Rockstar confirms Grand Theft Auto V
- Thread starter Th3D0n
- Start date
GTA IV was my favourite, closely followed by San Andreas. I love the whole GTA III and IV kabundle.
Never finished any of them though, not because I didn't want to, but because too much new stuff to test was always coming in. They never left my hard drive though.
Vice City was good until I hit a brick wall in controlling that toy helicopter in the building site. Timer always got me. Tried it loadsa times, but I've been stuck there for years.
Will most certainly buy GTA V. Great news, can't wait.
Oh, and all three GTA games on the PSP are worth their money too.
Never finished any of them though, not because I didn't want to, but because too much new stuff to test was always coming in. They never left my hard drive though.
Vice City was good until I hit a brick wall in controlling that toy helicopter in the building site. Timer always got me. Tried it loadsa times, but I've been stuck there for years.
Will most certainly buy GTA V. Great news, can't wait.
Oh, and all three GTA games on the PSP are worth their money too.
Isn't there a mission in San Andreas thats almost identical?
Ha, that's one of the early missions in VC IIRC. You should really get through the rest, it's a great game.
I thought maybe a GTA set in Tokyo would be cool as well. It'd be nice to see something with as large a map as SA and with as much varied terrain but in the new engine. Quite a big ask, but that was one of the great things about SA, there was so much to explore.
I thought maybe a GTA set in Tokyo would be cool as well. It'd be nice to see something with as large a map as SA and with as much varied terrain but in the new engine. Quite a big ask, but that was one of the great things about SA, there was so much to explore.
it took me **** knows how many attempts to beat that.
i hope you carried on playing and finished the storyline. it's not required to finish it. 
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Was GTA4 really a bad port, really, or are people all to happy to throw around the term "bad port", and unoptimised around without thinking for any game that runs slowly.
It ran like utter turd on the 360, it was slow, going over bridges at night was painful, truly painful on my eyes it would go so slow. IT ran better on my PC at far higher settings than on the 360.
It was just a bad engine, like others before it, it massively massively overused certain lighting effects which pretty much sucked all the power out of the hardware. Frankly it was just a bad engine that used to much power on some very poor overall effects, leaving little power for other things.
A bad port, to me, would be a game that ran fantastically on a console, but ran like utter crap on a PC. A bad engine, or poor choices in the engine, would give you a game that ran slowly on the console and slowly but still better on a PC at vastly higher settings.
PC's are more powerful you can generally expect to have faster framerates with a decent card at 1920x1200 with full af, decent AA over standard settings on the console at lower res. This was achieved with GTA4, just because it was still poo, it was still better.
It wasn't the bestest port ever, it certainly isn't close to the worst, as I said, bad would be running similar framerates at similar settings/res, which isn't what happened.
As for GTA 5, I would expect it to look better and be a better made engine, with better choices made regarding where to spend the power available. I can't imagine it could run badly on the PC because GTA 5 will have to fit into the available ps3/360's existing power, PC's will have moved on yet again, we'll be on 6870's with uber cheap 5870's by the time its released.
It ran like utter turd on the 360, it was slow, going over bridges at night was painful, truly painful on my eyes it would go so slow. IT ran better on my PC at far higher settings than on the 360.
It was just a bad engine, like others before it, it massively massively overused certain lighting effects which pretty much sucked all the power out of the hardware. Frankly it was just a bad engine that used to much power on some very poor overall effects, leaving little power for other things.
A bad port, to me, would be a game that ran fantastically on a console, but ran like utter crap on a PC. A bad engine, or poor choices in the engine, would give you a game that ran slowly on the console and slowly but still better on a PC at vastly higher settings.
PC's are more powerful you can generally expect to have faster framerates with a decent card at 1920x1200 with full af, decent AA over standard settings on the console at lower res. This was achieved with GTA4, just because it was still poo, it was still better.
It wasn't the bestest port ever, it certainly isn't close to the worst, as I said, bad would be running similar framerates at similar settings/res, which isn't what happened.
As for GTA 5, I would expect it to look better and be a better made engine, with better choices made regarding where to spend the power available. I can't imagine it could run badly on the PC because GTA 5 will have to fit into the available ps3/360's existing power, PC's will have moved on yet again, we'll be on 6870's with uber cheap 5870's by the time its released.
Fixed.
Although the 3D GTAs I prefered 3 over them all. Played it a lot.
Vice City > GTA 1 > GTA 3 > GTA San Andreas > GTA IV > GTA 2 > GTA London
Soldato
No one else seems to but I really liked GTA2. Vice city is the best though.
I am looking forward to another game, kinda like how GTA3 -> San Andreas on PS2, this should be GTA4 graphics with a big city hopefully.
If they are going as far as calling it GTA5 I think they really need to do something a bit special. We will see.
I am looking forward to another game, kinda like how GTA3 -> San Andreas on PS2, this should be GTA4 graphics with a big city hopefully.
If they are going as far as calling it GTA5 I think they really need to do something a bit special. We will see.
Associate
please please please change the shadows! They might not look so bad at console resolution, from the other side of the living room, but I couldn't stand them.
Sort that out, put in some AA, and I think we'll all be happy.
Sort that out, put in some AA, and I think we'll all be happy.
Soldato
I only got round to reinstalling IV at the weekend and started playing last night, really enjoy GTA IV and can't wait for the 5th one to come out
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 581
The only city that they havent done is the las vegas type one.
There was a movie poster thing in the ballad of gay tony manual saying that they were going to a new city.
There was a movie poster thing in the ballad of gay tony manual saying that they were going to a new city.
Caporegime
Although GTA 2 wasn't that great it has the most memorable mission for me, when you have to steal a bus and then go a long the bus route picking up passengers. Deliver the passengers to the meat factory and watch them go a long a conveyor belt to be turned into meat for the troops back home in mother Russia, simply awesome.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,776
Yeah they have done a Las Vegas style area. It was called Las Venturas in the state of San Andreas. I haven't played 4 on the PC. Played it to death on 360 though and loved it. Maybe the new GTA5 will be in Carcer City, although I'd love to see it set in the 80's again in a huge graphical makeover of Vice City, if the do that right it could be an absolute beast of a game.
Soldato
GTA 2 is awesome!
I hope GTA V has a few different cities you can travel between, in different countries.
I hope GTA V has a few different cities you can travel between, in different countries.
