Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In an article a while back I read that they had begun voice casting, so it stands to reason that things were on their way. I hope we get an announcement soon...

GTA 4's mechanics with San Andreas levels of customisation, please.

Originally posted by -Pr-
In an article a while back I read that they had begun voice casting, so it stands to reason that things were on their way. I hope we get an announcement soon...

GTA 4's mechanics with San Andreas levels of customisation, please.

THIS



as good as GTA 4 is... San Andreas was better

Bring back the fun, stupidly obscure missions instead of the shitty cab driving type missions.

Originally posted by Mist_haermm
Bring back the fun, stupidly obscure missions instead of the shitty cab driving type missions.

Well they did'nt last long those one for Roman if you stuck with it.

I don't mean just the cab ones, the whole 'drive person X to point A, then drive them to point B to drop off a package, then drive back to base while avoiding the cops/gang members' type missions. Same shit that gets old. I think GTA 2 had a good one where you steal a bus, collect a bunch of people, then drive them to a hotdog manufacturing plant and process them. Just funny, random crap like that makes it more fun.

I'd rather they make another Red Dead Redemption...

but still a day one purchase regardless.

Only thing i did'nt like about GTA 4 was handling of the cars so friggan tight.

The only thing I didn't like about GTA 4 was how friggin' boring it was.

'Couzen! Let us go see some americans tities!' **** off you fat bastard. I want to go crash a helicopter into a tank, not go ****ing bowling with my inbreed relations. I can do that in real life thank you very much.

I'm up to the second island when i last played it and certianly was'nt boring..

Originally posted by Nephthys
. I want to go crash a helicopter into a tank, .

Thanks for spoiler.

The only spoiler is that you never get to do something that awesome.

Originally posted by Kazenji
I'm up to the second island when i last played it and certianly was'nt boring..



Thanks for spoiler. The game came out like 3 ****ing years ago. You deserve to have to it spoiled it for you if you haven't played it by now.

..

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
The game came out like 3 ****ing years ago. You deserve to have to it spoiled it for you if you haven't played it by now.

Jeez sorry if i happened to get sidetracked by playing other games....

Originally posted by S_D_J
THIS



as good as GTA 4 is... San Andreas was better

In terms of content, maybe, but for me the engine they used for GTA, the physics etc, was the best it's ever been.

Originally posted by S_D_J
THIS



as good as GTA 4 is... San Andreas was better True

Bring back the hot coffee!

the should have it take place in russia during the 60's (or the u.s.s.r) on the outskirts of moscow, and base it off the russian mafia when it was at the height of it power..

I want to be able to create my own character, with branching story paths based on what allegiance said character has (if you're asian, you might be a triad, european/italian, primarily mob), stuff like that.

Set in modern day, of course.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I want to be able to create my own character, with branching story paths based on what allegiance said character has (if you're asian, you might be a triad, european/italian, primarily mob), stuff like that.

Set in modern day, of course.

There's Saints Row for you, then






I prefer a pre-established character and follow his/her story, Saints Row narrative suffers because of the character creation

Official announcement, First trailer next week

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news/news-9931-Grand-Theft-Auto-V-Officially-Announced--First-Trailer-Next-Week-.html

About bloody time.

Depends if the game is different tech wise.

Previous generation, all the games looks roughly the same and played the same as well.

I wonder if the 5th game will be the different as GTA4.

Looking forward to it. I hope they keep the serious tones as GTA4 but have a ton more mission variety.

I'm really hoping they bring back a bigger world with highways and backcountries and such, wherever it's set.

Yeah, that would be pretty sweet as well.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Official announcement, First trailer next week

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news/news-9931-Grand-Theft-Auto-V-Officially-Announced--First-Trailer-Next-Week-.html

youpi

so

what's up with the dollar font?

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/images/news/gtav-1.png

Speculation that it will use Washington as a backdrop for the fictitious city/area.

The character will be Obama

GTA IV was mind numbing and boring. The graphics and controls were ace, but the overall game play and pacing were excruciating.

Give me GTA III and San Andreas, any day.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Speculation that it will use Washington as a backdrop for the fictitious city/area.

That speculation will turn out to be nothing more.

Washinton, DC would be too boring for a GTA game.

Probably.

That's why it's speculation.

I wouldn't say Washington would be boring. Maybe the developers are going a different route by having something to do with terrorists/political agenda. Or maybe, the influence of the game is Baltimore and The Wire.

GTAIV was an interesting game. It showed what an open world can do when it comes down to story telling and bringing a city to life. If they just had more missions that were not, "drive here, kill that guy and then get chased", I think a serious GTA game can be still good. Red Dead Redemption was a serious game and it worked.

The point is moot because rumour say LA with multiple different characters.

Here's hoping it's as customizable as GTA San Andreas.

Originally posted by Mist_haermm
Bring back the fun, stupidly obscure missions instead of the shitty cab driving type missions.

Yeah.... pretty much check out Saints Row Rockstar


Rumour it may be headed to L.A.

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news/news-9937-Rumour--Grand-Theft-Auto-V-Headed-to-L-A--With-Multiple-Playable-Characters.html

I really don't want GTA being more like Saints Row, personally.

