Neoseeker : News : GTA 5 will release at the perfect time, says Rockstar's Houser
Sort by date: ascending descending
0 thumbs!
^
ChiroVette Nov 20, 12
quote Dan Mumford
But they are different, saying they are the same is like saying a Ferrari and a Mini are the same because they both have wheels and an engine...
I completely agree. It's like saying all platformers are the same or all FPS's are the same because they share a certain commonality in motifs and gameplay similarities, but this is why they are part of the same genre and NOT the same series.

All FPS's have guns, boards, are in first person, and have similar mechanics. But they are not clones of the FIRST FPS. I am amazed that just because GTA epitomized the genre in the PS2 generation, that every game that comes out like that is a "GTA knockoff."

There are similarities only in that they are games where you play a criminal, you drive and steal vehicles, and have missions and a radar. But anyone who can't see that SR games are completely different than GTA might as well call every FPS a DOOM knockoff. Credit Rockstar for inventing and refining the genre, just as you credit Apogee/Id for doing the same for FPS's, Tetris for doing the same for puzzles, and Nintendo for doing the same with platformers, both in the arcade in on the console.

I don't get the strange allegiance and bizarre righteous indignation with regard to categorically inetricably marrying every sandbox crime game to GTA anymore than I would understand inexorably binding every modern Japanese RPG to Final Fanasy.
0 thumbs!
^
Dan Mumford Nov 20, 12
But they are different, saying they are the same is like saying a Ferrari and a Mini are the same because they both have wheels and an engine...
0 thumbs!
^
KR_1250 Nov 20, 12
quote Dan Mumford
I also love the Saints Row series of games, not so much The Third (it kinda fell off a bit IMO) they fill the gap where GTA got too realistic and serious,
Yeah i gotta agree with that. SR3 was not as interesting as SR2 for me. cant put my finger on why, it just lasted me a matter of a few days before i was bored.

quote
but apart from being open world, they are completely different games!
Mneh, dunno about that. It would be pretty easy to draw a list of direct comparisons between them. I do see SR as a GTA rip off. But that being said its not necesarily a bad thing would be my argument.

And R* kinda made Saints Row. Not literally but figuratively. I and many others would not have purchased SR games if a competing GTA game had been available. R* left the door open and the SR team took the initiative and swooped in for the kill in my opinion. And as their popularity shows, mission accomplished.

I do still see SR as the kind of "cheap" version of GTA though, which may be unfair.
0 thumbs!
^
Dan Mumford Nov 20, 12
I love Rockstar, but they certainly didn't "invent" these type of games! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world

I also love the Saints Row series of games, not so much The Third (it kinda fell off a bit IMO) they fill the gap where GTA got too realistic and serious, but apart from being open world, they are completely different games!
0 thumbs!
^
ChiroVette Nov 20, 12
quote Tec 9
I myself don't really like the idea of Saint's Row because people seem to consider it as some kind of 'GTA which is better than GTA
I certainly do.

quote Tec 9
' even though Rockstar North are the ones that have put the groundwork in for over 14 years, inventing and then experimenting with the sandbox genre. Suddenly when the evidence of GTA's success becomes apparent, this game developer comes from nowhere and pretty much copies GTA to create it's own game.
I addressed this point above with my FPS discussion. By your logic, the ONLY people that should be allowed to make FPS games should be Id (formerly). You know what? Id (while they were Apogee) defined the FPS genre and putit on the map in the same way that Rockstar did with the sandbox crime game. Within ONE OR TWO years, everyone and their brothers were making FPS games.

quote Tec 9
I'm not saying it's a bad thing to make a competing game, as long as the amount of work that went into the original is acknowledged and respect is paid. Also there should be innovation beyond graphical improvements and 'more vehicles and weapons'. Does Saint's Row have any of these?
Pay what respect?? What is Rockstar now the Godfather and everyone has to kiss their rings? No, doesn't work that way. Nobody in their right minds would begrudge Rockstar the credit for redefining gaming in the early part of the last decade, but that's old news. What? You think that Halo games need to have some sort of footnotes to give "credit" to DOOM and Wolfenstein games from 1993? As for Saints Row, let me tell you that Volition is the ONE developer that really brought a ton of new and unique ideas to the table and built on what Rockstar did with GTA on the PS2. Thankfully, they COMPLETELY IGNORED GTA IV.

