GTA 6

[Childlicker6669]

I think I'm the only person who prefers GTA 4 over 5.

I like the grittyness over the crazy over the top bank-robbing and jet flying action. And the story is atrocious in GTA 5 I feel like they were like ''lets make the movie heat with a black guy and a calm white guy and a crazy white guy and make it look you can plan out these crazy cool heists but you can only change two things! wow!'' Don't get me wrong I like the game but it's kind of a let down compared to GTA 4. Alot of the complaints about GTA 4's gameplay I actually like. The slippery driving gives me a sort of realistic feeling that you don't get in GTA 5. I personally want a game set the entire state of Florida with 1 main character who you get to see grow up from a teenage meth dealer in the country to a 50 year old kingpin having to deal with cartels and stupid family members. But enough of my rambling what do you guys want in the next GTA ? sorry for the gramar

 

[AskWazzup]

Nothing, they kind of feel like the sims to me now, but maybe that's because i'm getting gamer old. Also, i always think of San Andreas as the 4th one, these numbers are confusing.

 

[SnapSlav]

I far prefer 5 over 4, but not because I disliked 4. Having GTAIV 100% completed was a prestige award for any player who acquired it. It took serious dedication and considerable skill to get it, and that's on top of a game with a GREAT narrative surrounding colorful yet believable characters (even if Niko's accent was TERRIBLE). It was an unimaginably wonderful feast for the eyes when it was new, and it's not bad looking even now. The random characters can look really odd if you zoom in on them, though this is mostly just an issue for machinima videos, not really much of a problem in actual gameplay. 4 was great, but I still prefer 5. It's the difference between FO1 and FO2 all over again. Perhaps the story was a little more goofy and perhaps it poked and prodded at the fourth wall a bit too often and perhaps it was SO big it lost some focus. Perhaps. But it still comes off as a MASSIVE accomplishment of a grandiose game world with "limitless" things to do, excellent gameplay, and loveable yet flawed colorful characters you could relate to... again. It improved upon just about everything 4 provided, with really one exception: no bowling. =(

GTA6 is nowhere near consideration upon the horizon, so I dunno why you're even asking about it right now. They're going to continue providing new content for GTAV, add more DLCs, more updates to GTAO (when they FINALLY get around to adding online heists.....), continue to refine their product and grant it more and more replay value to last several more years, then after having released MORE "prototype" games in the meanwhile to test new ideas and used the experience to refine those ideas, and only then, will they create another masterpiece that is GTA6..... assuming they don't go the route of making more spin-off titles instead of sequentially numbered titles. But that's besides the point.

 

[zegh8578]

I am looking forward to GTA5 for PC, but I am, as always, worried about software requirements. I upgraded my computer for the first time in 6 years, and allready feel like the industry is miles, miles and miles ahead of me. It is frustrating.

I also keep fearing that GTA5 will indeed be much too "silly" compared to GTA4, with too many "fan-service" habits. GTA4 reminded me of the very first GTA games, a serious, gritty, unfriendly world. I disliked San Andreas, because it was so cool and hip and hop and fun and SIMS and all that happy-go-lucky-positive-social junk. A friend of mine keeps recommending GTA5 for exactly for what I fear, "it's multiplayer!" "i hate multiplayer." "but its FUN! Everyone drives everywhere, nobody cares, everyone shoots at you constantly, you hear kids crying over the microphone - FUN!" "sounds like a fucking nightmare" "nono I don't think you understand: kids will scream in your face the whole time! =D"

But, I am a long time fan of Rockstar, so I will give it a proper chance. I will probably avoid all multiplaying, and my friend will moan and bitch about it, "did I tell you how chaotic and pointless it is!?"

 

[H3rw00d1]

I dunno, the multiplayer IS pretty damn fun. I haven't heard that many kids on it (they're there, just not as bad as COD). There's also jobs you can do if you don't want to get shot every 2 seconds which give you cash so that's pretty useful.

I would also like to mention that GTA Online now also has a way to tell if the person your going to will probably kill you or not, like a sanity meter. Pretty handy I must say.

