if they do plan on doing it. Why not say?

I would not keep customers in the dark about anything. And I'm sad that I've had to experience that this time. No Deal on GTA V for me.

Assuming they fix all the issues, and assuming the game works flawlessly and is polished...

It's still shit. Rome II is a piece of shit in every single aspect. Its combat? BAD. Its AI? BAD. Its UI? CONSOLE BAD. Its campaign? BAD. Its features? BAD. It's BAD BAD BADDDDD.

The performance is just the scratch on the surface.

Maybe I'm just used to what a good developer is? You know, after playing Paradox and Eugen Systems games, I might just be used to what a good developer is and don't just gobble shit down as if its the fecal matter of God himself.

For GTA V? Yeah I saw the gameplay. Wasn't impressed. It's fundamentally the same as every other GTA game before it, with some slight improvements, I'll admit. Want my mind to be blown that I saw the same thing I saw last time but with better graphics? I'm not buying into the hype for a reason and it's because getting hyped up for anything is being a shitty consumer.




Not that I care some random internet stranger doesn't find me "credible", I would be fascinated to hear where exactly Battlefield 3 compromised to work with consoles, again?

Anybody with half a brain can tell you BF3 was an experimental game. The culmination of every BF game from BF2 up until its release. Proof of concept. BF4 will refine it, as is evidenced by bigger squad sizes and commander mode.

But we're getting off the beaten track, here. Where was the PC game limited for console? Graphics? BF3 still has the best graphics engine of this decade so far. There are two games coming out which may possible challenge that and it's Watch Dogs and The Division. Crysis 3 is the only existing competitor that you could say has better graphics, but given that the only allure for any Crysis game is its over the top graphics, I'm unsurprised.

So, graphics? No compromise. PC graphics was better than console graphics.

Gameplay? Console has a 24 player limitation with smaller maps. PC has larger maps with 64 players. Hmmm... seems limited to me because of the console!

You wanna know why BF3 was the neigh-on-perfect multiplatform release? It's because it was developed on the PC for the PC and ported to Consoles, not the reverse. Consoles were compromised, not the PC. And what happened? It was a gigantic blockbuster hit and it popularized the series more than ever before. Because it was developed on PC for PC.

And linking a Kotaku article? I'm more credible than them.

I respect your opinion and its not about the graphics. I enjoy playing Battlefield 3 on PC because of the huge maps and 64 players, thats what makes the battlefield for me. Its just not the same experience on console, if they tried to make it the same on console they would have to scale down a lot of stuff.

I'm sorry to say that my credibility for you is gone, because you had none to begin with because I dont know you either. Having said that, what makes you say that you are more credible than a Kotaku review? It seems like the reviewer has taken his time to play the game, have you?

I respect your opinion and its not about the graphics. I enjoy playing Battlefield 3 on PC because of the huge maps and 64 players, thats what makes the battlefield for me. Its just not the same experience on console, if they tried to make it the same on console they would have to scale down a lot of stuff.

+1

Assuming they fix all the issues, and assuming the game works flawlessly and is polished...

It's still shit. Rome II is a piece of shit in every single aspect. Its combat? BAD. Its AI? BAD. Its UI? CONSOLE BAD. Its campaign? BAD. Its features? BAD. It's BAD BAD BADDDDD.

The performance is just the scratch on the surface.

I don't think you watched GTAV because you did not take the time to read what I sent you and what I'm telling you.

They are fixing the AI and UI.

As for the campaign and features being bad, I can't comment like I said, I don't own the game and since you don't trust any reviewer, I can't use that argument, but the game is 3rd most played game on steam since launch, the campaign can't be that bad.

Lots of people say they love games but then spend a lot of time and energy hating them. Who cares that consoles exist, the entire console versus PC thing is hilarious because it matters so damn little. The world, and the industry, isn't a zero sum game. Both can exist, and both should exist because they fill different needs.

The console market is why games can be so big, so deep and so advanced because it offers the potential for a much bigger audience than PC gaming has ever. Sure PC gaming has its advantages and can offer a much different and often better experience but that doesn't mean console gaming isn't important to the industry.

If you don't like the kind of games that come out on consoles then don't buy them. Buy the games you do like, and play those. Why focus on things you don't like? There's always going to be stuff in life you don't like, wouldn't it be more fun to think about what you do like and celebrate that?

---


Anyway back on topic, I went to pick up my pre-order last night and the lineup was hilariously long so I went home. I'm picking it up after work.

However as to the question of driving I've heard from reviews that the driving feels much more responsive this time around.

If you don't like the kind of games that come out on consoles then don't buy them. Buy the games you do like, and play those. Why focus on things you don't like? There's always going to be stuff in life you don't like, wouldn't it be more fun to think about what you do like and celebrate that?

I don't think that anyone has a problem with console games. The problem is that a company can only work on one game and if it is both console and PC, typical PC features need to get cut or left out so the game will actually work on console. The "30 FPS" shooter generation is a typical example.
Another thing is that there is a lot of uuhhh "synergy", if a company hires someone to do a UI for their console game, they won't magically have a PC-typical interface in their next PC-only game. There is a lot of convergence between PC and console games as of late and it's the PC that keeps losing out because of that.
For companies consoles may be a great thing as it allows them to tackle a wider audience and therefore greater revenue stream. But for PC gamers it's pretty disappointing.
I'd like it if companies found their nieche and stick to it. That does mean "smaller" games but overall more quality in those games. And I think that is precisely what people want, especially PC users. It also lowers the risk for the developers, as they know exactly for what audience they develop. There have been so many complete failures in the "triple A" market, especially MMORPGs, in the last years that could've been avoided by perhaps not making another World of Warcraft expansion.

