This needs to be addressed, and many of you need to hear it. Regarding GTA 4.

Lebowski

Master Sage
Nov 29, 2007
14,022
154
0
Bowling
lol I'm buying it despite the gfx look to it...yea I get it, it makes the game the way it is like that...that's very true.. Although, in the videogame world u need to have good graphics to sell it well, gta series doesn't have that issue because of the "do w.e. u please" element in it, that's what makes it flawless...but I still like my game with good graphics, I paid for a next-gen system, I want next-gen graphics end of story.
 

UnReaL

Forum Guru
Oct 19, 2006
3,589
0
0
38
IT GTA!!!!

When it comes to GTA its Story, Gameplay, then Graphics. I've played every GTA game to date, and can't wait for this one!!
 

Strung Out

Elite Member
Aug 15, 2007
1,593
14
0
that's a long post.

I agree with RickW though... graphics are more than adequate to not interfere with the experience that is Grand Theft Auto.

There is a point where bad graphics come into play, however this isn't it. 2 hours with the game and 99% of the people who are fans of the series won't care.(I think...based on what I"ve seen)

what I'm sayin is, past screenshot wars/reviews/media blitz.... it really doesn't matter if it's the best looking game to date or not. Not very many games are.

Infact there is only 1. GTA 4 doesn't have to be that one in order to be good.
 
B

borninshadow

Guest
[QUOTE="Lord Arklon, post: 0]
Graphics vs. Gameplay stuff
[/quote]

I think one of the reasons bad games are criticized for their bad graphics is usually because there's no great game play to distract them. After all, look at Katamari. No one is going to be pinning any awards on it for visual fidelity (except for the 2d stuff) but the game play itself is so engrossing and entertaining, that people look past the graphics and just give them a passing note.

Could just be me, but it seems sensible enough.

Though I do agree with you, all this "graphics don't matter stuff!" is pretty silly. I seem to see a lot of people who immediately jump on some games, shouting "BAD GRAPHICS = BAD GAME!" well before they're released. I dare say that GTA is only getting a "free pass" by its fans because they expect it to be good already and are willing to overlook their usual "warning signs."

Still, I do agree. This whole "the past games looked mediocre, so the future ones will/should too!" is pretty stupid. Shouldn't people strive for new heights of excellence when they make something? I'd hate to think we'd all just be sitting around waiting for the newest Doom clone to come out, which is entirely the same aside from level lay out and maybe replacing the demons with communists or something.

Besides, if you ever want to stop someone dead in their tracks with the anti-graphics arguments, just ask them how much less awesome Shadow of the Colossus or the Fatal Frame (Project Zero for those over the pond) would be. The art of those games made them, in all honesty. Shadow of the Colossus always had me trekking on another hour just so I could see what new and fantastical creature was waiting for me around the bend in the mountain. Fatal Frame always had me jumping at the slightest things because of their masterfully crafted ghosts.

In the end, I'd say you can't really give one or the other free reign, since a lot of games these days try to merge the two concepts. Developers seem to be bringing in whole new levels of graphical splendor so that the game play can flourish in this virtual environment.

Ah, I seem to have rambled a bit. Many apologies, I tend to do that when putting off homework >.> Though I've gotta say Lord Arklon, you write a fine post :D

-Aaron, suppressing another coughing fit
 
Feb 9, 2007
415
0
0
33
GTA just needs graphics that are good enough for this gen. I think Rockstar has done this. And again, the gameplay and story are what made this series what it is.
 
Y

Yip-Man

Guest
My own view on this is I've left R* off a bit following on form GTA III , GTA III was good very good an a big improvement, then they just cashed in (i'm one that sent them cash) why did i buy the games whne all they are is updates, because of the gameply story and the value for money involved in completing the main story. True by GTA SA they has tweak the graphics and got a very big game out of the PS2...

So what is my point, well its this we Let R* off on the graphics front we not they not the best, its glitchy as hell, all because they have tried to bring us something big new and takes us a long time to play. is this right, prob not, but its all my fault for buying these games and telling R* its fine to have a glitchy game with great gameplay, cos i'll buy ot from you.. Now if they had this level of graphics with over 100 hours of gameplay in the main game with added stuff on top, would i buy it and be very happy, well hell yes. if it had 15 - 20 hours of gameplay with those graphics - hell no... so we all use a a bit of judgement when looking at GTa series. length of game, innovation , and how glitchy, and what beter graphics are out there.

I just need to work out whether, the non top notch graphic are worth putting up with for the length of gameplay !
 

Merchant

Elite Member
Jul 23, 2006
1,536
14
0
34
Noone said we wanted a text based GTA game. What we said is the graphic level that has been presented so far is fine, as long as the gameplay mechanics are great. A game that is ugly, but fun to play is better than a game that is nice to look at and boring to play.

