sonicbrawler182 wrote: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.
sonicbrawler182 wrote: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.
sonicbrawler182 wrote: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.
sonicbrawler182 wrote: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.
sonicbrawler182 wrote: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?
sonicbrawler182 wrote: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.
sonicbrawler182 wrote: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.
sonicbrawler182 wrote: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.
sonicbrawler182 wrote: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.
sonicbrawler182 wrote: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.
sonicbrawler182 wrote: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.
sonicbrawler182 wrote: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.
sonicbrawler182 wrote: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.
sonicbrawler182 wrote: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.
sonicbrawler182 wrote:(...1) that are engaging in multiplayer
sonicbrawler182 wrote:(...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.
