Grand Theft Auto Grieving Thread - Yep, I've been drinkin' again...

[jje100010001]

Interesting paper that uses a neural network to overlay real-life photo data (Germany in this case) over GTA V game graphics at a playable framerate.

Since everyone is always rah-rahing about Rockstar graphics, I could see this being an interesting and unexpected secondary route over the traditional more-polys-more-shaders route towards photorealism.

 

[Ita Mori]

unless you mean shit like Rawpocalypse 2077 (sold ~14M units in first month and slowed to crawl later), it WILL flop

I don't think R* could make something that technically awful even if they tried. R* Leeds and R* Vancouver are pretty good in the technical aspects like graphical quality and optimization (see Max Payne 3 and V's PC release/port respectively). And while the people who made it happen probably don't work there anymore, R* San Diego were the ones who made the N64 port of RE:2, which is a marvel in of itself.
R* North learned their lesson after they tried to port IV themselves instead of using their PC-experienced studio to handle it.

I don't have doubts VI will look and perform well. My doubts lie with everything else.
The story will be just as bland if not worse than V, and the gameplay will remain as stagnant as ever (No, I will not celebrate them bringing back clothing and car mods as if they hadn't done that in 2004). Fun will be sacrificed for microtransactions and technological prowess.

However, mainstream doesn't give a shit about bland stories and gameplay that gets old quick. As long as it runs and plays well enough, they'll sell.
It'll only be after the hype dies down and people finish their 2nd or so playthroughs and fiddle with the new online that people realize what a mehburger they've been given, and realize R* have given us their Fallout 4.

I stand by what I said; GTA will sell well purely out of brand name. The amount of pre-orders + current gen console owners desperate for a new title from a once-respected franchise will be through the roof. It is only after we get the game that will probably be mediocre in everything but visuals that people will reconsider if GTA still means what it did 18 years ago.

 

[The Last Stand]

@X Pac Heat @Dom Cruise

Were you guys discussing video games and storytelling? Let me give my piece on it.

Video games differ from movies and TV as a medium because of one big feature: INTERACTIVITY. You're not just watching somebody through a story or scenario, you're CONTROLLING somebody as you trek through the world.

I think video games have the potential to tell interesting stories through the interactive experience they benefit from. Whether through its own storytelling or through the actions of the player. BUT, do not let your story detract from the interactivity.

Since this is a GTA thread for instance, let's use that as an example.

The appeal of GTA is its open world with the freedom it gives to the player. The story the world tells with the plot complements the gameplay. I feel III and Vice City accomplished that well. III is inspired by mobster movies, which helps set the mood of Liberty City and Claude's quest for revenge. Claude being a silent protagonist fits it well; you are a gun for hire with money and revenge as your end goal.

Moreover, III gives the freedom to tackle through missions within its own logic. You're tasked to kill a target: you can either go in guns blazing, flank him or rig his car with a bomb. You have to tail somebody going to a destination; III says he takes a taxi. You could tail him or steal a taxi and drive him there yourself. Destroy a plane; either drive to the airport and destroy it as it's landing OR, if you're skilled enough, blast it midflight.

This extends with free-roam. There are activities that the player can do as they progress. Taxi, ambulance, hidden packages, rampages, etc. It's there to do or ignore as you see fit.

Vice City improves on what III brought to the table. Vice City's world and plot is based on 80s culture and media such as Miami Vice and Scarface. Every inch of Vice City is an homage of that time period for the player to experience. Tommy Vercetti's character blends with its plot and gameplay. He is a psychopathic, dangerous character. His personality strengthens the variety of characters you meet along the way. You could still live out your rampaging fantasies as Tommy without feeling awkward.

Contrast that with V, it feels like the world and characters are there for the story. Nothing more. V's well-developed protagonists are a blessing and a curse. Michael, Franklin and Trevor's motivations are of pursing the almighty dollar. Money and status drives their motivation for the plot. Michael is a retired bank robber who is already living the life of luxury with his ill-gotten gains. Franklin is a gangster who wants to gets out of the thug life. Trevor is a maniac who wants to be established as THE drugs and arms dealer in Blaine County. They all want money, but for different reasons.

