GTA V - General Thread

[coolboy48]

Remember the strange animal textures in SA? Hmmm....

Hope they remembered to give the Banshee, Feltzer and the Peyote their side windows this time round. (Was there anymore?)

 

[Luminis]

While that's probably true, it's still a GTA game we're talking about here. You're commiting crimes as your daily business, anyways. Between all the hookers, the drugs, the brawls, the murders, the car thefts, the blackmailing and whatnot, it just seems a bit silly to be worried about animals being killed.

If Rockstar was worried about influencing younger people, GTA shouldn't ever be produced, at all... And it still is rated M, isn't it? I mean, really, GTA as a whole isn't exactly a beacon of proper behaviour, anyways.

Oh, and you were able to hunt down animals in Red Dead Redemption, too - and I don't remember any riots about that.

 

[Jay]

I don't think Rockstar are worried about animal slaughter backlash in GTA, I certainly hope they're not worried, animals like in RDR will add a great deal to the seemingly vast rural parts of GTA 5. I don't imagine we will be collecting pelts this time around though.

 

[Nessy]

If Rockstar was worried about influencing younger people, GTA shouldn't ever be produced, at all... And it still is rated M, isn't it? I mean, really, GTA as a whole isn't exactly a beacon of proper behaviour, anyways.

Really?, iv'e been living the GTA lifestyle for years.. (just kidding)

Yes it is 'M rated', and strictly speaking, those who are underage shouldn't even be playing it (bit of a grey area really, i know), but i think Rockstar aren't naive to believe that underage people don't play GTA, hence why they probably omit such things, (well, with the exception of shooting considered vermin).
Hey... shooting animals could be in GTA V, for all we know, in which case, i guess i'd be very wrong in my assumption.

Oh, and you were able to hunt down animals in Red Dead Redemption, too - and I don't remember any riots about that.

I think RDR was different, in the sense of, 1: set time period of the game (good ol' wild west) outlooks were different in that era i suppose.
And 2: it kind of had a purpose... ie: life in danger from attack by predatory animals, considered vermin stealing crops, hunting for food (kind of a necessity).
Where-as, shooting animals in general in GTA wouldn't really serve any purpose except for blood-lust, and perceived (by some) fun i guess.

And shooting humans in the game is a different kettle of fish as far as i'm concerned. I don't have statistics to back-up my theory, but i'm willing to bet (must be careful with that ), that IRL, people are far more likely to commit crimes of cruelty to animals than they would to human beings.

 

[paulmac2k9]

Think of the children... Oh wait...

 

[E28]

Yes it is 'M rated', and strictly speaking, those who are underage shouldn't even be playing it (bit of a grey area really, i know), but i think Rockstar aren't naive to believe that underage people don't play GTA, hence why they probably omit such things, (well, with the exception of shooting considered vermin).
Hey... shooting animals could be in GTA V, for all we know, in which case, i guess i'd be very wrong in my assumption.

In my opinion though that argument is pretty invalid considering there's a great deal of fun in GTA from squishing people in a car, shooting cops, getting hobos into fights... But that doesn't mean you see kids taking Daddy's car for a joyride on the pavement, or getting a gun and shooting cops, or egging hobos on in a fight.

 

[SuperShouden]

How is minors playing M-rated games a "gray area"? That's like kids watching R-rated movies is a gray area. And if you think that's a gray area, you should try going to an R-rated movie where some stupid idiot brings their kid in. It sucks. And I personally, don't want to be cussed out by a 6-year-old when I'm playing Halo.

The sad part about GTA's rep is that GTA is a satirical game series. It really is. It's made fun of the mafia several times and GTA SA blatantly made fun of the gangster life. They're don't take themselves seriously. However, teens...are stupid. Kids are stupid. People in general are stupid. "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals, and you know it." --- Agent K.

I think it's funny when the politicians yell at the retailers and developers for making the "ultra violent" video games (BTW, GTA...isn't ultra violent. Sure you can run people over and shoot them...but...for a game like that, there's less and less blood, and virtually no gore with every iteration.) when they, themselves are probably part of the problem because they go out and buy those games for their kids, and it's through watching their kids play those games that they discover how "violent" they are. What's more funny, though is when people critizes a game based solely on rumors, because they've NEVER played a video game ever. (It happened with Mass Effect. It was pretty funny. Some idiot said the game forced players into homosexual relationships...which is a complete lie.)

