GTA V, general discussion

L4Mll wrote:

Thats a solid point i guess rockstar have turned into cod now .

What? No, that's not my point at all. Rockstar has always given us top quality games and never have I disappointed with any of their games. Yes, I even enjoyd State of Emergency a whole lot. Comparing any Rockstar game to COD is blasphemy.

I guess it's just a shitload of stuff to do in one game, seeing all the details 'n' stuff in GTAIV even if the city wasn't nearly as big as San Andreas. Detailing the whole San Andreas map the same way they did with Liberty City would propably postpone the game to a 2013 release. I'd rather get the game early and if I really enjoy it (which most likely is the case) I'd be happy to get the DLC maps.

NiteKrawler wrote:

That's what I have been hearing over and over GL. It is probably true, but it doesn't have to be a bad thing. It can be a huge City and it also has a ton of surrounding area to play with. A ton could have happened to this city since the 90's.

That's what I've been thinking, just how Liberty City went through a huge makeover from 3 to 4.

Mass Distraction wrote:

L4Mll wrote:

Thats a solid point i guess rockstar have turned into cod now .

What? No, that's not my point at all. Rockstar has always given us top quality games and never have I disappointed with any of their games. Yes, I even enjoyd State of Emergency a whole lot. Comparing any Rockstar game to COD is blasphemy.

I guess it's just a shitload of stuff to do in one game, seeing all the details 'n' stuff in GTAIV even if the city wasn't nearly as big as San Andreas. Detailing the whole San Andreas map the same way they did with Liberty City would propably postpone the game to a 2013 release. I'd rather get the game early and if I really enjoy it (which most likely is the case) I'd be happy to get the DLC maps.

NiteKrawler wrote:

That's what I have been hearing over and over GL. It is probably true, but it doesn't have to be a bad thing. It can be a huge City and it also has a ton of surrounding area to play with. A ton could have happened to this city since the 90's.

That's what I've been thinking, just how Liberty City went through a huge makeover from 3 to 4.

No No thats not my point to what i meant was Rockstar doing DLC and taking away the parts of the game etc.


Also i presume by quality you mean what ? call of duty has quality to unless your one of them cod haters ? D: <


But yes i do see what you mean now.

L4Mll wrote:

No No thats not my point to what i meant was Rockstar doing DLC and taking away the parts of the game etc.

It's not like they are taking away parts of the game, they're just taking their time in developing those parts (if there will be any).

I never said CoD didn't have quality.

Mass Distraction wrote:

L4Mll wrote:

No No thats not my point to what i meant was Rockstar doing DLC and taking away the parts of the game etc.

It's not like they are taking away parts of the game, they're just taking their time in developing those parts (if there will be any).

I never said CoD didn't have quality.

Ah right i see.


No like you said rockstar have always released quality but then you never said anything about cod so i kind of got the picture you tried to say cod was rubbish in releasing its dlc :O.

Never mind i understand sorry to have brought you somewhere else !

L4Mll wrote:

No like you said rockstar have always released quality but then you never said anything about cod so i kind of got the picture you tried to say cod was rubbish in releasing its dlc :O.

I have no idea of CoD's DLC as I'm not into those games. Besides, all games nowadays have DLC so it's pretty much pointless to say it's one game's flaw.

I just don't want Rockstar games compared to Call of Duty as they have nothing in common, for one thing.

Maybe Rockstar could make San Fierro and so on available as DLC, but you won't be able to travel to and from those areas in the main game. Each city would be an individual game rather than everything being one whole world. Being one world is what made GTA: SA so fun because you could go down to Los Santos International, jack a plane, then fly to Las Venturas and gamble all your money away, all at your own prerogative.

I'd gladly wait another year or so for a totally revamped San Andreas.

ive never played san andreas....

a little of 3, own vice city and 4.

Ghost Leader wrote:

Maybe Rockstar could make San Fierro and so on available as DLC, but you won't be able to travel to and from those areas in the main game. Each city would be an individual game rather than everything being one whole world. Being one world is what made GTA: SA so fun because you could go down to Los Santos International, jack a plane, then fly to Las Venturas and gamble all your money away, all at your own prerogative.

I'd gladly wait another year or so for a totally revamped San Andreas.

The Big Surf Island in Burnout Paradise added a whole new area to the main game. It was straight playable when you went to the game and decided to drive your way there.

I guess such DLC on a GTA game would take a big hunk of memory, though.

Let's just hope we get the whole city as I would totally like to go through Bone County or start a search for Bigfoot in Flint County.

Mass Distraction wrote:

L4Mll wrote:

No like you said rockstar have always released quality but then you never said anything about cod so i kind of got the picture you tried to say cod was rubbish in releasing its dlc :O.

I have no idea of CoD's DLC as I'm not into those games. Besides, all games nowadays have DLC so it's pretty much pointless to say it's one game's flaw.

I just don't want Rockstar games compared to Call of Duty as they have nothing in common, for one thing.

Certainly agree.

My friend sent me this video just now. It's basically a SA/GTAV comparison clip.

"...may contain content inappropriate for lawyers."

I'm waiting all the bs controversy this game is bound to get

Mass Distraction wrote:

I'm waiting all the bs controversy this game is bound to get

Controversy sells though.

That is quite true.

I'd actually be quite content with a San Andreas remake.

Why would you want a remake when you can have a whole new game set IN San Andreas?

If/when Vice City gets remade, I will be the happiest gamer alive.

I wonder what made them go for SA instead of VC?

Even though I was for the rumors for the setting being SA the logical step from Liberty City would've been VC, right?


EDIT: I heard a horrible rumor, which includes GTA5 being a download only title. Well, in the sense that you get the game in store and all it has is a code to download it. Hope this is not true. I'd send a link to source but the guy is a Finnish retro game reviewer (it's a vlog) so I guess none of you would get what he's saying.

Trust me. This won't happen. Rockstar would not allow it, as it would cut into their sales BIG time. Not everyone has the room to hold a full game, especially GTA size, on their console. And Xbox 360 owners? ...lol! Not going to happen. It is probably just going off of other whispers in the industry that at some point, gaming might be all digital. But we aren't there yet. We won't be for a long time I think.