Here Is That New Grand Theft Auto V Trailer

By Nathan Grayson on July 10th, 2013 at 12:30 am.

CODog ain't shit

On behalf of RPS, I’d like to offer an apology. You may have noticed that we haven’t joined every other gaming blog, Twitter feed, Facebook page, Vine, easily graffiti-ed wall, bus, building, tree, and organized crochet ring in plastering all our available surfaces with each and every Grand Theft Auto V screenshot to hit these mean e-streets. It is, I’m well aware, a travesty. But hey, it looks like Rockstar’s in the market for someone to speed its PC porting process along a little, so I think I care again. Sort of. I mean, the game’s world looks marvelous, expansive, and varied, but – as ever – this one’s grandly thieving fingers are sticky largely because they can’t keep out of film’s painfully predictable pie. Trailer’s after the break.

WHEEEEE VROOOM PLANES CARRRRRS HELICOPTERS TOILET FEEEET. Aaaaaaand of course “cinematic” story missions. Can’t forget those.

Don’t get me wrong: it’s not like I hate the idea of story in my sandboxes. It’s just that recent GTAs have taken that element a bit too far, hoping to mold my virtual life around that of my character. GTA IV’s Niko Bellic epitomized this confused tug-of-war, with annoyingly mundane aspects of his “real life” (relationships, phone calls, NIKO MY COUSIN) buzzing around non-mission fun like flies dive-bombing soup. Missions themselves, meanwhile, didn’t really leverage the “living, breathing” world the game tried so desperately to create. They were just standard linear (and often frustrating) videogame fare. Were there some good ideas in GTA IV? Certainly. But none of them really gelled with one another.

Flash forward to GTA V and – at least, based on this trailer – Rockstar looks to have only partially understood why GTA IV was met with such mixed opinions (after, you know, being called the Citizen Kane of gaming eleventybluesalivaapplesauce times). They’ve crafted another world that’s no doubt littered with detail, the steaming detritus of American excess, and, er, litter, and some systems seem tailored to letting me explore it at my own leisure. I can hunt, bounty hunt, play tennis, bike, and parachute. Fun! I can bounce between characters halfway across the world. Neat! I can decide how my three-growly-man crew will approach missions. Cool! But then they resume their own lives independent of my control, and – while an interesting, kind of Sims-ish twist – it sounds like the whims of plot and character development might take priority over my own.

I wish Rockstar would just make up its mind about what it really wants to do already – or at least offer a “sandbox mode” that lets me disable all extraneous nonsense and simply explore. That’d be really magnificent, actually. Give me options for everything, on/off toggles for character behavior, police pursuit, story missions, side missions, etc, etc, etc. Pretty please, Rockstar? I’m no programmer, but surely that can’t be impossible.

As is, GTA V looks very promising in places, but rather worrisome in others. I see specs of Max Payne 3 and Red Dead Redemption sprinkled throughout, but also just enough GTA IV to give me pause. Oh well. Honestly, I’ve always been more of a Saints Row man myself anyway.

, .

167 Comments »

  1. WoundedBum says:

    I thought this looked great, honestly the use of the 3 characters to divide up the styles of play was a great idea. It lets you have the wackiness in Trevor, with the other stories to play out in a more serious tone.

    Either way, those shooting mechanics looks straight from Max Payne 3, which is a good thing! I am definitely more positive about this, a few of the side activities seem a little pointless, but I suppose that’s just Rockstar. Regarding Saints Row, I wouldn’t say I’m one or the other, they fill different niches to me now, though I would say this appeals to me more than that, just because of the physics and how well realised everything is.

    • Machinations says:

      I used to love GTA, then I got GTA4 and, aside from the gorgeous graphics, was completely disappointed by the few locations that could be entered and the always annoying calls from friends asking you to hang out – too much like real life.

      Then I played Saints Row 3, entirely via coop. I had a blast, far more fun than anything I can remember in a GTA game. The engine isn’t as solid, but it was functional.

      GTAV is a bargain barrel purchase for me if at all, and primarily because GTA4 was such a disappointment, but also because Co-Op play is not central to the experience – it will be ‘tacked on’.

      Hope that Saints Row IV does not have amateurish problems like the framerate sync issue on PC, though.

      • NickNerd says:

        To each their own, I loved GTA 4 but I do hope GTA 5 has some lightheartedness, which, if the trailers are any indication it does.

        I think one of the problems with people who are or once were GTA fans is that the first few games struck a balance between serious story elements and silly stuff – so you had a broader audience who enjoyed it. GTA 4 was pretty damn serious and alienated some of that broad audience.

        But that’s why we have “Whored mode”. God bless Saint’s Row and their purple dildo bats.

  2. The Random One says:

    I was very surprised to see that, judging from this trailer, the next GTA game will be a GTA game. I was quite cross when the last GTA game turned out to be a Driver game.

  3. grechzoo says:

    Anyone else weirdly over excited about the road biking bit of the trailer (only a few seconds.) but as a keen cyclist, it might be the best gaming representation of the sport, from the 3 seconds I saw :)

    i know im weird. but seriously, this game seems to be trying to master the gameplay of all these activities, instead of having them be thowaway college student 24 hour game jam minigames.

    obviously i can only base this on the UI and animations in the tennis, skydiving, road biking, and diving bit. but still on those alone, its about five light years ahead of the god awful bowling in IV.

    • ryryryan says:

      As someone who is just trying to get into road biking now, yeh I was overjoyed to see that. Looked excellent!

      On a side note, any tips for a £500 – £600 first bike? :P

      • Premium User Badge

        steves says:

        Here ya go:

        http://www.merlincycles.com/bike-shop/bikes/road-bikes/sensa-bikes/sensa-umbria-tiagra-special.html

        I cannot recommend Merlin highly enough – I have been buying all my bike stuff from them for years, the prices are better than you’ll find anywhere else, and the service is amazing.

      • grechzoo says:

        go to bikeradar, join, look around, and look in the used bikes sales section.

        you can get so many great bikes for a fraction of their value when buying used. As bikes are so easy to repair and fix up, once you check out a few youtube videos, its just a more sensible option, instead of going for a new bike, as at you price range your options are there, but nowhere near as fruitful as the bikes 150-200 pounds over the 600 mark. Going used will get you into that quality of bike.

        You can get a great used Specialized Allez, or a Cannondale CAAD8 used at the 500-600 range for example, bikes that would cost 800-900 new. Those two mentioned are the best reviewed aluminium bikes on the market for that price range. There are more of course, but definitely read bike radar.

        Also, the bike linked int he above reply is a tiagra gear trigger system, I can tell you that buying a 500-600 new bike with tiagra, compared to going for a used bike with shimano 105, is not good in the long run. Sure as a beginner you wont know what your missing, but 105 is just smoother and better, and if you can get it used without blowing your budget you should jump on it.

        Of course if you don’t live in a big city in the UK, buying used might just be a bit harder, as not many people will be willing to send it through the post.

        Hope this helped and good luck.

    • Comrade Roe says:

      What, was Arma’s Ultimate Bicyclist Simulator ™ not good enough for you? Kidding, of course.

      I hope there’s more activities for relaxation besides getting chased by the police, diving, and sports though. All the same, I’m still excited for GTA V.

    • Davie says:

      Yeah, that was pretty great. I think a lot of open world games are missing opportunities by not including bikes. You could probably actually build some pretty interesting risk/reward mechanics around stamina and maneuverability.

    • Premium User Badge

      Monchberter says:

      Pretty much the first thing I did in San Andreas was max out the cycling skill by exploring the map by BMX. I don’t think I even did the first visit to Grove St for at least 3 real world hours.

  4. rockman29 says:

    Put it on PS4 and PC already…

  5. mangrove says:

    Ooh that rappelling part. I was reminded of Operation Jupiter:

  6. Ostymandias says:

    so i watched it with the sound of
    does it have procedural destruction and/or persistent multiplayer for a lot of people?
    those were the two things i noticed that i thought stood out
    thnx4answer

    • Nick says:

      No mention of the destruction, might just be scripted for that mission, dunno. The multiplayer part they said “we’ll tell you about later”, so just a tease.

      • Spazmok says:

        I’m willing to bet that is the only “destructible” concrete block wall in the game. I’m sure there will be oodles of indestructible saplings as well.