But you seem to have a bug up your ass about Rockstar and all the other devs now making sandbox games. lol I say this with all due respect: Get over it. You want a little historical context? The first Halo game came out just under a DECADE after the original Castle Wolfenstein. Saint's Row The Third came out just about a decade after GTA III. You know what? Both Halo (even if you aren't a Halo fan. I only mentioned it because of this discussion) and SR3 have come a great deal far from the original games they derived from.

quote Tec 9
As Dan Houser said, there's no point in making the same game every year with graphical improvements if there's no innovation. Well it looks to me that a lot of these new pop up sandbox games don't bring anything new to the genre, which is what makes GTA games so great, they're always innovating.
So are SR games, but that isn't even the point. Look, I am as huge a GTA fanboy (pre-GTA IV, of course) as anyone, but you know what? I could personally care less what Houser thinks about having a new game every year. If that's how he wants to run his company, then fine, but I prefer devs who bring more sequels out with even minor improvements. Big ones are great, too.

quote Tec 9
Rockstar's efforts in innovation in the past have been risky and GTA IV was probably the biggest risk which is why so many people seem to just dismiss the efforts of Rockstar and just go around saying 'GTA IV is plain shit' rather than just saying they don't like it but they acknowledge the work that went into it.
Who cares? I mean, I hated GTA IV and at the same time I was able to see what Rockstar did in terms of programming achievements of the game. But you know what? As I said, who cares? People aren't mandated to pay special attention to "all the work that went into" this or that, whether it be a movie, a game, or a novel. In the end, a game is entertainment. Either it entertains you or it doesn't. If it does, great. If not, then it makes no difference what limb Rockstar went out on, how much work they put into the game, how they are the original genre creators, or how critics love it. None of that is even relevant to any meaningful discussion. as far as many people are concerned, with GTA IV, Rockstar failed to deliver the fun. That is the ONLY thing that is of any significance to the CUSTOMERS! Maybe it is incumbent upon "Rockstar fans" to factor in those other superfluous details, but you know what?

I am a customer, NOT a fan.

quote Tec 9
I guess I care as much about the work that goes into GTA as the playability of the game. I understand this isn't the case with the majority of gamers though who only look at the final product in relation to their own personal standards of what makes a game 'fun'.
Yes, because most gamers, thankfully, are CUSTOMERS. You know what the problem with fanboy support is? When a company gets very big on fanboy support, they grow fat with it! This happened to Apple, Sony, and may other companies. The companies KNOW that there are enough people like you, who are willing to reward them NOT for their final products but for their reputation! So they put a huge amount of work into something that has dubious customer appeal, perhaps, but that will press the fanboy buttons of their fans. This, as far as I am concerned, is GTA IV in a nutshell.

It feels to me like guys like you are running around talking about graphics, believability, the work that Rockstar put into the game, and are railing against those of us who DARE to demand a good final product. lol Meanwhile, guys like me are saying that the Emporer has no clothes!
0 thumbs!
^
KR_1250 Nov 19, 12
quote Ville_Valo
And enough about the jet thing. Enough! They've said one of the reasons they didn't put planes in was that the map was too small to make it a natural fit.
Uhh. It was me who mentioned the jets. And hold on until i look... Nah. You could definately fit a jet on that map. You could probably fit several thousand.

BAH ! Im just being cheeky. In my opinion thats a half arsed excuse. It may even be true (as in that was their genuine thinking). But its just bollox. I doubt anyone would have complained.

quote
Now, the map is much bigger, and planes are bigger and better than ever. Are we satisfied yet?
Hmm. Probably. Unless they take them out because the sky isnt high enough, or air wasnt thick enough or something.
0 thumbs!
^
Ville_Valo Nov 19, 12
quote ChiroVette
Also, I could personally care less about regular jets, but the VTOL craft in SR3, for instance, were NOT travelling at anything close to real jet speed, but more like a fast car. You know what else? The Hydra in San Andreas, which was a jet, travelled at...wait for it...just a little faster than the fastest car. So, no, "jets" (even though I didn't mention, them, KL did) could absolutely have been added.

I think they would probably have been a little pointless given the massive size of them, but that's also a matter of taste, to be honest. They have "jets" in Steelport of SR3 and they had them in SR2, and you know what? Stillwater and Steelport aren't any bigger than LC of GTA IV.
Yeah they're like a fast car, but it's a very fast car which travels as the crow flies. It's fast.

