GTA V: Grand Theft Auto 5, Trailer 2

Gee-Tav’s Second Trailer Is Here! Well, below, anyway. It shows us a little bit more of the giant open world’s three-man story of glitzy gangsterism and vehicular vehicularisms. The game, which is due next spring, will apparently feature “yoga, triathlons, Jet Skiing, base-jumping, tennis, golf, scuba diving or go to the gym.” A bit like the RPS office, that. Only with less macho sportsmanship.

My, isn’t that fancy-lookin’? The same sort of dialogue and cinematic sheen we’ve come to expect, only prettier. It’s a bit of a shame that the dog looks more realistic than any of the people. But it’s a hell of a dog.

GTA V’s three protagonists – two of which are grizzled middle-aged men, for some reason – have an interwoven plots (a bit like an episode of Top Gear) and we get to see a bit of that here: with all three enjoying crime-based mishaps as they pursue their fortune. Quite how they will come together in the game, though, remains to be seen.

Not that we really care, the trailer seems to imply, because: driving out the back of a plane, a head-long train crash, and a jet fighter shooting down choppers.

YouTube alternative:


  1. ulix says:

    Not loading for me… cannot wait… argh… F5… F5… F5…

    • Lev Astov says:

      Glad it’s not just me, then. F5F5F5F5F5F5F5

      Update: It worked! And wow, I’m not a big GTA fan, but that looks incredible!

  2. Optimaximal says:


  3. GallonOfAlan says:

    The .. black! The BLACK!


    • GameStunts says:

      I got it!

      “The gulls! The gulls have plucked out my eyes!”

  4. Sp4rkR4t says:

    Wow, the new GTA is dark, some would say pitch black.

  5. jonfitt says:

    It’s an artistic interpretation of the futility of crime.

  6. HisMastersVoice says:

    RPS now reports on console exclusive titles? Did I miss something?

    • ulix says:

      Are you really that daft? Of course it’ll come to PC, even if it’s not even announced yet. Just like all major GTA games since III weren’t announced for PC innitially, but still hit our godly Uber-Devices at some point.

      • Didden says:

        Rock Paper Shurely its gotta be out for PC!

      • HisMastersVoice says:

        I remember people saying RDR will surely come to PC.

        RPS is free to report on anything it wants, I just find it amusing everyone seem to flock so religiously to the notion that “it will surely come to the PC”, despite Rockstar being absolute jerks when it comes to our preferred platform.

        • ulix says:

          RDR is a Rockstar San Diego game. All four Rockstar San Diego games before RDR didn’t come out on PC. The predecessor didn’t come out on PC.

          GTA V is a Rockstar North game. All Rockstar North games came out on PC. The predecessors came out on PC.

          • HisMastersVoice says:

            Fair point.

            Still, I can’t get excited about crappy console footage. Not to mention GTA4 wasn’t that good of a game.

          • S Jay says:

            Not to mention that this rendering does not look console stuff. I bet this is running on a PC.

          • ulix says:

            As a game, or an open world game for that matter… maybe. I had fun. Even though the Episodes from LC were both vastly superior (checkpoints during missions, thank glob!), especially Gay Tony.

            It did have the most convincing, authentic, “Real-feeling” world and city of any game ever though. If they can keep that up, this incredibly attention to detail in their world building, that’d almost be enough for me.

          • Lekker says:

            @S Jay, you mean those stairs instead of shadows? Yeah. Definitely not.

          • kzrkp says:

            It is amusing that the trailer is obviously rendered on a PC when it won’t be out on PC for a year after release.

          • Domino says:

            You can be sure that there will be a PC version, but don’t expect it for 6+ months after the release, I just hope this time around they do a proper port instead of a half arsed one like GTA4. In either case the fact that GTA4 has been kept in the news with various mods they would be bonkers not to.

    • Screamer says:

      As far as I’m concerned this doesn’t exist yet! GTA whatnow? :D

  7. BobbyDylan says:

    This isn’t coming to PC though (isn’t it?) so it’s hard for me to get too excited.

    • Spider Jerusalem says:

      basically this.

    • ulix says:

      Yes, this WILL come to PC. EVen if it’s not announced yet. Just like GTA IV came to PC, even though it initially wasn’t announced for it, just like the Episodes came to PC, just like San Andreas came to PC, just like Vice City came to PC, and just like GTA III came to PC eventually.

    • Lev Astov says:

      What?! No PC version? But GTA is a staple PC game! That would kill my respect for Rockstar.

      Oh that’s right, they did do the extremely delayed PC release thing with the last two, didn’t they? Consider my enthusiasm attenuated.

