Grand Theft Auto IV - OMG [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Daze

2007-03-30, 04:47 PM

Pah. Graphics do not impress me. I've never understood the GTA craze. Yes, they are good games, but its not worthy of the ZOMG AWESOME response people give it.

What an example of a game that is? God of War II. The first level is more epic than the sum of most other games.

I'm totally in agreement with you about graphics not being the most important thing.. I'll take great game play and junky graphics over the reverse any day of the week. (morrowind over oblivion being a more recent example I could give)
However I totally take exception to you downgrading the worth of the GTA series.. just good?? I dont think so my friend. We're only talking about a game series that has revolutionized the industry, both for gameplay and maybe less honorably, content.
Lets see.. wide open extremely detailed maps (sandbox if you will), free form mission structure, amazing storylines, top notch actor talent and some of the most layered and detailed game components you'd find anywhere... (is it a driving game? a crime game? how bout the gazillion side missions?) If that's just "good" for you, I don't know what you could possibly be impressed with...

god of war?? dont get me wrong.. I enjoyed the first.. and will play the second.. but we're talking about a platformer button masher here.. fun game, good game, but nothing special really.. I could name 50 just like it. (minus swinging chain blades maybe)

GTAIV on the other hand will have the same awesome gameplay it's known for.. PLUS true next gen graphics... I loathe leet speak, but ZOMG TEH AWESOME might be appropriate in this case...

Beleriphon

2007-03-30, 10:24 PM

GTAIV on the other hand will have the same awesome gameplay it's known for.. PLUS true next gen graphics... I loathe leet speak, but ZOMG TEH AWESOME might be appropriate in this case...

The awesome and win part is that you aren't a gangbanger, you aren't an Italian mafiaso. By the looks of things you play a Russian freakin' mobster!

Neon Knight

2007-03-30, 10:30 PM

The freeform structure is not revolutionary. Morrowind, which you mentioned, already had it, and to a greater extent. What it did was make it popular, which is not worthy of credit in my book.

Morrowind was already a sandbox. A buggy, hardware intense sandbox, but a sandbox no less.

The crime game and driving game don't impress me much. Hitman is a more impressive crime game, since you actually have to be smart about your illegal acts. Driving? I'm no vehicle nut. I strongly dislike vehicles in most games, mech games aside. I mean, seriously, I drive every day. Why is driving so exciting? I don't get games entirely devoted to racing either, aside form those were you build your own car. There the challenge is to see who is the best mechanic, a thing I can understand form hours of tweaking the combat loads of my stompy death mechs in Mechwarrior 4.

As to God of War 2... the game is epic. The first level has you fighting the Colossus of Rhodes! Most games don't have end bosses as fantastic as the very first boss of GoW2! The storyline in GoW2 is pretty good as videogames go. A sweet tale of revenge and mythology.

The gameplay may be just button mashing, but when you think about it, most console games are. When you're shooting cops in GTA, you're just pulling the right trigger and lining up the crosshair. That's little different than slaughtering a bunch of monsters in God of War with a few good combos.

The only game even slightly more epic than GoW2 was Shadow of the Colossus. Entire game based upon hunting down enormous monsters to save your true love's soul. Not the most elaborate plot, but the gameplay is incredible. Each Colossus is unique, and you must learn their secrets in order to bring the behemoths down.

You want my honest opinion of GTA? The only reason regarded as the uber game (aside from some admittedly cool gameplay, but not good enough on its own merit) is that it ties closely in with the rap scene. Which today's kids connect with. Without that element, GTA would still be a very good game, just not an industry definer like it is now.

Don't even ask me about Halo. I have no idea why people love that so much.

Logic

2007-03-30, 11:27 PM

Don't even ask me about Halo. I have no idea why people love that so much.
Considering myself an intellectual gamer, I say it is the epic score and the overall feel.
But most people are more satisfied by its fast action, and ease to set up at lan parties.

I do believe that the Original GTA was a true sandbox experience before Morrowind was a gleam in the creator's eyes. I am sure there was a not as well recieved game that predates both Morrowind and GTA3 that was a "true" 3D sandbox experience.

Alex Kidd

2007-03-31, 03:00 AM

GTA has always been a fun diversion game for me, just relieve stress at the end of the day. The stories don't tend to be half bad though the general lack of challenge until you get to the ridiculous stuff is annoying. On the new game the graphics look purty, the humour is still present(Getalife *chuckle*) and nothing suggests problems with the gameplay. I also really like the introspective Eastern European slaver as a main character. After a loudmouth psychopath and a loudmouth whiner, the quiet thinking badass is refreshing.

And sooooo happy they didn't go with a gangbanger or a yakuza.

On the age thing, GTA3 predates Elder Scrolls 3 Morrowind by a year (2001 to 2002).

However GTA1(1997) is younger than Elder Scrolls 2 Daggerfall(1996) and Elder Scrolls 1(1994).

So GTA3 was the first major 3d sandbox, however Elder Scrolls significantly predates the GTA series as 2d sanboxes.

The more you know.:smallbiggrin:

beholder

2007-03-31, 04:20 AM

could someone post the direct link please?