  7. dmoe says:

    Good god, that looks fucking amazing.

    • Njordsk says:

      pretty much sums up all my thoughts.

      Need to keep my ps3 a few more months.

  8. SubparFiddle says:

    I think you can stop saying “after the break” now, Nathan. I’m pretty sure everyone knows how the site works :)

  9. Revolving Ocelot says:

    I’m still saddened that Red Dead Redemption will never see the light of day on PC. What if GTA V goes the same way?

    • ulix says:

      It won’t. I’ve explained this several times, but here you go:

      RDR is a Rockstar San Diego game, and the second installment of the Red Dead series.
      The four (!) games Rockstar San Diego did before RDR (Midnight Club: LA, Table Tennis, Midnight Club 3, and of course Red Dead Revolver) all didn’t come to the PC. The only game they ever did as Rockstar San Diego that came to PC was Midnight Club 2, probably only because it was already in development for that platform when Angel Studios was bought by Rockstar and rebranded as Rockstar San Diego. Even most of their games as Angel Studios weren’t on PC.

      They were always mainly a console developer.

      Rockstar North games, however, always made it to the PC. All GTA were on PC, even the Addons they did for GTA 1 and 4. They were always a developer of PC games (or at least games that also came out on PC, for the most part at least). Even before they became Rockstar North and were still called DMA.

    • Wezz6400 says:

      Every GTA game ever made has made it over to PC. Since GTA 3 they release on console first, with the PC version coming six to eight months after. Before and shortly after the console release Rockstar confirms nor denies the existence of a PC release. So far they’ve followed suite once again. There’s no guarantees but I feel it’s a solid bet to expect the same thing once more. They have no reason to leave the income of several million copies of a PC version on the table.

      With the console release in September I would expect a PC announcement some time after Christmas with a PC release somewhere between March and June/July 2014.

  10. teacup says:

    I really disagree with the whole “recent GTAs” comment.

    Yeah, the phone calls and optional activities encroached upon IV too much. However this was amended for the DLC, and also in RDR which is is basically another GTA game in all but name.

    Other than that, I guess having a ‘story’ in the open world game can be criticised for some reason or another, but I would wonder why you are playing GTA then, as a main story has been a big part of since arguably 3, but definitely Vice City, which was released about a decade ago now.

    I think they have exactly found what criticism people had of IV – namely the driving, the shooting engine not being up to snuff, and activities being not optional (they have stated this before) and also the island being closed off for too long (GTAV is open from the start)

    I just think your criticism is so niche that they probably didn’t care. Also just writing off planning heists in a few words is crazy, being an open world game where they have confirmed you can have different plans of attack for the heists (Stealth infiltration, all guns blazing, the trailer showed people putting gas through the vents, etc) where you can also hire crew and have them level up their skills, but using more crew means you can get less of a cut of the takings – what is more open world than that?

    • Flammablezeus says:

      Yeah people tend to want to focus on the boring stuff, which is completely optional. Heck, you can turn off the phone so that’s never been a valid complaint.

      Plus there are the cheat codes for the people that want more of a sandbox experience without the cops and all that.

      I don’t agree with the driving not being up to par though, I think the driving was great in GTA IV. The cars actually felt like they have some weight to them, which I’ve never felt in an open-world game before. There’s always Saints Row for the easy/arcade-style driving that was in the old PS2 GTAs.

      • The Random One says:

        There is no invincibility cheat code, there is only a full health cheat code. Which your character has to enter on his cell phone. Which he puts down if he gets shot. As is often the case when you are trying to activate a full health cheat.

        There’s no infinite ammo cheat either so you have to keep meddling with Niko’s phone if you want to go on a rocket launcher rampage, as if he was stopping his rampage every few seconds to tweet about it.

        And while Rockstar has been trying to make the story an important part of the game, (and I agree IV’s story was quite good), that’s just not how most people play the game. They dick around and drive cars off cliffs. The realistic driving made that a lot less fun, so I felt like Rockstar was shoving their story down my throat.

        (Granted, all three of my complaints have probably been fixed by mods, but we shouldn’t have to wait for random people to fix what big companies have wrought. Plus, what about the console owners? WON’T ANYBODY THINK OF THE POOR THINGS)

        • DdCno1 says:

          Just start a LAN multiplayer match (free mode) and don’t invite anyone. You can set police, weapon spawning, time of day, etc. and just have all the fun you want. A respawn time of 1 second makes any cheat code utterly redundant.

      • UncleLou says:

        Loved the driving in GTA IV. It was the first GTA game where driving was a fun mechanic in itself (reminding me of the original Driver) and not just a chore to get from A to B. I’ll cry bitter years if they have made it all simple and boring again. :-/

        • Laurentius says:

          Exactly, driving is so good in GTAIV, actually it’s really great idea that in SR4 character will be charged with all motion superpowers because car handling in SR3 was plain terrible and cars absolutely boring.

          • Machinations says:

            Gotta disagree here. In GTAIV cars were cars..that’s it. In Saints Row 3, cars are customizable, down to the type or rims, size of tires, paint jobs and spoilers and could be upgraded with nitro, reinforced armor and those Spy Hunter wheel killer things.

            So I really dont understand this comment – its a 180 from what I experienced.

    • Consumatopia says:

      “I just think your criticism is so niche that they probably didn’t care”

      Niche? Everyone GTA player I know personally just ignores the missions and screws around. Like Tim Rogers put it

      Now let me tell you: if I had a crisp dollar bill for every time I’ve personally heard someone say, at a game design meeting, “Research indicates that most players of Grand Theft Auto games ignore the missions and just cause random chaos[, playing freely[, just having ‘fun’[,using the game as a tool of self-expression]]],” I kid you not: I would have enough single dollar bills to frustrate an Apple Store employee as I buy a new Macbook Pro (I need a new Macbook Pro so bad). (I bet you thought I was going to low-ball the number of dollar bills, didn’t you! Fooled you!) Or, try this: mention Grand Theft Auto in a room full of people who know what videogames are, and someone will lean in close to you, give a little index-finger motion, and lower their voice like they’re about to tell you a big secret: “You want to know what’s awesome about those Grand Theft Auto games? Just ignore the missions, man. Ignore the missions and just have fun.”

      I have no idea if he’s right about game design meetings, but my experience definitely confirms his latter point.

      I read once that Square didn’t want to remake FF7 because doing so would be an admission that they haven’t figured out how to make a better game since then. A mission-less GTA game is the same thing for Rockstar. Niche? Bull. Take a game with the graphics and simulation depth shown in that trailer, but no scripted missions, and people would go crazy for it. That’s what people–people who just barely know what video games are–have always wanted. To cause chaos in a realistic city. But of course Rockstar will never make that–it would be an admission that the missions and story they spend so much time crafting just get in the way for a great many players.

      I mean, geez, the whole concept of “missions” is all about following instructions! What kind of criminal fantasy is all about obeying commands?

      • Consumatopia says:

        Also, if they made a mission-less GTA game with a realistic sandbox city, the kind of budget they’ll use to make GTA V, and co-op, it wouldn’t just be the best selling video game ever. People would start to forget that there were ever any other video games.

      • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

        Societal and institutional structure versus personal agency, life is complicated, it’s a shitty existence and being a criminal is no fantasy. It’s eminently understandable… but there is in that nuance, because for how horrible and bleak it is, there’s also a the definite escapism in living outside of the law in a virtual space. Not every game must be some sugar-addled, zany power-fantasy, there’s far too many of those.

        It’s even commented upon in the very game itself in a poignant meta-commentary; “We can choose the game we play Niko Bellic, but we must abide by the rules.” Personally I loved the story, characters and missions but seemingly I wasn’t able to cause any chaos in a simulated city… apparently never once did my friend and I trade chairs attempting to outdo each other in terms of mayhem, crashing helicopters onto checkpoints and reversing cars at speed, if only for style, firing submachine gun rounds into a pursuing police car and righting oneself expertly as their car accelerates with a dead officer’s foot on the pedal into a a propane tank.

        I mean really, if it truly, truly bothers you that much, just avoid the mission marker sir and you’ve got your wish.

        • Consumatopia says:

          Not every game must be some sugar-addled, zany power-fantasy, there’s far too many of those.