    • clive dunn says:

      Simple solution should this not come to PC. Simply hollow out your existing PC case and dump a PS3 or x-thingy in there, draw some qwerty keys on the controller and replace your monitor with a tv. Bingo!

  8. kraken says:

    Youtube link to the trailer: link to

  9. Enzo says:

    Brilliant as always. I fucking love Rockstar.

  10. Cold Steel says:

    I’ll give it a solid 2007 should it come out for PC.

    Really a shame that the PC isn’t the lead platform in any title these days, it is amazing what they can squeeze out of that old hardware but really now, we’re in 2012 already.

    • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

      And yet small attention-to-detail, overall art direction, animation, aesthetics and a technical consistency still make this game better looking than most PC exclusives. Go figure.

      • Cold Steel says:

        I didn’t say it was bad, just imagine what they could do with more than 256MB RAM.

        • fish99 says:

          Pretty sure both the PS3 and 360 have a total of 512mb combined system and video ram. And btw if you up the sliders in GTA4 PC you can get the vram usage above 1GB.

      • HisMastersVoice says:

        I’m not sure which PC exclusive you’re comparing this game to…

        • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

          Take your pick really, in the realm of animation, there’s basically nothing remotely as naturalistic as what Rockstar have done with the Euphoria engine with the sole exception of Overgrowth‘s procedural animations and that has incomparably less scenarios to animate and unique animations.

          • HisMastersVoice says:

            Wait, did you just compare an AAA title to a game made by one guy? I’m not sure if that’s really fair…

          • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

            What’s with the non-sequitur? I’m actually praising their efforts as being better than almost all other AAA games when I mention it’s the only thing close to Rockstar’s animation.

          • HisMastersVoice says:

            My apologies. I clearly misunderstood you.

          • Amun says:


          • Sulph says:

            ‘Take your pick’? You are kidding, right?

            Animation alone does not a game make. GTA V’s attention to detail is typical for a Rockstar product, but the blurry textures, low resolution normal maps, and jaggies don’t flatter it very much. Compare it to the Witcher 2 on an objective, technical level and it’s patently obvious which game’s better-looking, purely by virtue of better-realised art assets.

            In texture resolution and facial detail alone, Crysis wins the comparison. I’m not sure what you’re trying to suggest here apart from the fact that you like Euphoria tech, which is easily deployed in any game, PC exclusive or otherwise. It must be horrifically expensive, though, if R* is the only company that seems to use it.

          • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

            Compare it to the Witcher 2 on an objective, technical level…

            But you see, that depends on the quantitative metrics you use to formulate your “objective” evaluation, and the selection of those and priority of those is subjective. For instance, the scale of what is being rendered here, compounded with the relative detail is a humbling achievement given the apparent size of the world, said to be three and a half times the size of RDR, of unique rather than repeated assets (see Just Cause 2) is already a logistical feat before you even begin to discuss technology (on on a console no less).

            In texture resolution and facial detail alone, Crysis wins the comparison.

            But they were horribly and stiffly animated and were easily bested in emotion and nuance conveyed by the vastly technically inferior Source Engine, it’s a horrible example and relies on fixating on arbitrary technical polish rather than artistry. You do realise the point I’m trying to make is that you can’t just narrowly assess graphics by the density of texture resolution and subsurface scattering? There’s an element of artistry, skill and how one utilises and leverages even inferior technology to produce unique and evocative results.

          • Stevostin says:

            “Compare it to the Witcher 2 on an objective, technical level and it’s patently obvious which game’s better-looking, purely by virtue of better-realised art assets.”

            You could really have picked a better exemple. Witched 2 is butt head ugly. Even if you don’t consider the artistic direction (which I really can’t stand) as subjective, you’re stuck with a game that has a ridiculous fade distance even when you max it out, and that needs every glitter to look decent. Characters are good, but you just have always the same and the same and the same in a game space that is immensely smaller than GTA stuff.

            GTAIV is way more beautiful than Witcher 2 if you ask me. GTA V is several leagues away. If you want to compare it to a modern day PC title, I assume Battlefield stuff at least would be more relevant.

    • Universal Quitter says:

      “Really a shame that the PC isn’t the lead platform in any title these days”

      It’s probably far, far easier to predict sales and bugs with console releases than with a PC release. Some games just “make sense” for PC, others don’t. I don’t think you were really being that serious, though. I hope. Personally, I like that video games have created a rich tapestry of subcultures, all with an amusing amount of espirit de corps.

