What games are you currently playing?

[Rayfist]

I have, just felt like pointing it out.
Haven't played any of the games in his series, only one of the PS2 Platformer trinity that I've missed out.

Get the HD collection for PS3, I 100%ed all 3 and had a blast with it.

[Master]

Hm, in good time, I'm focusing on getting R&C: Nexus next.

[Bradandez]

GTA 5. It's pretty fun.

[foultzboyz]

Virtual On on my Saturn. it's basically a fighting game with giant robots by Sega, and what's not to love about that?

[Adsolution]

There is no need to be hipsters and avoid every AAA title, just because things like CoD and GTA might be lacking.

GTA, lacking? That's a laugh. I can't possibly see how a series in which each game spends roughly three to five years in development can be lacking on anywhere remotely the same level as some annually-quenched dreck like the newer Call of Duty titles, let alone in comparison to most games in general.

are full of meatheads, rednecks and brats who shouldn't be playing those games in the first place, and are really, really racist (Though that can be applied to most FPSs in general these days.

They may not be very intelligent games, but in no way to they imply or promote racism. War is nationalistic, and some of the most notable and interesting past wars have been against Asian militaries. Given that many of the titles in these series are based on real-world events, their content is kind of trivial.

In Halo you play as a black guy with actually character.

Master Chief is white.

[Rayfist]

I hate how a lot of people bash GTA because of it being a popular title. If anything CoD is where everything is lacking, the bland, dull environments, repetitive gameplay, and practically the same shit each year, while GTA took at least 5-6 years in development for the 5th title, the changes look very drastically different from the previous title.

[sonicbrawler182]

GTA, lacking? That's a laugh. I can't possibly see how a series in which each game spends roughly three to five years in development can be lacking on anywhere remotely the same level as some annually-quenched dreck like the newer Call of Duty titles, let alone in comparison to most games in general.

This guy sums it up:



To add my own points, even though everyone else is saying the presentation in GTAV is perfect, I have issues with even that from what little I've played.

The VERY first thing I noticed upon looking at the game in action, was how JAGGED everything looks. Seriously, all of the models looked exceptionally jagged to me. I was playing the game at the highest resolution possible on an Xbox 360, and it looked nearly as jagged as certain Nintendo Wii games do at 480p with smoothing off. If I were to play GTAV through, I would have to sit further away from my small TV than I already do because the graphics would literally damage my eyes.

And yes, that is an issue. Graphics don't have to look beautiful to make an amazing game, but they should at least be functional enough to not hurt my eyes. If an image is too jagged, it hurts your eyes after a while. In 2013, even a low budget Xbox 360/PS3 game that spends less than a year in development would be expected to at least have fairly clean looking edges on the models. GTAV, a game with a three to five year development cycle, and a AAA budget, can't even accomplish that one simple thing. Still feel like being condescending and telling me my claim "is a laugh"?

BUT I'M NOT EVEN DONE FOLKS.

As mentioned in the video I posted above, the game mechanics in GTAV are incredibly shallow. Left Trigger to lock on, Right Trigger to shoot. Driving controls are bog standard, and it's not like the vehicles do anything really special that other sandbox games, like Saints Row and Lego City Undercover, do just as well, WHILE adding something interesting to some vehicles. I'll admit that the addition of bank heists in GTAV is a cool idea, and the three character mechanic is also interesting, but secondary things like those are meaningless if the primary mechanics are boring. And again, this is a AAA game with a three to five year development time. This SHOULD of been better.

And while the game may be impressive in scale, that huge scale is meaningless if there isn't enough worth doing, which is a common problem with GTA games. This big scale also becomes an obstruction to enjoying the game's story, because it means you have these long, boring drives in between each mission. And because the scale gets bigger with each game, and they don't give you more interesting things to do as compensation in each game, this problem gets WORSE with each game, and a sequel should absolutely NEVER accentuate the problems of past installments.

The problem with GTA, and the reason why the series is lacking nowadays (GTA IV was even more mediocre), is because of the fact Rockstar is only interested in wowing people with presentation. GTA is basically a franchise made for generating cash, because the brand is just so well known, and the controversy surrounding each game helps it's sales a lot. Look at any of Rockstar's other IPs, like Red Dead Redemption and L.A. Noire. They do far more interesting things than GTA does, and even have much more interesting stories (it helps that those games don't use swear words every two seconds. I get that GTA is meant to spoof the prejudiced and arrogant American culture of today, but having swear words every two seconds makes it difficult to tell an interesting story).