Great example is Suikoden, it's never competed graphically with games like Fable which graphically was nice for its time, but was an aweful game.
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
Well, I've got to apologize for this one. I went way too far and besides that, I was just as abrasive and condescending as those I'm at odds with. I guess that in itself makes me a hypocrite in this case. Anyway, sorry for those that had to endure that, poorly constructed, and it wasn't the right way to go.

I'm a pretty firm believer in the "two wrongs don't make a right" philosophy, and here, I wronged and wronged and wronged. I still stick by my views, but I shouldn't have been so poorly composed. Things stick with you much better when given in a more positive, even-tempered light, and that was really where I faltered here.

I let my emotions get the best of me and pretty much made a fool of myself.

Hey, like I said though, my point of view hasn't changed, but it's not quite as peppered with negativity as I let on. In short I think I would do well to be more civil and poised as I had suggested of others. Heck, a healthy dose of apathy couldn't hurt either, I simply shouldn't let it concern me that much.

Sorry to those who were bothered by this.
 

Admartian

Wibbly Wobbly
Nov 28, 2006
13,613
105
63
New Zealand
[QUOTE="Lord Arklon, post: 0]Well, I've got to apologize for this one. I went way too far and besides that, I was just as abrasive and condescending as those I'm at odds with. I guess that in itself makes me a hypocrite in this case. Anyway, sorry for those that had to endure that, poorly constructed, and it wasn't the right way to go.

I'm a pretty firm believer in the "two wrongs don't make a right" philosophy, and here, I wronged and wronged and wronged. I still stick by my views, but I shouldn't have been so poorly composed. Things stick with you much better when given in a more positive, even-tempered light, and that was really where I faltered here.

I let my emotions get the best of me and pretty much made a fool of myself.

Hey, like I said though, my point of view hasn't changed, but it's not quite as peppered with negativity as I let on. In short I think I would do well to be more civil and poised as I had suggested of others. Heck, a healthy dose of apathy couldn't hurt either, I simply shouldn't let it concern me that much.

Sorry to those who were bothered by this.[/quote]

No worries, dude. :) I can at least speak for myself in that no offense was taken, and that it was merely viewed as differing opinions. We always enjoy your posts around here Arklon, and man enough to admit when he feels a line was crossed. (not that there was)

Well, at least you got a conclusive result for your 'research'. :lol:



+rep
 

ShawdoBoxer

Superior Member
Oct 20, 2006
565
0
0
43
Sweet mother of god! Honestly who read what the TOS typed? Man that was a lot. Any way I did read a few lines, and I will have to say GTA has not been about the graphics, name one game where he graphics was good. I think each time it has improved but not by much. I pick game play over graphics any day. I must admit when will we see more game having both?

I mean us the gammers do deserve such games because gamming is very expensive now a days. It's not like the world has more good paying jobs outt here to support most of oyr habbits. So please developers can we have both game play and graphics? Hope so.
 

Kasor

Elite Member
Feb 9, 2008
1,649
7
0
32
speaking for myself . what matters with gfx is to not be bad , so as long as it`s good its ok with me ( regardless that extra good is better and better ) .

the only thing that bothers me is that extraordinary gfx was one of the convincing points for the blu-ray`s needity and the ps3`s high price . so i kinda feel cheated even thou its not sony`s fault
 
May 11, 2007
206
0
0
37
I will admit that I have not read all of this thread, but - why are sooo many people going on about the graphics of this game being so terrible? From all the trailers and screen shots I have seen, this is a great looking game I strongly feel that Rockstar are delivering us a gaming masterpiece.

People are just nit-picking faults. As the saying goes, you just can't please some people.

This game is gonna rule and everyone who is a GTA fan knows it.
 

supasye

Superior Member
Jan 7, 2008
548
0
0
34
im sorry lord arklon, i read the whole of your post and most of it is you throwing a tantrum. most of what you wrote wont make a difference to anyones opinions in this forum but there was one thing that i would like to pick up on...

when you talk about style or a games graphics.

being in the 3D Computer Animation industry myself, i get extremely fustrated sometimes at **** graphics because i know they can do so much better. If they want to make a game look good they can. With techniques available these days better graphics does not mean sacrificing a huge amount of resources (im talking about ps3 or any console cpu resources etc). GOW on playstation 2 is a good example of this. You dont have to model a huge amount of detail into anything because you can just use displacement maps.
this is just an example: http://www.ericblondin.com/images/3d-6_2l.jpg

no matter how it is stylized, no game has any excuse to have rubbish graphical quality.