Maxymiuk

2007-03-31, 12:41 PM

From the new GTA series, I consider Vice City to be the best. They've hit the over-the-top pop-culture feel of the era dead in the black, even if the game was a bit too short for my taste.

San Andreas... I just didn't care as much for the gangsta feel (among other things, because of all the posers it bred), and a character that went around perpetually confused and got screwed over time after time just didn't do anything for me.

Here's to hoping that the new one gets the Eastern European no-nonsense mindset right. :smallamused:

EDIT: Link for the Lazy (http://www.cnettv.com/9710-1_53-26851.html?k=%22gaming%22&tag=cnetfd.vid)

beholder

2007-03-31, 01:45 PM

cheers. i hope we get some new ideas this time as well.

IncredibleGeek

2007-03-31, 02:14 PM

The freeform structure is not revolutionary. Morrowind, which you mentioned, already had it, and to a greater extent. What it did was make it popular, which is not worthy of credit in my book...

-clip!-

...Don't even ask me about Halo. I have no idea why people love that so much.

I would just like to say I agree with this entire post. That is all.

Beleriphon

2007-03-31, 03:07 PM

You want my honest opinion of GTA? The only reason regarded as the uber game (aside from some admittedly cool gameplay, but not good enough on its own merit) is that it ties closely in with the rap scene. Which today's kids connect with. Without that element, GTA would still be a very good game, just not an industry definer like it is now.

Only GTA:SA had anything to do with the "rap scene", GTA:VC had you playing an Italian mafiaso sent to a botched drug pick up, and GTA3 had you playing as a voiceless prison escapee of indeterminate origins. GTA and GTA2 were both top down car theft games that very much followed the concept of Grand Theft Auto, where all you did was steal cars. It was GTA3 that added the 3d environment with differing missions and rewards. I still like stealing a car and blasting around Vice City at high speed, and I've got a 100% completion for the game.

GTA is incredibly popular because you can anything you want. Half the is stealing the army base's tank and going on a rampage. Who hasn't wanted to do that at some point in their life?

Mewtarthio

2007-03-31, 04:35 PM

Okay, who wants to bet that the poor Eastern European gangster will find life in America to not be quite as peaceful and different as he hopes?

Crazy Owl

2007-03-31, 05:19 PM

Okay, who wants to bet that the poor Eastern European gangster will find life in America to not be quite as peaceful and different as he hopes?

Well I sort of doubt they would make a game of it if it was. :smallwink:

Arang

2007-03-31, 05:27 PM

Wow, even I want to play GTA now, and that's saying a lot. Let's just hope not all the weapons feel like peashooters this time.

Beleriphon

2007-03-31, 05:34 PM

Wow, even I want to play GTA now, and that's saying a lot. Let's just hope not all the weapons feel like peashooters this time.

I don't know, the Jeep 4x4 and the supersports car never seemed peashooterish to me.

2007-04-01, 08:25 AM

For those who haven't seen it: the trailer on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZxGsIl-tXI)

It remains to be seen whether this game recaptures the magic and joy that was Vice City. I'm still very much looking forward to it though... even if it takes a year or so to make it to the PC. I'd have preferred an Italian mafioso to serve as the protagonist but a Russian is just as good.

Alex Kidd

2007-04-01, 08:57 AM

I would just like to say I agree with this entire post. That is all.

All that means is that you're both wrong. I love contempt for the mainstream as much as the next somewhat intelligent person but really there is more than enough to insult about it without ignoring the actual facts.

GTA3 predates Morrowind.

It WAS the first 3d sandbox of any quality. 2d is a different story but even then Elder Scrolls is not the first. Just the first to make it popular. :smallbiggrin:

Reinboom

2007-04-01, 09:14 AM

Daggerfall (Elder Scrolls II, before marrowind) comes before even Grand Theft Auto 1.
Sandbox has been a concept for awhile.

- And yes daggerfall is 3D

===
GTA IV is beautiful, I can't wait for it's PC release when it, if ever, comes :3

Alex Kidd

2007-04-01, 09:19 AM

Daggerfall (Elder Scrolls II, before marrowind) comes before even Grand Theft Auto 1.
Sandbox has been a concept for awhile.

- And yes daggerfall is 3D

Not really it's pseudo-3d, same as Dooms 1 and 2 but definitely not the same as 3d. And I freely admitted if you count the 2d ES games they predate GTA in my last post.

On the age thing, GTA3 predates Elder Scrolls 3 Morrowind by a year (2001 to 2002).

However GTA1(1997) is younger than Elder Scrolls 2 Daggerfall(1996) and Elder Scrolls 1(1994).

So GTA3 was the first major 3d sandbox, however Elder Scrolls significantly predates the GTA series as 2d sanboxes.

The more you know.

Neon Knight

2007-04-01, 11:08 AM

Accursed release dates. You betray me yet again!

And I'm not contempt for the mainstream. I love GTA. Its a fun game. I said that before. I've just always thought people gave it too much credit. And it appears that due to my lack of knowledge on release dates I may be the one misapplying credit.

To tell you the truth, I've only played GTA 1 and 3. I missed out on 2. And I didn't like 3 as much as I liked #1.