    • Stevostin says:

      You’re a bit harsh. 2007 was world of warcraft vanilla or not even that. You should check back games from that time : there all really far from this in terms of believability. That being said, yes, give me HD, give soft shadows, give me high res textures, advanced DX11 FX, etc.

      • Brun says:

        WoW Vanilla was 2004. To put things in perspective, the original Crysis released in 2007.

  11. brau says:

    ah… this game will be epic! great ost already, the city looks alive, and that halo jump… holy crap! i believe that this is the biggest game already!

  12. Unaco says:

    So… It’s called Grand Theft Auto V 5? Grand Theft Auto 5 V? Grand Theft Auto 5 5? I think there’s something redundant in the logo there.

  13. JoeGuy says:

    That was pretty cool and I don’t even care about trailers. Way to be my GTA Rockstar…

  14. mrmalodor says:

    PC version 0

  15. Spoon Of Doom says:

    I’m still not quite sold on the idea of three protagonists. Also that one guy, the left most in the pictures, is not exactly a character I want to play as. But let’s wait and see, maybe when the game is out, that’ll be my favourite character and I’ll be in love with the multiple protagonists thing. Who knows?

    • werix says:

      So long as they give each character enough time to be fully developed, I think its a great idea. They basically did this with GTAIV; the two guys from the episodes were intertwined in Niko’s story to some degree. If it is that, but more interweaving, I am totally sold.

    • ulix says:

      Apparently he was inspired by the typical GTA player that just goes around causing havoc and destruction. So his missions should be fun to play.

      • kataras says:

        That would be me. I got GTA IV, started playing a few missions, got bored and proceeded to gun down and blow up everything and everyone till I got killed. Then I would get out of the hospital and do it again till I get bored. I never did manage to become interested in the story and I have a feeling that GTA V will be the same.

    • noodlecake says:

      I’d like to be able to play as a horrible arsehole psychopath.

    • vorvek says:

      He’s the one I liked the most, since he has aesthetic features rarely found in main characters in video games, yet somewhat common in real life.

  16. werix says:

    This reminds I never beat GTAIV. Beat the episodes, because the player characters were actually interesting as opposed to Niko, and I didn’t have guys constantly calling me to hang out, but maybe I’ll go back and give IV one last go.

    • Pray For Death says:

      GTA IV was boring, I don’t blame you.

      • fish99 says:

        It wasn’t boring, it just had some boring elements, like the whole maintaining friendships thing, which in hindsight was a clear misstep, and it also lacked enough checkpoints on missions, which meant redoing long and fairly pointless driving sections. The rest was fine. Of course it started slowly too, but that’s because you were a nobody fresh off the boat. There’s a ton of great missions once you get into the meat of the game though.

        The other controversial element to GTA4 was the more realistic car physics, which I guess were frustrating to people who weren’t good at car/racing games (but loved by people like me).

        • werix says:

          The driving elements didn’t bug me, it was just Niko was a shit character compared to the playable characters in the Episodes, both of which I played and loved. Some of the main game’s NPCs were good, but if experiencing those good NPCs meant constantly dealing with Niko and Roman’s bullshit, I’ll pass. It was just at the point that I was trying to play, and getting whinny phonecalls from Roman every 5 minutes to go play pool, so I just stopped until I was able to play the superior episodes from liberty city.

          But again, I might go back, give it a try, and just ignore every damned phonecall I get; see how the game likes that.

          • fish99 says:

            You can completely ignore the companion thing if you want though. The only ones worth doing are for Jacob because it gets you cheaper weapons (although from half way through money is essentially limitless anyway).

            I actually really liked Niko and Roman.

  17. Tyrone Slothrop. says:

    I personally rank GTA IV as one of the greatest games ever made, up there with Deus Ex and System Shock 2. Yet this just looks to be a vastly greater achievement in my opinion, the sheer atmosphere and presentation just seem unlike any other game, vibrant yet astounding grounded.

    If there’s no PC version, I will despair.

  18. mehteh says:

    Jesus christ this console footage has a ridiculous amount of aliasing. More than the screenshots. This makes me worried if a PC version is at all coming out because they could have at least used PC footage with better settings to make the shallow console gamers think its console footage like everyone else seems to do.

    • Jesse L says:

      I’ve had enough of this console gamer racism! It’s time, more than time, to stand up to bigots like you. Just because a person doesn’t game on PC doesn’t make that person a second-class citizen. Console gamers have jobs, families, hobbies…just like you! You, sir, are on the wrong side of history.

      • InternetBatman says:

        I know its a joke but really “console gamer racism?” It’s not even accurate.