But still it can do without it being so damn serious.

Previous GTA's before 4 had serious tones as well. It just had a few missions where it was batshit crazy.

After everything you were allowed to do in SA, GTAIV with all its tech and refined gameplay felt like a step back.

Crazy missions peppered in between all the seriousness will be appreciated.... and no more needy friends calling you every minute, not even your in-game gf called you as much

that was annoying

Yeah, the friends aspect was a bit annoying. It was pretty damn cool at the start. It was nice to actually have some character development in a GTA game without it being a characterization of a stereotype but it got dry fairly quickly.

I still want a serious game that's based in reality. It was refreshing to have a city that came alive and felt real unlike Saints Row 2, which was just a backdrop. I don't know if you can have that with a non-reality based missions.

I don't want that. I want the same feeling as I got in GTA4.

Hope they fix up the driving aspect

if i want realism i'll go play Grand Turismo, Not that i actually play car racing games.

For me, the seriousness was a good thing, not a negative. Same with the driving once i got used to it.

GTA's biggest problems for me were the aforementioned lack of side/fun content, and of course the phone ringing.

I really don't like scoring negative points because i don't date a girl when i'm in the middle of a gang war.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I really don't like scoring negative points because i don't date a girl when i'm in the middle of a gang war.

Or score negative points because you refuse to play bowling with your friends when you're being chased by the police.

One thing I did love about GTA 4 was the actual storyline. Those "kill him or spare him" moments, for me, were built up so well that sometimes you hated the bastard so much that you wanted to kill him.

The actual stories and the writing were pretty good, I thought.

One thing, and I've been saying this for a while, that I want in a new GTA: Character creation. Let me make my own guy. Give me customisation options. Let me side with certain gangs over other ones. Let me pick and choose missions that I want to do.

Like, say you're working for the mob and the yakuza as an enforcer of sorts. they both give you missions at the same time, and those missions clash, so if you complete one, you fail the other, so you're scoring both negative AND positive points with people.

Kind of like that mechanic dragon age had, but better.

The only thing GTA: San Andreas and GTA 4 had for customisation was friggan buying clothes

yeah thats one they could take from Saints Row

Originally posted by -Pr-

Like, say you're working for the mob and the yakuza as an enforcer of sorts. they both give you missions at the same time, and those missions clash, so if you complete one, you fail the other, so you're scoring both negative AND positive points with people.


that Negative and Postive points idea remind of GTA 2.

Originally posted by Kazenji
The only thing GTA: San Andreas and GTA 4 had for customisation was friggan buying clothes

yeah thats one they could take from Saints Row



that Negative and Postive points idea remind of GTA 2.

San Andreas also had body size/type and hairstyle.

Originally posted by -Pr-
For me, the seriousness was a good thing, not a negative. Same with the driving once i got used to it.

GTA's biggest problems for me were the aforementioned lack of side/fun content, and of course the phone ringing.

I really don't like scoring negative points because i don't date a girl when i'm in the middle of a gang war.

Basically, that's what I thought. The storyline was probably the best out of all the GTA's. The atmosphere is the best out of all open world games (maybe Red Dead Redemption beats it) and controls were pretty good as well.

It just needed more variety of missions and fun mini-games. Red Dead Redemption had excellent mini-games. Poker was the best (loved the idea that you could cheat and horseshoes was cool as well). GTA4 had bowling, darts and pool. They were kind of lame. I remember seeing a driving range, mini-putt course and a few other things and I was like, "Awesome, I'm going to check it out" but was totally disappointed when they had nothing there.

so, did anyone played the DLC?

I haven't finished either yet, but what I've seen, TBoGT has all the over-the-top gameplay sorely missed in the main game, Yussuf Amir is batshit crazy, so is Bulgarin... jumping off a building to escape using a chute is awesome, and at least there's a "tank" in the game


I want all of that from the get go in GTA V


Also: you can now play "golf" in TBoGT

I didn't.

Originally posted by jalek moye
San Andreas also had body size/type and hairstyle.
Don't forget the car customizations.
'Twas one of the best aspects of the game.

I remember I had a supped-up Sultan with max nitrous and off-road tyres, etc.


Originally posted by S_D_J

I haven't finished either yet, but what I've seen, TBoGT has all the over-the-top gameplay sorely missed in the main game, Yussuf Amir is batshit crazy, so is Bulgarin... jumping off a building to escape using a chute is awesome, and at least there's a "tank" in the game

The sad part is GTAIV's DLC games were both better than the main storyline game in some aspects.

Aside from the fact that the car customization was lost once you lost the car.

Which happens all the time.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Aside from the fact that the car customization was lost once you lost the car.

Which happens all the time.
Why would you lose a car you took time to customize with?

It's not like you're supposed to use it in main missions.

You customize the car and keep in your garage and use it for races, freeplay, and/or stunt achievements, unless you're dumb enough to save the game after you lost/wrecked the car.

It's fun for car enthusiasts like me.



If Rockstar is going to stick with one playable character, I hope he's Native American or Southeast Asian this time.

And maybe it's time to have a female protagonist for a change. It'll help get more girls into hardcore gaming.