I actually think BF3 is the classic example of a good multiplatform release, and I've no doubt BF4 will only be an improvement.

Then what the hell games do you think suffered because of console? The majority of popular PC games are only for PC- RTS, MMORPG, MOBA, War Thunder, WoT, ArmA (DayZ included), source mods, Civ5, Total War, STALKER, Red Orchestra, etc. Reviews even say that the console version of Diablo 3 is much better than the PC version. So unless you think that Max Payne 3, Far Cry 3, Skyrim, Metro Last Light, Splinter Cell BL, Borderlands 2, and Xcom Enemy Unknown were bad games, your case for consoles ruining the industry doesn't hold much water because those are arguably the biggest recent multiplatform games.

Assuming they fix all the issues, and assuming the game works flawlessly and is polished...

It's still shit. Rome II is a piece of shit in every single aspect. Its combat? BAD. Its AI? BAD. Its UI? CONSOLE BAD. Its campaign? BAD. Its features? BAD. It's BAD BAD BADDDDD.

The performance is just the scratch on the surface.

Maybe I'm just used to what a good developer is? You know, after playing Paradox and Eugen Systems games, I might just be used to what a good developer is and don't just gobble shit down as if its the fecal matter of God himself.

For GTA V? Yeah I saw the gameplay. Wasn't impressed. It's fundamentally the same as every other GTA game before it, with some slight improvements, I'll admit. Want my mind to be blown that I saw the same thing I saw last time but with better graphics? I'm not buying into the hype for a reason and it's because getting hyped up for anything is being a shitty consumer.




Not that I care some random internet stranger doesn't find me "credible", I would be fascinated to hear where exactly Battlefield 3 compromised to work with consoles, again?

Anybody with half a brain can tell you BF3 was an experimental game. The culmination of every BF game from BF2 up until its release. Proof of concept. BF4 will refine it, as is evidenced by bigger squad sizes and commander mode.

But we're getting off the beaten track, here. Where was the PC game limited for console? Graphics? BF3 still has the best graphics engine of this decade so far. There are two games coming out which may possible challenge that and it's Watch Dogs and The Division. Crysis 3 is the only existing competitor that you could say has better graphics, but given that the only allure for any Crysis game is its over the top graphics, I'm unsurprised.

So, graphics? No compromise. PC graphics was better than console graphics.

Gameplay? Console has a 24 player limitation with smaller maps. PC has larger maps with 64 players. Hmmm... seems limited to me because of the console!

You wanna know why BF3 was the neigh-on-perfect multiplatform release? It's because it was developed on the PC for the PC and ported to Consoles, not the reverse. Consoles were compromised, not the PC. And what happened? It was a gigantic blockbuster hit and it popularized the series more than ever before. Because it was developed on PC for PC.

And linking a Kotaku article? I'm more credible than them.

The UI is terrible on pc when you want to customize weapons or camos.
Sure you have 64 players but metro,tehran,seine and bazaar flat out don't work with this amount

GTA : San Andreas is the greatest cultural artifact of the century so far. Bar non. By quite a wide margin too.

So I don't mind waiting a few months for PC GTA V. If it can top SA it's a new high water mark in human culture worldwide.

GTA IV was shite though. So we will have to wait and see as IV got rave reviews on launch too.

Lots of people say they love games but then spend a lot of time and energy hating them. Who cares that consoles exist, the entire console versus PC thing is hilarious because it matters so damn little. The world, and the industry, isn't a zero sum game. Both can exist, and both should exist because they fill different needs.

The console market is why games can be so big, so deep and so advanced because it offers the potential for a much bigger audience than PC gaming has ever. Sure PC gaming has its advantages and can offer a much different and often better experience but that doesn't mean console gaming isn't important to the industry.

If you don't like the kind of games that come out on consoles then don't buy them. Buy the games you do like, and play those. Why focus on things you don't like? There's always going to be stuff in life you don't like, wouldn't it be more fun to think about what you do like and celebrate that?

---


Anyway back on topic, I went to pick up my pre-order last night and the lineup was hilariously long so I went home. I'm picking it up after work.

However as to the question of driving I've heard from reviews that the driving feels much more responsive this time around.

Whilst the sentiment is admirable, I care about things I dislike because things I dislike will ultimately effect me as a consumer due to the evolution of the market.

Anyhow, I can confirm the driving is definitely more enjoyable this time around. And the frequency of awesome cars is pretty high.

I was messing around with the game with a few friends of mine yesterday. It's more or less the same as San Andreas except with far better graphics, an improvement on the feel of guns is better I must say. There're some gun challenges in the game that actually have a noticeable benefit as well should you complete them(Getting Gold on the Ammunation firing range gives you 25% off purchases. Good luck getting Gold, that shit's hard).

Driving is better, I agree. It's still not a driving game, so when put up against something like Need For Speed: Most Wanted it's not as good, but it's serviceable and usually fun.

I've played about 3 hours and the only bad thing I can say is that Rockstar really likes giving annoying missions at times. I want to be running around doing awesome stuff but I got roped into a side quest to work as a tow truck driver which was quite frustrating.