        • AndrewC says:

          Defining an entire group in negative terms (‘shallow’ in this case), blaming them for everything (dumbing down games, usually) and implying you are better than them (the standard rhetoric of us vs them) – yes, this is the MO of racism. Tribalist, insecure, ignorant and hateful.

          In the great scheme of injustices this doesn’t rate at all, but in the rather more minor scheme of discussions on gaming blogs, it derails entire threads, wastes all our time, and fills our day with yet more ugly sludge.

          • Raiyan 1.0 says:

            Yeah, the RPS comment section has gone down in quality lately. So much insecurity!

            And God, the moaning.

          • Hahaha says:

            You reap what you sow

          • lordcooper says:

            No, that’s discrimination. Otherwise homophobia would be racism and I’m pretty sure a race comprised solely of gay people wouldn’t still be around today.

          • Imbecile says:

            Aye, its probably discrimination, but its certainly small-minded stupidity. I’m with AndrewC

          • InternetBatman says:

            No. It’s prejudice. The concept of race is ascribed (externally defined) to individuals in our society and apparent (externally identifiable in most cases), which is the root of why it is particularly poisonous and harmful. Affiliations like console or pc gamer, are voluntary and not externally identifiable unless the individual defines themselves as such.

            Using “racism” as a word meaning “mild prejudice” indicates ignorance or deficient critical thinking.

          • Phantoon says:

            Yes, it’s hateful. But we’re all in agreement that it isn’t actually hateful, because console peasants aren’t even people, of course.

            Good talk!

          • Brun says:

            Using “racism” as a word meaning “mild prejudice” indicates ignorance or deficient critical thinking.

            Or laziness. And given that lazy people are externally identifiable, and individuals, they are by your definition a race. I therefore demand that you quit being racist against lazy people!

  19. N'Al says:

    Reminds me, gotta get back to Gay Tony.

    And in the game…

  20. InternetBatman says:

    That looks almost as good as GTA IV with mods. You think they would show the PC version just to make it look better.

    • HisMastersVoice says:

      No it doesn’t. I mean, seriously, the textures alone aren’t even close to what modded GTA4 can look like.

      • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

        You do realise there’s vastly more to ‘graphics’ than texture resolution and anti-aliasing? You know there’s some element of artistry and creativity you’re profoundly overlooking.

        • HisMastersVoice says:

          Creativity? Artistry? GTA has always tried to emulate reality as closely as possible, it’s not like highway assets ripped right out of reference photos require much art direction compared to something like Dishonored or Bastion.

          Not that any of this has anything to do with differences in graphical fidelity between a console version of GTA and modded GTA on PC. Which was kinda the point.

          • Brun says:

            Er…what? GTA is at MOST a caricature of reality, it’s certainly not purely realistic.

          • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

            GTA has always tried to emulate reality as closely as possible.

            It demonstrably hasn’t, it has always been stylised, both as one can clearly see and as informed of in interviews with principle figures responsible.

            It’s not like highway assets ripped right out of reference photos require much art direction.

            That’s a woefully thoughtless dismissal that doesn’t deserve commentary.

            Not that any of this has anything to do with differences in graphical fidelity between a console version of GTA and modded GTA on PC. Which was kinda the point.

            It does and IcEnchancer doesn’t add qualities like moving wrinkles to clothing, improve facial animations, add a greater density of physical content and new physical assets to the world. That’s all part of fidelity unless you narrowly focus on resolution, filtering, colour-correction and anti-aliasing.

          • ulix says:

            Because GTA’s cities are exact copies of the real cities… that’s why no art direction is required. Sure.

          • HisMastersVoice says:

            I’ll gladly read those interviews with principal figures stating GTA has been stylized. I really do.

            As for you dismissal, I am a professional concept designer and illustrator and have worked on multiple projects, with multiple art directors. I know where art direction applies and how much of it is needed. As I said, GTA does not compare to games like Dishonored or HL in terms of the amount of art direction required to achieve the desired effects.

            And I stand by my distinction between graphical fidelity and overall design.

          • LennyLeonardo says:

            Not this again. Anyone who thinks that GTA IV was trying to mimic reality must’ve injected too much bull shark testosterone into their pituitary gland.

            The entire world is a lurid parody, and the art style is no different. Sure, it’s not as cartoony as GTA III, but it’s certainly not realistic. All those people saying its po-faced and serious were obviously rasied by circus clowns and eat jelly for breakfast.

            Edit: do I mean “parody” or “satire”? Both, maybe.

          • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

            I’ll gladly read those interviews with principal figure stating GTA has been stylized. I really do.

