GTA V - General Thread

[Slash]

too bad we wont be able to buy properties

I was upset by this at first, but the way things are looking now it won't really matter

 

[Joie de vivre!]

when i saw that red "aston" infront of that hotel complex ... damn it would be awesome to own it

 

[Samus]

I'm confused as to why someone would say the car models are poor, they look damn fine for a HUGE sandbox game running on ancient hardware.

 

[Carbonox]

Being it's GTA I feel it will ruin it.

Bully had background music quite a lot like that in not only missions, but also free roam, and it was actually lovely. Added a touch to the game since there were no radio stations.

 

[Luminis]

So animals are confirmed. Now the question is, can you kill them?

you could in RDR and that's probably where the tech for wildlife comes from. Nesides, you can shoot basically anything in GTA, so why wouldn't you be able to?

 

[Samus]

Indeed, the only way you wouldn't is if they added something similar to the early Driver games that never let you run people over. I don't see them doing that however.

 

[OHM_fusion]

I'm confused as to why someone would say the car models are poor, they look damn fine for a HUGE sandbox game running on ancient hardware.

I dislike them because of their design, I know they can only spend so much poly's per car, that's not the issue here. Gta IV's cars seemed more believable (and I assume the polycount is pretty close), these new ones look too cartoonish and uninspired like in Saints Row or something. Until now, GTA had the most believable fictional cars by far, now not so much.

I'll reserve my final judgement until I get the game, but so far it's the most disappointing aspect of the game for me.

 

[Luminis]

I dislike them because of their design, I know they can only spend so much poly's per car, that's not the issue here. Gta IV's cars seemed more believable (and I assume the polycount is pretty close), these new ones look too cartoonish and uninspired like in Saints Row or something. Until now, GTA had the most believable fictional cars by far, now not so much.

I'll reserve my final judgement until I get the game, but so far it's the most disappointing aspect of the game for me.

I'd like to think that that's mostly because of the fact that we've largely seen the high end cars. I think I haven't seen anything like the Futo GT yet, as far as I remember.

 

[Slash]

you could in RDR and that's probably where the tech for wildlife comes from. Nesides, you can shoot basically anything in GTA, so why wouldn't you be able to?

I don't know, as controversy sells.

I'd like to think that that's mostly because of the fact that we've largely seen the high end cars. I think I haven't seen anything like the Futo GT yet, as far as I remember.

Most have identical rims too

EDIT

2 new screens and GTA V will have guard dogs

 

[Peasantslayer]

I like the motocross bike, hopefully you can change the number to 46. I'm a bit sceptical over some of the new features but I'm sure trailer 2 will fix things.

 

[Peasantslayer]

I dislike them because of their design, I know they can only spend so much poly's per car, that's not the issue here. Gta IV's cars seemed more believable (and I assume the polycount is pretty close), these new ones look too cartoonish and uninspired like in Saints Row or something. Until now, GTA had the most believable fictional cars by far, now not so much.

I'll reserve my final judgement until I get the game, but so far it's the most disappointing aspect of the game for me.

Look at the polys wasted on the tyre treads. I think one block per row with a nice texture applied would have been enough. The cars do look a bit unrealistic but as we have seen in the first trailer, some cars will have roofs that fold into the boot!

EDIT: Apologies for the double post.

 

[Slash]

Either way I know I won't bitch lol

 

[spikeyhairdude]

I hope car customisation is in the game.

 

[Slash]

TBH I don't think it will be...unless they are hiding it from us.

 

[Joie de vivre!]

I think I read somewhere that car customisation is back. Not sure about it.

 

[Slash]

Haven't heard that. Must be a rumor

 

[Spacegoat]

Here's the latest screenshots.

 

[Slash]

Eye porn lol

 

[RetroJohan]

I think I read somewhere that car customisation is back. Not sure about it.

I think I also read that too at gtaforums.com

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Because that's the most reliable source on the internet ...

 

[Luminis]

I don't know, as controversy sells.

What controvery?

I hope car customisation is in the game.

Dunno, it would be neat, but not a high priority for me. I liked it, no questions asked, but most cars wouldn't last you long, usually, so it always felt like a bit of a waste.

 

[RetroJohan]

I think I read somewhere that car customisation is back. Not sure about it.

I think I also read that too at gtaforums.com

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What controvery?