TBOGT was a lot of fun, I thought. Really enjoyed it.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon


And maybe it's time to have a female protagonist for a change, to get more girls into hardcore gaming.

Lol

you'd be surprised how many actually do play these type of games and other violent ones

you don't need a female player in GTA to do that.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Lol

you'd be surprised how many actually do play these type of games and other violent ones

you don't need a female player in GTA to do that.
But you have to agree, it's a cool idea.

She'd be like Sarah Connor or Ellen Ripley

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Why would you lose a car you took time to customize with?

It's not like you're supposed to use it in main missions.

You customize the car and keep in your garage and use it for races, freeplay, and/or stunt achievements, unless you're dumb enough to save the game after you lost/wrecked the car.

It's fun for car enthusiasts like me.



If Rockstar is going to stick with one playable character, I hope he's Native American or Southeast Asian this time.

And maybe it's time to have a female protagonist for a change. It'll help get more girls into hardcore gaming.

It's still a stupid decision not allowing you to save the car to a garage so you can reuse it all the time without making you do workarounds to keep the car.

For instance, I use it to win a race, do a mission or whatever while after completing whatever your doing, you destroy the car by accident (because that always happens in GTA games) so you reload the game and have to redo the mission so you can keep your customized car?

That's dumb.

Originally posted by Smasandian
It's still a stupid decision not allowing you to save the car to a garage so you can reuse it all the time without making you do workarounds to keep the car.

For instance, I use it to win a race, do a mission or whatever while after completing whatever your doing, you destroy the car by accident (because that always happens in GTA games) so you reload the game and have to redo the mission so you can keep your customized car?

That's dumb.

you couldn't save the pimped-out car in a garage?

I don't remember that


what I do remember is the garages eating up my cars, that's truly annoying... and it still happens in GTA IV

What I mean is that you couldn't save it in a garage where it's always available.

You could do the regular thing but once you lost the car or destroyed it, it's gone.

I thought it was stupid for the developers to allow to customize a car without the ability to always have that car. Similar to how Saints Row does it. You save it in a garage and it's always there, no matter how many times you take it out and destroy it. The only time it's not there is if you remove it from the garage.

and the trailer is live!

is downloading excruciatingly slow, guess the bandwidth is completely hugged

City looks great. Huge to the mountains and stuff if they are all explorable then its going to be massive. Looks like modern setting to me also.

Yep. Looks very promising. I rather have a completely different setting than LA but the game looks good.

The guy on the balcony look like Tommy Vercetti to anyone else?

So we're going back to San Andreas. Awesome. Los Santos looks like it has changed quite a bit in the last decade.

Also, was that guy running away from the Police just a random, or CJ?

I was thinking that was CJ too. If this game brings together characters from different GTA games then it is going to be awesome.

It does look like CJ, but his face is totally different, could be just another token black thug running away

anyways:

It's a return to San Andreas!

they just showed LS, but I wonder why all the license plates say San Andreas (in GTA: SA the license plates have the name of the city in them)

anyways: I see two different persons driving the cars (though the CJ looking guy could be a third)

there's the guy talking in the trailer who sounds Caucasian middle-age man, which i think it's this guy:

http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/5318/snapshot20111102142143.jpg

seen again here (more than likely) in a mission:

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/9183/snapshot20111102142154.jpg

and driving:

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/2955/snapshot20111102143750.jpg


then there's this guy, black or maybe Hispanic, being chase by the cops:

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/6484/snapshot20111102141533.jpg

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/2379/snapshot20111102142114.jpg

and here's "CJ"

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/5004/snapshot20111102141752.jpg

Does this mean the rumor of multiple characters is true?

anyways: it appears Mount Chiliad is back, also there's a crop duster and private jets and fighting jets are back

I really hope they include the three cities plus outlaying areas.

Out of all the GTA's, San Andreas was the best place to drive in but it would be interesting to see if Rockstar can create memorable areas. I found GTA4 didn't have that. Everything seemed the same.

In Red Dead Redemption, it was nice to be familiar to how to get too and where places are.

So what year does GTA5 take place in? Modern day?

I would think so.

The cars look very modern. You can see they have run-flats.

can anybody see the pics I posted?


and yes, it seems it's modern day SA

Yep, Modern day SA. Maybe a few years after GTA IV.

Looks much better than the 90's SA we saw in GTAA. Even the colour palette is much more vibrant.

Originally posted by T.M
I was thinking that was CJ too. If this game brings together characters from different GTA games then it is going to be awesome.

Agreed.
If that happens, I do not want to switch between three-four different protagonists during the plot. I want just one new protagonist. Reserve the returning protagonists to DLC episodes or multiplayer.

the older guy seems like Tommy, but I doubt is him, it doesn't make sense for him to say (I assume he's the guy talking in the trailer) "why I moved here, I guessed it was the weather"

Also the guy that looks like CJ looks about CJ's age... in 1992, that's 20 years later, assuming the new game will be set in present day (2012)


the other guy (driving) looks a lot like Luis Lopez (TBoGT) though

also, I just noticed, there seem to be a dog in opening shot of the trailer

Hooray animals in the new GTA game

i bet theres going to be alot of animal rights groups complainin.

found the trailer on youtube

QkkoHAzjnUs

Can't wait...