            I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, are you being ironic or is it a mea culpa for speaking out of erroneous assumption or are you asking for evidence? Because outside of trying to dig through five-year old and copyright infringing (and therefore removed) scanned magazine previews of IV, you could just search ‘GTA photorealism’ and find a recent corroborating quote of Dan Houser in Forbes; “I think photorealism is a bit of a boring goal, actually.” But surely given your background, you could appreciate the obvious stylisation of GTA and don’t need to be told this, surely.

            Your appeal-to-authority fallacy is noted but it doesn’t bolster an argument based on assumption and an already erroneous premise (their goal is a replication of real-life) nor an obviously facile proposition. If you’ll re-read this conversation, you’ll see it began by me suggesting there was more to visuals than technical masturbation and you immediately tried to marginalise the clear artistry and ingenuity that undeniably goes into this, I still have no idea why other than perhaps some kind of platform defensiveness.

          • The Random One says:

            HisMastersVoice, go play True Crime: Streets of LA and you’ll discover what a game that strives for photorealism and has no artistic direction actually looks like.

          • HisMastersVoice says:

            I was serious. I really wanted to see those sources you mentioned. Unfortunately, you invoked some sort of written testimony on the subject of supposed stylisation of GTA design and then not only failed to produce evidence when asked to (because copyright infringement, right), you also tried to pat it down with a quote that doesn’t even touch the subject. Newsflash – “emulating reality as closely as possible” does not equal photorealism and does not require photorealism. This is visual design 101. Heck, it’s one of the basics of pretty much any art related course.

            And finally, you might have noticed that I said GTA design requires relatively minor art direction compared to much more involved projects like Dishonored. You chose to interpret it as marginalization, which on in itself is such a broad term that it’s easy to find some meaning of it over which one can get offended, perhaps due to some sort of self admitted bias towards a certain game.

          • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

            Because why would I want to convince you of what’s patently obvious and go to disproportionate lengths searching now obscure previews which I read four and five years ago, to find enough quotes to satisfy you, inspite of the fact I produced one already and you just dismissed it out of hand. It’s a fool’s errand and I’ve already been very generous with my time.

            Secondly, I’m not going to have to walk you through this conversation again using bullet points am I? It’s perfectly understandable: I say there’s artistry and creativity involved in graphics and by clear implication in GTA. You take issue, suggesting there’s not much artistry or creativity ’emulating reality as closely as possible’ (itself a highly troublesome and rather limited statement) and again, demonstrably wrong both by looking at the game and availing yourself of stated, publicly professed intentions of the creators of the game itself.

            You then reject evidence I provide but already laughable to request as you apparently need written confirmation, in your words, “stating GTA has been stylized.Look at the games or have you not played them? Because that would make so much more sense.

            They could have adjusted the colour scheme of IV to reflect purely natural tones and hues (as mods have done since its release) but it uses a distinct colour palette, even the duration of sunrise and sunset was deliberately altered to be longer than in reality, that’s the level of detail they went into, the textures aren’t photographs but digital paintings, again, stylised. You would know this if you played the game. It’s not attempting to emulate reality as closely as possible, it would have used clearly different techniques to have already done so. And thus exposed is the central failing of your contention; none of that would have been done if they were attempting to emulate reality as closely as possible.

            Further how is “Creativity? Artistry? …it’s not like highway assets ripped right out of reference photos require much art direction…” not marginalising the game? Creavity? Artistry? …in that? It would bizarrely glib even if it were applicable to a game seeking to replicate reality.

            I’m not offended, I’m perplexed someone with the ostensible credentials of yourself can’t recognise this and would go to these lengths to try to argue otherwise and actually disheartened a professed and ostensibly creative mind would, to bring us back to our first dispute, dismiss graphics as a function of artistry, my entire initial point.

          • HisMastersVoice says:

            You prop your argument with appeal to authority (and unlike me, this is an actual appeal to authority) then refuse to provide relevant material. If you don’t want to waste your time searching for those interviews, don’t call on them.

            I’ve already explained why the quote you did provide is not relevant, but you chose to go over it without discussing the point.

            “You take issue, suggesting there’s not much artistry or creativity ‘emulating reality as closely as possible’”

            I said it requires much less art direction. It’s there in my post. Hard to miss. And I stand by my assessment.

            Your inability to understand that the burden of proof lies on you in this case in rather baffling. You made claims, you’re supposed to back them up with something more than repetition of your own view of the subject. If you call on the authors of the game as authority it is not unreasonable for me to ask that your actuality produce something to back it up.