And honestly, I think GTA is more lacking than CoD. At least CoD games have tight game mechanics that are engaging in multiplayer. And I can understand it's a struggle to change because the developers only get a year or two to work on each game. But GTAV's online mode isn't up and running yet, so it can't be critiqued, and the game had plenty of time in development, and it actually has more flaws than CoD. CoD, while it has gotten very stale, at least has polished and engaging mechanics, and a competitive scene. This is coming from someone who has gotten absolutely sick of CoD.

[Rayfist]

Whoa, Sonicbrawler, you're a fan of Shokio? BBC's brother. High-five right there.
I totally agree with Shokio, I can't stand people who keep talking about the presentation and not the actual gameplay.

[sonicbrawler182]

Whoa, Sonicbrawler, you're a fan of Shokio? BBC's brother. High-five right there.
I totally agree with Shokio, I can't stand people who keep talking about the presentation and not the actual gameplay.

I'd say Shokio has got a little bit to do with the fact I end up debating on forums. I always did before I watched his videos, but after I became a subscriber of his, I guess it encouraged me to get more involved.

I don't agree with Shokio on absolutely everything, but I do on most things, and while he does completely mess up on occasion (like that recent fiasco to do with Xenoblade Chronicles), I think he is an excellent person to have speak up about the injustices and overlooked graces of gaming. It he has his facts straight and is unbiased the vast majority of the time, and he'll admit it without making a big deal when he messes up.

-------------

I'm getting close to the Top 30 in the Rayman Legends Showdown. Now I really wish I entered from the beginning. I actually could of gotten within the Top 3 if I had entered from the beginning.

[Adsolution]

The VERY first thing I noticed upon looking at the game in action, was how JAGGED everything looks. Seriously, all of the models looked exceptionally jagged to me. I was playing the game at the highest resolution possible on an Xbox 360, and it looked nearly as jagged as certain Nintendo Wii games do at 480p with smoothing off.

Maybe it's because my eyes are terrible, but I've noticed none of this. To me, the graphics look crisp, flowing and vibrant. Obviously given the scale, the game can't look as extraordinarily smooth and detailed as a linear, funnelled game like Crysis 3 for instance, but as far as game graphics go, GTA V's look very pleasing to me.

If I were to play GTAV through, I would have to sit further away from my small TV than I already do because the graphics would literally damage my eyes.

Lol what seriously.

This regular, user-taken screenshot literally damages your eyes?



I even spent time looking for an image that wasn't too good or too bad, something in the middle.

Still feel like being condescending and telling me my claim "is a laugh"?

Yes, I really do, given that you just spent two whole paragraphs talking about something as ridiculous as how GTA V's graphics make your eyes bleed and whatnot. Either you're being picky to an (literally) unfathomable extent with this particular game, or you have no idea what an accomplishment it is to have graphics this decent (decent being a major understatement) in a map so large. I personally see no quarrel with the graphics whatsoever (I find them to be quite stellar), aside from the obvious fact that it won't look as good as something like Crysis 3. Perhaps the graphics don't sit quite right with you, but of all the objective criticism you could have brought to the field, the game's graphics are probably one of the most niche and unintelligible.

BUT I'M NOT EVEN DONE FOLKS.

Was that a necessary declaration? If so, you must then think that we all really believe you're daft enough to only complain about graphics that aren't even remotely worse than good.

As mentioned in the video I posted above, the game mechanics in GTAV are incredibly shallow. Left Trigger to lock on, Right Trigger to shoot. Driving controls are bog standard, and it's not like the vehicles do anything really special that other sandbox games, like Saints Row and Lego City Undercover, do just as well, WHILE adding something interesting to some vehicles.

That's one of the two problems I had with the video, he - and you - act as if you want the game to constantly tell you how to have fun. There's a lot more you can 'do' in Grand Theft Auto than in Saint's Rowe, in exchange for a more basic set of mechanics, because the whole idea of Grand Theft Auto is to be creative with the situation you're in, to think a little bit more outward. Of course you can just aim and shoot and you'll win, but why not give anything else a go? Here are two examples of scenarios that formed while I was playing tonight:

- A gunfight on a mountain ledge. Since I was low on health, I had to take covet behind a bus. I then had an idea: Instead of just taking time to shoot the guys, I'd move the fight onto the downhill. I then latched a sticky bomb onto the bus I'd taken cover behind, and then unlatched the parking break on it. It the rolled down the hill, flipped sideways and crushed almost everyone, followed by my detonation of the bomb, destroying the rest.