Teens, as we know now, have very stupid brains. I mean, anti-depressants can cause violent outbursts and insanity in teens...and I don't just mean mild outbursts...I mean, kill their parents violent. So, it should come as no surprise that teens are the primary culprits of these school shootings who then say "I got the idea from playing Grand Theft Auto." Yeah, that's pretty much how the teenage brain works. Monkey see monkey do. And how did they get those video games? Most of the time? From their parents.

Teens shouldn't be allowed around most kinds of media, I believe. Or at least nothing violent.

 

[Nessy]

In my opinion though that argument is pretty invalid considering there's a great deal of fun in GTA from squishing people in a car, shooting cops, getting hobos into fights... But that doesn't mean you see kids taking Daddy's car for a joyride on the pavement, or getting a gun and shooting cops, or egging hobos on in a fight.

Uh!... What argument? be more specific please, as it appears you've quoted me, but your response is clearly mismatched.

@SuperShouden.

This is what i consider to be a grey area: I don't know what the age rating is in your country... but let's imagine for a second that a teenager watches a pretty violent film (or plays a game with the same content), typical rating would be '18' certificate in my country for that kind of thing, now what if said teenager was 17yrs 6months old?... Now that to me would be a bit of a grey area.

 

[Nessy]

But that doesn't mean you see kids taking Daddy's car for a joyride on the pavement.

Just realised, i have seen that on more than one occasion, kids joyriding on public paths etc, albeit not in "Daddy's" car, (more-so the stolen variety).. i don't blame GTA for this though, just a case of some youths being feral.

[EDIT]
Sorry mods, i should have just added it to my existing post.

 

[m8h3r]

And how did they get those video games? Most of the time? From their parents.

I agree with you, especially this part. The parents buy the game, then complain but then 90% of the time whilst they're complaining their kid is still playing the game. If you're going to let your child be brought up by TV and games then lets face it, you're not a very good parent.

I turned 18 only a few months ago and I've had GTAIV for a good few years which means of course it was bought for me by a parent. I've ben playing since I was about 10-11ish but if you're getting to be 10-11 and don't know the difference between a game and real life then maybe you shouldn't be playing anything other than Pokemon. I can say with confidence I've never done anything from a game in the real world with the exception of a game of football.

 

[Luminis]

Yes it is 'M rated', and strictly speaking, those who are underage shouldn't even be playing it (bit of a grey area really, i know), but i think Rockstar aren't naive to believe that underage people don't play GTA, hence why they probably omit such things, (well, with the exception of shooting considered vermin).

What good is an M-rating, if it doesn't allow a developer to actually put M-rated content into a game? Hey, let's ban alcoohol altogether. You have to be 21 to buy it, but somehow, kids get ahold of it quite easily.

It's the parents responsibility to make sure their kids aren't playing M-rated games. Not the developer's responisibility to make M-rated games suitable for minors. It defeats the original purpose of PEGI ratings in the first place.

And shooting humans in the game is a different kettle of fish as far as i'm concerned. I don't have statistics to back-up my theory, but i'm willing to bet (must be careful with that ), that IRL, people are far more likely to commit crimes of cruelty to animals than they would to human beings.

I don't know about other countries, but around here, people aren't exactly shooting each other, true. But you'll frequently read about people getting beat up, stabbed, robbed, blackmailed, threatened and so on.

Just saying. I'd be more worried about that than someone pointing a BB gun at a stray cat. As for the RDR thing, I agree that's a tad different. However, knowing the PETA and their like, I doubt that they're giving a damn

@SuperShouden.

This is what i consider to be a grey area: I don't know what the age rating is in your country... but let's imagine for a second that a teenager watches a pretty violent film (or plays a game with the same content), typical rating would be '18' certificate in my country for that kind of thing, now what if said teenager was 17yrs 6months old?... Now that to me would be a bit of a grey area.

I'm not Shouden, but... What's the gray area here? If something's rated M and you need to be 18 to gain access to it, you have to be 18, period. If someone's even a month away from his 18th birthday, he's not allowed to get access to such things. Simple as that.

 

[Samus]

Exactly it's not a grey area, it's the rules/law. If it's your 18th birthday tomorrow you still can't legally buy alcohol until tomorrow, there is no grey area.

 

[Nessy]

What good is an M-rating, if it doesn't allow a developer to actually put M-rated content into a game? Hey, let's ban alcoohol altogether. You have to be 21 to buy it, but somehow, kids get ahold of it quite easily.

Who said anything about banning the rating system?
And i quite don't understand why you're trying to draw a comparison between someone underage, playing an M-rated game... and underage drinking. They're two entirely different things in my book.