            “They could have adjusted the colour scheme, etc”

            Color shifting would barely classify as stylization even in classical cinematography, an area where the available amount of stylistic variables is quite a bit smaller. It is of course a form of stylisation, but one that’s well within the parameters of conscious emulation of reality.

            And that’s discounting the possibility it’s a result of adjusting the look of the game due to technical limitation.

            Of course the sunset and sunrise are going to be longer, otherwise people wouldn’t even notice it due to the extremely short night/day cycle of the game. If you’re going to have them in, you have to make sure they last for longer than a minute.

            All good textures are at a minimum paintovers over reference material, no one just slaps a naked photo onto assets, especially in a game with such woefully low resolution. At that level it’s actually easier to paint the textures from scratch than it is to prevent hi-res reference from losing all focus during downscaling.

            Now, I really can’t tell what those points are meant to do here. You doggedly refuse to accept the comparative nature of my first post, therefore existing in some sort of parallel universe where I said that GTA took absolutely no artistic effort to make whatsoever, rather than what I actually said – that GTA required little art direction (without saying how much, mind you) when compared to involved visual stylisations of Dishonored or HL, or accept that faithful emulation of reality is not in fact synonymous with photorealism. Do I really have to go back to Rembrandt or Michelangelo to make the point clear?

        • Infinite says:

          You’re probably thinking of aesthetics since graphics are about things such as texture resolutions, AA and AF.

          • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

            But aesthetics are an intrinsic part of graphics.

          • InternetBatman says:

            No, they’re not. Graphics are an intrinsic part of aesthetics, but aesthetics aren’t an intrinsic part of graphics. A CAD program or 3D modeler could have extensive graphical capabilities without engaging in significant aesthetic choices.

            Furthermore, the artists’ visions are already significantly distorted by limited technology since their creations are normally much higher resolution etc. and downscaled to fit the medium of the day.

          • LennyLeonardo says:

            This is a pretty interesting discussion. I’ve always wondered where the distinction between “graphics” and “art” lies. I think they’re more interrelated than you suggest. I mean, “graphics” are the sum of “art” and “technology”? Or not? I’m not sure…

          • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

            InternetBruceWayne, whilst I was referring more to graphics as a visual whole, aesthetics are not to be conflated with visual art direction, it’s a branch of philosophy dealing with the concepts of beauty, appreciation, art, the sense of these qualities and so forth and is applicable to everything from music, mathematical algorithms and even ethics. So graphics aren’t an intrinsic or foundational part of aesthetics (sculptures and music aren’t graphics for one) but aesthetics must be an intrinsic part of graphics, as they are appreciable by sense.

    • Magnusm1 says:

      Isn’t it obvious that the trailer is from the PC-version?

  21. db1331 says:

    I paid full price for GTA IV at launch, and my PC that was smoking every other game on the market on ultra was getting about 2fps on low. On top of that, the game wasn’t even that good, once I could eventually play it. It was a massive step down from San Andreas.

    So I think for V, I will wait until the bundle with all the DLC hits $10.

    • skinlo says:

      4 years later, you still haven’t got over it….?

      • db1331 says:

        I’ve gotten over the fact that it was broken at launch, yes. I won’t get over the fact that it was a bad game until R* releases another good GTA game. That is why I am taking a wait and see approach to this one.

  22. Dudeist says:

    Nah, no zombies :P

  23. wodin says:

    Hmmm….as far as people go graphics haven’t improved much in at least two years. I can’t wait for the next gen consoles now just so we can start to see some progress with regards to that sort of thing. Looks more of the same..nothing inspiring..and you know what my favorite GTA wasis..well I have two GTA 1 and GTA 2. I had more fun with those two games than i did with any recent GTA game. I did enjoy the biker run through in one of the series but the others I’ve played I never finished..

    Edit: Just noticed people saying it isn’t coming out on PC or hasn’t been announced or why is it on RPS? ALso no wonder i though the graphics hadn’t moved on..

  24. Totally heterosexual says:

    This looks very nice.

    Im willing to forgive some odd graphics stuff, if the world is as big and detailed as they promised.

  25. DarkFenix says:

    I don’t quite understand the praise for this trailer, it’s showing off a bunch of “you do this once in one mission” set pieces. I’m more interested in what the game will let me do to randomly dick around between missions.

    • x1501 says:

      Try looking beyond the mission tidbits. The sense of scale and attention to detail that is there is simply astounding.

    • Runs With Foxes says:

      It’s too late to talk about gameplay in a GTA game. They’re all about the story now.

  26. Brise Bonbons says:

    There are certainly some intriguing narrative possibilities on display here, but for me the overall effort falls flat. GTA’s world view and attitude feel old – conservative? – when held up to the raw style and experimentation of something like Hotline Miami.

