When gta 5 trailer was released,was the game almost done

[E28]

However, I don't mind IV. It's in no way a classic, but I seem to like it more than most people. It is a boring game, but they did inject some fun with the DLC. Much like GT3 was a stepping stone to GT4, I hope that GTAIV is a prototype for GTAV. A ginormous Los Santos and the countryside will be most excellent.

I love IV. I guess it was a bit dull in places but there are many ways to have fun. The other day I spent half an hour driving a bus through oncoming traffic along the plumbers skyway, watching from bumper cam as people are flung out of their cars onto the front of my bus.

The Ballad of Gay Tony was better though. The storyline isn't as good, but the atmosphere is great and the missions are really fun. If V is big open world, with the fun of SA and TBoGT, with a storyline as good as IV, It'll be the best game ever if you ask me...

 

[dhandeh]

I want to be able to play knock-door-run. That is gangsta.

 

[Liquid]

It'll be the best game ever if you ask me...

You've never played TOCA 2 on expert difficulty then.

dhandes, SA was so gangsta that out of nowhere you stop being a small-time crook and begin undergoing the most dangerous black ops this side of Operation Bootstrap. And Bill Bailey had a multi-coloured VW. Now that is gangsta.

 

[Crumpet]

I'm just looking forward to driving a car off those mountains...

 

[Slash]

@Famine

I too want the collapse buildings thing. I want to be able to set houses on fire and let them burn until the fire department arrives.

 

[Heath_1]

Just because a magazine or website rates a game 8.5 or 10 or whatever.. is their opinion, other people may have different opinions.

But I get what M8H3R is saying.. I trust they will not stuff this game up, it will exceed my expectations in the same way GTA IV did.

I have no doubt it will be worth the wait. I think GTA IV is around 9/10 in my opinion, and from what I can see of the GTA V trailer the new game has a lot of potential for at least an 8.5 or 9.

 

[F1 fan]

@Famine

I too want the collapse buildings thing. I want to be able to set houses on fire and let them burn until the fire department arrives.

The problem with that, aside from the technical demands, is potentially being able to destroy a building that may have a key scene later in the game. In order for a game like this to work, there has to be an element of unrealism.

Personally, I can do without terrain/building damage/deformation. It is also very demanding of processor power which would probably affect the rest of the game to a degree that people would complain about it.

 

[Heath_1]

Couldn't find an awful lot on GTA V threads so guessing this hasn't been posted on here yet.. not sure how many have seen it... I don't even know if it's real or fake so I'm not going to get my hopes up and make a fool of myself, but the story I read was that it was leaked by a R* employee who was leaving the company and thought it would be fun to post this on Twitter.. it is old, very old.. like.. months old.. but yeah perhaps someone can shed some light on this.

Sorry if I ended up making myself look an idiot anyway.

 

[Famine]

The problem with that, aside from the technical demands, is potentially being able to destroy a building that may have a key scene later in the game.

Yup. I think it's beyond current gen console capabilities to render an entire city and remember the bits you've blown up and look cool when you're blowing bits of it up.

It's a pity because a round of COD would be awesome if you could bring down the building the sniper was in rather than toe-to-toeing him through scopes. There was a bit of it in BFBC2 (you could raze some buildings, but not all). You might render the map unplayable through not having anywhere left to spawn, but that'd do for an end of match scenario (after all, you can nuke it...).

Of course, killing Sonny Forelli by RPGing a staircase onto his brain would somewhat spoil a boss battle, but nuts to him. Boss battles are silly anyway - may as well go punch down some trees to get wood.


I still want it though

 

[Heath_1]

Managed to dig up some financial information that may or may not be of help to some people.. those who know about finance etc.. will have a better understanding.

http://playstationlifestyle.net/201...ials-point-to-gta-v-release-this-fiscal-year/

The same article is posted on several websites. Oldest I found was Rueuters or some thing posted on 23rd of May.

 

[marchi]

Why?

GTASA needed three changes to become equal to VC: A map that wasn't 65% empty; The removal of the eat/sleep/exercise or CJ dies system; Less pandering to "inner-city stereotypes". I'll admit the third one is something of a personal annoyance, but it's damned weak writing to have a lead character as a black youth embroiled in drug and gun culture - though I'll grant you that an 80s Italian-American mafiosi wise-guy in Miami is not exactly uncliched - and if I wanted to listen to wall-to-wall rap I wouldn't have double-glazing. The natural byproduct of such a lead character is that kids who play the game (yes, they shouldn't. But yes, they do - the 12 year olds at the school I worked at thought it was awesome I played the same game as them) become wiggers and there's nothing more irritating than a 12 year old wigger. Not even sand under your fore. Didn't see many cliched Italian-American 12 year olds after GTAVC...

I agree on the eat and exercise comment. GTA IV's use of food I thought was good. I liked the ability to customize the character, but it should probably be more like Saints Row 3.