 

[Makenshi]

But enough of my rambling what do you guys want in the next GTA?

i want

 

[zegh8578]

I dunno, the multiplayer IS pretty damn fun. I haven't heard that many kids on it (they're there, just not as bad as COD). There's also jobs you can do if you don't want to get shot every 2 seconds which give you cash so that's pretty useful.

I would also like to mention that GTA Online now also has a way to tell if the person your going to will probably kill you or not, like a sanity meter. Pretty handy I must say.

I will probably give it a chance. I just doubt people will be driving very sanely and such, I fear all the anarchy will break any immersion. However, that said, I do believe that in bursts, the crazyness can be very entertaining. So... I probably should give it a chance, before having too many misgivings.

Makenshi, I have wanted "GTA Trondheim" ever since the very first game. Never gonna happen. We are too insignificant :'(
Well, I did consider - theoretically - thousands of years from now, Trondheim might very well have worked up a demographic that allows for an accumulation of nerds, enough to have created a stand-alone super-mod for that kind of scenario. Untill then, we will remain a liliput-civilization up in the cold north :I

 

[SnapSlav]

I also keep fearing that GTA5 will indeed be much too "silly" compared to GTA4, with too many "fan-service" habits. GTA4 reminded me of the very first GTA games, a serious, gritty, unfriendly world. I disliked San Andreas, because it was so cool and hip and hop and fun and SIMS and all that happy-go-lucky-positive-social junk. A friend of mine keeps recommending GTA5 for exactly for what I fear, "it's multiplayer!" "i hate multiplayer." "but its FUN! Everyone drives everywhere, nobody cares, everyone shoots at you constantly, you hear kids crying over the microphone - FUN!" "sounds like a fucking nightmare" "nono I don't think you understand: kids will scream in your face the whole time! =D"

Sounds like a classic case of "Dark Souls fan syndrome": being an appreciator of something worth appreciating, but COMPLETELY missing what's wonderful about it when trying to express its qualities.

You shouldn't get into GTAV because of the multiplayer; it can be fun, but it's really just zany anarchy. You should get into it cause it's an AMAZING game. The most over-the-top ridiculous it gets is with one of the playable characters, who is acknowledged as Rockstar's depiction of "what kind of a person you'd have to be in order to do all the sick and depraved things the player will make you do", which is frickin hilarious. The other two protagonists are much more grounded and reasonable, though they're not haunted like Niko was. The game really has it all, but when it pokes fun, it's pretty dry. Once you progress in the story to the point where Franklin unlocks the ridiculous and death-defying adrenaline junkie activities, he constantly talks about how stupid what he's about to do is, or laments "How did I get myself into this?" When you go on a race with Michael, he wheezes and gasps as he complains about how unfit he is in his age. They all stay in character really well, and the world's satire is never overwhelming, it's just the right amount of excess to illustrate how silly certain social conventions are, but these are largely just centered around the radio stations and TV channels, the background, where they've always been.

I feel like I can guarantee that you won't have too much trouble with breaking from the immersion, as far as the single player campaign is concerned.

 

[zegh8578]

Sounds like a classic case of "Dark Souls fan syndrome": being an appreciator of something worth appreciating, but COMPLETELY missing what's wonderful about it when trying to express its qualities.

You shouldn't get into GTAV because of the multiplayer; it can be fun, but it's really just zany anarchy. You should get into it cause it's an AMAZING game. The most over-the-top ridiculous it gets is with one of the playable characters, who is acknowledged as Rockstar's depiction of "what kind of a person you'd have to be in order to do all the sick and depraved things the player will make you do", which is frickin hilarious. The other two protagonists are much more grounded and reasonable, though they're not haunted like Niko was. The game really has it all, but when it pokes fun, it's pretty dry. Once you progress in the story to the point where Franklin unlocks the ridiculous and death-defying adrenaline junkie activities, he constantly talks about how stupid what he's about to do is, or laments "How did I get myself into this?" When you go on a race with Michael, he wheezes and gasps as he complains about how unfit he is in his age. They all stay in character really well, and the world's satire is never overwhelming, it's just the right amount of excess to illustrate how silly certain social conventions are, but these are largely just centered around the radio stations and TV channels, the background, where they've always been.