          I never asked for sugar-addled and zany. And, no, there are not far too many realisitc and deep (i.e. not Saints Row) open-world city sandboxes that allow you to commit crimes. There are none. Zero.

          The ideal here would be a completely accurate simulation of a city, with realistic consequences, where I can ask myself “what would happen if I do X?” Now, it’s probably the case that simulated societal and institutional structure would mean that terrible things happen to me if I do X. (Note: it is not at all the case that Rockstar game scripted scenes offer a realistic portrayal of a life of crime killing mass numbers of people. The storyline might offer tragedy and complexity, but it’s fantasy tragedy and complexity. If someone wants to make The Wire: the Game, that would be interesting, but let’s not pretend that Rockstar has done anything remotely like that ). And if I want to conduct larger crimes, I’ll have to be a lot more careful about it then driving my car down the wrong side of the road. That would be good, I don’t want to escape consequences, I want the consequences of my choices, not of Niko’s or Rockstar’s.

          I mean really, if it truly, truly bothers you that much, just avoid the mission marker sir and you’ve got your wish.

          Maybe this changed in later games, but any GTA game I played had arbitrary barriers locking off most of the city until you performed a chunk of missions that I was never willing to do because GTA missions are so annoying.

      • teacup says:

        Except the sandbox games with more direction sell a lot more than ones with no direction. People overstate the ‘missions’ anyway, a lot of them are awesome fun. Again, who can deny how awesome planning and executing your own series of heists can be?

        The issues come up with you have people calling all the time (phone can be turned off, those missions are optional), and boring, scripted missions (something they basically admit they had a misstep with with GTAIV – Missions in San Andreas were freeform and fun, IV was a step backwards striving for a bit too much of a ‘cinematic’ touch, missions in the DLC and RDR went straight back to it, and it looks like it’s stayed there from what they’ve said/we’ve seen and read so far for GTAV.

        • Consumatopia says:

          The Sims doesn’t have scripted Rockstar-type missions, but it sells better than GTA.

          So much of the nature of games today is supply, not demand driven. This becomes more true as AAA video games become more expensive to develop (i.e. more supply-constrained). So many game designers wish they were movie writers, the games with more direction get more developer resources spent on them then demand would justify. Thus, GTA is the best open-world realistic urban crime simulator, even though it isn’t really an open-world realistic crime simulator, even though that’s what a great number of GTA players (and former players and non-players) obviously want.

          Letting Rockstar plan my heists sucks.

          • ulix says:

            The Sims has missions. Depending on what kind of character you create he has lifetime wishes you can fulfill, to be better at the game. And there’s random missions popping up here and there like “buy a new TV”, making your sim happier, and thus also making you better at the game.

          • Consumatopia says:

            I said no “scripted Rockstar-type missions”, and, no, those goals/achievements popups don’t involve scripted, voice-acted cut scenes.

            I’m not saying The Sims is completely undirected, but it puts the lie to the claim that more direction equals more sales. It’s not unlikely that a Sims game that was even more freeform than EA is currently making would sell even more–but it’s hard to say, since there are so few Sims-like games despite it’s immense sales record.

            My main point here is that developers are making games to please themselves, not to please their audience. Which is, in some ways, kind of refreshing, even if what they’re making doesn’t please me.

          • The Random One says:

            “My main point here is that developers are making games to please themselves, not to please their audience. Which is, in some ways, kind of refreshing, even if what they’re making doesn’t please me.”

            Boy, I hope you’re right. From where I’m standing it looks like devs are making games to please an imaginary audience marketers tell them exists.

      • UncleLou says:

        I have no idea how people have fun screwing around in the GTA games for more than 5 minutes. More power to them, but I find this incredibly boring. There aren’t consequences, there is no dynamic reaction except more and more cops chasing you, etc., and the facade of a living world that the missions and cutscenes hold up crumbles immediately.

        But then it probably just proves that the GTA games are many different things for many different people, and we will never agree which direction they should take. :)

        • Consumatopia says:

          I have no idea how people have fun screwing around in the GTA games for more than 5 minutes. More power to them, but I find this incredibly boring. There aren’t consequences, there is no dynamic reaction except more and more cops chasing you, etc., and the facade of a living world that the missions and cutscenes hold up crumbles immediately.

          “more and more cops chasing you” is already enough for a substantive game–a lot of arcade games are built on just having throwing progressively more enemies at you.

          But, yeah, I agree with you–screwing around in GTA games is only fun for about 5 minutes. I, and a lot of people who bought GTA games over the years, have only enjoyed sessions of about 5 minutes or so. For future purchases, I consider it a rental or a wait-a-few-years-until-its-on-sale-for-a-couple-bucks kind of game.

          That so many people are playing the game in this way (and, seriously, the only time IRL that I’ve heard anyone talk about how much they enjoyed a Rockstar story was LA Noire…) suggests that there’s a huge, huge, unfulfilled market here.

          But then it probably just proves that the GTA games are many different things for many different people, and we will never agree which direction they should take. :)

          Sure, sure. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with having a story driven action game driven by lots of little minigames à la Shenmue. And, hey, if game developers just don’t want to make the kind of open-world sandbox urban crime game that would put GTA sales to shame, well, it’s a free market, and I certainly don’t object to those developers staying true to themselves.

          But teacup is full of nonsense when he talks about this demand being “niche”. This is what regular players think of GTA. I have to go to the Internets to find Rockstar story mission enthusiasts.

        • noodlecake says:

          @UncleLou Because it’s the only game of it’s kind that is that emergent? It has an awesome procedural animation system so no impact looks the same and all kinds of strange and interesting things happen. Literally if you ignore all of the amazing stuff that’s there you can have limitless fun just playing around with how the procedural animations work, jumping into the side of a car and then trying to run and seeing how Nico is all off balance for a hundred yards and then hits the side of his foot on a curb and goes over is pretty awesome… As one example out of many.

          • UncleLou says:

            Oh definitely, and that’s one of the reasons why I thought GTA IV was significantly superior to the old GTA games, and why Red Dead Redemption still feels like it is a generation ahead already. But you get all this during the missions as well, I didn’t think it made just screwing around that much more interesting after a while. But, again, to each his own.

          • Machinations says:

            I think my favorite activity in GTA4 was to drive down sidewalks..the impacts were hilarious

        • Leb says:

          Screwing around in GTA games with cheats was fun when I was 10

          EDIT: exception being driving down sidewalks in GTA IV.

          Step 1: Fast motorcycle
          Step 2: SMG
          Step 3: Roll down sidewalk at max speed firing SMG forward and popping a wheelie
          Step 4: Laugh your ass off as your motorcycle vaults over fallen pedestrians
          Step 5: Explain to any spectators that you are not psychotic

      • noodlecake says:

        I loved the mission and story in GTA IV. It’s also why The Last of Us is so good. I always find it weird when people dismiss story driven games. I don’t really want to get into explaining what a terrible game SR is again. :S Some people seem to just hate amazing games if any attempt is made to spend time making the characters have any… well… character. I like having some kind of emotional investment in what the characters are doing in my game, thank you very much.

        • Consumatopia says:

          You saw me praise Square’s FF7, didn’t you? I’m not dismissing story-based games, but there’s a huge chunk of games who don’t come to GTA for the story. And R* kind of cultivates that with the way they defend the ultraviolence in some of their titles (claiming it’s just a simulation, the players are choosing to commit those acts of violence not rockstar).

          Those players don’t want SR. They want a real city to experiment with. GTA doesn’t really offer that (which is why “just ignore the missions” as a response to me misses the point), but it comes closest which is why so many GTA players are playing the game ‘wrong’.

          I’m not trying to tell you what games to like, I’m just explaining why some people (by my estimation, most people) play GTA differently than you do, and why a game designed to facilitate that style of play more would sell more if it existed, which it doesn’t.

          • noodlecake says:

            But I never actually completed GTAIV’s story. :P The hundreds and hundreds of hours I spent were mostly playing with the unparalleled physics engine and just taking in the amazing attention to detail and love that went into creating such a beautifully crafted world. Driving around, doing stunts, pushing people off walls, running people over in different ways, throwing myself into traffic and seeing the physics engine take over in an amazing way. I once managed to sit on a car going down a hill and then slide off the front, stagger down the road and then get my footing and be okay, which sounds not that awesome but when it comes from hundreds of physics driven animations all reacting to a combination of various things happening in the environment and what the user is doing I think that is pretty fucking amazing to be honest. I’m still not bored of it and I got GTAIV the day it came out on the 360.