The curse is that with their different personalities, they are still placed in situations that are of odds of the character development, even freedom opportunities, R* laid on the table. V is heavily scripted during missions. Although you are given choices of how heists are executed, R* still expects you to tackle them the way they intend to. There are invisible barriers that force you to handle it THEIR way. Mopping, tailing, waiting, carjacking are a few examples. You try to go another way, V will either force you back to its scripting or fail you.

Frankly, it is jarring to be a middle-aged father and husband just going on killing sprees, especially during the second half. The game "allows" you to do that as you please, but the gameplay does not fit the character. The intent of video games are to be FUN and interactive.

 

[Ita Mori]

Michael, Franklin and Trevor's motivations are of pursing the almighty dollar.

Not even. They spend more 2/3 of the game being the FIB's bitch boys or paying debts to drug lords and CEOs.
They have two scores that are purely for the love of cheddar, and one of those is basically the tutorial score.

 

[The Last Stand]

Not even. They spend more 2/3 of the game being the FIB's bitch boys or paying debts to drug lords and CEOs.
They have two scores that are purely for the love of cheddar, and one of those is basically the tutorial score.

Which proves my earlier point:

Contrast that with V, it feels like the world and characters are there for the story. Nothing more.

V's theme was marketed as "the pursuit for the almighty dollar." It's there, in the world and plot. But, they try to tell a story about government corruption using Micheal, Franklin and Trevor as pawns for their nefarious purposes. One mission even forces you to stop what you're doing and tend to their demands. You know what I'm talking about.

In V's world, it's not just money, it's status and power. The trio are weaklings in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Jonah Hill poster]

Don’t know if you guys knew, but the men behind the voices of C.J. and Franklin once did an Instagram Live Q&A session many months ago

 

[The Last Stand]

Currently replaying San Andreas on the PS2 and I don't think Rockstar will ever top it.

In terms of scope, I think they did with GTA V.

In terms of technological advancement, GTA IV trumps SA.

For the 3D era, Vice City is the superior game.

 

[Dom Cruise]

@X Pac Heat @Dom Cruise

Were you guys discussing video games and storytelling? Let me give my piece on it.

View attachment 2246765

Video games differ from movies and TV as a medium because of one big feature: INTERACTIVITY. You're not just watching somebody through a story or scenario, you're CONTROLLING somebody as you trek through the world.

I think video games have the potential to tell interesting stories through the interactive experience they benefit from. Whether through its own storytelling or through the actions of the player. BUT, do not let your story detract from the interactivity.

Since this is a GTA thread for instance, let's use that as an example.

The appeal of GTA is its open world with the freedom it gives to the player. The story the world tells with the plot complements the gameplay. I feel III and Vice City accomplished that well. III is inspired by mobster movies, which helps set the mood of Liberty City and Claude's quest for revenge. Claude being a silent protagonist fits it well; you are a gun for hire with money and revenge as your end goal.

Moreover, III gives the freedom to tackle through missions within its own logic. You're tasked to kill a target: you can either go in guns blazing, flank him or rig his car with a bomb. You have to tail somebody going to a destination; III says he takes a taxi. You could tail him or steal a taxi and drive him there yourself. Destroy a plane; either drive to the airport and destroy it as it's landing OR, if you're skilled enough, blast it midflight.

This extends with free-roam. There are activities that the player can do as they progress. Taxi, ambulance, hidden packages, rampages, etc. It's there to do or ignore as you see fit.

Vice City improves on what III brought to the table. Vice City's world and plot is based on 80s culture and media such as Miami Vice and Scarface. Every inch of Vice City is an homage of that time period for the player to experience. Tommy Vercetti's character blends with its plot and gameplay. He is a psychopathic, dangerous character. His personality strengthens the variety of characters you meet along the way. You could still live out your rampaging fantasies as Tommy without feeling awkward.