I loved San Andreas.
(I have it still for PS2, but got it on XBLA too.)

The chance to revisit but in a GTA4 standard render of the place is gonna be so good. The journey out to buy this when it comes out is gonna be less of a journey and more of a pilgrimage...

Bring it on!!!!

Animals? As in, we can run over pooches? Why was the first word in my head "sweet" when i made that conclusion...

^ Just as running over people in GTA is major fun, running over pooches would be fun too.


Besides, we already shot up Pigeons in GTA IV, though the entire thing was a hassle.

hehehe




well, it seems we won't get all of San Andreas after all (though I'm hoping that isn't the case)

RockStar Confirms GTA V Locations Details
RockStar officially confirms GTA V set in San Andreas city of Los Santos and surrounding area



yep, confirmed it's set in present day.

Even without the rest of San Andreas, the map seems huge, better yet there are no stupid blocked roads... though that could change if indeed there's more than LS

There should be more than just Los Santos IMO.

Still, since they are only going for Southern California, it wouldn't make sense to include a city based on Las Vegas, and another based on San Francisco.

I rather have a large city and surrounding area that's expertly detailed and filled with atmosphere and memorable scripted events then have three generic cities.

The cities in San Andreas were anything but generic. They were totally different and unique.

But a fine detailed city is a great trade off for the other missing two...I appreciate it won't just be a city and have the surrounding areas.

Imagine if they did Vice City and add the Everglades, driving a airboat and having to watch out for crocs... they already did wildlife in Red Dead

they could also add the Glory Hole park in "Orlando"

I didn't mean SA had generic cities, I just meant in general.

Creating a city in this generation is probably more involved than previous.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I didn't mean SA had generic cities, I just meant in general.

Creating a city in this generation is probably more involved than previous.

That's both absurdly true and not true.

There are "map making" engines out there that just....auto make maps.


In the case of this game, they probably created most stuff piece by piece.

What?

Auto making maps? What game engine has this? And what game uses this?

Level designer create the maps.

I might be wrong but I would think every game out there does not have software that automates the level creation. It's done by a designer.

Originally posted by Smasandian
What?

Auto making maps? What game engine has this? And what game uses this?

Level designer create the maps.

I might be wrong but I would think every game out there does not have software that automates the level creation. It's done by a designer.

lol


Yeah man...it's been around for ages.


I believe it is called procedural generation.


Built templates...add in variables...let the engine run....BOOOM...you have a city built in a very small fraction of the time.


-d2-PtK4F6Y


HROU3gLcgfg




Once you have templates built, simply create an algorithm (like the second video) that assigns dice roles an attributes to those items dip into for the generation.

Boom. Auto-generated city with a single click.


There are some map editors that have done this for ages...even since the 90s. Remember Sim City 2000? Click the random button and it randomly creates a city or landscape for you.

It's the same exact concept and even principal.



However, with GTA 5, I believe much of it is based off of the real world.


Here's the kicker: I just found some stuff that makes me think that the developers MAY be "cheating" to replicate the real world:

Procedural CityEngine: 3D models already built from real cities.


http://www.procedural.com/cityengine/features/2010.html


From there, they just add their own textures to the "template" to make it more real.


OR...they could be doing it the manual way and creating each and every building/contruct one by one....which would be very stupid.

Interesting.

Didn't know that. I still think most open world cities would make the maps themselves.

GTAV trailer "recreated" using GTA: SA

ftk3f_0WZww

And supposed details have been leaked. Who knows how accurate this is. There's no story spoilers, but I'm putting it in spoilers just in case you want everything to be a complete surprise.

From: http://www.egmnow.com/articles/news/rumor-gta-v-details-leaked/

I think this would be the best game ever made if they allow to go to a ski area and actually ski as an activity.

No children NPC? And possibly no animals?
Goddamn restrictions!

I hope they include the ability to buy stuff in shopping malls, for those homemade weapons.

Why do people want to harm children? And you wonder why some people in the world protest against these games. They always claim violent games will affect the minds of anyone who plays them and you guys are doing nothing but making their theory look accurate. Thanks for throwing fuel in the fire folks.




facepalm

Why tell people that? Obviously a lot of people (mostly in New York) are gonna see this as a 911 reference. Fox News is gonna have a field day with this I just know it.

You could crash planes and choppers into buildings in San Andreas and GTA4....you just saw no lasting damage.

And people who see it as a nod to 9/11 are stupid. An event performed by radical, foreign terrorists 10 years ago to damage the US is not = a game company letting you have fun by ramming a plane into a building, the same as you have fun by ramming a car into another car or gas station.

Yeah. Who cares about Fox News anyway?

Originally posted by KingD19
You could crash planes and choppers into buildings in San Andreas and GTA4....you just saw no lasting damage.

And people who see it as a nod to 9/11 are stupid. An event performed by radical, foreign terrorists 10 years ago to damage the US is not = a game company letting you have fun by ramming a plane into a building, the same as you have fun by ramming a car into another car or gas station.