Let me give you another example. 3D films. Mostly these disney pixar ones. That bee movie and films like those. The graphics are not poor on them. But they are stylized in a way where there is no detail, textures are moslty solid colours, meshes are pretty simple. As well as reduceing time spent on texturing and modelling, it also reduces the rendering time. But the graphics are still good, clear and top quality. Just less detail.

Having said that gameplay is also an important factor, i'd still rather play original tetris to 3d tetris. I still prefer pes6 to pes2008 due to gameplay. I prefer old nfs underground games to newer ones. sonic and tails is better than sonic adventure.. etc etc........... i wouldnt play a game if the gameplay is pants no matter how good the graphics are, if its not my kind of game its not my kind of game. everyone has their own opinion.

now i havent said anything about gta, this is because the game hasnt come out yet, none of us have played it, and pre released images are not enough to base an opinion on. so personally, i think these kind of discussions should stop because you cant form such a strong opinion on a game before its released, im not just talking to mr. arklon.
But once the game is released, and you play it. Then you can form an opinion, whether the graphics are pants but the gameplay makes up for it. whether is good all around, etc etc..... its like little kids complaining about food before they even taste it.
 
Apr 16, 2007
139
0
0
36
Trondheim, Norway
I truly can't understand why people think the GTA4-graphics look sub-par.
To me it looks excellent, and I am in part a graphics whore. I love good graphics, and I adore this game.

Please explain to me why these are bad graphics!
 
0

007Omega

Guest
sorry but will all this moaning please stop!? Has anyone seen the game running on the PS3 yet or even gameplay footage from the 360 version?? I thought not. The game journalists that have played it have said that it is an amazing city and looks fantastic many times.

To prove a point about graphics in screen shots please look at these Resistance ones and then you will realise that the game actually looked much in motion!

Over and Out!

http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/image_viewer/frame_lead.php?pid=928399&img=5
 

outlander2346

Dedicated Member
Jun 3, 2007
1,234
0
0
32
I remember before first footage was shown people were "O Boy GTAIV will be best looking game" And now its "its not the graphics its the gameplay" lol O Hypocrisy's...

GTAIV will probably sell 10 mil just like that. Thats at least 300 mil profit for Rockstar.
Why not spend few mil more on getting graphics on par with "gameplay"? Look at Guerrila. They are spending at least double on Killzone2 than Rockstar is on GTAIV but profits will be 2,3 times lesser than GTAIV.

Word cheap comes to mind...
 
B

Booneabal

Guest
Don't jump off that ledge!!! Ok jump...

Seriously though this is a classic case about getting all exercised about what other people think. I don't do that, thats why I am the cool dude you admire.

You like 'da graphics great! You 'don like, great!
 

BoOGieM0nst3r

Superior Member
Mar 15, 2007
676
1
0
www.mobile-den.com
[QUOTE="rikwakefield, post: 0]I think you're reading too far into it.

Your argument suggests that it's either 100% graphics and 0% gameplay, 100% gameplay and 0% graphics or nothing at all.

Developers do not have unlimited budgets or unlimited time so IMO I would rather them spend resources ensuring gameplay is top notch, rather than spend that time on ultra-super-mega graphics; leaving the gameplay lacking.

I think an analogy here would be Lair. That game looks unbelievably good, but the control mechanics suck (control mechanics are a part of the gameplay experience). If they had spent more time on the gameplay/controls than they did ensuring they had the best water effects of the time, then I'm sure it would have been better received and a better game to play.

In a world with unlimited time, resources and budget, I would agree with you, why shouldn't we aim for the best? The fact of the matter is, we don't live in this magical unlimted world, so there has to be a balancing act between certain factors.[/quote]


the controls in LAIR are fine for those who enjoy sixaxis, and for those who dno't, they are releasing patch for analog sticks. problem solved.


as for the first part of that statement, developers do not have unlimited budget. wtf is rock*? how many games did they sell the last generation? You're saying a company whos sold more then 20 million games doesn't have a budget for good gameplay AND GRAPHICS? isn't what what an AAA title is all about, having absolutely the best of EVERYTHING?
 

PsychoKitten

Superior Member
May 24, 2006
905
0
0
33
Hey, I know I love to play games like Kingdom of Loathing, but I also don't mind looking at Bioshock. You can't tell me KOL is a terrible game and that's stick figures.

On the topic of GTA, I couldn't see it being incredibly beautiful seeing as how much has to be going on once. Look at mmos. I'm not saying that they look bad, but they're certainly not as nice looking as they could be because of the amount of people on it.
 