          • noodlecake says:

            And also Multiplayer. It’s my favourite multiplayer game ever. The racing especially was awesome. Having to deal with players who were just fucked off because they were losing so much resulting in all kinds of hilarious situations happening with trying to get past roadblocks and stuff. Probably happens in lots of games but they don’t use Euphoria. And just dicking around in a huge city with 15 other people is amazing in itself.

      • ulix says:

        Or, you know, you could just ignore the missions. Then every GTA game ever would be exactly the game you’re talking about. Or, as according to you most players already ignore missions, every GTA game ever already IS the game you’re talking about.

    • mike2R says:

      A story is great. I like having a story.

      The one in GTAIV, as far as I got with it anyway, was interesting. I liked it, I would like to have played a game with that story.

      Just not a GTA game. I just can’t get over having a character with major angst about his violent past but who spends most of his time running over grannies because he wants to take a shortcut.

      So for me, they either need to change the world so that out of character behaviour is disincetivised, or have a plot where that sort of behaviour is not out of character.

      Either way would make a game I would love to play, but GTA IV just didn’t work for me as it was. I’m sure it didn’t bother some people – there are some suspension of disbelief issues which loads of people moan about in other games that don’t bother me at all. This one does. Don’t know or care if its a niche or general complaint, its what is important to me.

  11. Bhazor says:

    I feel the need to point out that you can turn off your phone in GTAIV. I know I did.

    On the video my main concern is the promise of mountains and wilderness. Gave me a horrible flashback to the time I crashed off a mountain in a car race and ended up in a small stream. It took literally half an hour of swimming along the coast and hiking through Back o’ Beyond to find a damn car to steal to get back to my safehouse.

    • grundus says:

      And in the — wait, never mind.

    • ulix says:

      Just switch to one of the two other characters, and the one in the wilderness will find his way back to civilization by himself.

    • Premium User Badge

      darkChozo says:

      The three character mechanic might help with that, actually. Switching characters may well serve as a “I’m bored, send me somewhere else” button.

    • blackmyron says:

      Even better, you can switch off the game and play something that doesn’t have a bunch of dull minigames.

      • ulix says:

        So you’ve played the game already, I see. How was it? Were all the minigames dull? Or just some of them?

        They don’t seem dull to me. Especially the tennis and golf look rather complex and awesome.

    • LionsPhil says:

      On the other hand, a varied map like San An sounds good.

  12. Dudeist says:

    I’m here, because this is not console place. Why are you posting about non PC games???

    • ulix says:

      Because it will come to PC between February and April 2014. You heard it here first!

      On a related note: did you read the article?

    • Nick says:

      Only a moron would think it wasn’t coming out on PC.

  13. running fungus says:

    Huh. I generally expect the least possible from any new mechanic, but catering to single-player gamers out there in a way that recreates having a small gang in play? That’s kind of genius.

    Not gonna likely replace Saints Row for me, but for the first time in a long while I feel like checking out a GTA title.

    • ulix says:

      I always kind of found the art-design in the Saint’s Row games kind of bland (although it did get better with more recent titles). Just can’t play them for this reason. Especially the city design is boring.

      Liberty City in GTA IV on the other hand feels like a real place. It is arguably the best representation of a (although fictionalized) real city in any videogame. Until GTA V comes out, of course.

      • Machinations says:

        Don’t disagree, but Saints Row 3 was more *fun* than GTAIV, for me, and that is why I play games.

      • The Random One says:

        Oh yeah, the art design in SR3 is very bland. And on the last one the bland art design mixed with bland city design to create the ultimate Blandotopia. I loved the game and the gameplay was great, but I was pining for a return to only sort-of-bland Stilwater the entire game.

  14. fish99 says:

    The only friend missions worth doing was for Jacob since his gun van was cheaper and usually quicker to get to than the gun shop. The rest of your contacts you could completely ignore. Having said that they recorded a ton of extra dialogue for them, so if you wanted that extra character backstory it was worth doing a few of them with each character, at least on a 1st playthrough.

    Anyway, that video looks stunning, but I do detect a hint of a more arcadey driving model (the red car at 4:28 seems to change direction too quickly) which would be a shame.

    The real question though – when’s it coming to PC? I refuse to buy this on current consoles after seeing how GTA4 looks and runs on PS3.

    • ulix says:

      GTA IV on PS3 was inferior to the Xbox 360 version. Just as RDR, it only ran in 1152×640 instead of native 720p (like on Xbox). And of course the Anti-Aliaing was a lot worse than on Xbox. Both of these factors made the picture very blurry on PS3, when compared to the Xbox version (and of course the PC version). Also, the framerate more choppy on PS3.

      Max Payne 3, which runs on the same engine, had a decent PS3 port though. It runs in native 720p on both consoles. So I’m really hoping they’ll be able to achive the same with GTAV, since I’m seriously considering buying it for my PS3 instead of waiting for the (inevitable) PC-version.

      • fish99 says:

        Still though the 360 version doesn’t get close to how good the PC one looks and runs on my PC. Yes it’s badly optimized on PC, and yes you need a good PC to run it well, but if you have that it’s the best version by far. It’s 1080p and you can push the sliders way higher than the console versions, and still have better framerates. You also get a mouse to aim which makes the combat better than the lock-on system IMO.

  15. SkittleDiddler says:

    Looks compelling, but then so did GTA IV and that turned out to be about as fun as pounding nails through my palms.

    I hope they really flesh out the multiplayer aspect this time around, because the online experience in IV was one of the most disappointingly bland I’ve ever encountered.

  16. lord_strange says:

    @Dudeist: the piece does link to coverage of a R* ad for a PC programmer which strongly suggests GTA5 will come out on PC some time next year, which is what a lot of people here are hoping. Plus not all RPS readers are dead against some console coverage if it’s well-done. I come here for the good writing and the witty comments threads as much as for the PC-specific nature of the site.

    • woodsey says:

      Everything from Rockstar North gets released on PC. The problem is not, “will it come out on PC?” but, “why do they take the piss with their customers by pretending the decision’s up in the air?”.

      • fish99 says:

        I guess because they get more money if you buy it on console, and there’s less piracy on consoles. They’re also probably hoping you buy it twice (and yes I bought GTA4 twice, on PS3 and then PC).

  17. woodsey says:

    I try to not indulge the idea – probably not all that successfully – that studios are ‘over-hyped’ just because I’m not too fond of the stuff they put out compared to other people, but R* inspire that reaction in me all the time. I think it was probably sealed when everyone creamed over LA Noire when it really was just atrocious. I can only imagine it got the reception it did because it had R*’s name slapped on it, despite them not even making the stupid thing.

    I have a muted interest in GTA V, but IV was my first GTA and it was a pretty fucking miserable experience. Clichéd writing that thought itself deafly profound, bad shooting, bad controls, a terrible cover system, shit side missions, and terrible pacing. What a treat. RDR was admittedly better, but it still suffered from cripplingly bad pacing issues – perhaps worse than GTA IV, seeing as almost the entirety of Mexico was filler. Marston was also confusingly written.

    • ulix says:

      LA Noire wasn’t developed by Rockstar. They helped out a bit, but not a lot.

      All the ACTUAL Rockstar games were very good or even amazing, depending on your taste in games. And no-one builds convincing, authentic, lining, breathing worlds like Rockstar do. The world’s of GTA IV and RDR are, to this day, the best representations of city and desert in any game.

      • woodsey says:

        “I can only imagine it got the reception it did because it had R*’s name slapped on it, despite them not even making the stupid thing.”

    • ulix says:

      And of course, while GTA IV is a bit shit by today’s standards, the Episodes from LC are still awesome. Especially “The Ballad of Gay Tony”. Best GTA game ever (I’ve played all of them, even the PSP ones).

      • Nick says:

        meh, it was a bit shit by standards at the time and previous GTA standards.

      • woodsey says:

        I played it when it came out, can confirm it was shit by 2008 standards. You think no one had worked out how to do a cover system in ’08?

        • ulix says:

          A few people had.
          And while I respect your opinion, virtually 99% of gamers, non-gamers, and the press found the game to be an amazing milestone when it came out. I sure did.