As for the story, you know what you're getting into. That is the sheer element of that time period. The kids at your school comment is irrelevant to the bigger picture. Personally I though it was the best out of the lot. Great diversity in the missions and the music included with the game set a great context for that early 90's gangster genre.

GTA4 was an abomination. Despite dropping off those three annoyances - though it has to be said that a huge map of irrelevant buildings is not so much better than a huge map of irrelevant countryside - it contrived to be almost as tedious and fun free as SA. How? Well, for a start there was much less GTA - fewer cars, fewer missions, easier missions - but it pretty much boiled down to the "friends" thing. The cellphone was a good idea, but the friends crippled the game. Tack on the dreary writing and banal DEAL or REVENGE endings and we've sunk to a 4/10 game at best.

We all know this was a game was built for a 'hey look at what we can do'. The story in itself was excellent, but unfortunately the missions themselves were built around this. It lost its diversity and for me lost why it was fun as an open world title.


Putting it bluntly, if you want what you say you want, don't bother buying GTAV because it will be a mishmash of 4 and SA. I can tell you now they'll never go back to a VC like game because it would be A: Admitting they've made big mistakes 'we know that they'll get torn apart for it' and B: not pushing the envelop in game design, which is what Rockstar have a tendency to do.

 

[Slash]

The problem with that, aside from the technical demands, is potentially being able to destroy a building that may have a key scene later in the game. In order for a game like this to work, there has to be an element of unrealism.

Personally, I can do without terrain/building damage/deformation. It is also very demanding of processor power which would probably affect the rest of the game to a degree that people would complain about it.

They have construction workers in these games, I'm sure Rockstar would have the destruction fixed if you left the area and came back at a later time.

 

[marchi]

The main reason they won't do it is because there are planes in the game. Along with the fact that planes were pointless in GTA V, one of the other main points was that they didn't want people trying to recreate september 11 style incidents. It wasn't a problem in SA, but if you were to put planes with destructive environment such as a building, then it may offend alot of people.

 

[Slash]

The main reason they won't do it is because there are planes in the game. Along with the fact that planes were pointless in GTA V, one of the other main points was that they didn't want people trying to recreate september 11 style incidents. It wasn't a problem in SA, but if you were to put planes with destructive environment such as a building, then it may offend alot of people.

Then only let destruction happen by rockets or bombs and not be able to crash planes into buildings. It would be stupid but it's better than offending 10 million people.

 

[Famine]

Putting it bluntly, if you want what you say you want, don't bother buying GTAV because it will be a mishmash of 4 and SA.

At present I have no intention of doing so. I've never seen a game series get so disappointing from such heights so quickly before.

Maybe Driver - and it took them a decade to go back to that and make it good.

if you were to put planes with destructive environment such as a building, then it may offend alot of people.

While beating a man to death with a two foot rubber cock is sensitivity personified.

 

[F1 fan]

Yup. I think it's beyond current gen console capabilities to render an entire city and remember the bits you've blown up and look cool when you're blowing bits of it up.

There would certainly have to be a compromise to make it work on this gen. For a start, it would probably have to be significantly worse looking than IV. And I know you can imagine the reaction that would cause among the fans and media alike.

It's a pity because a round of COD would be awesome if you could bring down the building the sniper was in rather than toe-to-toeing him through scopes. There was a bit of it in BFBC2 (you could raze some buildings, but not all). You might render the map unplayable through not having anywhere left to spawn, but that'd do for an end of match scenario (after all, you can nuke it...).

I agree that it is a much needed feature in FPS'. GTA: IV had a reasonable degree of destruction. At least you could shoot your way through some walls/doors. That is something that is sorely lacking from a lot of FPS'. COD would be a lot better if they incorporated that and got rid of the re-spawning enemies. Then again, would COD even be above average without the smoke and mirrors?

They have construction workers in these games, I'm sure Rockstar would have the destruction fixed if you left the area and came back at a later time.

It's a far more complex process than that. The construction workers could "explain" the damage being fixed, but the memory demands would just be too much for the current consoles. How long would the buildings remain destroyed? Would you see construction workers at the site? How long before construction begins? How many buildings can be destroyed at once? How would the game get around the problem of a key building being destroyed? Not to mention the fact that it's very unlikely that every time a building was leveled, another building that is exactly the same design would be put in it's place. I could go on and on. That's a lot of questions for such a feature that is unnecessary in what is already a huge game. There have to be sacrifices when making a game like this.

At the end of the day, if you want to blow things up, play Red Faction.

 

[m8h3r]

At the end of the day, if you want to blow things up, play Red Faction.

Or twisted metal. 👍

 

[Slash]

There would certainly have to be a compromise to make it work on this gen. For a start, it would probably have to be significantly worse looking than IV. And I know you can imagine the reaction that would cause among the fans and media alike.