Certain groups will get angry over anything they think is offensive, even if it really isn't. Reason and logic goes out of the window when that happens. No doubt some people will see that as a reference to 9/11.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
Yeah. Who cares about Fox News anyway?

Nobody really but Fox News does get annoying when it wants to complain about something.

Fox has already been shut down so many times by different game companies, I doubt anyone will listen. Or even if they do, won't take them seriously.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
No children NPC? And possibly no animals?
Goddamn restrictions!
.

No, they said there will be animals in the game just won't be able to harm them for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
No children NPC? And possibly no animals?
Goddamn Christian parents!


I corrected your post.

I can somewhat understand children, but why no animals?

C'mon.

Originally posted by Demonic Phoenix
I can somewhat understand children, but why no animals?

C'mon.

I don't understand the children, either. There's no reason NOT to have children in a game that seeks to be realistic.


It should have not only children, but babies, pregnant women, and so forth.


If a person chooses to act out violently against those fictional characters, oh well. That is none of my business. If a parents let their child play the game, that's the parents' fault. As a partial libertarian, it is really hard for me to justify removing freedoms from people...especially when they are adults playing a game.

The ESRB generally has strict rules about the portrayal of children in video games, so I'm really not surprised.

And who cares.

I never once heard somebody say about GTA4, the early ones or other games, "I can't ****ing believe they don't have kids in it."

Originally posted by Demonic Phoenix
I can somewhat understand children, but why no animals?

C'mon.

Jeez don't people read things

Originally posted by Kazenji
Jeez don't people read things



Do you know how to read?

Originally posted by LanceWindu

And supposed details have been leaked. Who knows how accurate this is.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
And possibly no animals?

Originally posted by Smasandian
And who cares.

I never once heard somebody say about GTA4, the early ones or other games, "I can't ****ing believe they don't have kids in it."

The only time i've cared was in STO, where every male has a five o'clock shadow due to the possibility of using the character creatore to make children.

Bar that, I don't care as long as i get to run something over.

What's so important about having children in a GTA game? Are you seriously wanting to blow one of their brains out or run them over or something? Why? Are you people really this stupid?

If you think everything that's in reality should be in this game, why not also whine about not being able to pick your nose or stick your finger up your arse? Those are realistic and yet they aren't in this realistic game. Complain, people, complain!

Originally posted by Demonic Phoenix


Do you know how to read?

Of course i know how to read


but just showing from what Lancewindu posted and people seem to be ignoring some things

Originally posted by Smasandian
And who cares.

I never once heard somebody say about GTA4, the early ones or other games, "I can't ****ing believe they don't have kids in it."


*slowly raises hand*


I said that. And I said it about Saints Row 1 and 2, as well (I say it about any game that tries to be semi-realisic but leaves out kids because of whiny-ass Chrisian Parents) No babies...not kids....that stands out to me because 24% of the US population is less than 18.


An entire quarter of every single person seen is not represented. About 6.5% of every person in America is less than 5 years old.


We get plenty black female hookers...despite the fact that they HUGELY our outweighed by children under 5, by percentage.


In fact, you don't have to do hardly anything to accomplish this. Create your templates, assign dice roles to those templates based on population averages (white, black, age, etc), let the game engine auto-generate based on those templates and adjusted dice-rolls...boom....insta representation of how America really would be.

That programming is so simple that you could literally do it in one afternoon...if you already had your random generation-engine and dice-roll programming completed, of course. Just invoke those objects into your adjusted templates and dice rolls to accomplish it and you have a properly represented population. Wanna an awesome city that is realistic (seriously, everyone was shitting themselves at how realistic the graphics looked)? Tell the Christians to STFU OR...slap on an A rating.


"But, sales would be damaged by that!" The market is maturing...right now, that would be true. But it would be downloadable onto harddrives via the stores, steam, or other such offerings. I don't see an "A" rating hurting games on PC-Only releases. I don't see it hurting console sales (much) in the next generation of consoles (they will be PCs...like they pretty much are now).

Minor corrections:

"An entire quarter of every single person is not represented..."

"...they HUGELY outweighed..."

Don't know what happened as they are very...stupid mistakes.

Still, it's kids. It's not going to make a difference in the overall quality of the game.

Wow. Can't believe your bitching about that. What purpose does having children in the game add to it? Just to say it's more realistic? So you can run them over or perform drive-by shootings on them?

Originally posted by Nemesis X
stick your finger up your arse? Those are realistic and yet they aren't in this realistic game. Complain, people, complain!

Maybe realistic for you...

Having kids would just guarantee an AO rating and thus make the game more or less unsellable. Not gonna happen.

And there isn't really any point in having kids in the game. It doesn't add anything of significance.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Wow. Can't believe your bitching about that. What purpose does having children in the game add to it? Just to say it's more realistic? So you can run them over or perform drive-by shootings on them?



Having humans of all ages definitely does not mean I can say it is more realistic. It IS more realistic.