          I know that you seem to be some kind of majority, or a big minority, when you consider comment or forum threads like this one, when you hate on GTA IV.

          The fact is: you really aren’t. You’re a very, very, very smal, but very, very, very vocal minority.

          And even though I say “GTA IV was A BIT shit by today’s standards”, it is still an amazing game by today’s standards.

          • The Random One says:

            Yes, and like all games that are hailed as The Next Awesome Thing by 99% of the press and the gamers, it’s actually a bit pants, as it turns out 99% of the press was afraid they’d alienate their audience if they gave this over-hyped game that was not abundantly awful a bad score and 99% of the gamers ate up the stuff the press had fed them and could not think critically about a game they’d been hoping was completely great for so long.

            Now, if, say, 70% of the press and the gamers had said the game was excellent, I’d believe that it was.

    • LennyLeonardo says:

      Rockstar seem less like marmite and more like peanuts. Most people love peanuts, but a small minority is deadly allergic. Are peanuts overhyped?

      I like peanuts.

  18. mwoody says:

    Wow, that actually won me back. I’m excited again. If the switching between characters really does work inside story missions, that could inject at least a little bit of control in to otherwise linear affairs. Hopefully they have no more car chases where you can’t possibly take out your enemy because they’re “supposed” to reach their destination…

    And it’s good to see a trailer that’s actual gameplay from Rockstar, who has traditionally shunned such things.

  19. 1Life0Continues says:

    I’m…actually not interested.

    I don’t know why, as almost all of this is (except GTA online) exactly what I wanted from my GTA games. And yet, this doesn’t fill me with joy like it should.

    Maybe GTAIV jaded me so hard (I haven’t even gotten of the first island yet, it’s sooooo boring) that this just doesn’t do anything for me.

    I’m not excited for this. Why? *implores brain to find valid, rational reasons)

  20. Mctittles says:

    I find it hard to believe the tone of this article after watching the trailer. Mind=Blown. This IS the future of video games.

    I guess that’s the problem with giving the customer too much in a game. The golf mechanic appears to be a full game in itself but is sidelined as a “mini game”? If one of the arcade machines had Super Hexagon it would be considered dull, but by itself Super Hexagon is the best game ever?

    I was just musing recently on what if it would be possible to create a game that instead of dialog cut scenes you participate in, there is dialog and character interaction going on all the time. Figured it would take too much work recording and animating all that…then I see this trailer and holy crap it looks like that’s what they are trying to do. While some companies are content to remake the same 6 hour single player experience over and over these guys go all out with every new GTA game they make.

    Imagine someone else doing this “DLC Helicopter, DLC Boat, DLC ATV, etc”, but they just give you everything up front and are somehow trashed because of it?

    • woodsey says:

      ” This IS the future of video games.”

      No, it really isn’t. This is a standard template which, whilst everyone else probably owes it to them, can be seen in virtually every open-world city game.

      The biggest departure is the three main characters which you can switch between during major missions, but that doesn’t even redefine the genre, let alone gaming.

      • ulix says:

        No, it really can’t. The ambition of most Rockstar games, especially GTA IV (& Episodes) and RDR is just so, so, so much bigger than that of it’s contemporaries. Same applies here.

        If anyone made side-activities of the quality that at least SEEMS to be in place here (Tennis, Golf, and Cycling all look really cool, and there’ll probably be a lot of other stuff, like racing and MMA-style fighting), they’d be heralded the best developer ever.

        • honuk says:

          everyone knows that More Stuff is how you Make The Future. in fact, it is acceptable to judge the quality of a game via some Quantity Of Shit algorithm.

          don’t worry, I had those same bullshit thoughts when I was ten years old too

          • Mctittles says:

            Glad to see you’ve matured.

          • ulix says:

            It is how you judge an open world sandbox game, no matter how old you are.
            But don’t worry, when you’re not 11 anymore you might come to realize that.

        • woodsey says:

          Do you know what a template is? Or are you saying you’ve never seen another open-world game with rather tangental side-activities? It’s the exact same formula, man – no matter how much Tiger Woods PGA they stick in there.

          • ulix says:

            A cheap Chinese car (don’t know any chinese car brands) and a Ferrari also are “the same formula”. They’re not the same, however.

          • Mctittles says:

            But people buy Tiger Woods without being able to also drive to the golf course in a detailed city recreation. That was part of my original point.

          • The Random One says:

            A cheap Chinese car and a Ferrari are both engines set on wheels that you use to go to a place. The difference is that Ferrari has sold everyone that their engine set on wheels makes you look good while going to a place. There is a dearth of independent evidence to support this.

            Returning the metaphor to the topic, a Ferrari concept car may be more advanced than a 1987 Fiat Uno, but if you look at the concept car and say “wow, imagine a thousand years from now, what kind of cars we’ll be driving!” you have a very lopsided concept of how personal transportation evolves.

      • noodlecake says:

        Not really. Nobody has really touched on what was achieved in GTA IV yet. I keep bringing up physics but considering GTA IV is so old now you would have thought there would be a city sandbox to fuck around in that would have matched it just for that. If GTA IV had no features other than being able to find guns, drive around the city with it’s unsurpassed car physics in an open world city game, and bash into people and see them react with the euphoria engine, it would still be better than Sleeping Dogs and Saints Row combined.

        • Reapy says:

          Yeah I basically couldn’t stop talking about all the tech and details in gta iv. I did find it boring after a bit, but it didn’t take away how great of a system they were building. The thing I like about rockstar is that they don’t really throw things away from game to game, but build on it and improve.

          I mean say what you will about the shooting in IV but it was almost comparable to a ‘normal’ shooting game with cover, exponentially better than in GTA SA and previous games too. I don’t really mind they are sticking to basically the same format, they are taking their sandbox game and constantly trying to improve it.

          Anyway look forward to this game, looks like a lot of new stuff to play around with, new locations to explore, mini games to be had etc.

      • roryok says:

        but that doesn’t even redefine the genre, let alone gaming.

        A game doesn’t have to redefine gaming to be the future of gaming. This IS the future of gaming: more of the same stuff we have now.

  21. Myrdinn says:

    There’s PLANES and bicycles! I could do without the in-mission swapping thing, ALTHOUGH the whole configure-your-mission thing does intrigue me. Now I don’t know if the fact that they’re hiring PC developers should excite me, as it means that a PC version will probably take a while and be released alongside it’s next-gen counterparts :(.

    Personally I thought GTAIV was pretty enjoyable. Sure it was a few steps downwards in terms of sandboxyness from it’s predecessors but it had it’s own charms. The fact that I enjoyed the story and the side-missions might be why I liked IV and look forward to V as well.

    • Machinations says:

      GTA IV was more than a ‘few steps’ below its predecessors. San Andreas had a ton of locations, interesting gameplay systems. GTAIV had QBert in arcades..

  22. Sparkasaurusmex says:

    I’m glad GTA seems to be moving in a direction away from Saint’s Row. I don’t really need two games trying to be the same thing. Switching between the players could be really cool, depending on how “cinematic” it is. Did the player position that sniper before the scene?

  23. blackmyron says:

    Yeah…. no. Rockstar is moving away from everything I liked about the early GTA games and sticking with everything I didn’t like about GTA IV.
    And yes, we all know that GTA V will come to PC. Hey, so did GTA IV… in what had to be one of the worst porting jobs ever slapped together. When a patch is one third of the game size, it’s not a patch. It’s the rest of your unfinished game. Sorry, Rockstar. When GTA V is eventually given its half-assed PC version, I’ll go and play Saint’s Row IV again.

    • Werthead says:

      Except Rockstar did admit that the GTA4 port was ropey and the next big port they did themselves, MAX PAYNE 3, was near-flawless.

      Also, GTA4′s port wasn’t inherently rubbish, they just radically overestimated how many PC gamers had quad-core processors. With GTA5 now, that shouldn’t be an issue (though I don’t rule out them finding another way of ballsing up the port).

      If you look at the history of PC ports of Rockstar games the only ones that are really bad are GTA3 (with the amusing ‘get flung 100 feet through the air if you try to run down a slope’ bug) and GTA 4, and GTA4 has long, long been fixed. GTA5 should be fine. In theory. Touch wood.

