Jump to content



Photo

GTA V is coming September 17, 2013

gta v

  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#16 TheLegendOfMart

TheLegendOfMart

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,281 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 01
  • Location: England

Posted 28 March 2013 - 17:10

Exactly, they've spent $150m or whatever it is developing this over 5 years, it would be commercial suicide to launch on next gen with less than a million sales in the first couple of months.

I wouldn't be averse to having a "HD" version of the game launching around the new consoles running in HD using same assets just faster FPS.


#17 Geoffrey B.

Geoffrey B.

    LittleNeutrino

  • 15,969 posts
  • Joined: 25-July 05
  • Location: Ohio
  • OS: Windows 8.1u1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 928 WP8.1

Posted 28 March 2013 - 17:13

i have still never gotten around to buying 4 :( perhaps i will pick up 5 for the PS3 when it is released.

#18 Motoko.

Motoko.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,767 posts
  • Joined: 04-November 09
  • Location: United States of America
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro

Posted 28 March 2013 - 17:18

Exactly, they've spent $150m or whatever it is developing this over 5 years, it would be commercial suicide to launch on next gen with less than a million sales in the first couple of months.

I wouldn't be averse to having a "HD" version of the game launching around the new consoles running in HD using same assets just faster FPS.


Yep, just like with ME3 on Wii U, they can easily use the PC port of the game and bundle in extras for the newer systems.

#19 LeviathanPT

LeviathanPT

    Neowinian

  • 104 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 12
  • Location: Portugal
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S III

Posted 29 March 2013 - 17:08

I cant wait to be September ^^

#20 Crisp

Crisp

    To infinity and beyond

  • 5,438 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 10
  • Location: 127.0.0.1

Posted 29 March 2013 - 17:16

I'd like to see next GTA running on Frostbite 3 engine.. oh god that would look sweet!


Thank god that will never happen, otherwise I would never buy another game from Rockstar.

Looks like I'm going to be missing out on GTA V, I'll be putting the 360 on ebay at the end of April as I just don't play it anymore. Pretty disappointing that it wont be released on next gen. Here's for hoping a PC release on day 1 - although wont happen.

#21 Nick H.

Nick H.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 11,462 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 04
  • Location: Switzerland

Posted 29 March 2013 - 17:23

i have still never gotten around to buying 4 :( perhaps i will pick up 5 for the PS3 when it is released.

Considering that you could probably pick it up for a few bucks, it may be worth it. Personally I didn't get on with it as they tried shifting to more realistic physics which removed half of the fun for me.

Thank god that will never happen, otherwise I would never buy another game from Rockstar.

I'm intrigued, why would you not get it because of the Frostbite 3 engine?

#22 Crisp

Crisp

    To infinity and beyond

  • 5,438 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 10
  • Location: 127.0.0.1

Posted 29 March 2013 - 17:27

I'm intrigued, why would you not get it because of the Frostbite 3 engine?


It's a terrible looking engine, have you tried the mod for BF3 which removes all the filters?
Once you've seen past the motion blur, tints, camera glare and all the other pointless overlays it looks ugly as hell.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the engine used by Rockstar (RAGE), RDR was visually stunning.

#23 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,297 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 29 March 2013 - 17:39

It's a terrible looking engine, have you tried the mod for BF3 which removes all the filters?
Once you've seen past the motion blur, tints, camera glare and all the other pointless overlays it looks ugly as hell.


You say that as if the RAGE engine used by the GTA-series is actually better. :|

All the media put out for GTAV so far looks really poor - low resolution textures, low polygon counts, poor quality lighting, outdated facial animations, etc. That's without knowing anything about performance, which was hugely lacking in GTAIV. Yet again we'll be looking at it running 30fps on consoles—with or without framerate drops—and there's no indication that the PC version (if indeed there is going to be one) will be substantially better.

When you see the incredible work being done with games like Far Cry 3, Tomb Raider and the upcoming Watch_Dogs it's hard to be anything but thoroughly disappointed with what Rockstar is doing with GTAV. And if you're a PC gamer it's hard to feel anything but contempt for Rockstar and its treatment of the PC as a platform. It should have been designed around PC / next-gen consoles and scaled back for the X360/PS3, which clearly isn't what they're doing. It seems a strange move to release a game that looks bad for the current generation around the time of the next-generation.

#24 Nick H.

Nick H.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 11,462 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 04
  • Location: Switzerland

Posted 29 March 2013 - 17:41

It's a terrible looking engine, have you tried the mod for BF3 which removes all the filters?

Nope, I'm a PS3 gamer so I don't get the luxury of mods.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the engine used by Rockstar (RAGE), RDR was visually stunning.

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily have a problem with the RAGE engine, but I do find it lacking in areas. The only word that I can think of at the moment is "boxy."

