What games are you currently playing?

[Keane]

Woah now, there are people who play GTA for other reasons then fucking around and exploring?

[sonicbrawler182]

I mostly only do just that, but the story and campaign is there (not to mention that in most GTA games, you have to play through the story to unlock more interesting things). So it's still valid to criticise it (as a lot of effort goes into it).

[Keane]

I know. I was, in fact, making a joke.

[sonicbrawler182]

I know. I was, in fact, making a joke.

Touché, mon ami/amie!

[Adsolution]

@Adsolution: First of all, you either misunderstood or twisted half of my points to make me look "biased" or "mundane", without actually making many real counter arguments. That's called damage control. Don't do it. It's cheap as all hell and doesn't make you a respectable debater.

And as such, you've just "'twisted half my points" around to make me look as if I'm attempting "damage control", which is not so.

First of all, the image you posted - that's been smoothed. Plus it's smaller and at a much lower resolution than what one would be playing the game at.

No, it isn't. Click on it, it's 720p.

Of course that won't look jagged. I don't think you quite understand what I meant by jagged. I didn't mean "blocky" or PSone like or anything. The textures are fine, and the models are fine in terms of polygon count, but models have these jagged outlines around them in-game, including character models, objects and scenery. I wasn't being some sarcastic, exaggerating douche when I said the game hurt my eyes a bit. Smoothing is done to any rendered image in order to prevent jagged lines from appearing, but it seems GTAV hasn't got the best smoothing, and as such, has jagged lines at higher resolutions, around all of the models. I didn't notice it when I watched my siblings play, as I was at the other side of the room, but when I actually got in the gaming seat and saw everything from a player's perspective, I found it really distracting and it did strain my eyes. That isn't a "nit-picky" issue, that is a serious rendering error. I can name other games that have issues like this.

Given that I also play on a 1080p screen, I, even with my head five inches from the screen, still find these outlines to be rather insignificant. Not nonexistent, but they're by no means prominent or even something you would continuously notice unless you actually forced yourself to pay attention to them - maybe you saw it once, and now you can't stop paying attention to it? I can easily point out a different, consistent artifact of the sort for nearly every game I've played in my life.

That's why any game that is stuck with this issue (some games give you options to customise how sharp it looks, usually in increments of 10, but even then, jagged model outlines should never be the default), is difficult to get into for me, and many others.

In this particular case, maybe it is due to me having poorer eyesight, but if there isn't a blur/sharpness filter in the options menu, there's almost always one on your TV. Apparently you don't see this as as much of an issue if it can be masked, right? Perhaps it's the principle of it and that you shouldn't have to do that to achieve your desired look, but I am honestly having an extremely hard time seeing why this moderately insignificant artifact has rustled your jimmies to such a level.

And just for curiosity's sake, I checked a Youtube video to see if the issue shows there (as usually you can't see that kind of thing in a Youtube video), and it does. That's honestly very pathetic. It seems that anything that is about 2 meters away from the camera will suddenly have extremely jagged lines, no matter how simple the object (in particular, I noticed it on an in-game flat screen computer monitor. An object that simple should have clean edges. Seriously, there's no excuse).

I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to given that you haven't provided a link or anything, but can you... provide a link? I've witnessed understandably low-poly models, but nothing really jagged.

And in case you didn't notice, I specifically mentioned I was playing the Xbox 360 version. You may have the PS3 version, so maybe the problem isn't as bad, or doesn't exist (as many PS3 games do have better smoothing filters than Xbox 360 games).

I'm playing on a 360.

I have very sharp eyesight, however (and most healthy people would),

?

Health has little to nothing to do with the quality of your eyesight.

Again, it's a genuine issue, and it can damage your eyesight.

?

That makes no sense. You can't damage your eyesight by straining it, all that results in is fatigue that can be worn off by rest. General fatigue can result in sickness in extreme cases.

So you can take that condescending tone back where it came from. My point is not unfathomable. You simply are being ignorant to facts.

If you aren't fond of my tone, why is yours no better? I really have no problem with yours, outside of moments of blatant hypocrisy like this.

First of all, do you REALLY think Rockstar were thinking about making a game that encouraged players to experiment with their surroundings (keeping in mind that the surroundings are static most of the time, that you are very limited in your moveset, and that the game wants you to play through the story and watch cinematics)?