I feel like I can guarantee that you won't have too much trouble with breaking from the immersion, as far as the single player campaign is concerned.

I have an inherent respect for Rockstar, I just finished LA Noire again, and the ending aaalmost choked me up. Almost, cus I'm no sissy >:'I you get my drift! They REALLY are good at what they do! Even San Andreas, which I consider the weakest of their games I've tried, is a spectacular game in reality (I'm just pragmatically critical from time to time)

I also trust this long time since their initial release have given them ample oportunity to polish the game, glitch/bug wise, although, in my experience Rockstar never had that much of a problem either *worship*, I can only count a single glitch in GTA4 - just one! Granted, it was game-breaking :'D But at least only one!

So yeah, I do look forward to GTA5. If PC and console player will be able to meet online, I might even hook up with my friend, and finally play online with him, maybe that will finally shut him up about me getting a Playstation -.- (doubt it)

 

[UniversalWolf]

...I have wanted "GTA Trondheim" ever since the very first game.I

That would be hilarious!

It's probably slightly less likely than "GTA Milwaukee."

 

[zegh8578]

...I have wanted "GTA Trondheim" ever since the very first game.I

That would be hilarious!

It's probably slightly less likely than "GTA Milwaukee."

No but really - a city like New York would have to be scaled down significantly, to a "symbolic" size. In GTA4, I could actually recognize those tall, brown tenement blocks from photographs, but in the game there are only a handful! In reality, there are lots more, to accomodate hundreds of thousands of inhabitants, New York houses millions

Trondheim on the other hand would not need to be scaled down that much. The city centre is allready smaller than GTA4, in terms of number of buildings, so... it would be much more feasible! Only much, much less marketable

 

[naossano]

Maybe they fear a trial from the Norway government if they depict mobsters in Trondheim, not mentioning the risk of Trondheim's people trying to emulate the protagonist behavior.

 

[zegh8578]

Maybe they fear a trial from the Norway government if they depict mobsters in Trondheim, not mentioning the risk of Trondheim's people trying to emulate the protagonist behavior.

What? I dunno if you're joking, but they have never been stopped from making Trondheim in the game, because nobody has ever tried It's an un-interesting place.

 

[H3rw00d1]

What? I dunno if you're joking, but they have never been stopped from making Trondheim in the game, because nobody has ever tried It's an un-interesting place.

I think it's more because one of GTA's staples is taking all of America's bad qualities, and ramping them all up to eleven, something that wouldn't work in another country, including Norway. London was the only city a GTA game took place in which wasn't located in America and I don't think it will be brought back anytime soon.

Also, GTA cities are supposed to be "cities of adventure" where it's not unusual to see killing sprees, car jackings and general chaos. I've seen photos of the town and, no offense, I doubt a place like Trondheim could hold such a torch to places like Liberty City.

 

[zegh8578]

What? I dunno if you're joking, but they have never been stopped from making Trondheim in the game, because nobody has ever tried It's an un-interesting place.

I think it's more because one of GTA's staples is taking all of America's bad qualities, and ramping them all up to eleven, something that wouldn't work in another country, including Norway. London was the only city a GTA game took place in which wasn't located in America and I don't think it will be brought back anytime soon.

Also, GTA cities are supposed to be "cities of adventure" where it's not unusual to see killing sprees, car jackings and general chaos. I've seen photos of the town and, no offense, I doubt a place like Trondheim could hold such a torch to places like Liberty City.

Of course no offense, dude, I live here!
It's not like I harbor some insane delusion that this super-charming little oasis of green is in any way comparable to Manhattan - but that's the point

First of all, everyone has crime! Everyone wants to fuck hookers and get high, and every now and then someone needs someone popped, drugs, hookers and guns exist everywhere, only in varying ammounts - in a crime scenario crime is always a minority of society - even in Liberty City most people are law obiding citizens.
In my city, for a long while, we had ONE illegal brothel, that kept popping up for a year, untill they finally cought and arrested the owner. We got shit happening!

Secondly, the "design" of a much, much smaller city would be easyer to reconstruct! A small town like Trondheim could probably be replicated building by building even on todays GTA engines. The vast outskirts would have to be condensed, for playability, but we'd be much closer to having copied an entire city onto a game platform!