SR may have had them, but SR has man-sized *bleep*. There's no filter on what goes into a Saints Row game. I guess R* didn't like the idea of planes in a city that only has one airport.
But it's that combined with the factor of trying to reduce scope in a game that's over-run development time.
0 thumbs!
^
Tec 9 Nov 19, 12
I myself don't really like the idea of Saint's Row because people seem to consider it as some kind of 'GTA which is better than GTA' even though Rockstar North are the ones that have put the groundwork in for over 14 years, inventing and then experimenting with the sandbox genre. Suddenly when the evidence of GTA's success becomes apparent, this game developer comes from nowhere and pretty much copies GTA to create it's own game.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to make a competing game, as long as the amount of work that went into the original is acknowledged and respect is paid. Also there should be innovation beyond graphical improvements and 'more vehicles and weapons'. Does Saint's Row have any of these?

As Dan Houser said, there's no point in making the same game every year with graphical improvements if there's no innovation. Well it looks to me that a lot of these new pop up sandbox games don't bring anything new to the genre, which is what makes GTA games so great, they're always innovating.

Rockstar's efforts in innovation in the past have been risky and GTA IV was probably the biggest risk which is why so many people seem to just dismiss the efforts of Rockstar and just go around saying 'GTA IV is plain shit' rather than just saying they don't like it but they acknowledge the work that went into it.

I guess I care as much about the work that goes into GTA as the playability of the game. I understand this isn't the case with the majority of gamers though who only look at the final product in relation to their own personal standards of what makes a game 'fun'.
0 thumbs!
^
harbin Nov 19, 12
Here's to hoping the PC port is done better. No bugs, glitches or issues.
0 thumbs!
^
ChiroVette Nov 19, 12
Ville_Valo, I could personally care less about regular jets, but the VTOL craft in SR3, for instance, were NOT travelling at anything close to real jet speed, but more like a fast car. You know what else? The Hydra in San Andreas, which was a jet, travelled at...wait for it...just a little faster than the fastest car. So, no, "jets" (even though I didn't mention, them, KL did) could absolutely have been added.

I think they would probably have been a little pointless given the massive size of them, but that's also a matter of taste, to be honest. They have "jets" in Steelport of SR3 and they had them in SR2, and you know what? Stillwater and Steelport aren't any bigger than LC of GTA IV.

Now I never flew the jet in San Andreas except once or twice to try it out, and I never really flew them in SR games, so I could personally care less about them. I am more into nimble crafts that you can do cool stuff in, not flying in a straight line. Even Just Cause 2 had a huge Military Jet, which I only got in to try out and to get my unique vehicle credit I much preferred the Leopard and Pell Silverbolt in that game.
Last edited by ChiroVette :: Nov 20, 12
0 thumbs!
^
Ville_Valo Nov 19, 12
quote ChiroVette
I roll my eyes a little whenever I hear or read people talking about how GTA IV was "no fun" (to some of us, anyway) because Rockstar couldn't do all the cool stuff with a new engine, and I think that's laughable. I believe Rockstar is capable of making GTA pretty much whatever the hell they envision it to be regardless of how new the game engine is.
Yes, of course they can, but it would've taken longer on a game that already over-shot its release date by several months. No one wants that. We don't want that. R* don't want that, SR beat them to the GTA-style game thing on the new generation of consoles, the earlier they could get IV out the better. And if IV had been given the extra 6 or 12 months, maybe we wouldn't be getting V now, maybe it would be saved for the next generation which is about to begin.
Rockstar can add whatever they want, doesn't mean they should.

And enough about the jet thing. Enough! They've said one of the reasons they didn't put planes in was that the map was too small to make it a natural fit. Now, the map is much bigger, and planes are bigger and better than ever. Are we satisfied yet?

quote ChiroVette
SR was a helluva lot tighter than all the PS2 games and the physics a lot more solid.
I won't even start on that, suffice to say I believe SR1 was a joke
0 thumbs!
^
KR_1250 Nov 19, 12
quote ChiroVette
My point is that SR games, in a very real way, remind me of San Andreas with all of the wild, over-the-top ideas. I can't agree with you regarding "quality,"because I think the quality in SR games is fine overall, with a few issues here and there. I love the driving in ALL SR games much better than GTA IV.
Yeah personal taste does figure in it quite heavily. I definately enjoy your "hedonistic" fun. Its why i played those games. I cant really put my finger on why i get bored of them so fast. One aspect would be the multiplayer. Any more than one friend online and its time to switch off SR unfortunately. And i usually hang with 2 or 3 mates at any one time.