Well yeah, sure, why not? It works for me, does it not work for you?

And second of all, the first scenario you claim to have experienced in the game is Shooter 101. Seriously, that situation is nothing special. I've played linear shooters with more interesting possibilities than that (hi, Bulletstorm). In fact, moments like that are even common in first-person games. Describing that as a situation that requires you to think above the average player honestly makes it sound like you've never played a shooter before. This is coming from someone who doesn't even play shooters all the time or anything. Yet even I know that something like that is basic shooter tactics in action.

I play shooters all the time, and rarely are you able to pull off something like this. The only other games I can think of that you would even be able to do this in are Crysis (yes, I know I just brought it up again, but for a totally different purpose), Far Cry (which is where Crysis came from) and Bulletstorm, the latter having most of it be staged in quick-time events anyway, so it's hardly a good example. I'm not pointing it out because they're simply "possible" to pull off, but because this kind of thing consistently works very well, which is not the case for most games.

As for the second scenario, I think that does sound pretty cool (hey, I'll give credit where it's due), but the problem is, it's a maneuver that requires you be in a very specific situation. In fact, you made it sound like it was a once-off thing you can do in a mission, and considering you are in a tow-truck, it should immediately occur to a player to do something like that.

YouTube walkthroughs would beg to differ.

And when I said there isn't much interesting to do, I meant in terms of the environment being static and your moveset being dull. The game does have some mission variety, which I commend it for. In fact, I think that was one huge improvement it had. But most of them are only really different in a "flash and sizzle" kind of way - the actual mechanics of those missions are not engaging.

This is true, to an extent. However, while I find the game to be marginally overrated, much of the criticism directed toward it is also 'overrated', or exaggerated, as these flaws aren't serious, they simply add up to me once in a while thinking about how it would have been neat if they'd done something a different way, or how I think a particular scenario could be improved, which is no different a reaction than I would give to any other good game.

Any art form is broken down so it can be critiqued. Much like how mechanics (the game's interactive design) and presentation (the game's aesthetic design) are two different things, "use of colour" and composition are examples of two different aspects one could criticise about a painting or drawing. It's not that hard to understand. A game could have amazing mechanics, but lackluster visuals or sound design. But it could also have beautiful graphics and sound design, but lackluster, glitchy, or un-engaging mechanics. That's why we break down any art form so we can critique it - rarely is any art piece perfect in every way.

Of course, but too often people people have a tendency to believe certain aspects of the a game could be done without so long as the mechanics are intact, which often just isn't the case.

But GTA IV was when they stopped caring about being engaging, and more about scale and presentation.

I played quite a bit into GTA IV, but dropped it as the game was uninteresting. As was the story. In fact, I don't know why you say it's difficult to trump - it's been the butt of so many jokes BECAUSE it was not very good. Plus I hear it has some glaring plot inconsistencies. I can't give a personal opinion on the plot inconsistencies part (though if it is a wide opinion, to the point where IGN of all people mention it in their GTA V review, then it must have a few inconsistencies). But I can assure you it bored me to death, and I kept making fun of it to make it more interesting for myself.

That's unfortunate, because the story in GTA IV is actually excellent, and probably one of the best video game stories I've ever experienced. The fact that the game is very slow-paced in its progression can cause players to lose interest, but I absolutely adored every single thing that GTA IV did, which is one of the reasons I list it as one of my favourite games of all time, and why it's one of the highest rated video games of all time in every regard, including mechanics and presentation. It's not without flaw of course, nothing is, but in most respects, it's nearly perfect. The mechanics may be simple and the general objective of each mission (usually being "kill everyone and get from point A to point B") aren't all too varied, but their execution and staging are absolutely excellent, and their context within the story makes it all the more compelling.

What are your problems with the story? Admittedly, reading about it isn't enough, you need to experience it within the context of the game for it to be as effective as possible; it's comparable to The Godfather. In fact, I'm very willing to state that GTA IV is to video gaming what The Godfather is to film.