Jan 3, 2008
199
0
0
37
ill tell you what we all spen over almost 500 bucks for this system so the games no excuses with gameplay and graphics gameplay and graphics should be the same we spent all this money the graphics better be nice and the gameplay also thats the reason we bought the ps3 the ps2 might not have graphics but the gameplay is sick so the ps3 is suppose to have the graphics and gameplay if not why we buy the system or they better start to tak time on the games a lil more
 

Dorfdad

Super Elite
Sep 8, 2005
2,476
0
0
48
but if the graphics are sooooooo awsome and the gameplay suffers to it what then? Can we have your next thread please?


Honestly graphics do matter I will agree, but there is a fine balance that each team is able to accomplish. It's not like everyone sets out to make ****ty graphics and great gameplay. The have learning curbs, they have different budgets, some developers get ZERO help from Sony and some have more advanced tools faster than others. All these things come to play. Everyone seems to freak out if you cant get 60FPS but I would settle for a fixed 30 with georgeous visuals.. In fact many developers prefer 60FPS as the movement speeds offset the graphic clitches seen at lower speeds.

If every game that came out from today on had graphics that matched the visuals of Burnout or Uncharted and improved Gameplay and AI I would be one happy camper... Some of you can't even bath correctly yet you bash the years of development these guys put into their games, only to have them rushed out by the man...
 
Apr 16, 2007
139
0
0
36
Trondheim, Norway
[QUOTE="Dorfdad, post: 0]The have learning curbs...[/quote]

Sorry, but I have to say this. It's learning CURVES. A curb is what people walk on in the street.

Other than that, I agree on everything you say, but my old point still stands, I really think the graphics look sweet.

Oh, and the rest of your english is excellent, btw.
 

SikTh

Elite Member
Jul 11, 2007
1,772
22
0
37
I think there will be too much going on for most people to even notice any graphical let-downs. The streets will be filled with pedestrians, and cars. The A.I is intense. It has a weather,and day/night system. Not to mention reflections of glass, and water. I don´t see anything wrong with the graphics.
 
Aug 31, 2007
109
0
0
38
[QUOTE="Lord Arklon, post: 0]Well friend, all your post says to me is that I wrote something that your simple mind either can't comprehend, or you're just too stubborn to consider even trying to understand.

If you can't honestly understand the point to addressing exactly what's wrong with hypocrisy and condescending, unfair attitudes, then not only is that your problem, but there's a good chance that since you feel that way, you're probably part of the problem I'm addressing.

Kudos to you on a post just as pointless as your perception of mine.[/quote]

Hell im bored so i'll bite.....

Well friend, all your post says to me is that I wrote something that your simple mind either can't comprehend

Actualy buddy..its more the fact that it feels like de-ja vu, even a skim read reveals theres nothing new there and nothing that warrants a "new thread". The Poll is completly pointless, I could of told you what the ratio would of looked like and saved you time, it prooves nothing.

or you're just too stubborn to consider even trying to understand.

Im actualy in the camp that will buy GTA if its a "good game", regardless of what people think months before the game is even realeased. My characteristics of what is a good game are my opinions, not anyone elses and im entitled to those. You should ease up and let people have thier opinions you seem frustrated at why others dont think as you do (?) well ..thats also just my opinion, not fact ;) .

If you can't honestly understand the point to addressing

More so, I dont understand the point to making another glorified thread about it, could of had your pick of the bunch with the others already on here

wrong with hypocrisy and condescending, unfair attitudes, then not only is that your problem

Sort of proving my point for me..... but shouldnt everyone be entitled to thier own opnions? I can't understand the way some people think about games on here, but ya'know ? I dont spend half a day writing an essay about whats wrong about that.... each to their own......etc :p Oh and Hypocrisy, unfair attitudes...geez louise ease up, we are talking about computer games here not life making decisions.

but there's a good chance that since you feel that way, you're probably part of the problem I'm addressing.

Didnt realise there was a problem ! but thank god your here O' Messiah to show people how they should think.....
 

Tven

Superior Member
Nov 21, 2007
980
3
0
31
fbodyamerica: ill tell you what we all spen over almost 500 bucks for this system so the games no excuses with gameplay and graphics gameplay and graphics should be the same we spent all this money the graphics better be nice and the gameplay also thats the reason we bought the ps3 the ps2 might not have graphics but the gameplay is sick so the ps3 is suppose to have the graphics and gameplay if not why we buy the system or they better start to tak time on the games a lil more
it's called punctuation, maybe youve heard of it! :mrgreen::-D:-D
 
Jan 11, 2008
66
0
0
37
[QUOTE="Honestabe86, post: 0]All of that crap in the original post was not even necessary. Its almost sad.[/quote]

No doubt, could have been a 2 paragraph post, max. In fact, here is his post, in the "I don't have 11 hours to spend on forums" version. "GTA4's graphics suck, and we shouldn't make excuses for that or have to put up with it!". Done deal. God himself forbid if this guy ever had a girlfriend and got into an argument with her.