#25 TheLegendOfMart

TheLegendOfMart

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,281 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 01
  • Location: England

Posted 29 March 2013 - 17:49

RAGE engine is technically impressive, its just gimped by 6 year old hardware. I imagine they have some form of RAGE already running on next-gen hardware, I'd be interested to see what the graphics would look like on next-gen system.

#26 +BoneyardBrew

BoneyardBrew

    Photoshop Junkie

  • 2,026 posts
  • Joined: 15-April 09
  • Location: United States
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: iPhone 5s

Posted 29 March 2013 - 17:53

It's a terrible looking engine, have you tried the mod for BF3 which removes all the filters?
Once you've seen past the motion blur, tints, camera glare and all the other pointless overlays it looks ugly as hell.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the engine used by Rockstar (RAGE), RDR was visually stunning.


I'm shocked you think that. We're all allowed our opinions, but I don't think this, this, or this can be considered "visually stunning". I've played Battlefield 3 minus the filters and it blows that away. Better models, textures, lighting, shadows, you name it. All of that in addition to the fact that Frostbite 3 is what powers Battlefield 4, and that looks even better.

You say that as if the RAGE used by the GTA-series is actually better. :|

All the media put out for GTAV so far looks really poor - low resolution textures, low polygon counts, poor quality lighting, outdated facial animations, etc. That's without knowing anything about performance, which was hugely lacking in GTAIV. Yet again we'll be looking at it running 30fps on consoles—with or without framerate drops—and there's no indication that the PC version (if indeed there is going to be one) will be substantially better.

When you see the incredible work being done with games like Far Cry 3, Tomb Raider and the upcoming Watch_Dogs it's hard to be anything but thoroughly disappointed with what Rockstar is doing with GTAV. And if you're a PC gamer it's hard to feel anything but contempt for Rockstar and its treatment of the PC as a platform. It should have been designed around PC / next-gen consoles and scaled back for the X360/PS3, which clearly isn't what they're doing. It seems a strange move to release a game that looks bad for the current generation around the time of the next-generation.


Was about to write out something incredibly similar. The screenshots we've been shown so far may have passed a few years ago, but certainly not on the brink of a new generation. Hell, the latest current generation titles put this game to shame. I know the "gameplay first" brigade will attempt to tear me a new one for being a graphics ######, but it's really not about that when it comes down to it. I don't mind if a game isn't the best looking on the market, but some standards should be set. I won't doubt it'll lack in gameplay either, considering how lackluster GTA IV was.

Disclaimer:
I've been a GTA fan since the top-down days so this post was somewhat saddening to write. I'm just incredibly disappointed in Rockstar's latest endeavors.

#27 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,297 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 29 March 2013 - 18:07

RAGE engine is technically impressive, its just gimped by 6 year old hardware. I imagine they have some form of RAGE already running on next-gen hardware, I'd be interested to see what the graphics would look like on next-gen system.


But that's the thing, it's not technically impressive. Games like Far Cry 3, Crysis 3 and The Witcher 2 were able to take advantage of current-gen consoles while offering great graphics and even better PC versions, yet you seem to be suggesting that Rockstar is somehow more limited by current-gen consoles. While Max Payne 3 demonstrated that the engine has improved it was plagued by constant loading screens, which were particularly evident on the PC when the game kept jumping to horrifically low resolution pre-rendered cutscenes. Meanwhile Far Cry 3 was able to offer massive levels with very minimal loading screens and superb graphics.

Perhaps I'd be more tolerant if there was evidence that the gameplay had improved substantially but so far we haven't seen that, nor do we have evidence to suggest a huge leap forward in that department. Usually by this stage in development we'd have seen some in-game playthroughs. It's possible the game will turn out great—in which case you'd have to worry about the incompetence of Rockstar's PR department—but all the media and evidence so far points to the contrary.

I'm shocked you think that. We're all allowed our opinions, but I don't think this, this, or this can be considered "visually stunning".


Exactly. I don't get what all the fuss is about, as it doesn't look anything special from what I've seen - in fact I'd say it looks rather poor but then I'm not a console gamer.

Disclaimer:
I've been a GTA fan since the top-down days so this post was somewhat saddening to write. I'm just incredibly disappointed in Rockstar's latest endeavors.


Same. I've been playing GTA games since the original version and have to say that GTAV looks to be the worst in the series.

#28 TheLegendOfMart

TheLegendOfMart

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,281 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 01
  • Location: England

Posted 30 March 2013 - 11:10

But that's the thing, it's not technically impressive. Games like Far Cry 3, Crysis 3 and The Witcher 2 were able to take advantage of current-gen consoles while offering great graphics and even better PC versions, yet you seem to be suggesting that Rockstar is somehow more limited by current-gen consoles.