But let me turn your argument right on its head: what's the point of eliminating children from a game that has you constantly murdering and committing crimes? Just to say that you didn't do everything bad? Pathetic. It's just pandering to a small niche of whiners. Also, it creates a false sense of "ethics" in the gamers. It is "magically" much worse to kill a child than it is to kill a prostitute that you've lured into a secret alcove. It is splitting ethics down an arbitrary line. A person walking on the side-walk is no more helpless than a child walking on the side-walk...when it comes to you speeding down the sidewalk. They are both fantasy murder.





Originally posted by BackFire
Having kids would just guarantee an AO rating and thus make the game more or less unsellable. Not gonna happen.


As it turns out, that's not entirely true. In fact, it would definitely not hold true for a game like GTA. In FACT...it might actually cause people to buy it MORE. (I'm not kidding. I know it is not perfectly parallel, but "naughtier" director's cuts get sold much more often than the theatrical release cuts IF they are both sold separately.)

I believe it was in Australia that a decent selling game got an adult rating. But it magically did not hurt the sales. Is it possible that people with money will purchase a game they want regardless of the rating?


Ignorant parents do it all the time. They buy their children mature titles left and right. Getting b*tched out by a 10 year old on CoD or MW is quite hilarious and disturbing at the same time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
..

I believe it was in Australia that a decent selling game got an adult rating. But it magically did not hurt the sales. Is it possible that people with money will purchase a game they want regardless of the rating?
.



We don't have an adult rating here but they're in the process of making it happen.

Originally posted by Kazenji


We don't have an adult rating here but they're in the process of making it happen.


Australia?

If you're from Australia, yes, you do have an adequate rating system. It is better than the US's, actually.


You have Restricted which is 18 or over.

And you have X which is the same exact age requirements as restricted. Yours is better because you can solve the problem of "shiiit...is this a porn game or is it a violent game?" In the case of GTA, it will get an 18+ rating: Restricted.


Your system allows for parents to know when games are intended as something other than porn. Here in the US, we combine sex and extreme violence into our AO rating. Manhunt 2, for the PC, was pursued by the gaming community and there was literally an internet outcry when Gamefly purchased Direct2Drive but forced the elimination of AO titles.



Tell me: would ANY of you NOT purchase GTA V IF it had children and allowed you to kill them just like every other NPC?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Australia?

If you're from Australia, yes, you do have an adequate rating system. It is better than the US's, actually.

I find that funny...... better then the US's

Originally posted by dadudemon
Tell me: would ANY of you NOT purchase GTA V IF it had children and allowed you to kill them just like every other NPC?

If GTA had you killing kids, I would not buy it. At all

Well, it is better.


There would no be the Manhunt 2 controversy if the ESRB (which is not a government entity, unlike Australia's) had 2 separate adult ratings: one rating for dedicated-porn video games and the other for non-porn adult games. There's no arbitrary "violence" line in Australia's system. It's great, actually.

To me, a system that facilitates racists to kill only black people in a video game is just as bad as allowing people to kill children: they're both bad for the same reasons.



Besides, children are vile and parasitic creatures: who DOESN'T want to kill them?

(JK, of course)



Originally posted by Nemesis X
If GTA had you killing kids, I would not buy it. At all

There's a difference between the designers building missions and side-quests that are specifically for killing children...and having a game with child NPCs that are every bit as "mortal" as other characters.

My question was not "if a game had you killing children". I worded my question quite specifically to avoid that. My question was this:

"would ANY of you NOT purchase GTA V IF it had children and allowed you to kill them just like every other NPC?"


Allowing you to kill is not the same thing as what you're talking about: "if gta HAD you killing kids." That's worded in a way that means you are forced to kill kids as part of the game. No, that's not the question I presented. If you did not want to kill children...don't! It's quite simple. You can do it in the real world, too. What's great about Sandbox games are how realistic and how moralistic the games can be for each individual.

Originally posted by dadudemon

There's no arbitrary "violence" line in Australia's system. It's great, actually.


You may think so.....

but theres thousands of gamers here that say how we do the ratings on games need a complete overhaul.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's a difference between the designers building missions and side-quests that are specifically for killing children...and having a game with child NPCs that are every bit as "mortal" as other characters.

My question was not "if a game had you killing children". I worded my question quite specifically to avoid that. My question was this:

"would ANY of you NOT purchase GTA V IF it had children and allowed you to kill them just like every other NPC?"


Allowing you to kill is not the same thing as what you're talking about: "if gta HAD you killing kids." That's worded in a way that means you are forced to kill kids as part of the game. No, that's not the question I presented. If you did not want to kill children...don't! It's quite simple. You can do it in the real world, too. What's great about Sandbox games are how realistic and how moralistic the games can be for each individual.

Even as a random NPC, the child would still be killable. In GTA games, I always accidentally kill random civilians since in some situations, it can't be avoided and if any of them were children, I'd be mortified.

I can't believe you're even talking about this crap. You're a dad and you want to have kids in a game like this? You have issues.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Even as a random NPC, the child would still be killable. In GTA games, I always accidentally kill random civilians since in some situations, it can't be avoided and if any of them were children, I'd be mortified.

You're mortified by accidentally killing children (in what game have you done this?)...but you're not mortified by killing everyone else?

Do you see how arbitrary that is? Not only is it a hypocritical position, it is also quite arbitrary.

On a side note: half the time, you can't really tell who you are running over...if you have decent speed.


