Grand Theft Auto V

Brilliant News

Awesome :D

Really thought GTA IV was one of the best games I've ever played.

@ the Critics in here,

For me what's always made the GTA games so special, aside from the sandbox design, was the sense of humour. Not the "cartoony" graphics, that was just limited by the engine :)

The two addon packs were a bit hit and miss, I enjoyed them both but the Gay Tony one was outstanding at times :D

This is from someone who completed III, Vice City and San Andrea's to 100% and same with GTA IV. Just purchased it on PS3, so I now own it on every platform :eek:
 
Heh, I ordered the complete version on 360 a few hours ago.

:D

I have the collectors edition for the 360 (with some huge lock box thing), the complete edition on 360. Now the complete edition on PS3. Oh and the complete edition on Steam :D

Love the game, will happily spend a rainy day replaying it.
 
It's 12am and I cant be bothered traipsing through the forums to look for things which are blatantly obvious to anyone who spends more than 5 minutes a day on here. Just look in the GT5 thread for evidence of people hating something purely because it's a popular game/franchise.

you're imagining it (that its an ocuk trait). every game get's it share of little boys slating it, just to be a voice. to be heard. But no, by large gt5 was pretty well received even if it wasnt the super racer some people thought it would be. Even if there are some obvious flaws in the game, people are still actively playing it now. So where's this ocuk hatred towards it? i dont see a boycott, i see a handfull of people slating it. big deal.

I don't care who agrees or disagrees with me but when your first post is a rolleyes what do you expect?

I expected it to make you think, thats all.

And now you're acting in the exact high horse manner that I just mentioned. I'll tell you what a waste of time is, someone who doesn't even bother to read posts properly.

I'm not on any high horse and it would see you're doing plenty of that not-reading yourself.

Where did I say I don't like people criticising mainstream games? I didn't, I said that on OcUK it seems to be the "in" thing to do, to criticise a game which is hugely popular/liked by the vast majority of players and critics alike.

it was an assumption, based on the fact you linked the criticism of gta IV to it being a mainstream game. you saw the posts here and you instantly thought 'mainstream', as if you are unable to take them for what they are - people not liking certain things about the game. You said this in such a way as to infer (yes, infer) you didnt like it.

If you read some of the posts regarding games like MGS4 you'd think it was possibly the worst game ever created, some of the posters here just spout sensationalist bull**** just because it's the cool thing to do, to go against the grain.

a hand full of muppets (which you get on any forum i might add) and a lot of people who dont like a game that consisted of roughly 1/2 gameplay and 1/2 cutscenes. For me, thats completely understandable. What i think (that it's an absolutely masterpiece) is irrelevant. those people are entitles to their opinions and i get it when people say its slow, and boring. it probably is, to them.

When I say mainstream games I'm talking about games that are predominantly high scoring among critics and users, as GTA4 is, and reading some of the posts in this thread you'd assume it was absolutely terrible which simply isn't the case in the opinion of a vast majority of people. What I'm saying is that OcUK seems to have many of the people that seem to think classically good games are steaming piles of turd.

Yeah, and im saying thats rubbish. Like i've already said, it doesnt matter if the game gets 100% in every review. If people dont like the game, or some of the features, then again they are entitled to do so.

Where did I say you were on a high horse because you didn't agree with me? I didn't, so stop putting words in my mouth and take more than 30 seconds skim reading a post before you bother to reply.

You keep saying im on some high horse but you haven't said why. You do know that that for that to be the case i'd have to be be sitting here and not accepting the opinions of others on these games, right? but I'm not doing that at all. Whatever i think about these or any other games, doesnt make me any more or any less right than anybody else.
 
Last edited:
So we agree on our opinion of the game but you still find something to argue about? :p

Sorry if the high horse comment has annoyed you or whatever, but when I see :rolleyes: bandied about all the time it gets on my nerves. People wouldn't act this way in real life in a conversation so why do they do it online? Probably because the consequences of acting like a right nob jockey (not you) are virtually non existent. Anyway, it's 1am, I don't want to spend my last few minutes awake arguing with some random over mine or their choice of words. We both agree it's a good game, we both agree that others don't think it's a good game. :)
 
I think that's just the natural ageing of the game rather than anything inherently wrong with GTA3. Of course as time passes the earlier games in the series aren't going to stand up so well.
 
so you play no games..becasue there all unrealistic, yes even the best sim's (since you can play a sim and do anythnig you want, dosnt make it realistic. you dont buy a racing sim,crash and never play again becasue your dead/cant afford a new car)

Reading comprehension much? I don't like GTA because it's lack of realism flies in the face of the claims that it simulates a living, breathing city. Formme it would be more fun if that were reflected in the police behaviour. It seems bizarre to claim some level of realism, then fail to require you to even keep your driving in line. Maybe I would enjoy one of the more cartoony ones, as it were, but when you're trying to show a real world in a game with a gritty story it breaks the flow for me that you don't even have to stop at the lights. Why even have them there? And do real gangsters run red lights on their way to jobs? I doubt it.

None of this is to say that I don't like unrealistic games or games hat aren't an exact simulation of real life. I just don't like it when a game purports to have some level of realism and then has huge caveats to that claim.

In fairness, I do regret using the word 'sim' but even apart from that, it is still fair to say that the game is about crime, 'sim' or not.
 