GTA5 has been in development for 5 years, you can't just keep updating the graphics engine during development or the game would never be finished, at some point you have to stop developing graphics and start building the world. I'm not making excuses, those games you listed are far newer technology wise than the RAGE engine was 5 years ago.

None of the open world games you mentioned pack as much detail into the world as GTA does, Crysis 3 does look impressive but it has self contained levels, not a full open world. Far Cry 3 looks deserted compared to GTA.

Personally I think its amazing what they can accomplish with 512MB total RAM/VRAM minus the memory reserved for the OS. As for PC, all the games you listed had PC as lead platform and backported to consoles, GTA has consoles as lead and ported to PCs which is why you don't get the kind of fidelity asset/model wise.

#29 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,297 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 30 March 2013 - 11:45

None of the open world games you mentioned pack as much detail into the world as GTA does, Crysis 3 does look impressive but it has self contained levels, not a full open world. Far Cry 3 looks deserted compared to GTA.


Far Cry 3 pushed PCs to their limits with DX11 features and highly detailed environments - while the environments are obviously different, to suggest that GTA has higher detail is laughable. I mean, look at this:

Posted Image

It looks terrible. Then compare that to Far Cry 3:

Posted Image

GTA5 has been in development for 5 years, you can't just keep updating the graphics engine during development or the game would never be finished, at some point you have to stop developing graphics and start building the world.


And every other game has to deal with the same issue. You're just making excuses.

Personally I think its amazing what they can accomplish with 512MB total RAM/VRAM minus the memory reserved for the OS. As for PC, all the games you listed had PC as lead platform and backported to consoles, GTA has consoles as lead and ported to PCs which is why you don't get the kind of fidelity asset/model wise.


And that's entirely the fault of the developer. Max Payne 3 was designed around PC and had decent graphics, yet everything put out for GTAV looks terrible. If developing for the X360/PS3 is limiting the game then they shouldn't be developing for it, like a lot of other developers have realised. id Software's RAGE is the perfect example of targeting consoles, as they abandoned their PC heritage and designed everything around consoles running at 720p and the game was a technical disaster as a result. Watch_Dogs is being designed for next-gen consoles, PC and current-gen consoles and is due for release not long after GTAV but it looks dramatically better. Rockstar is too busy accepting truckloads of money from Microsoft and Sony to worry about artistic integrity or PC gamers.

Even if GTAV does make it to PC it will be very dated on release and it's entirely possible it will be a poorly optimised mess, like GTAIV was.

#30 +Anarkii

Anarkii

    Member N° 1,455

  • 5,346 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 01
  • Location: Sydney, Australia
  • OS: Windows 8.2 Pro (8.1 Update 1)
  • Phone: iPhone 5, iOS 8

Posted 30 March 2013 - 11:56

GTA5 has been in development for 5 years, you can't just keep updating the graphics engine during development or the game would never be finished, at some point you have to stop developing graphics and start building the world. I'm not making excuses, those games you listed are far newer technology wise than the RAGE engine was 5 years ago.

None of the open world games you mentioned pack as much detail into the world as GTA does, Crysis 3 does look impressive but it has self contained levels, not a full open world. Far Cry 3 looks deserted compared to GTA.

Personally I think its amazing what they can accomplish with 512MB total RAM/VRAM minus the memory reserved for the OS. As for PC, all the games you listed had PC as lead platform and backported to consoles, GTA has consoles as lead and ported to PCs which is why you don't get the kind of fidelity asset/model wise.


Exactly this. If Rockstar were to continually update models and assets for the game (ala Duke Nukem Forever) it will never get done.
Usually what happens in a game development cycle is character models are made to photo-real quality then scaled back to match the hardware. This is evident in Tomb Raider - compare the PC version to the console versions - it simply blows them away.

What people are forgetting is that Rockstar are building GTA5 to that of current gen hardware (for consoles). Packing in so much data for a CITY full of textures, 100+ characters, 50+ cars, lighting information, AI, voice, radio stations, tv channels...
All this data has to fit on a dvd that cant be more than 8GB.

Of course games like battlefield 3 are going to look better, you might see only 30% of a city the same scale of LA in GTA5. That means higher quality texture maps, more realistic facial animations (we wont see LA Noire style facial animation anytime soon) - why? because the map for battlefield is maybe 1/100th in size to that of the GTA map. Trust me - as a game developer all this stuff matters.

IF (and its highly likely) that GTA5 comes out on next gen - then you can expect it to be as good as current gen PC games. IF it does come out for next gen, expect only a short delay (of say 6 months or so) so they can add specific next gen features, like social integration and stuff. I would even say without that social intergration GTA5 would be ready in some degree for them.