      • woodsey says:

        “Also, GTA4′s port wasn’t inherently rubbish, they just radically overestimated how many PC gamers had quad-core processors.”

        It really was – even those that had them couldn’t get it running. They had to patch the game like 7 times.

        • noodlecake says:

          It definitely was an abysmal port. Why can I run The Witcher 2 completely maxed out but I have to play GTA IV looking worse than it does on a 360? I think it’s a phenomenal game… It’s just frustrating that I can’t really play it after paying for it.

      • blackmyron says:

        Really? Because it seemed like Rockstar was trying to push out the port of GTA IV by a certain time and deliberately released an unfinished product to do so. Again, the ‘patch’ was gigantic… and the game still wonky afterwards. GTA III and GTA San Andreas work just fine for me, and I played both first on Playstation; I enjoyed the PC version of them much more.
        Even now, PC is an afterthought to them. That doesn’t really spell out ‘commitment to quality’ to me. Fortunately, there’s plenty of games where that’s not the case.

  24. running fungus says:

    Oh, also that SCUBA looks gorgeous.

    And planning heists could be great… but probably won’t be. They seemed to tip their hand there when they were like “You can be quiet and clever… or dumb and loud” as if you’re just choosing menu options rather than actually developing plans with a little imagination.

    • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

      Well actually Mr. Fungus, there are previews you could avail yourself of but rather than have you do the leg-work, I shall assure you they’re far more extensive than that. For one thing, it’s up to player to co-ordinate a large degree of the mission, you must actually choose disguises or steal uniforms if one desires prior to a mission, arrange and set-up getaway vehicles, delegate tasks, pick an entrance, case a location for information in developing a plan and even contract outside help which has its own complexity. Cheaper subcontractors may mean less money up front but they will be less effective in their tasks, for instance, a more experienced hacker may disable an alarm system for longer in contrast to an amateur but he’ll demand a greater cut of the overall take. These crew-members can actually survive or be permanently killed on missions and those which survive will become more experienced for future heists.

      • Jediben says:

        Never mind their survival: can I carry out the heist and then set a subplan in motion to off the other crew members so I get the whole haul?

      • Reapy says:

        Sounds pretty awesome… in a way formalizing what I would do sometimes on harder missions, things like hunting down a specific vehicle to start it with, or slow driving the chase route to get a feel for the streets and corners/items around. All in all sounding very nice, September should be a good month.

      • running fungus says:

        Depending on the level of detail (more = better as far as I’m concerned), that could be quite excellent. Thanks.

  25. Comrade Roe says:

    Looks like a blend of Far Cry’s wildlife, apparently Max Payne’s shooting, typical past GTA gameplay, and Sims solely for the switching part. Which also happens to be looking pretty good, though I do agree with Nathan on having a setting to switch parts of it on and off for a sandbox mode of sorts at least.

  26. Frank says:

    Jeez, those devs must have money to burn. They could make a year’s worth of Ubisoft games on a budget like that.

  27. Tyrone Slothrop. says:

    I contend GTA IV was a masterpiece and easily amongst the best games ever made and I cannot wait for this (seemingly simplified driving mechanics notwithstanding). I would give a full-throated elaboration as to why I would unashamedly list it alongside Deus Ex as my favourite game of all time due to the nuances of the systems, the personally peerless gunplay and vehicle physicality, the story and dialogue, the social commentary via Ginsberg’s ‘surreal-burlesque’ exaggeration, the inclusion of so many facets of a world, voice-acting, a soundtrack that included Coltrane’s Giant Steps and Gil Scott-Heron, a game that actually examines the theme of illusion and reality through characters like an online-gambling addicted Yugoslavian émigré whose very desire for what critics pull out, as if a remotely a counter-argument, ahem “BEEG AMERICAN TITTIES” is remarked to be as artificial and as the society, exposed as absurd that they try to find meaning in… but it’s half-past-one-in-the-afternoon and I haven’t slept yet because things.

    Here’s one piece of surprising emergence you evidentially missed Mr. Milquetoast Twee-Complaint Person, there’s a mission in GTA IV where you’re tasked to murder a lawyer in his Downtown firm office, requiring the setting of an interview appointment, the purchasing of a suit and meeting the lawyer. Typically I just shot him, which alerted a horrified secretary followed by security and there’s a gloriously animated shoot-out as you escape the building… yet if you stab him, there’s no deafening rapport to alert anyone, I then just knocked out the window and jumped from the third-storey in all of Europhia’s glorious kineticism, walking away with a heavy injury to the get-away car, a purposely grey Sentinel, unassuming and yet with a wonderful engine and handling, no one in the building alerted. It would have been so easy to just put a conditional trigger on the lawyer’s death if Rockstar were the developer you view them as, it’s even explicable that the secretary who comes to the door could have just been delivering a message or folio but they didn’t.

    People complain about a few highly scripted chase sequences but they were genuinely the exception to the rule, I can atest to this as someone who loves the game and has experienced it many times in many ways rather than one who threw-up their hands that their zany stupidity had the effrontery to be more. To ask for more in retrospect in an already Herculean achievement, consuming a hundred million dollars and the combined effort of over a thousand people is perverse, but they seem to have outdone themselves, including truly extensive heist planning and crew hiring, proper stealth mechanics, an entire underwater ecosystem that includes not merely the expected flora and fauna, but rival divers, submarines, scuba diving, sunken treasures and discoveries. No other open-world game not explicitly devoted to that one domain has anything remotely comparable, let alone when paired with the fidelity and assets being employed here.

    Well, I’ve gone on a tributary far longer than my initial desire to comment… I hope my sleep deprivation hasn’t led to a score of typos. Shit, this has taken forty minutes longer than I thought.

    • Laurentius says:

      I concur it’s just that Liberty City alone is still unmatchet achivement in virtual entertainemnt and it looks that Rockstar even out do themselves in GTA5 and people here are like ..meh ,who cares..and ultroa generic and boring Steelport from SR is m eet with aclaim. I’m lost.

      • SkittleDiddler says:

        You know why SR gets praised? Because it’s fun. GTA IV was nothing but a slog with horrible mechanics and a schizophrenic playstyle that never matched the tone of the rest of the game. It also made SR 2 look like a master case of technical proficiency.

        City design’s got nothing to do with it.

        • Laurentius says:

          Or maybe it was other way round as i can hardly remeber anything about SR3, nor city or missions and just driving around LC and just listining to music is game experience that Saint Row will never will be able to matchc with all its excess to be funny. Each to their own i guess, still recently RCSC statistics showed me that almost 400k players on PC completed GTA IV story, not a small number considered it’s 30 hours or more, seems they aren’t RPS readers or editors because everyone here was borded to bits or not interested in the first place.

          • running fungus says:

            Great dialogue, voice acting, and a mission that starts to Kanye’s “Power”. Very memorable for me.

            The last GTA that hooked me was Vice City.

        • Keyrock says:

          I concur with Skittle. GTA IV had a better sandbox, better story, and better character development, yet it just wasn’t fun. Wonky mechanics were part of the equation, but the game also actively sought to keep you from having fun, especially in the beginning. It’s like, here’s this cool sandbox, but we’re going to tie one arm behind your back so you can’t have fun with it. SR3, on the other hand, just dropped you (literally) into their sandbox, dumped a bunch of ridiculous weapons and stuff on you, and said “have at it”. The sandbox isn’t as good, the game is much shorter, the characters aren’t as fleshed out (well… some of them definitely have their flesh out, if you know what I mean), but the game is actively trying to let you have a fun time, and succeeds.

        • noodlecake says:

          “It also made SR2 look like a masterclass in technical proficiency”

          It really didn’t. It was just badly ported to PC. Try playing it on a 360.

          Saints Row has always been about bland physics, forgettable characters, horrible voice acting, lots and lots of options but none of them actually add anything to the game whatsoever, terrible terrible arcadey driving. I don’t get why anybody would play it. Nothing about it is fun for more than five minutes. I think the magic squid gun kept me entertained for about 30 seconds, tops, and then I never used it again. I have about 2 hours clocked on SR3 on steam and I only did that because my friend was so adamant that I should actually give it a chance.

          • Premium User Badge

            basilisk says:

            I dare say that’s what he meant. SR2 also has a legendarily terrible PC port.