You seem to ignore why IV receives the well-deserved universal acclaim that it does. It's not enough for me to describe it for you, that's what reviewing sites are for. Of course you aren't forced to agree with everything they have to say, but at least understand why. It's like trying to call Ocarina of Time mediocre and uninspired, the notion is so hilarious that unless you're actually able to come up with arguments that objectively testify against all of its unanimously garnered and directed praise, your argument is going to be seen as completely missing the point, which is exactly what you seem to be doing. Given that GTA V is a pretty even split of inspiration between IV and San Andreas and that you miss why GTA IV is such an acclaimed title, it's only natural that that would bleed over onto your feelings for V. Personally, since I feel IV resides at the peak of GTA itself, I knew V couldn't have impressed me more than it did, and I was right. I didn't enjoy San Andreas as much as most people do (which is one game I do find to be a bit overrated), but I still understand why it receives the praise it does, and why there's such an even split between a preference for IV or for SA. Again, neither are flawless, and V certainly didn't define a generation, but if I were to be perfectly honest, I would say that IV, like Half-Life 2, and like Ocarina of Time, was generation-defining.

Do you know what exaggeration is at all?
Not every character does it, but as you mentioned him, I'll say that Franklin's swearing is annoyingly over-done. I literally walked in on my sister playing this multiple times, and he was just randomly swearing about practically nothing. Every second word was a swear word, and my college friends (two of which have played through to the credits) tell me that Franklin is like this throughout the whole game. it doesn't help that his voice actor doesn't always portray emotion very well (he's decent, but has a lot of rough spots in his performance).

The character emotion is a little bit inconsistent and unrealistic, which was one of the most notable criticisms of the game, and a perfectly valid one. I myself am someone who tends to swear quite a lot in person (not to that extent, but probably more than the average person), and as such, I at no point even blinked an eye at Franklin's vocabulary so much as simply found it amusing. In fact, I think the writing for him and his friends' dialogue is brilliant, partially given that they almost never repeat the same chain of profanities twice. One of my favourite lines is from Lamar, who says "Let's stash this dude at my spot" - just the phrasing and the choice of words, I laugh. Understandable if you're not a fan of the humour, but it's certainly far from mindless swearing for the sake of swearing. Part of this also leads into the next point about authenticity:

And who are you to say that everyone within Franklin's lifestyle in real life, actually swears that excessively?

Wtf kind of question is that? I know people who are genuinely like Franklin in real life, and share his speech pattern. At no point did I express that 'everyone' who partakes in a ghetto crime lifestyle are profane to that extent, rather that it is a cultural style, and that it's not a one-off thing. Many people are like that.

How much someone swears has nothing to do with being under a certain lifestyle, it's merely got to do with how much they hear it, in conjunction with their self control.

And people hear certain things more often when under a certain lifestyle. They're closely (but not unconditionally) related. Thinking that they aren't is ridiculous.

And when is swearing ever "irregularly low"? There is no "regular" amount of swearing. Some people rarely swear. Others do so all of the time. There is no regular.

Of course there's some kind of a standard in society. It may be very conditional, but there's obviously some way to tell whether someone curses 'a lot' or 'rarely', you even said so yourself.

And the words are not casual, they are blatantly shoe horned.

No, people like Franklin do actually exist. This is simply you being ignorant and unaware of that reality.

I didn't say they struggle to MAKE the games. I said they have a struggle to change them. Activision have the developers of the franchise under a very strict deadline, and the developers are forced to spend a short amount of time on the game.

Developing game mechanics is one of the shortest part of game development. Of course they're always going to be refined throughout the course of the development, but it shouldn't take very much time at all to implement new core features that work just fine and that provide the player with something new to do. Besides, most video games built entirely from scratch only have a development time of between one and two years.

Game mechanics are 99% of the time, the most important part of a game, objectively. Why?
Because it's what separates it from other art forms. For example, if I knew a game was terrible, but had a great soundtrack, then I wouldn't play the game. I'd just download the soundtrack, and indulge in the art form of musical expression. If the graphics were amazing but the game mechanics sucked, I'd simply look at footage of the game in HD, therefore, indulging in visual expression.

I see video games as being a very flexible kind of entertainment, ranging from being a scarcely interactive film to being nothing but graphicless hardcore mental challenge. What aspect (be it graphics or incentive mission variety) garners the most focus to me doesn't matter, so long as the experience as a whole is good, and worth sixty dollars. Video games cost thrice as much as movies do, so if it wants to be an interactive film, that's alright, so long as it's an interactive film that will leave me satisfied after spending $60 on it.