He's suggesting that because animals are in the game, it might be possible to kill them. This will naturally trigger outrage from animal rights groups like PETA, particularly if the player can go cow-tipping with a semi-trailer.

 

[Luminis]

He's suggesting that because animals are in the game, it might be possible to kill them. This will naturally trigger outrage from animal rights groups like PETA, particularly if the player can go cow-tipping with a semi-trailer.

That discussion again

Well, knowing PETA, that could very well be possible. However, I would still consider that dumb, given that there are much more controversial activities one could indulge in while playing a GTA game. Not that that's going to stop the likes of PETA, but I doubt a lot of potential customers would care. Dunno, I wouldn't think that folks who're so stuck up in regards to killing animals in a game would be R* target audience, anyways.

Plus, I really can't remember any sort of notable outrage about any of the recent games that allowed you to kill all sorts of wildlife, like Skyrim or Red Dead Redemption. Not even Cabela's Dangerous Hunts seemed to cause much of a controversy...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

SKYRIM isn't really a problem, because all of the wildlife is fairly aggressive. It's kill or be killed. Games like METAL GEAR SOLID: SNAKE EATER didn't cause a fuss because the player kills animals for sustenance.

But GTA 5 is likely to cause controversy because the series always does, but also because players would be able to walk up to an animal - say a horse, or a cow - and shoot it, and then walk away. The animal posed no threat, and killing it served no purpose, to the whole thing is an exercise in animal cruelty.

That said, if killing animals is a possibility, then Rockstar will probably be careful about it. You (probably) won't, for example, be able to run over a little girl's puppy for laughs, and then back over it so you can see her grief-stricken face.

 

[Luminis]

Given that children have never appeared in GTA, it would be impossible to do that anyways

Anyways, all I wanted to point out is that there's already a rather wide range of games that let you kill animals and not all of them are centered around the necessity to kill. Dangerous Hunts is about nothing but hunting for sport, for example. Granted, it's not a high profile title. As such, it wouldn't be much of a PR stunt if PETA would get their panties up in a twist over such a small game, which might be different with GTA.

Meh, if R* really wanted some controversy, they'd show a hooker's nipple or something. We all know that that's going to be much, much worse than killing any living being. Including a girl's puppy and her family.

 

[m8h3r]

That said, if killing animals is a possibility, then Rockstar will probably be careful about it. You (probably) won't, for example, be able to run over a little girl's puppy for laughs, and then back over it so you can see her grief-stricken face.

In a GTA sense that does sound quite funny. Not in real life but doing it in a game could be quite funny.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Given that children have never appeared in GTA, it would be impossible to do that anyways

Yes, but you see my point - for all the controversy they generate, Rockstar do have standards.

 

[Luminis]

Yes, but you see my point - for all the controversy they generate, Rockstar do have standards.

Sure, but those standards seem relatively... How do I put it, low. I mean, it would be some twisted sense of morality that would make you think "yeah, going round murdering adult humans is fine, but murdering adult animals isn't".

And given that you were able to hunt for sport (sustaining yourself by killing wildlife wasn't a necessity and rabbits certainly didn't pose a thread to you) in RDR, it doesn't seem like that's one of the things that would undermine R*'s standards.

 

[MXH]

SKYRIM isn't really a problem, because all of the wildlife is fairly aggressive. It's kill or be killed. Games like METAL GEAR SOLID: SNAKE EATER didn't cause a fuss because the player kills animals for sustenance.

But GTA 5 is likely to cause controversy because the series always does, but also because players would be able to walk up to an animal - say a horse, or a cow - and shoot it, and then walk away. The animal posed no threat, and killing it served no purpose, to the whole thing is an exercise in animal cruelty.

That said, if killing animals is a possibility, then Rockstar will probably be careful about it. You (probably) won't, for example, be able to run over a little girl's puppy for laughs, and then back over it so you can see her grief-stricken face.

As much as I despise animal cruelty, I still don't see any logic in it being a controversy or why anyone would even get upset over it, really. Noone cares about killing or driving over pedestrians who pose no threat to you at all in-game. Yet, we don't see human right groups protesting nor bitching - unless you're Jack Thompson that is. Why would the ability to kill animals be such a big issue then?

And just as I finished writing this post, I see Luminis beat me to it.