The thing is.. i'm not arguing that i feel GTA has an affect, over younger people that play it. I'm trying to establish a possible reason why Rockstar have yet to include such things ie: killing animals (aside the pigeons) in the GTA series... i mean, as a lot of people point out, killing stuff is fun, so how come we can't mow down a group of school kids in the game? (i personally wouldn't find that fun). but where should the line be drawn? is the question i guess Rockstar asks themselves.

It's the parents responsibility to make sure their kids aren't playing M-rated games. Not the developer's responisibility to make M-rated games suitable for minors. It defeats the original purpose of PEGI ratings in the first place.

I agree, it is the parents responsibility, but i also feel that some of the responsibility should be shared with developer themselves.

I don't know about other countries, but around here, people aren't exactly shooting each other, true. But you'll frequently read about people getting beat up, stabbed, robbed, blackmailed, threatened and so on.
Just saying. I'd be more worried about that than someone pointing a BB gun at a stray cat.

Yes, i too find all of that stuff worrying.
And i find it just as much worrying that some people out there, seem to think that cruelty to animals is somehow acceptable (i'm not referring to medical testing on animals etc, that's an entirely different subject).
I'll give you a little example of how cruel younger people can be sometimes:
A friend of mine who does voluntary work in Spain, at a stray animal rescue centre, was recently telling me, about a break-in they had at the centre. Apparently, the youths (aged between 14-18yrs old.. who were filmed on CCTV), decided it would be a whole heap of fun, to let a bunch of dogs from the kennels savage and rip apart the cats that were staying in the other kennels at the centre. The people responsible were identified and caught... nothing happened to them no punishment, just told not to do it again.
Disgusting! in my opinion.
I know it's got nothing to do with GTA, but i'm just trying to find a possible reason why Rockstar haven't allowed you to shoot animals (except pigeons), in any of the GTA series as of yet... maybe they're aware of how cruelly animals are treated around the world, and just maybe for a second realise, young people do play the game and Rockstar maybe think, "Sure, kids that play our game aren't gonna go around shooting people IRL (real consequences/understanding moral code and lack of desire in to do such things etc).. but they may actually think it's cool to kill and mistreat animals IRL, because of content in our game".
I know it's blind speculation from me, just trying to find a plausible reason.

Hey, if killing animals does find it's way into GTA V, it won't stop me playing the game, although i wouldn't like stuff like that in the game, i'd just play the game how i like.. it is a sandbox afterall.

I'm not Shouden, but... What's the gray area here? If something's rated M and you need to be 18 to gain access to it, you have to be 18, period. If someone's even a month away from his 18th birthday, he's not allowed to get access to such things. Simple as that.

Yeah, with certain adult material and drinking/smoking etc.. i agree, that goes without saying, but i still maintain that the games industry and certain films (pg,12, 15) certificates for example do suffer a grey area at times.
For example, iv'e recently watched old Kung Fu movies in the presence of my niece (14yrs old), the films were mainly rated 15 certificate.. my niece happens to be into and practices martial arts (she doesn't go around beating people up BTW).... So by your definition, i guess that makes me a bad uncle.

 

[buickgnx88]

Would it be possible to start a new thread in the Opinions section about this, and just keep this thread about the game itself?

 

[Clark]

As long as the driving physics are the same as GTA IV, this will be the best game of this generation.

 

[buickgnx88]

I'm sort of on the fence about the driving physics. On one hand, I do like that the cars seem to move and roll similar to a real car, and they feel like they actually have some mass to them. On the other hand though, I do wish they would slide around corners a bit more when you hit the handbrake.

I also wish that they would change the chase camera so you can actually see around the corners when you're turning.

 

[Jay]

As long as the driving physics are the same as GTA IV, this will be the best game of this generation.

I agree but even improved a bit.

But please.. nothing like L.A Noire....

 

[Slash]

If it makes any difference I've been playing GTA since '04 (San Andreas launch). I was around age 9 when I started. I thought it was mad fun going around blowing crap up. Even then I knew it was a game and to never do it IRL. If I was angry, I played GTA and calmed down. I turned out ok, and I'm sure 99% of everyone else would too, despite the content. I never really paid attention to anything other than destroying stuff and running people over. I remember I played where Mad Dogg jumped off a building and you had to catch him, if he died I thought it was funny as hell, but I knew never to do it because 1. it was a game and 2. it can kill you.

 

[Luminis]

And i quite don't understand why you're trying to draw a comparison between someone underage, playing an M-rated game... and underage drinking. They're two entirely different things in my book.