I think some people here are being harsh on GTA4, but then it's typical on OcUK that a popular game is deemed overrated and ****, whereas the games with low scores are deemed to be great, and misunderstood or underrated. It's a joke on here at times, there will always be people that don't share the opinion of the majority, it's not wrong, everyone is free to feel what they want to but it seems that OcUK in particular has an abnormally high ratio of haters, it's as if the majority of people here are stuck in the 10 year old mindset of hate anything that's mainstream.

Give over. I said I didn't like it and I qualified that. This isnt hating something because it's mainstream, this is me disliking something that I dislike by virtue of my own personal tastes. I realise my opinion flies in the face of a 97% metacritic score. Put me in the 3%. I'm still entitled to an opinion.
 
Last edited:
Reading comprehension much? I don't like GTA because it's lack of realism flies in the face of the claims that it simulates a living, breathing city. Formme it would be more fun if that were reflected in the police behaviour. It seems bizarre to claim some level of realism, then fail to require you to even keep your driving in line. Maybe I would enjoy one of the more cartoony ones, as it were, but when you're trying to show a real world in a game with a gritty story it breaks the flow for me that you don't even have to stop at the lights. Why even have them there? And do real gangsters run red lights on their way to jobs? I doubt it.

None of this is to say that I don't like unrealistic games or games hat aren't an exact simulation of real life. I just don't like it when a game purports to have some level of realism and then has huge caveats to that claim.

In fairness, I do regret using the word 'sim' but even apart from that, it is still fair to say that the game is about crime, 'sim' or not.

its just meant to be fun, i dont recall R* ever claiming it to being anything near realism...

you dont have to commit crime, you can drive as fast or as slow as you want, you dont have to progress in missions you could just walk around all day...

have you even played it? im kinda confused as to why you would think R* would want to make GTA into a realism game after so many game titles...

anyway i feel sorry for you that you cant just see the funny side of a game(s)...god knows how many you just dont play because you read the back of the case and take the blurb as what is meant to be in the game, rather than the story... lol

:confused:
 
Will look forward to this, hopefully now they have tweaked the engine to get it running better.

Should certainly be one to watch.
 
its just meant to be fun, i dont recall R* ever claiming it to being anything near realism...

The city was touted as being very full and busy and - as I recall - realistic.

Aeleys said:
you dont have to commit crime, you can drive as fast or as slow as you want, you dont have to progress in missions you could just walk around all day...

You're clearly supposed to commit crime. What would be the point otherwise? I remember these arguments when Postal 2 came out. "You don't have to play it violently!". Yeah, right.

Aeleys said:
have you even played it? im kinda confused as to why you would think R* would want to make GTA into a realism game after so many game titles...

Yes, I have played it. I got up to the bit where you first go to the Internet cafe. Not sure how many hours of play that was.

Aeleys said:
anyway i feel sorry for you that you cant just see the funny side of a game(s)...

Whatever. I didn't find it fun, never mind funny.

Aeleys said:
god knows how many you just dont play because you read the back of the case and take the blurb as what is meant to be in the game, rather than the story... lol

:confused:

I hardly ever read game boxes, as I get pretty much all my games as rentals. I go on Metacritic and reviews.
 
GTA London remade please!

There was a lot of talk of doing that when the government was looking at doing tax breaks for videogame development in this country. The general feeling on Slashdot (for what it's worth) was that London would almost certainly not permit the city to be used as the backdrop for crime and gang warfare. Obviously they're in some sort of denial...
 
A lot of things, basically I want the game to be like San Andreas with it's huge open world, memorable characters and a lot of stuff to do.

I remember when I 1st put in GTA IV, I used to love base jumping on San Andreas off sky scrapers yet in GTA IV parachutes were no where to be found. Baffles me as you're surrounded by huge buildings yet you can't really do anything off them. Also, I found it boring as hell. I loved exploring San Andreas, messing about around Mount Chiliad doing the mountain bike challenge, base jumping off the sign on a bike and the Bigfoot myth. GTA IV had none of that, I just played the story and that was it, never went back to it.
 
The general feeling on Slashdot (for what it's worth) was that London would almost certainly not permit the city to be used as the backdrop for crime and gang warfare. Obviously they're in some sort of denial...

The Getaway got away with it (no pun intended) on two occasions, but then just the GTA name alone would draw far more attention from the media/government.

As for the 'realism' debate, GTA4 was never, ever intended to be a 'crime simulator' or be minutely realistic in every detail. Yes, it's more realistic than any GTA game so far when you consider the feel of the game, the graphics, vehicle handling, weapons etc, but it's still a GTA game at heart and they'd never sacrifice the freedom and fun by making you stop at red lights or drive within speed limits. Frankly it's ridiculous to even expect that; you can have realism within a game without having to make the entire game 100% realistic. The fault here isn't with the game, it's with the player expecting it to be something that it isn't and was never going to be.
 
It'll do well to beat the 10/10 and 90%-odd reviews it got then.

I couldn't care less about reviews, half of them are bull**** anyway. Not going to go into a whole other debate here as I don't want to go off topic, but here's a prime example.

We all know what an abortion MW2 is, yet this review like many other doesn't seem to think so:


'The multiplayer is more balanced and fun than it was in Call Of Duty 4'.

No.
 
Back
Top Bottom