But yeah, I'm not being serious here! I'm just toying with the idea of a GTA that is both very unusual, but still revolves around a realistic urban scenario - just.. different!

 

[H3rw00d1]

I always wanted a GTA game that took place in Washington D.C. Fallout 3 was the closest I got. Fallout 3's alright, but it obviously isn't GTA. 2008 Would have been a perfect year for a Washington D.C. based GTA to take place in.

Though I guess domestic terrorism in the nations capitial during that time period WOULD be a problem huh...

 

[5545Trey]

Grand Theft Auto 5 is overrated; Grand Theft Auto 4 was a disappointment. Overall, this series is getting stale.

 

[zegh8578]

Grand Theft Auto 5 is overrated; Grand Theft Auto 4 was a disappointment. Overall, this series is getting stale.

I thought GTA4 was spot on, right back to the basics 1 and 2, while keeping with the improvement of visuals. San Andreas is probably my least favorite of the series, it was too sympathetic, lil minigames, fun with exercise, almost like "Sims" with guns.
I still remember how the first GTA ends, after you have spent so much effort playing through the damn game - and that was a cynical, unfriendly game! At the end is a screen saying something like "Yo momma must be proud"
(I would be happy to find a screenshot, but I can, for the life of me, not convince Google I am NOT searching for GTA5, GTA5 and nothing but GTA5)

But as much as it pissed me off, to finish a game, and get a lil "good for youuu!" in my face, it did set a certain expectation
GTA is best served cold, mean and cynical!

 

[5545Trey]

GTA 4 captured the same feel from the first two games, yes. But the game felt empty, repetitive, unsatisfying, and just plain dull because of how "realistic" it was trying to be. San Andreas is one of my favorite games in the series because it does not focus on being this try-hard, gritty game that limits the player for the sake of realism, unfriendliness, or cynicism. The first two games were not bad for their time, but compared to anything that came after them (minus GTA Chinatown and GTA Advance), those games are just unplayable. GTA 4 was a disappointment to me because of the repetitive storyline, uninteresting protagonist, the mentally disadvantaged A.I., lack of content from previous games, and the ridiculous amount realism that made it unplayable. I liked the setting the San Andreas, it was fresh and new, and not some dull, forgettable world with not much to do.

 

[SnapSlav]

MILLIONS of players found GTAIV "playable", so claiming that its level of realism made it otherwise is nothing short of false... If you had a personal problem with the narrative or setting, that's different. But they certainly didn't do anything to the GAME itself.

For most, Niko was one of the most relateable protagonists from the entire series, because his struggles seemed plausible, and his actions felt appropriate. No CJ being a fucking moron, no Claude rescuing the damsel only to shoot her in the face minutes later because he finds her an annoying bitch, no Johnny going through cyclical abuse and coming back for more cause he's too dense to realize that's the wrong thing to do. Nope, Niko would watch his cousin's business flounder and loan sharks go after his cousin, and he'd ACT; he'd rationalize how doing nothing would just perpetuate the same cycle of abuse, so of course his decision to act made sense. Niko would get betrayed and he'd remember what was done to him for the rest of the game, showing serious emotional conflict at the mere PROSPECT of being forced to work with the person who betrayed him. Likewise, Niko would feel genuine remorse being tasked with betraying those he has become trusted by.

Was all this "realism" too much for the character? Did it hold him back from being fun to play? Were these crutches to the game at large? Hell no. The worst thing that did was make a very minor ludonarrative disonance, where Niko's actions as a character SOMETIMES (not always) seemed to clash with his capabilities as a character template in the hands of a player who wants to enact some bloodthirsty virtual mayhem, but his dialog was designed to at least reflect the possibilities of his player-enacted actions.

What little ludonarrative disonance there WAS present in GTAIV was further solved (and turned into wonderful gameplay material) in GTAV by granting players a completely psychotic, drugged-out character to assume the reigns of, thus granting players a character whose personality appropriately reflects the level of narcissistic carnage most players are quite fond of creating.

All in all, that's a bunch of creativity, and whole lotta "good". Nothing stale about it.