- I stole a tow truck for a mission, and I had to evade the cops. Instead of just trying to outrun them, I let one run into me from behind, and I latched on the tow. I then dragged it around, and the cops would refuse to shoot since I'd raised the tow up so the police car was almost dangling vertically, shielding me. Once I left their sight, I swerved by a canal and unlatched the tow, sending the car tumbling into it, instantly resulting in me having escaped them.

These were both incredibly practical solutions to completing the missions, as both of them resulted in me finishing them faster and with a higher score than if I'd just shot everyone or just taken ages to outrun the cops in a massive truck. Why would someone not want to make use of the incredibly versatile sandbox around them?

I'll admit that the addition of bank heists in GTAV is a cool idea, and the three character mechanic is also interesting, but secondary things like those are meaningless if the primary mechanics are boring.

Those are there in addition to all of the above, essentially to build upon what GTA IV started and maybe to satisfy those who really couldn't be arsed to try anything out.

And while the game may be impressive in scale, that huge scale is meaningless if there isn't enough worth doing, which is a common problem with GTA games. This big scale also becomes an obstruction to enjoying the game's story, because it means you have these long, boring drives in between each mission. And because the scale gets bigger with each game, and they don't give you more interesting things to do as compensation in each game, this problem gets WORSE with each game, and a sequel should absolutely NEVER accentuate the problems of past installments.

I completely disagree, I find navigating from place to place to be an utter joy, and I usually walk part of the way to my destinations.

The problem with GTA, and the reason why the series is lacking nowadays (GTA IV was even more mediocre), is because of the fact Rockstar is only interested in wowing people with presentation.

I never understood why people differentiate gameplay and presentation, when all of that combined is actually what presentation is defined as. Video games as a whole are a kind of artform, and why people believe that certain aspects of said art should be given ultimate priority over others is something I truly don't understand in the slightest, and I see it as a result of closed-mindedness.

To me, gameplay is not what's left over if you were to remove all the shaders and high-poly models from a game, that's the physical interaction your controller inputs make with the game's entities. Gameplay is the collective result of everything the game has to offer in combination with your interaction and reaction from playing the game. In the case of Grand Theft Auto, much of the enjoyment for me comes from not only the near-unlimited amount of possibilities you have to complete various mission, but also from basking in the environment that is the massive open-world. Such interactive and thriving environments aren't "bells and whistles" so as Shokio put it, they're just as integral as the game mechanics itself are.

GTA is basically a franchise made for generating cash,

GTA I and II were bags of joy and hilarity with lots of quirks and little restraint, something we hadn't really seen at that point before. GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas are some of the most innovative sandbox games of all time. GTA IV took the series in a new direction after other series such as Saint's Rowe and Dead Rising followed in the wake of silliness that spawned from San Andreas, bringing us a brand-new physics engine (Euphoria; very integral to the experience), a realistic, gripping and compelling story the likes of which have never been seen in a video game before, and brought to the forefront the ability to utilise the world around you to complete your missions instead of just shooting your way through them. GTA V, while not quite as innovative per se as its predecessors, gave people exactly what they'd been waiting for and wanting: a game that combines the mechanical variety and unique hilarity of San Andreas with the integrity and sheer possibility of IV, enhances the crap out of both of those, and revamps the gameplay dynamic with a much higher, more creative variety of mission objectives. Besides, Rockstar have even said that they're done with GTA for now, as they feel they've done all they can with it for the time being.

Look at any of Rockstar's other IPs, like Red Dead Redemption and L.A. Noire. They do far more interesting things than GTA does

I actually found RDR's base mechanics rather mundane, but the story was indeed terrific. L.A. Noire was almost the exact opposite.

and even have much more interesting stories (it helps that those games don't use swear words every two seconds.

Have you even played or read GTA IV's story? It's really quite difficult to trump something like that.

but having swear words every two seconds makes it difficult to tell an interesting story).