I agree that it is a much needed feature in FPS'. GTA: IV had a reasonable degree of destruction. At least you could shoot your way through some walls/doors. That is something that is sorely lacking from a lot of FPS'. COD would be a lot better if they incorporated that and got rid of the re-spawning enemies. Then again, would COD even be above average without the smoke and mirrors?



It's a far more complex process than that. The construction workers could "explain" the damage being fixed, but the memory demands would just be too much for the current consoles. How long would the buildings remain destroyed? Would you see construction workers at the site? How long before construction begins? How many buildings can be destroyed at once? How would the game get around the problem of a key building being destroyed? Not to mention the fact that it's very unlikely that every time a building was leveled, another building that is exactly the same design would be put in it's place. I could go on and on. That's a lot of questions for such a feature that is unnecessary in what is already a huge game. There have to be sacrifices when making a game like this.

At the end of the day, if you want to blow things up, play Red Faction.

If you really want to go there, I was just reffering to leave and come back then its back to the way it was. We don't need all that but it would be cool if we did.

 

[F1 fan]

The way gamers are nowadays, that would never pass. People would still be whining about such an immersion breaking feature for years to come. If you think a building reappearing within minutes is satisfactory, then what is the point of destruction in the first place? The important thing for a good game is not how many half baked features you can cram into it, it's focusing on important features and ensuring that they are done correctly.

Quite frankly, I can already see the YouTube videos ridiculing the near instantly regenerating buildings. Remember, a jack of all trades is a master of none.

 

[E28]

It's a far more complex process than that. The construction workers could "explain" the damage being fixed, but the memory demands would just be too much for the current consoles. How long would the buildings remain destroyed? Would you see construction workers at the site? How long before construction begins? How many buildings can be destroyed at once? How would the game get around the problem of a key building being destroyed? Not to mention the fact that it's very unlikely that every time a building was leveled, another building that is exactly the same design would be put in it's place. I could go on and on. That's a lot of questions for such a feature that is unnecessary in what is already a huge game. There have to be sacrifices when making a game like this.

I could see construction workers working on certain buildings which are finished after completing storyline missions (ie, the 'Mile High Club' in the trailer) and maybe there's something you blow up in a mission which is then rebuilt. It would work for scripted storyline missions but not dynamically (in this console generation, anyway) as that would require an immense amount of programming, modelling and CPU power.

 

[m8h3r]

Surely if they wanted it to be like that then they could use the same method as IV with Romans flat and cab buisness. It burns down then you can never go in again. You blow up the building and it becomes a massive mess for the remainder of the game.

 

[Slash]

I could see construction workers working on certain buildings which are finished after completing storyline missions (ie, the 'Mile High Club' in the trailer) and maybe there's something you blow up in a mission which is then rebuilt. It would work for scripted storyline missions but not dynamically (in this console generation, anyway) as that would require an immense amount of programming, modelling and CPU power.

Then what if this is put off until GTA 6? PS4? Who knows what that has coming at us you know? Look at Vice City? You blow up that one building with the RC Copter in the story and it stayed blown up permanently.

 

[E28]

Then what if this is put off until GTA 6? PS4? Who knows what that has coming at us you know? Look at Vice City? You blow up that one building with the RC Copter in the story and it stayed blown up permanently.

I never said that you wouldn't be able to blow any buildings up, and yes you blew up a building in Vice City, but that was scripted. I'm saying there could easily be scripted destruction (and there most likely will be, it was in IV) but I doubt dynamic destruction is going to be in the game.

 

[Slash]

I never said that you wouldn't be able to blow any buildings up, and yes you blew up a building in Vice City, but that was scripted. I'm saying there could easily be scripted destruction (and there most likely will be, it was in IV) but I doubt dynamic destruction is going to be in the game.

One can only hope.

 

[spikeyhairdude]

so when the trailer was released, was the game almost done or still in devolopement.How much must the game be completed in order for the trailer to be released?

Most the time when a trailer is released for rockstar games, the game isnt realleased for a year or so.

 

[marchi]

At present I have no intention of doing so. I've never seen a game series get so disappointing from such heights so quickly before.

Not to rude, but you're in a massive minority with this opinion. SA was a massive improvement over VC in virtually every aspect bar probably the story.

While beating a man to death with a two foot rubber cock is sensitivity personified.

You know what I meant.

 

[Heath_1]

This was published just today.

Found it on Google,

http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/ex-rockstar-employee-leaks-gta-5-details-26-03-2012/

 

[F1 fan]

This was published just today.

Pretty sure that's just a rehash of the same old "leaked" information we heard months ago.

 

[Heath_1]

Oh I see, all a big load of garbage then.

 

[F1 fan]

Oh I see, all a big load of garbage then.

I wouldn't totally write it off, but naturally, leaks like this should be taken with a pinch of salt.