    Or, maybe it’s that this trailer feels like a mashup of a big summer blockbuster movie (driving out of an airplane, really?) and the latest ironically quirky dramedy from Showtime/HBO.

    Or is that just me?

    It’s not helping that everything on display looks to be from a cutscene or a “press B to drop into car” sequence, which is not exactly the main draw in an open-world sandbox game.

    To come full circle, the character choices are interesting, at least. Though I think it’s troubling that of 3 protagonists none of them are women…

    • HisMastersVoice says:

      I’m guessing they’re trying to maintain a modicum of verisimilitude. How often do you hear of women involved in high profile heists or mafia deals? Making a woman work within that framework would require some heavy muscling with the script to not break the illusion of “could be real”.

      Perhaps they’ll find the time to do that in an expansion.

      • Werthead says:

        Ever heard of the Cocaine Godmother?

        link to

        There’s been a few high-profile women involved in the Mafia and other criminal activities (Patty Hearst, Bonnie Parker etc). Not as many as men, but a few and given how many GTA games there have been it is tilting onto the statistically unusual side of things that we haven’t had many high-profile female criminals in the series (Catalina from GTA3 and SA, and Elizabeta Torres in GTA4 are the only ones that come to mind), let alone as controllable characters.

        What is really weird is that GTA is the series that has given us three African-American (well, two and one Dominican-American) controllable characters and was rightly lauded for breaking the mould there, and for featuring in its previous installment a generally well-written relationship between a black straight guy and a gay older man, but for some reason it can’t just give us a controllable female character. It just seems odd.

        • thecat17 says:

          Luis Lopez from The Ballad of Gay Tony is Hispanic.

          EDIT: Okay, he’s Dominican. So technically, I think we’re both more right than wrong.

        • HisMastersVoice says:

          Not that your link refers to a top tier drug dealer, not someone who muscles his way through the world with brawl, which is the core of GTA gameplay. We’re not playing bosses, we’re supposed to play the guys who does all the dirty work. It’s harder to implement a woman into that kind of setting than it is to do with a black or gay man, even if the woman in question is a violent psychopath. Or especially if she’s one.

    • Fluka says:

      Three dudes have dude problems, are brought together in the game by their shared dudeishness.

  27. SocraticIrony says:

    Looks promising, although character animations are still a little ropey in places.

  28. 2late2die says:

    Can you imagine how much better it could’ve looked if it was coming out for PC first? I mean it looks nice and all but those textures are muddy as hell, shadows look really bad, and the whole thing definitely has that “last gen” vibe.

  29. fish99 says:

    I loved GTA4, both the Niko story and the episodes (Gay Tony esp was a ton of fun). We finally got a GTA game where the guns handled well, the car physics felt spot on, and it had the mature gritty story telling of a game like Mafia.

    I’ll be waiting for PC. GTA4 PC looks and runs so much better than the console version with the right hardware.

    • The Random One says:

      You are my opposite. We must battle. The one who remains shall become twice was strong.

      Well, actually I did like IV’s story, when it strayed away from the unmemorable stereotypical characters and focused on the few great ones. But other than that, yeah, complete opposite. I’ll bring the swords.

  30. Snids says:

    Looks completely amazing and is probably the best trailer for a game I’ve ever seen.

    Oh wait, I’m commenting on RPS…


    • Phantoon says:

      This doesn’t really help, not that it’s unwarranted.

      But it wasn’t always like this. Once, long ago, before the entire staff of RPS was eaten by a horrible monster (twice), the comments section only had the highest of standards. But then Kieron sold all the top hats and monocles to a thrift store for quick money so he could get a replica of Mjolnir, as he was writing for Thor at the time. Then he took off into the skies, and was never seen again.

    • thecat17 says:

      It really is getting much easier to tell who’s coming here from /v/.

  31. BreadBitten says:

    This looks too good to be footage from current generation systems. Clink your glasses chaps, looks like a PC version isn’t too far after all!

  32. krisanto says:

    Is it just me or does one of the new protagonists look like Jack Nicholson?

  33. Danda says:

    The final shot shows the protagonists as the Three Monkeys: See no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil.

    So Rockstar is as subtle about its characters/monkeys as ever.

  34. Strutter says:

    wanna pet that dog

  35. DickSocrates says:

    I can’t watch it. If I watch it I’ll want it. And if I watch this then I’ll read all the other info. And I’ll go insane.