The former part of this quote is false, nullifying the second part. Either you have convinced yourself that this is the case through your strong intent on wanting to fabricate criticisms in areas where there are few to be had, or you're sensitive or something. The conversations in GTA are built to be authentic around interesting characters, and that's where the charm comes from. Typically, fictional storytelling (most of which is highly fantasised, even when in a more realistic setting) has an irregularly low amount of swearing - often none - so that they can be thought of as applicable to all situations. Take Franklin in GTA V for instance, he's probably the most foul-mouthed character in the whole franchise, yet the reasoning behind that is because that's how people who partake in his lifestyle actually speak. It's not forced, it's really the exact opposite. If you feel that mere casually-used words uttered in natural conversation are prohibiting you from becoming immersed in a particular story, then that's entirely your problem, as this isn't a valid point of criticism.

At least CoD games have tight game mechanics (...1). And I can understand it's a struggle to change because the developers only get a year or two to work on each game.

But GTAV's online mode isn't up and running yet, so it can't be critiqued, and the game had plenty of time in development, and it actually has more flaws than CoD. CoD, while it has gotten very stale, at least has polished and engaging mechanics, (...2). This is coming from someone who has gotten absolutely sick of CoD.

It's not a struggle, they don't even try. From Modern Warfare to MW3, the mechanics are literally the exact same. The graphics have hardly improved, and the mechanics have only changed very slightly. They're basically addon packs, and games that have had their mechanics rebuilt every time around (GTA) should not be compared to the mechanics of those that have been recycled in their entirety. Admittedly, Call of Duty's mechanics are probably the smoothest out of any shooter in the last decade, but I have absolutely no problem with GTA V's. They also feel perfectly responsive and are nothing at all to complain about.

(...1) that are engaging in multiplayer

(...2) and a competitive scene

CoD is almost entirely multiplayer-centric. GTA multiplayer (up until now) has always been a very unimportant feature, so I'm not even sure why these are being brought up when comparing the two.


TL;DR


GTA V is certainly not devoid of error. It does have its flaws, but almost every single one of the ones you've pointed out are either not really flaws or flaws to un-noteworthy to the point of being heavily biased nitpicking. A lot of this also rounds back to Shokio's view of video games, being that mechanics are always a priority. I personally think that GTA V's mechanics are totally fine and that this false criticism comes from believing that the game is at its best when you play it through in the most straightforward, mundane way possible, but video games are simply art; whatever provides the player with the best experience possible is what should take priority, whether that's an equal balance between direct base mechanical control and an unfolding story arc, or something much more focused on emotional stimulation than a mental/physical challenge.

[sergiomonty]

GTA is shit in general.
Also, GTA V's graphics aren't the big deal that a lot of people point out.

[Master]

I am back in RL challanges

*Challenges, eesh.

Meh, while I admit GTA certainly deserves its rating, I've found quite a few of its aspects to be rather engrossing.

[OCG]

GTA is shit in general.
Also, GTA V's graphics aren't the big deal that a lot of people point out.

Shit, no.
Overrated, yes.
As for graphics, they are good but not spectacular or best thing ever.

[sonicbrawler182]

*snip snip*

[sonicbrawler182]

I hope this one double post can be excused. I wanted to say something much more on topic, and I feel it will be missed if I just edit it into the end of my essay or something. My apologies about this, that post can be deleted or moved somewhere else if need be.

Anyway, for those of you competing within the Rayman Legends Showdown, today is the last day of the open rounds. The competition will progress to the next stage from then on, and everyone will be placed in the appropriate tiers (Diamond, Gold, Silver, and Bronze).

Good luck to all participating!

EDIT: Welp, I killed this topic.

I'll delete that essay, it has no place in this topic anyway.

...aaaaand I can't?

[Rulez]

KKKeane on Spotify.

Ku Klux Keane, eh?

[Keane]

KKKeane on Spotify.

Ku Klux Keane, eh?

Are you a fellow member by chance?

[Rulez]

KKKeane on Spotify.

Ku Klux Keane, eh?

Are you a fellow member by chance?

yea deaf 2 nigers

[Rayfist]

GTA is shit in general.

To say that is a bit blatant. I do think the GTA series is a bit overrated at times, but 'shit'? Hell no.

[sonicbrawler182]

GTA is shit in general.

To say that is a bit blatant. I do think the GTA series is a bit overrated at times, but 'shit'? Hell no.

Agreed.

Anyway, I cleaned the page up a little.