Watch, I can represent another arbitrary position that means as much as the "no-children" rules: I think being able to kill women in video games is wrong. It depicts violence against women. In games that allow you to trick and then kill prostitutes...even kick them out of your car...that's wrong on so many levels. It's far worse than being able to shoot or run over children. One is targeting a very specific demographic and the other is not programmed, for, specifically by the game makers. (That last line may create arguments from people trying to NOT get the point. So I'll clarify to prevent the contrarians from being able to have a legitimate reply: being able to hire and kick out a prostitute is something specifically programmed for. Being able to kill any character is also specifically programmed for. However, one is general, broad (pun?), and blanketed. The other is aimed at a very specific demographic. So no arguing "well, they are both specifically programmed for". Arguing that is to miss my point).



Obviously, I do not hold the above position. I just think people could make a better case about violence against women than they can about simply having the ability to kill children.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
I can't believe you're even talking about this crap. You're a dad and you want to have kids in a game like this? You have issues.

Actually, I thought something similar about you: I can't believe you even believe that crap you're posting.



Originally posted by Kazenji
You may think so.....

but theres thousands of gamers here that say how we do the ratings on games need a complete overhaul.

Why, though?


Are games getting the Restricted and X ratings when they shouldn't or something? Even then...it really does not matter. Ultimately, it is up to the adult, at the point of purchase. If they do not want their children playing ultra violent or pornographic children, they need to be able to make an informed decision.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're mortified by accidentally killing children (in what game have you done this?)...but you're not mortified by killing everyone else?

On a side note: half the time, you can't really tell who you are running over...if you have decent speed.

Everyone in a videogame isn't real but killing even a fictional kid will affect you in a lot of ways. How is this difficult for you to comprehend? Btw, I never killed any kids in any game. I'm just saying what my natural reaction would be if that ever happened.

WTH?!




You're talking about wanting to kill kids and you're telling me what I'm saying is crap?

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Everyone in a videogame isn't real but killing even a fictional kid will affect you in a lot of ways.

No, actually, it won't...when compared to how killing other types are considered.

Sure, it would be individual and SOME people would be very shaken up by it...but so would some women who have been recently raped while prostituting. Meaning, your argument is not more valid for why we should do "no children" than we should for any other demographic.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
How is this difficult for you to comprehend?

I think I quite grasp you position. The problem is not what I am unable to comprehend, by why you are not able to comprehend that your position is arbitrary and accidentally hypocritical.



Originally posted by Nemesis X
Btw, I never killed any kids in any game. I'm just saying what my natural reaction would be if that ever happened.


Who do you know that, though, if you've never done it?

If you have a problem separating reality from fantasy, then killing children in a video game would be the least of your worries.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
WTH?!

I'm talking about IN GAME, GTA.


When you're speeding along and accidentally (or intentionally) run people over, you really can't tell who you're running over too well. If you take the time to slowly run over people, then you're just enjoying yourself. But I never went out of my way to do bad stuff in any Sandbox games.




Originally posted by Nemesis X
You're talking about wanting to kill kids and you're telling me what I'm saying is crap?

Actually, no, if you think that's my position, then you don't know what why my position is, at all.

You said this to me: Originally posted by Nemesis X
How is this difficult for you to comprehend?


But that actually applies to you: you don't even know what my position is. I even explained it to you three times now (once implicitly, twice, directly).

My position is this: adding children to mature sandbox games and allowing them to be killed just like any other NPC game. Why? because the line drawn for "no-children" is arbitrary and hypocritical. "But...they are innocent!" That's a shit argument: the adults you have fun killing in sandbox games are innocent, too...if you choose to place arbitrary and WRONG qualities on your fictional, in-game NPCs, of course (because they cannot be innocent...they are not even alive).

Why the need to ban the killing of kids in a game?
Those are just a bunch of pixels!

My God what the **** is wrong with society. Stupid people. Shit.
/rant

This thread has gone down the shithouse..............

Yes, questioning arbitrary societal norms as they pertain to video games is definitely shitty conversation. Especially if it pertains to a low-brow franchise that has been controversial over the years.

.......... you do this in some of the threads

something that does'nt sit right with you with a particular game that then becomes the hot topic and then you act like your always right....

I was just kidding

No need to rub it up my butt.


Anyways, is it confirmed if there will be car customizations in GTAV?

Nitrous was very useful in races in San Andreas.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Tell me: would ANY of you NOT purchase GTA V IF it had children and allowed you to kill them just like every other NPC?

A little disturbed at first (just like I would be if I heard an animal scream when run over by a car), but ultimately no, I'd get used to it and go on having fun since it's a freaking game; one in which you can kill people in a myriad of ways, least of all by running them over. facepalm2

Still, people are obviously rattled by this, so the smartest thing to do would be to exclude children. Wouldn't really deter the gameplay, just a slight loss in your sense of immersion, which would quickly pass.

The point is that the game is not having kids because it would make it A rated game, which stores do not carry.

The point is moot about adding kids into the game. Even Rockstar wouldn't want an A rated game.

it is never going to happen, so why all the bitching?