            Other than that, I can understand you didn’t like the game (different tastes and all), but you should probably calm down with the accusations because it makes you sound silly. I don’t really accept “forgettable characters” as criticism when it comes from someone who only played the game for two hours and therefore didn’t experience almost any of the character development, and “horrible voice acting” is just objectively wrong. I quite seriously consider SR3 one of the best voiced games I have ever played; there are some really exquisite performances in there.

          • noodlecake says:

            I completed the original Saints Row and the characters in that may have entertained me if I was 10 years old. The game is clearly aimed at children, yet the themes are too mature to be aimed at a child market.

            The whole of the original Saints Row was utterly cringe worthy in terms of characters and narrative. I completed it because GTA IV wasn’t out yet and it had nice graphics and was a bit like playing San Andreas but with ragdoll physics, which is a laugh when nobody else has done that better yet. I felt like SR2 was even worse in that regard although I played a fair chunk of that too. Saints Row 3 was more of the same except that there wasn’t even a sense of progression or achievement because everything is unlocked straight away and after a couple of hours it’s just the same thing. Poor physics, ill thought out characters and story, rehashed gameplay.

          • Machinations says:

            Well, to be honest, everyone is free to their own opinion, but amongst the circles I game in, Saints Row 3 was considered superior to GTAIV..likely because of coop accessibility. Saints Row 3 was more fun than GTA4, end of story.

          • Premium User Badge

            basilisk says:

            Saints Row 3 was more of the same except that there wasn’t even a sense of progression or achievement because everything is unlocked straight away and after a couple of hours it’s just the same thing. Poor physics, ill thought out characters and story, rehashed gameplay.

            There you go again. You simply cannot meaningfully criticise characters and story of SR3 based on SR1 and 2 and less than 5% of the content of SR3. I mean, you can, obviously, but there’s no reason why anyone should listen to you. I don’t even know what “poor physics” means (other than no, Volition really couldn’t afford the fancy body animation engine, and neither could anyone else in the gaming industry except Rockstar) and as for “rehashed gameplay”, yeah, GTA absolutely hasn’t done that, ever.

          • Jimbot says:

            I always enjoyed Saints Row more than Grand Theft Auto, truth be told. Saints Row, while a knock-off, introduced gameplay innovations that GTA hadn’t done. Like actual free-aiming (aka combat that wasn’t terrible), cruise control, setting your own way-points that would update automatically on the mini-map and non-linear story progression as you could choose which gang you took on any time you want and jump between them. Not to mention the car customization and infinite garage that made storing your favorite cars worth doing.

            Saints Row 2 just refined what the first game did and drop the pretenses of being a GTA clone and did their own thing. Instead of a conflicted character whose actions juxtaposed with the cutscenes, your character was blissfully psychotic and the cutscenes mirrored the gameplay. Plus the city was much more vibrant and interactive, with the NPCs always saying something funny or interesting depending on the last mission you did, where are you and what you are wearing.

            Saints Row 3 made the gameplay tighter and wanted to go over-the-top. It was a divisive move, really. I’m kind of neutral about it, missing the insane Boss of the second game, but I thought the game was pretty hilarious with its blunt comedy and more subtle humor and jabs at contemporary game design. Unfortunately, for every step forward they took one back and the world wasn’t as fleshed out, the story was pretty disjointed and it was shorter. Partly because it was a brand new engine and toolset they had to develop and, from some recent interviews, THQ thought some stuff was too dark so they cut it (only example I can think of at the moment is that instead of Killbane crashing Gat’s funeral he set off a dirty bomb in Stillwater, killing a lot of the old characters).

            Really, though, it’s Apples and Oranages to me. The trailer for GTAV impressed me and it looks like a blast. The characters don’t look like a stick-in-the-mud and it didn’t feel pretenious. Looks like the characters are the good, old , fashioned GTA types who love what they do but aren’t entirely bananas. I’m probably going to wait for a price drop before I pick it up though. Two sandbox games a month apart is just too much. Last time I did that it was with The Third and Skyrim and it nearly slayed me (and killed my free time). But I am excited for the game and look forward to seeing more gameplay videos!

      • Premium User Badge

        basilisk says:

        I honestly haven’t seen anyone denying that Liberty City is a truly remarkable achievement and praising Steelport as being superior. Because that would be silly.

        But while GTAIV has a much better sandbox, it takes at least two hours comprised mostly of cutscenes of unpleasant people talking to each other before it grudgingly gives you your first gun (and then spends five minutes chewing you out for actually using it); SR3 gives you one from the get-go and it doesn’t take more than forty minutes before you’re calling in airstrikes and, most likely, laughing like a madman.

        In other words, it’s not the size of your sandbox, it’s how you use it.

        • Sparkasaurusmex says:

          Yes. SR = Laughing wildly. Not really at the humor in the dialogue, but the humor in the actual gameplay. GTA used to do that for me, when I’d use cheat codes for all the weapons, but that eventually got boring, which made me think SR3 would also be a boring game, but SR developers get something GTA does not- variety isn’t good if half of it sucks. Make everything fun. And give me lots of variety. I don’t care how serious GTA’s characters are, it’s a wacky game, but it’s like they refuse to see how stupid and wacky it is, while Saint’s Row embraces it.

        • The Random One says:

          I loved SR3 and I will punch anyone who says Steelport is a good city, whether as a facsimile of a real place where people live or as a videogame playground.

          I also hated GTAIV and will punch with equal violence anyone who denies the city was excellent. Well, maybe not so much strenght – the icky filter most of the areas have may have clouded their judgement, but once you’re driving across the city and the filter from one island is removed but the one from the other hasn’t kicked in yet is when you realize there’s a beatiful city under all that grime.

  28. Rozay says:

    Man, RPS is bad lately. I get that cynicism is seen as the “hip” thing to be, but it’s 2013 duders. Get over it. It’s okay to like AAA games every once in a while.

    And Saints Row? Seriously? Why even mention that in the article? GTA has been, and always will be, the benchmark that all other open-world games are measured by. GTA V looks to absolutely blow everything else out of the water.

    Hell, Volition couldn’t even come up with a new city for Saints Row IV. It looks terrible! Like an unfunny user mod for Saints Row 3 adding “anal probing aliens” and dubstep guns. Let’s ignore the cheap cash in sequels for once in this industry and actually applaud a developer for putting everything they have into an ambitious project such as this.

    • Shezo says:

      Huh, nice one.
      Every hater is apparently a hipster.
      And not because some people heavily disliked GTA4.
      Very convenient

      • Premium User Badge

        jrodman says:

        I think hipster still has too much meaning. It should really be used in combination with the words “hardcore” or “casual” and of course “entitled”.

        For example:

        Oh come on now, you casual entitled hipster, just because it’s an AAA title you don’t have to hate it.

    • Premium User Badge

      basilisk says:

      Hell, Volition couldn’t even come up with a new city for Saints Row IV.

      Because unlike Rockstar, they really don’t have the funds to build a new one from scratch. SR2 recycled the city from SR, too, which is why it could concentrate on throwing more stuff to do into it. It’s generally expected that SR4 is going to do the same, since SR3 had less variety than SR2 because of all the city building they had to do.

      GTAV is a product of an unholy sum of money, enormous teams and a crazy amount of time. You can’t reasonably bash everyone else for not having access to that. Because if you call everything else “cheap cash-ins”, well, then 99% of all games ever made are cheap cash-ins.

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      Dude, don’t think of it as blind hate. Play Saint’s Row 3 already, it’s SMARTER than any GTA, even if it looks stupid.

    • Machinations says:

      I am far less interested in GTAV than SR4 – because GTAIV did not meet up to the hype, and SR3 was fun as hell.

      RockStar has gotten lazy – I dont see any technical achievements here other than a pretty world, which is nice. Coop playing through the entire campaign is far more of an improvement, to me personally.

  29. Laurentius says:

    Since I upgraded my PC in 2007 there are only two games that I call absolutely brilliant and plain masterpieces: GTA IV from 2008 and Portal 2 from 2011. I keep comparing newer (and older )games to them, and no other games come even close.

    Seriously these trailer looks absolutely amazing for me and RPS is hating it general… and SR4 trailer in comparison was praised like there is no tomorrow.