I also think the game worlds feel a little unatmospheric. R* have a way of making teh gameworld come alive with narrative, the world design itself, comedy, music etc etc. I have never been able to get very involved in SR in that sense.

quote
Anyway, I digress. My opinion is that there is room in my heart for more than one sandbox game.
I think we can both agree on that. MORE PLEASE !!! I often buy sandbox games to fill in the gap between GTA's.

quote
By the way, have you tried Just Cause 2? Because everything you have posted so far makes me think that you would absolutely LOVE that game!
Yeah i played it quite extensively and was both impressed and dissapointed. The Map was beautiful. Genuinly fantastic looking and effing huge. I dont even think GTAV will be half as big.

But then it suffered from that "Huge map, nothing to do" kind of thing after a while. I also despise the main character and think the story was rediculous but much of the combat and "arsing about" was enjoyable. Oh and ofcourse I didnt like the car handling LOL. Very, very dull after a while.

Its lack of multiplayer (even co-op) was a huge downside for me. I understand the technical issues involved but i dont even buy single player games these days if they dont say "Bethesda" on the box. If the next one is single player i wont bother.
0 thumbs!
^
Igotfired Nov 19, 12
Based on the first two trailers, I think Rockstar has missed the mark again with GTA V. It looks every bit as boring as GTA IV, but set in LA instead of NYC. I can only imagine how frustrating it is going to be trying to navigate a giant sprawling Liberty City through "realistic traffic jams" and poorly engineered car physics.

What Rockstar has lost sight of is that the purpose of a sandbox game is to give the gamers the tools to create their own fun. Storyline missions are necessary and fun if done correctly, but that should almost take a back seat in a GTA game. Creating an endless series of empty buildings and plodding physics that only serve as a backdrop for the storyline missions is not the way to go in my opinion.

Unless there are any reports of worthwhile diversions being incorporated this time around, I have a bad feeling that I"m going to be extremely disappointed again.
0 thumbs!
^
ChiroVette Nov 19, 12
I think that, regarding SR games, particularly SR3, they definitely appeal to precisely what I want from a sandbox game in terms of pure, hedonistic fun. I also honestly believe that Volition definitely took a lot of the sandbox attributes up another level even over GTA, but you really have to look to see what I am talking about.

First off, remember that SR came before GTA IV. A lot of people forget that. SR was a helluva lot tighter than all the PS2 games and the physics a lot more solid. I share your opinion about GTA IV being a technical masterpiece but with little or no fun to be had. However, if you look at the plethora of gameplay ideas that Volition brought to the table with SR, even the original game, but culminating in SR3, there is a lot of uniqueness. Granted, much of what SR did best, in terms of gameplay, you never really got to in the main story and mostly it was the INSANE and wild side missions. There will ALWAYS be a place in my heart for Insurance Fraud, which made its way into ALL THREE games. I think Fuzz and Septic Avenger from SR2 were brilliant and twisted ideas implemented very well. All three of those wacky sides were completely different than anything in GTA. Don't forget that SR was the first game to come up with flying through the windshield of your vehicle. Vehicle surfing, Brutes and Specialists (from SR3), laser weapons, Stag, a plethora of VTOL weapons...I could go on and on. Look, I agree with you that you cannot mistake the feeling that if Rockstar were creating SR games they would be better than Volition doing it.

My point is that SR games, in a very real way, remind me of San Andreas with all of the wild, over-the-top ideas. I can't agree with you regarding "quality,"because I think the quality in SR games is fine overall, with a few issues here and there. I love the driving in ALL SR games much better than GTA IV.

Anyway, I digress. My opinion is that there is room in my heart for more than one sandbox game.

By the way, have you tried Just Cause 2? Because everything you have posted so far makes me think that you would absolutely LOVE that game!
^
Sponsored
Sort by date: ascending descending
- This news story is archived and is closed to new comments now -
Newsletter
Latest News
Latest Inhouse
XFX R7 250E Core Edition Review Scythe Mugen Max Cooler Review XTracGear Mouse Surfaces Review Diamond Dual Band Wireless 802.11n Range Extender Review Noctua iPPC and redux Fan Roundup Gigabyte R7 250X OC Performance Review
(0.1364/mc/web2)