Also keep in mind that with the price of today's games, the game mechanics are what justifies it.

Not unconditionally.

I will conclude by saying that GTA V is by no means terrible. It's just lackluster as a game that had so much time and money put into it. There were quite a few things I thought it would of done a lot better, despite GTA IV disappointing me before.

GTA V lacks in some areas, but still manages to round out to a fun, creative, unique and integrious experience. Comparing that to something like Modern Warfare 3 which lacks in virtually all aspects aside from polished gameplay mechanics is what I find to be a laugh. Also, that and how you entirely miss the point of what a milestone, influence and accomplishment GTA IV was and still is in the history of video gaming.

[BzzitTheMoskito]

So I got GTA V myself.

I remember playing having a joy playing both San Andreas and IV over at friends. So I decided that GTA V might be worth getting.

The Graphics are good. If may contribute to the discussion, the graphics on GTA V (PS3) didn't look "jagged." Not sure what else to say about it.

What I found to some of mine favorite things to do in the Los Santos, was doing the heists. Good lord, it's even just fun to prepare for the heist. Select what plan you will, crew and all the side missions you have to do.
Too bad there's too few of the heists.

The story, is mine opinion quite good, had some good writing, character development . My main problem is how sudden some missions can come. (Especially the last mission)

The Online I just tried out, what a blast, do I want to rob this store, should I kill and steal this players money, racing, gang war, so much interesting and enjoyable activities there are.

[Zikken]

I need to get this game someday, its sounds quite enjoyable.

[Bzzit]

Yeah GTA V was a great game. I just personally preferred the narrative in IV. I felt like I was actually experiencing Niko's journey within Liberty city through his eyes, whereas in GTA V whilst I enjoyed the characters a lot, I felt like I was more-so on the sidelines; never getting attached or ultimately immersed in their goals and hardships like with Niko.

[OCG]

today I played a bit of Super Mario 3D Land and challenges in RL

[Zikken]

Yeah GTA V was a great game. I just personally preferred the narrative in IV. I felt like I was actually experiencing Niko's journey within Liberty city through his eyes, whereas in GTA V whilst I enjoyed the characters a lot, I felt like I was more-so on the sidelines; never getting attached or ultimately immersed in their goals and hardships like with Niko.

I never played GTA before except years ago and it was only for an hour so I don't really know much about the games.

[Master]

The two Bzzits are online, glorious.
How's Gladiator HD turning out, Bzzit?

[Adsolution]

My main problem is how sudden some missions can come.

Yup. As far as the campaign goes, this is my main complaint. I haven't been able to complete the game yet since I'm playing on my brother's 360 (which I can only use when he's not home), but there was virtually no build up to the mission that had you repelling in front of the building from the helicopter to extract the guy from the window. It was bloody well done and extremely thrilling, but it just sort of started and ended with little connection to anything else.

Yeah GTA V was a great game. I just personally preferred the narrative in IV. I felt like I was actually experiencing Niko's journey within Liberty city through his eyes, whereas in GTA V whilst I enjoyed the characters a lot, I felt like I was more-so on the sidelines; never getting attached or ultimately immersed in their goals and hardships like with Niko.

And this is also why I prefer IV over V. The closest 'hardship' the characters seem to face in V is when Michael's family leaves him. Though, I'm not finished the game yet, so perhaps they're saving the more of the engrossing narrative for the later portions.

[BzzitTheMoskito]

Yeah GTA V was a great game. I just personally preferred the narrative in IV. I felt like I was actually experiencing Niko's journey within Liberty city through his eyes, whereas in GTA V whilst I enjoyed the characters a lot, I felt like I was more-so on the sidelines; never getting attached or ultimately immersed in their goals and hardships like with Niko.

Well I only got to mess around in the Sandbox, since the game was not mine and the story was completed. And my Steam version of IV won't launch. I really want to experience the story in IV.

[Rayfist]

Christ, no discussion about Wind Waker HD coming out today as a physical copy?
Zelda WW HD came out today, and I'm playing it right now, absolutely love the game so far!

[OCG]

Christ, no discussion about Wind Waker HD coming out today as a physical copy?
Zelda WW HD came out today, and I'm playing it right now, absolutely love the game so far!

Make a video about it
It should get popular since game is new.