Contrast that with V, it feels like the world and characters are there for the story. Nothing more. V's well-developed protagonists are a blessing and a curse. Michael, Franklin and Trevor's motivations are of pursing the almighty dollar. Money and status drives their motivation for the plot. Michael is a retired bank robber who is already living the life of luxury with his ill-gotten gains. Franklin is a gangster who wants to gets out of the thug life. Trevor is a maniac who wants to be established as THE drugs and arms dealer in Blaine County. They all want money, but for different reasons.

The curse is that with their different personalities, they are still placed in situations that are of odds of the character development, even freedom opportunities, R* laid on the table. V is heavily scripted during missions. Although you are given choices of how heists are executed, R* still expects you to tackle them the way they intend to. There are invisible barriers that force you to handle it THEIR way. Mopping, tailing, waiting, carjacking are a few examples. You try to go another way, V will either force you back to its scripting or fail you.

Frankly, it is jarring to be a middle-aged father and husband just going on killing sprees, especially during the second half. The game "allows" you to do that as you please, but the gameplay does not fit the character. The intent of video games are to be FUN and interactive.

It's kind of a non issue though, because if you want to go on a rampage and do any crazy thing, just play as Trevor, that's why they put that character in the game, it might be immersion breaking when playing as Michael and Franklin, but switch over to Trevor and go crazy because his character is that he's crazy and might do anything.

It was a much bigger issue in 4 with Nico, because he was the only player character and his character was not a guy that would just go on a rampage for no reason.

 

[The Last Stand]

It's kind of a non issue though, because if you want to go on a rampage and do any crazy thing, just play as Trevor, that's why they put that character in the game, it might be immersion breaking when playing as Michael and Franklin, but switch over to Trevor and go crazy because his character is that he's crazy and might do anything.

I want to mention the torture mission in GTA V. As Trevor, you are tasked to torture an informant for information on a potential terrorist. Afterwards, Trevor gives a monologue on the use of torture "to assert ourselves" despite doing the act.

Remember when I said the characters in V exist to move the story, nothing more? V has you torture somebody, then lecture you on why it's wrong. I wasn't disturbed by the message or action; just puzzled on why it was there to begin with. How could you have Trevor torture somebody, then use HIM as a vehicle on social commentary?

 

[Jack Awful]

It's kind of a non issue though, because if you want to go on a rampage and do any crazy thing, just play as Trevor, that's why they put that character in the game, it might be immersion breaking when playing as Michael and Franklin, but switch over to Trevor and go crazy because his character is that he's crazy and might do anything.

It was a much bigger issue in 4 with Nico, because he was the only player character and his character was not a guy that would just go on a rampage for no reason.

I still think they made Trevor too sympathetic for him to convincingly go on random rampages. He never kills totally random innocents in the story, everyone he goes after at the very least insults him first. He's less murderous psycho and more loose canon tough guy with a hair trigger.

 

[The Last Stand]

I still think they made Trevor too sympathetic for him to convincingly go on random rampages. He never kills totally random innocents in the story, everyone he goes after at the very least insults him first. He's less murderous psycho and more loose canon tough guy with a hair trigger.

I thought it was just me, but Trevor isn't the psychopath they portrayed him to be. Crazy, absolutely. But not a menace to society. Most of it is just exposition.

It was a much bigger issue in 4 with Nico, because he was the only player character and his character was not a guy that would just go on a rampage for no reason.

"I grew up in a war. This means nothing to me."

Niko certainly has morals, but the war has ruined him. Often he talks about how he despises America or how the war affects him. It's not TOO farfetched for Niko to fit in the GTA formula.

 

[Jack Awful]

I thought it was just me, but Trevor isn't the psychopath they portrayed him to be. Crazy, absolutely. But not a menace to society. Most of it is just exposition.


"I grew up in a war. This means nothing to me."

Niko certainly has morals, but the war has ruined him. Often he talks about how he despises America or how the war affects him. It's not TOO farfetched for Niko to fit in the GTA formula.

