CBlake wrote:tkr4lf wrote:Army of GOD wrote:I guess my biggest problems for 4 are: (1) realistic driving. I don't fucking want realistic driving. Half of the fun of San Andreas/Vice City was the exquisitely fantastical driving. I love doing 100mph and then pulling a fishtail 180 out of my ass. (2) the setting. I mean...for some reason I wasn't a huge fan of Liberty City in 4. I loved it in GTA 3...but 4 seemed too bland. San Andreas allowed for much more variation, which I hope they touch in GTA 5.xeno wrote:Driving did take a step back come to think of it! I could still drive around bone county listening to freebird on kdust. Such a good soundtrack from top to bottom. The story was bad in 4 btw. I couldn't finish it.
Fair enough. The driving was more realistic, which was a bit less fun. The setting, well, I guess that's just a preference thing. I mean, don't get me wrong, I loved the setting for SA, but I also loved the setting for 4. I like that they made it more like New York City in 4.
Either way, they're both great games. SA still is king, though. There's nothing like flying that military jet around shooting missiles at random cars, then going as high as you possibly can and parachuting out into Las Venturas to go bet $500,000 on a single roulette spin.
And yeah, the soundtrack for SA was the best. I don't think they'll ever beat that.
Anyway, looking forward to 5. I'm sure it will be good. Hopefully they go back to Vice City in the next one. It would be cool to revisit that setting with it being updated the way the other settings have been/ are being done.CBlake wrote:Lol you guys are dumb, I open the box and beat the shit out of the story mode, then I play free roam (Which you do alone) with my friends, I can see how I am ruining the game
It's not that you personally are ruining the single-player game.
It's the fact that there are players out there that prefer and want multi-player aspects, which forces developers to devote time that could otherwise be spent making the single-player experience even better. It's a waste of developer time and money that could be much better used.
Take GTA:IV for example. Many people have a problem with some aspects of the single player game. Now imagine that there was no multi-player and all the time and money spent developing that was instead put into the single-player game. I would imagine that it would be twice as good as it is now. More features, more story, possibly more DLC, etc. Instead that manpower was put into the multi-player experience.
I guess I don't get the drive for multi-player. Since when was gaming all about multi-player? If you want to do stuff with friends, go do stuff with friends. If you want to play a video game, then sit in your room and play a video game. Why do those two activities have to be combined?
Personally I value my alone time spent playing video games. I enjoy hanging out with my friends, but often times I want to escape from other people. That's what video games are great for. Anyway...enough about that.
Its actually money well spent and their sales are much higher because the online community for this game is high. It would make no since to devote no time to multiplayer because their sales would plummet. Honestly how many games today don't have some kind of multiplayer? The answer is not many, that is what people want and the game developers have to adapt to that. This isn't 2004 anymore.
Fucking kids today and your multiplayer gaming.