    I’m speechless, I don’t even…I…

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      Honestly I react the same way when I see praise for GTAIV. It’s like you must be blind to it’s flaws! But seriously, it’s just different tastes. You want an interactive movie or a cinematic game? The difference may seem subtle but it’s as significant as the difference between GTA and SR.

  30. Premium User Badge

    fiendling says:

    In spite of the great graphics and AAA production values, GTA V generates little to no interest with me.

    I couldn’t finish GTA IV due to boredom, the frustrating save-point system and an ever increasing apathy towards Nico and his plight.

    Nothing I’ve seen here gives any indication that I wouldn’t find GTA V as tedious as its predecessor. This, coupled with Rockstar’s stance towards PC make it really easy to place it on my “Don’t Buy” list.

    • ulix says:

      Try the Episodes, especially The Ballad of Gay Tony. They have a better save system (missions are autosaved after each section, so if you’ve completed that drive over half the map, you won’t have to do it again if you die), and a better story, as well as more sympathetic characters.

    • blackmyron says:

      Agreed. As someone who played GTA IV on PC and hated it, the episodes were a step back to the classic GTA. A lot more fun… although suffered again from a bad port that is riddled with game-killing bugs.

  31. schlusenbach says:

    I like the fact, that GTA V remembers all the cool kids of their hidden urge to play golf, tennis and bicycle games… so funny.

  32. SuicideKing says:

    At least we had a gameplay trailer that showed us the game and told us about it in quite a bit of detail.

    Not like 2 seconds look “GTA” and it’s gone.

  33. roryok says:

    the Citizen Kane of gaming eleventybluesalivaapplesauce times

    Either I’ve missed some of the more recent internets or you’ve had a tiny stroke. I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE JOKING ABOUT

    • Advanced Assault Hippo says:

      Yeah, Nathan, can we tone down the lolzanyexpressions! a tad? A lot of articles on RPS seem to dissolve into gibberish.

      Although maybe I’m just a bit past it these days….

      • Bhazor says:

        I believe he was attempting “a humour”. Don’t hold his continuous failings against him.

    • MasterDex says:

      Something tells me it relates to a comment, or series of comments I made in a recent article. It appears that here at RPS these days, rather than critical thinking and viewing games though the prism of context, the only intelligent view you’re allowed to have without reproach is that games suck on all levels when compared to the high artistic achievements of Film.

      And if you try to make any argument or comparison otherwise, your comment gets taken out of context, thrown into articles and made to look like the ramblings of a rabidly excited child.

      Or at least that’s what I gather from this.

      • woodsey says:

        I thought it was pretty obvious that he meant it’s not what Citizen Kane was to film, not that IV wasn’t as good as Kane.

        Also, people use the “Citizen Kane of gaming” comment quite often, so I wouldn’t take it so personally.

        • roryok says:

          oh dear. Yes, I understand the Citizen Kane comparison. It was the eleventybluesalivaapplesauce bit I didn’t understand.

      • Sparkasaurusmex says:

        I doubt they’re quoting you in the article, dude.

  34. Snids says:

    I’d just like to say, I’m way to cool for all of this and the most amazing looking game of all time will obviously not be anywhere close to meeting my PC gaming standards.

    This is obviously a GTA game, a GTA game of such breathtaking scope and ambition perhaps, but it is not a different game so I am not happy with it.

    • Machinations says:

      ” most amazing looking game of all time”

      Subjective, and until it is released it is hard to tell. Your sarcasm is noted though – along with the 100 diehard GTA fans in the thread who consider it the be-all and end-all to open world games.

      I’ve played every GTA since they were top down shooters (and so controversial); the last one was great technically but a poor game. I’ll wait until this goes on sale, but Saints Row 4 – Saints Row which I used to think was a poor knockoff of GTA – will be day 1 purchase.

  35. Crosmando says:

    Always surprises me to see PC gamers being GTA fans, given how Rockstar quite obviously doesn’t give two shits about the PC audience.

    • philbot says:

      Because perhaps the game speaks for itself?

      • Crosmando says:

        Utter shit you mean?

        • roryok says:

          They might be a lot of things, but GTA games are not “utter shit”. Vice City was a fine, fine game in just about every way possible.

          GTA games have become hugely popular, and when things become hugely popular, people call them shit. Maybe it’s the dichotomy between liking something and seeing that some fucking asshole you despise also likes it, and therefore it must be unlikeable. Or maybe it just makes people feel superior to knock things that are popular.

    • Werthead says:

      Rockstar have sold a lot of games on PC (7 million of VICE CITY’s 21 million sales were on PC, for example) and they do care about the platform. They just don’t care about it *as much* as console.

      It is irritating that they’re going to do what they did with GTA4, which is refuse to admit the existence of a PC version until the console versions come out, then go, “Hey, we have GTA on PC after all! See, we still love you!” and ask us to buy it.

      However, you can understand the clear reasoning: if it was revealed to the console masses that the game was coming to the One True Format in glorious not-looking-like-arse-o-vision just a few weeks/months/epochs later, they would probably all commit suicide in envy. Or have to go buy a PC. Or something.

  36. somnolentsurfer says:

    But… that job ad could equally well be about bring Red Dead to PC…

    Or not, I guess.

  37. Premium User Badge

    Malcolm says:

    When I watched this it just made me wish that someone would (re)make Crackdown for the PC – loved that game. The whole crime aspect of GTA always left be cold – leaping tall buildings in a single bound, collecting orbs and tooling around in a selection of ridiculous vehicles was much more fun.

  38. F3ck says:

    I really want to play this game…as Alex Mercer.

  39. LennyLeonardo says:

    What’s fascinating to me about Rockstar’s open world games (RDR in particular) is not only controlling a character in a linear story, but getting to inhabit him in his downtime as well.

    Either state complements the other creating (in theory) a more coherent whole. The result is a much broader sense of context than you get from stories told in other media. Other developers are good at this, too, but Rockstar are one of the best.

    However, if you don’t like the writing, or you find the emergent play boring, the whole house of cards falls down. Also, it’s definitely not the only way to make a compelling open world game, but it’s a good one.

    Edit: Hmm, the above is a bit wanky isn’t it? Oh well. Doesn’t really hold up when you break the fiction by going on a killing spree either…

  40. Lemming says:

    Not really compelled by the same old same old. Is it me or the more ‘realistic’ GTA games get the more drab and grey they look?

    I want day-glo 70s kung-fu Hong Kong setting with a female lead’s rise to Triad prominence voiced by Lucy Liu. WHY HAVEN’T I GOT THIS YET?

    • The Random One says:

      I want a cyberpunk sandbox set in 2027 São Paulo in which your character is a transexual Filipino woman with illegal brain transplants that give her seizures but also allow her to fire lasers out of her eyes.

  41. Lokik says:

    I loved GTA 4 and it’s expansions (except for some of the mission checkpoints and the constant “come play pool with me!” calls). For me GTA was always more about the missions and fun cut scenes full of excellent dialogue than driving around aimlessly and causing chaos until getting killed by the army or whatever. The extra stuff like dating and shopping were fun once in a while too.

    I remember trying to play “realistically” and keep the same car as long as possible until I get a better one from a mission instead of just stealing a new car every 5 minutes, driving around carefully like in real life and only committing crimes when I really have to. Guess I’m kinda weird for trying to role play in GTA games.

  42. Papageno says:

    Maybe I’m weird, but I’ve always completed the plot of the GTA games I’ve played (well, the 3D versions anyway–I found the non-existent and inadequate savegame mechanics of the first two top-down ones too much of a barrier to progress, although I played the crap out of them).

    In terms of gameplay, I consider San Andreas to have been the pinnacle of the series. I loved me some Vice City, no question (I was in my 20′s during the 80′s, so it was a huge nostalgia trip), but they just packed more fun into SA. The fact that this coming game is set in Los Santos gives me a lot of hope that the mission variety and craziness of SA will return.

  43. Stevostin says:

    While I do regret that the “fun with the city” factor is played down in GTAIV (let us buy car, places, unique guns so that money means something, and let us earn it with traffic!), I did play for the cutscenes because frankly they’re good. Good as in “I can’t stand watching most move because of the poor writing but GTAIV is ok in my book”. Niko Belic remains to me one of the most interesting character I’ve seen both in video games and police movies.

  44. Stevostin says:

    Watched the trailer. Looks like the dream game. Just need a proprer first person view mod :P