I can't think of a way to write a character that is both the protagonist in a GTA game and would convincingly go on mass shooting sprees without it undermining their character.

 

[ulsterscotsman]

In terms of scope, I think they did with GTA V.

In terms of technological advancement, GTA IV trumps SA.

For the 3D era, Vice City is the superior game.

San Andreas improved on in every way over the previous titles that GTA 4 & 5 could never compare to its scope and variety.
GTA San Andreas & Grove Street families 4 Life Bitch.

 

[Dom Cruise]

I still think they made Trevor too sympathetic for him to convincingly go on random rampages. He never kills totally random innocents in the story, everyone he goes after at the very least insults him first. He's less murderous psycho and more loose canon tough guy with a hair trigger.

There's still enough wiggle room for him to snap and do anything, but I know what you mean.

I thought it was just me, but Trevor isn't the psychopath they portrayed him to be. Crazy, absolutely. But not a menace to society. Most of it is just exposition.


"I grew up in a war. This means nothing to me."

Niko certainly has morals, but the war has ruined him. Often he talks about how he despises America or how the war affects him. It's not TOO farfetched for Niko to fit in the GTA formula.

To be fair I've not played 4 since 2008, I've been meaning to replay it in fact, but my impression of Nico is he was a guy that would certainly commit crimes, but not murder random people in the streets just for the hell of it.

 

[The Last Stand]

I can't think of a way to write a character that is both the protagonist in a GTA game and would convincingly go on mass shooting sprees without it undermining their character.

This perfectly describes how I feel about GTA as a game series. People calling it a "murder simulator" do not know what they're talking about and only see GTA at face value.

The appeal of GTA is the open world where you're free to explore it and do what you want. Said world is strengthened by its writing, setting, freedom, impact and tone. As the audience grew older, so did their tastes in medium. No other game at its heyday had attempted to reach the scope, cultural impact, technological peak that GTA III brought to the table.

You COULD play GTA solely as a "murder simulator" but you're missing out on a lot of the context, story, progression and above all INTENT of GTA. And personally, strictly treating it as such is quite immature and shallow.

 

[Captain Syrup]

San Andreas improved on in every way over the previous titles that GTA 4 & 5 could never compare to its scope and variety.

SA took the concept as far you can take it.

R* tried to mix it up with drive-bys and gang wars. A big improvement over the Vercetti Gang; fair enough. But they still die in like two hits.

 

[Long Tongue Silver]

I can't think of a way to write a character that is both the protagonist in a GTA game and would convincingly go on mass shooting sprees without it undermining their character.

A silent protagonist like Claude from GTA III would be the way to do it. He's a mute cipher for whatever you want him to be. Maybe the next GTA game should go back to a silent protag for story mode.

 

[The Last Stand]

A big improvement over the Vercetti Gang; maybe they fixed that in the PC version; fair enough. But they still die in like two hits. You're the Doom Slayer, you can't be touched.

They brought that back in Vice City Stories. You could trigger "gang wars" by destroying your rival's car and taking over their property. It was a combination of gang wars and businesses.

 

[Captain Syrup]

They brought that back in Vice City Stories. You could trigger "gang wars" by destroying your rival's car and taking over their property.

...Did Vic have a gang in that game? Actual street toughs protecting his property? Sorry, it's been years since I played it.

All I remember is building a giant pink condominium, which turned out to be an empty facade with a drug lab inside.

 

[The Last Stand]

...Did Vic have a gang in that game? Actual street toughs protecting his property? Sorry, it's been years since I played it.

All I remember is the giant pink condominium you can build which is just an empty shell with a drug lab inside. That game was bananas.

It was empire building. Gangs had businesses such as drugs, prostitution, protection, extortion and robbery. You could take over others businesses and claim them as your own. Build your own criminal empire.

I loved Lance Vance in VCS. You love to hate him with how childish and narrow-minded he is compared to Vic's seriousness.