Originally posted by BackFire
Having kids would just guarantee an AO rating and thus make the game more or less unsellable. Not gonna happen.

Simple as that




Anyway, I have reservations about the "leak" Ken posted. It does sound awesome, but at the same time is sounds a bit like a wishlist.

If it turns out to be true then, Great!

I like the idea of having customizable guns and vehicles but then again, I love it when games allow you do so.

I wonder how those custom guns could work.

Other than esthetic looks or maybe adding a silencer, I don't see how it could be an enticing feature.

homemade bombs sounds cool though

and I like that idea of using people as shield

I wish there were stealth kills as well, slitting someone's throat for an instant kill it's a much better way to go about killing isolated people. I hated you couldn't do that in GTAIV, everything had to be a shootout. ditto handguns without silencer.

but don't do "stealth" missions, those barely ever work, just add it as a gameplay feature to use whenever you desire/are able to

Having customizable guns would be an feature that people would like.

I think having stealth missions would easily take away the sameness GTA4 had. But it has to be done well.

"has to be done well" being the key

Even so: CQC it does not need, using the knife to back stab/cut throats shouldn't be hard to do

True.

That's why I hated/loved Vice City. It was so cumbersome.

San Andreas got better but still annoying. That's why GTA4 was pretty good for me because it didn't feel like bad controlling it. I expect GTA5 to be better. Hopefully.

It's strange though that I never finished a GTA game without using cheats. I just get too annoyed by the missions. Some of them are ****ing hard as shit.

Originally posted by Kazenji
.......... you do this in some of the threads

something that does'nt sit right with you with a particular game that then becomes the hot topic and then you act like your always right....

1. There's no act. I almost always AM right.

2. How dare I voice what I like and don't like about video games in the video gaming section. dur



Originally posted by Smasandian
It's strange though that I never finished a GTA game without using cheats. I just get too annoyed by the missions. Some of them are ****ing hard as shit.

I as well. I only turn on infinite ammo, though. I get tired of the ammo needs. (People say I'm stupid and just don't play right if I have to use infinite ammmo. Well...screw them and their ammoey ways).

Yeah, the ammo is one issue.

I remember there was a mission where you had to beat a guy in a race to get his favour in Vice City.

Could never ****ing beat him, no matter how hard I tried. Put on a cheat where everybody floats or something. He started to drive really fast and just floated away.

Every game gets better with it's difficulty because of the checkpoints after each part of the mission (drive a car to a place, then start shooting it out, then chase a guy and then die at the last minute and have replay the entire mission plus drive to the mission point was ****ing annoying).

Yes, there needs to be TONS of checkpoints. to the point of it being "micro-check points".


I think that's the way it should be in any game where missions will last more than 5 minutes. It's just annoying to have to do all of that crap over again. InFamous 1 and 2 did decently about having lots of check points...so it's not unheard of in a game.

I hope they bring Chatterbox back, I loved just driving around listening to talk radio in GTAA.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, there needs to be TONS of checkpoints. to the point of it being "micro-check points".


I think that's the way it should be in any game where missions will last more than 5 minutes. It's just annoying to have to do all of that crap over again. InFamous 1 and 2 did decently about having lots of check points...so it's not unheard of in a game.

Yep.

Every time the action changes, have a checkpoint. For instance, if you drive to a building, checkpoint, then when you shoot it out, checkpoint, when the guy who you need to kill starts running away, checkpoint, when you kill him, checkpoint, when you get chases by the cops, checkpoint. When you complete the mission, auto-save.

As well, games should have multiple save fiiles instead of one in my opinion. Have an autosave and a user save.

Return to San Andreas!

I loved the trailer, especially the music.

Looks like CJ "might" be back in until more info gets released

if you go to Young Maylay's IMDB page

Grand Theft Auto V (Video Game) (filming)
Carl C.J. Johnson (rumored)

I wouldn't be surprised if he has a small part in the game.

I kind an ode to San Andreas.

I'm really looking forward to this game.

Report: GTA V Lead Actor Discovered?
Ned Luke could be the lead in Rockstar's next Grand Theft Auto game.



There's also that Black/Hispanic guy seen around driving to consider, specially when the rumor/whishlist posted a while ago said he would be the protagonist

###SPOILER ALERT###

This album contains purported leaked photos of the GTA V map, as well as an in game image that is NOT from the trailer.

Never mind.

It's now been proven to be fake.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I wouldn't be surprised if he has a small part in the game.

I kind an ode to San Andreas.

I'm really looking forward to this game.

Looks like they're using the same technology that Team Bondi used for L.A. Noire.

Make sense.

Many of the programmers moved on to other Rockstar areas but I don't know how Rockstar got the tech.

Originally posted by LanceWindu
Never mind.

It's now been proven to be fake.

Fake, where's confirmation of that

Originally posted by Kazenji
Looks like they're using the same technology that Team Bondi used for L.A. Noire.

the trailer didn't make that obvious, in fact it looks just like GTA IV (the characters I mean), I hope that's not the case

Originally posted by LanceWindu
Never mind.

It's now been proven to be fake.
Yeah.. I figured they were fake last night because the map looks so awful.

Still, I was excited for a sec.