Why? Both are prohibited if you're a minor, both are thought to not be good for you, both aren't exactly uncommon amongst minors.

The thing is.. i'm not arguing that i feel GTA has an affect, over younger people that play it. I'm trying to establish a possible reason why Rockstar have yet to include such things ie: killing animals (aside the pigeons) in the GTA series... i mean, as a lot of people point out, killing stuff is fun, so how come we can't mow down a group of school kids in the game? (i personally wouldn't find that fun). but where should the line be drawn? is the question i guess Rockstar asks themselves.

My personal assumption would be that they just didn't see the need to develop such a thing, yet. GTA is usually full with other stuff to do, so why bother developing something like this? But, after Red Dead Redemption, they're possibly in possession of everything they'd need to put animals in GTA V, the question would be 'why not?'.

So, the question 'should animals be killable in a game?' has already been answered, anyways. They're killable in whole darn lot of games, not just GTA - sometimes serving a purpose, sometimes... Not so much. I, for one, would find it even purposeful if we were allowed to actually go hunting, for example.

As for child murder - I'd think that that would on a completely different level. That's something I'd draw a line for, defintely. Why, you may ask? Well, I can only German law as an example, but: An M-rated game may not be sold to minors around here. A game where you are able to kill children would get a certain 'special' rating, which means the game may not be advertised or even displayed in public in any way, shape, or form.

I agree, it is the parents responsibility, but i also feel that some of the responsibility should be shared with developer themselves.

Isn't that what the M-rating is for? At that point, it's about the parents and shopkeepers. I mean, I'm an adult and so are a lot of people playing GTA. The PEGI ratings are there so that us adults can actually enjoy adult games without the need to worry about minors playing them, as well.

If the ratings aren't enforced, well, that's not the developers job.

Yeah, with certain adult material and drinking/smoking etc.. i agree, that goes without saying, but i still maintain that the games industry and certain films (pg,12, 15) certificates for example do suffer a grey area at times.

Is that what we've been talking about? Ratings of 12 and 15? I don't think so.

For example, iv'e recently watched old Kung Fu movies in the presence of my niece (14yrs old), the films were mainly rated 15 certificate.. my niece happens to be into and practices martial arts (she doesn't go around beating people up BTW).... So by your definition, i guess that makes me a bad uncle.

Not necessarily. But if she suddenly decided that beating people up because of the movies (which she most likely won't), it would be your fault for granting her access to such material. It wouldn't be the fault of the company that made or rated these movies.

You know the movies were rated with a rating she's not passed yet, you decided it's okay for her to watch it, anyways, so it's your responsibility to make sure that the stuff she's seeing isn't going to have a bad effect on her. It's not necessarily a bad thing (my parents allowed me to watch such stuff, as well). It just means that you are the weak link in the chain, so to speak. If you granted her access to GTA, instead, why would Rockstar have to share the responsibility for your actions?

If it makes any difference I've been playing GTA since '04 (San Andreas launch). I was around age 9 when I started. I thought it was mad fun going around blowing crap up. Even then I knew it was a game and to never do it IRL. If I was angry, I played GTA and calmed down. I turned out ok, and I'm sure 99% of everyone else would too, despite the content. I never really paid attention to anything other than destroying stuff and running people over. I remember I played where Mad Dogg jumped off a building and you had to catch him, if he died I thought it was funny as hell, but I knew never to do it because 1. it was a game and 2. it can kill you.

I actually think this whole "video games turn people into serial killers' thing a bit retarded, too. If someone's so messed up that a game like GTA makes them go around killing stuff, they're probably grade A psychopaths to begin with...

 

[E28]

Uh!... What argument? be more specific please, as it appears you've quoted me, but your response is clearly mismatched.

The argument that you can't have animals in the game because kids might shoot at them in real life because of GTA.

 

[mangina]

Not me for two reasons. One, I have a grand total of $18 in my checking account which I need for gas to get me the next 2 weeks. And two, it's stupid anyway.

Stupid anyway? I'd be ashamed of myself coming out with crap like that. You made a bet which you have lost by a huge margin (seeing as its not going to be out anytime soon). Man up otherwise you'll go through life with no credibility whatsoever. And before you think " it's just a comment posted on a forum on the internet", think again. It's a measure of how you conduct yourself period. We're in an age where "real life" and "social media" are blurred if not merged.
So you haven't got enough money right now?Fine. Start saving and pay up when the release date is announced if not before-or forever be known as the guy with no sense or morals.