    I’m boycotting all GTA coverage until I have a copy of the game in my hand. I drove myself loopy waiting for Arkham City (and that was a disappointment for all kinds of reasons). Same goes for GTAIV (for which I bought an 360… actually, I think that’s the only game I ever bought for it!), and SA, and VC, and GTAIII.

    I’ve learned my lesson. It’s going to be difficult, but not as difficult as immersing myself in it and not having it. After reading the Game Informer stuff the other day I had a dream about the game that night. I’m incredibly susceptible to this stuff. I don’t even think GTAIV is that great, but those first few hours in a new city are always amazing.

  36. Yosharian says:

    Umm, Spring 2013? Isn’t it a bit early to be watching trailers about this game? Oh well, whatever.

    • GallonOfAlan says:

      Spring 2013? 4 months away?

      • Papageno says:

        Do we have a definite launch date? Or is it just “Spring 2013” which technically could be as late as mid-June?

        • ulix says:

          Gonna be late April or May. GTA IV came out in late May, RDR and Max Payne 3 both came out in May.

  37. gulag says:

    Yay for Kane & Lynch 3!

  38. Wooly Wugga Wugga says:

    I love the way they feel they have to tell us that V = 5.

    Thanks Rockstar, I’d never have guessed.

    • Zarf says:

      I’m pretty sure it’s just supposed to be stylistically reminiscent of American currency. If you look at a $1 bill, it will have a 1 with the word “ONE” written over it. Sure, this is a V with “FIVE” written over it instead of a 5 with “FIVE” written over it, but I for one immediately tied that design to American currency.

      I don’t know what the design elements on American currency are called (What with all the criss-crossed lines, the floral-esque embellishments, letter shading, etc), but it’s all very official looking. :D

  39. Zarf42 says:

    Looks like they’ve re-discovered and improved upon their sense of comedic timing. If this gets a decent PC version and actually performs well on an appropriate rig, I will throw all of my money at this.

  40. Phantoon says:

    Yes, yes, polo golf and skiing on dolphins sounds nice, but what about the crime? And not white collar crime, that’s boring.

  41. Fox89 says:

    On tonight’s show!

    Trevor throws Molotov Cocktails out of a dune buggy,

    Franklin chases a car transporter in the new Audi R8 Spyder,

    And Michael tries ‘bouncing’ in a moderately priced saloon!

  42. SkittleDiddler says:

    Looking forward to playing this in seven or eight years when I have a system that can actually run it.

  43. ringelbeatz says:

    lol at 0:27 german liquorstore named Pisswater

  44. kikito says:

    I want to play as the dog. Press X to mark your territory. Take territory from enemy dogs. Eat spaghetti with sexy lady dogs.

  45. reggiep says:

    Skeletons by Stevie Wonder. Thank you Shazam.

    • Inglourious Badger says:

      Or ‘That music the limo driver is listening to in Die Hard’. It bugged me for the whole trailer trying to work out where I recognised it from

  46. kwyjibo says:

    That face stomping scene has nothing on Drive.

  47. Brothabear says:

    Was that looks remarkably BORING….

  48. Armante says:

    anyone else notice the ‘hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil’ poses at the end?

  49. Sparkasaurusmex says:

    “The game, which is due next spring, will apparently feature “yoga, triathlons, Jet Skiing, base-jumping, tennis, golf, scuba diving or go to the gym.” ”

    That’s cool, it sounds closer to San Andreas than IV

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      I sure hope they’re not going in the direction of action cut scenes… video makes it look like there are lots

    • DigitalSignalX says:

      Was thinking that too. I’ll take CJ stye strength training over bowling with the cousin any day.

      • orange says:

        It was mentioned in the gameinformer article that you sadly won’t be able to work out and eat to gain weight or size like in San Andreas nor will there be any RPG elements which for me was the best part of SA. Apparently it was a technical reason and they also wanted to create three unique and different characters rather than being able to customise them.

  50. Solidstate89 says:

    I can’t say I was much of a fan of GTA IV compared to its more whacky and – in my opinion – more fun predecessors, but something that Rockstar has always nailed so well is that the cities and landscapes that they make really feel alive.

    I played the hell out of Saints Row 2 and Saints Row The Third. Each one of them by themselves are easily more fun than GTA IV. Some of the most ridiculous fun I’ve had in a while actually. But the city in GTA IV…Saints Row just can’t hold a candle to it. Rockstar just makes the city breathe in the way they make their games – I can’t explain it. I’m hoping there’s a PC-port of it sometime down the line. It does look a fair bit more interesting than GTA IV.

    • The Random One says:

      Agreed. And if you ask me they got even worse. Stilwater was kind of drab, but it was OK. It was a video game city. Steelport was completely souless.