[Bzzit]

The two Bzzits are online, glorious.
How's Gladiator HD turning out, Bzzit?

I'm continuously going back and forth with Sony's support team about it. It's got to the point where I have to send them confirmation of my age and prove I own my account, 'cos stupid 13 year old me back in 2008 set my age on my account to like 80 or something ludicrous like that. I think it should be resolved by the weekend and hopefully i'll have my copy then

Yeah GTA V was a great game. I just personally preferred the narrative in IV. I felt like I was actually experiencing Niko's journey within Liberty city through his eyes, whereas in GTA V whilst I enjoyed the characters a lot, I felt like I was more-so on the sidelines; never getting attached or ultimately immersed in their goals and hardships like with Niko.

And this is also why I prefer IV over V. The closest 'hardship' the characters seem to face in V is when Michael's family leaves him. Though, I'm not finished the game yet, so perhaps they're saving the more of the engrossing narrative for the later portions.

I feel like Rockstar have always done excellent satire on American culture and lifestyle. In V I feel like they took it to the next level to the point where Michael's family feel like comical caricatures; but really well done ones at that. I find it hard for me to get emotionally attached to them, as opposed to characters in IV with half of the stuff they either say or do. I love these characters for their satirical purposes and the way they are the catalyst for certain aspects of Michael's character development and personality though. It does try its hand at some emotional aspects with these characters at times but it does feel a bit rushed and not too developed and as you stated with that certain event, I just personally didn't feel anything major in terms of emotion.

That aside, what I enjoy most about V is the banter and chemistry of the 3 main characters, as well as the humor which I absolutely adored, much more so than Saints Row actually! The narrative does pick up later in the game, but nothing reaches the caliber and peaks that IV did, at least in my opinion of course.

[Adsolution]

Excellent wording Bzzit, I couldn't agree more with every single point in your post if my life depended on it.

[Bradandez]

Currently causing mayhem in GTA V.

[sonicbrawler182]

So, I'm not bothering with another essay, because apparently GTA is a holy grail that can't be criticised, and any valid criticism is invalid because of that.

But again, jagged outlines on models are not an insignificant issue, and the reason why it's a bigger issue in GTA V is because it's a triple AAA game that probably had a lot of time put into it, in the year 2013, yet it messes that simple thing up. The issue has NO excuse to be there. My sister was playing the game earlier, and I sat around the same distance I would sit when I play games, and I noticed it again. It's a consistent issue in the game that again, hurts ones eyes if their eyesight is sharp enough (and don't even attempt to criticise me for having sharp eyesight).

And as for why I didn't enjoy GTA IV, while I understood what it's story was trying to do, I just think it failed to draw me in on any level. Didn't help that the voice acting sucked (honestly, the voice actors for the main characters sounded like they got random people off of the street to do it. Literally anyone can impersonate Niko's performance. And don't get me started on Patrick, the Irish guy. Seriously, what's the point of putting an Irish character in there, giving him an American accent, and not touching much on Irish culture? It's redundant, and I'm sick of American made media portraying Irish people terribly). And honestly, it was just boring, plain and simple.

As for the games mechanics, they were mediocre and boring, again. And GTA IV had the least exciting sandbox of any GTA game.

AND FOR GOD'S SAKE ROMAN, I DON'T WANT GO SEE SOME FUCKING TEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETIES.

But honestly, you claiming GTA IV is perfection is the first I've heard of it being so, after the initial reviews came in (and don't ever try to tell me I should listen to reviewers, as Shokio pointed out, too often do they neglect to talk about certain aspects of the game. I play and research a game myself and form an opinion. Very few reviewers nowadays even do that).
Everyone I talk to about GTA IV says they feel it's a forgettable game, and on the internet, I've seen the game be the butt of so many jokes because it was such a let down. Kinda like Sonic '06, but to a much lesser degree.

If you aren't fond of my tone, why is yours no better? I really have no problem with yours, outside of moments of blatant hypocrisy like this.

Eh, you were the one who started off with being condescending. Treat others how you would like to be treated.
I'm mild mannered when people are mild mannered to me. When people take the tone like what you took with me, I have every reason to step up and be more assertive.

[foultzboyz]

now now, everybody keep calm and go play some Sega Dreamcast. Dreamcast is love--make Dreamcast, not war<3