 

[coolboy48]

I started with GTA II when I was 8 ('gouranga, cheat code, gouranga, cheat code' etc).

At that point in time I was already watching my bro and cousin play Fallout 2 (at max gore and profanity) and staying up late with dad and watching him attempt (and eventually walkthrough) the 11th Hour. Thus, yay for ratings.

Anyways, GTA IV has a solid physics setup as standard, the problem is still that intrusive TC-on feeling (the car bogs when you try to accelerate out of a slide). I can sort-of understand the low top speeds due to the open-world streaming issues, though it's still not ideal.

My friend showed me his modded version where cars have a bit more power (especially higher end cars like the Schafter and Presidente) and tinkered-with handling (but the same braking!) and I have to say it resulted in one of my best open-world driving experiences ever.

I used my DS3 and it felt familiar, yet much better than my unmoddable PS3 version. Powerslides are easily possible and motorbikes feel much more planted like SA. And as braking distances are still realistic, care must be taken while driving, like a sim-cade racer.

Thus, there is potential to improve (the PC version, and lose mainstream multiplayer support) if there is still the odd handling characteristic. I'm not sure if people can set up servers just for modded games to maintain competitive fairness. The only changed file was a notepad editable file too.

 

[Nessy]

Why? Both are prohibited if you're a minor, both are thought to not be good for you, both aren't exactly uncommon amongst minors.

And both have completely different effects on the user...
I feel, comparing an M-rated game with an M-rated movie would have been a fairer comparison, that would have made more sense.

My personal assumption would be that they just didn't see the need to develop such a thing, yet. GTA is usually full with other stuff to do, so why bother developing something like this? But, after Red Dead Redemption, they're possibly in possession of everything they'd need to put animals in GTA V, the question would be 'why not?'.

Or... 'why?'.

So, the question 'should animals be killable in a game?' has already been answered, anyways. They're killable in whole darn lot of games, not just GTA - sometimes serving a purpose, sometimes... Not so much. I, for one, would find it even purposeful if we were allowed to actually go hunting, for example.

Hunting indeed would be a purpose.. (it is for RDR), but can't really see it serving a purpose in GTA though, unless the animals were there to attack you. Then i'd say, fair enough.

Isn't that what the M-rating is for? At that point, it's about the parents and shopkeepers. I mean, I'm an adult and so are a lot of people playing GTA. The PEGI ratings are there so that us adults can actually enjoy adult games without the need to worry about minors playing them, as well.

If the ratings aren't enforced, well, that's not the developers job.

Yes, the PEGI ratings are there for a reason, so us adults can enjoy adult games without the worries about minors playing them.
What i'm saying is: Rockstar know that minors get hold of the game regardless of the strict rating, so therefore Rockstar probably realise (or take into consideration) that there's maybe some content that they shouldn't put in the game.

Is that what we've been talking about? Ratings of 12 and 15? I don't think so.

M-rated games, underage drinking?.....

Not necessarily. But if she suddenly decided that beating people up because of the movies (which she most likely won't), it would be your fault for granting her access to such material. It wouldn't be the fault of the company that made or rated these movies.

I'm not insinuating it would be the fault of the company who rated the movies..
Just stating that whether you choose to believe or not (black & white perspective), that grey area's do infact exist. even if it doesn't within the eyes of the law.


@ E28.
I'm not personally arguing that killing animals in GTA will make people do the same in real life (have never said that). All i was doing was, finding a possible reason why that kind of thing might not be in GTA V.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Stupid anyway? I'd be ashamed of myself coming out with crap like that. You made a bet which you have lost by a huge margin (seeing as its not going to be out anytime soon). Man up otherwise you'll go through life with no credibility whatsoever. And before you think " it's just a comment posted on a forum on the internet", think again. It's a measure of how you conduct yourself period. We're in an age where "real life" and "social media" are blurred if not merged.
So you haven't got enough money right now?Fine. Start saving and pay up when the release date is announced if not before-or forever be known as the guy with no sense or morals.

Whatever you say newb.

 

[mangina]

Whatever you say newb.

Ouch. That really told me. The n word too! lol

 

[mangina]

Oh I nearly forgot. Pay up.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Oh I nearly forgot. Pay up.

Edit button. Don't double post.

 

[mangina]

On my phone. Pay up.

 

[CodeRedR51]

On my phone. Pay up.

Edit button exists on the app too. Learn how to use it.

 

[Samus]

He may be a double posting newb but he is making a valid point. You made the bet and lost, you aren't obligated to pay but it would be the credible thing to do.