Anyway, Eastern European criminals seem plenty cool. Maybe they'll do something with this one that will rekindle me infatuation with the series. As of now, 3 kinda but a damper on it for me.

Alex Kidd

2007-04-01, 11:18 AM

And I'm not contempt for the mainstream. I love GTA. Its a fun game. I said that before. I've just always thought people gave it too much credit. And it appears that due to my lack of knowledge on release dates I may be the one misapplying credit.

Sorry man, just the whole "everyone likes it, so it can't be cool" crowd piss me off nearly as much as the reverse, and I'm in a bit of a bad mood due to an April Fool's wasted studying. And yeah I didn't particularly like GTA3 myself(and would definitely put Morrowind above it). VC and SA were massive improvements however.

2007-04-01, 11:58 AM

As of now, 3 kinda but a damper on it for me.Same here, although this thread has tempted me to reinstall Vice City. Personally I think San Andreas suffered from both the setting and the protagonist. You can't beat Tommy Vercetti and his Hawaiian shirts.

Pilum

2007-04-01, 04:02 PM

Maybe it was just me, but while it was a nice concept, I think SA may have been *too* big, with a bit too much to do. It's also the first one where I've reloaded a save game rather than just laugh off an arrest or death, just because re-equipping to a reasonable standard took too long to find spawn points or a bit too much cash at the time. Yeah, so I chose not to grunt it up, sue me.

The constant gang warfare got me too. I must have blown away most of the young black male population of San Andreas - I owned the city. Yet as soon as I came back late in the game: an attacked territory. And again. And again. Sigh. Almost an incentive to stay in San Francisco or Vegas (or whatever the in-game names were).

Had a few gripes with the targetting system too, but generally I did enjoy it, despite any impressions given above. I'm just not so sure it would be the instant purchase it used to be. Heh, even if I could get a new console! (note: issue is more time and space rather than money).

Ranis

2007-04-01, 06:02 PM

We're only talking about a game series that has revolutionized the industry, both for gameplay and maybe less honorably, content.

No.

You will not make this claim without backing it up. GTA did NOT revolutionize the gaming industry. The very specific and only reason why the GTA games are popular at all is because people have the innate curiosity to pursue that which is not only against the law, but wrong. It is tempting to experience things that we all know are wrong and against the law on the inside, but our Superegos deny us that wish, for (most of us) we can restrain ourselves from what is reality and what is not reality, for the purposes of being able to weigh right and wrong.

GTA brought to people this fulfillment of curiosity of the unknown. A sense of "I wonder if...," if you will. That is the reason why GTA is popular. Now, I know people will start the traditional flamewars "I LIKES IT BECAUSE I GETS TO SHOOTS PPL AND BE AN UBER 1337 GANGSTER!!!1!" -ing, but seriously, people. A guy in California was just arrested for being a huge drug lord or something, and everything he did, ALL of it, he got from playing GTA religiously. I'm not saying, "Grow up, kids!" because I know a dozen or so people 20 years older than I am that quite enjoy playing the GTA series. Just don't you dare to presume ANYTHING revolutionary for the entire video games industry without backing it up, and trust me, you didn't. And if you'd like to back it up, feel free to do so now.

....amazing storylines, top notch actor talent....

This all boils down to what you consider "amazing." If you consider this "amazing:"

Main Guy: Ah, crap. My homies backstabbed meh.
Plot Guy: You should kill all the crime lords in the city and become the crime in the city.
Main Guy: Ok. [Insert bloodthirsty revenge here]

Just....umm...okay? Yay originality? Yay for feeding the stereotypes? I see nothing "amazing" here.

Also, top-notch voice actor talent? I can go find 20 guys on the street in ten minutes that could sound like italian mobsters. Or current urban mobsters in my own classes right now, for that matter. Sorry, buddy. Just.. no.

Beleriphon

2007-04-01, 08:15 PM

Also, top-notch voice actor talent? I can go find 20 guys on the street in ten minutes that could sound like italian mobsters. Or current urban mobsters in my own classes right now, for that matter. Sorry, buddy. Just.. no.

Yeah, because you know getting Burt Reynolds, Ray Liotta, Dennis Hopper or William Fitchner are any 20 guys that you can find on the street. I know you can find Samuel L Jackson for that matter. Yep, you can find any guy off the street that can provide Sam Jackson's voice in a game.

Rockstar really did get some terrific talent to provide the voices in their games. You may think you can find any guy off the street to provide the voices, but there is a reason they got Ray Liotta to do the voice of a Mafiaso, or Sam Jackson to be the voice of a dirty cop.

Ranis

2007-04-01, 11:21 PM

Well, if all you can argue is that the game had great voice acting, then I guess we have a flaw here.

Gameplay>Graphics, Voices, anything. Nintendo proves that time and time again.

Neek

2007-04-02, 01:35 AM

You will not make this claim without backing it up. GTA did NOT revolutionize the gaming industry. The very specific and only reason why the GTA games are popular at all is because people have the innate curiosity to pursue that which is not only against the law, but wrong. It is tempting to experience things that we all know are wrong and against the law on the inside, but our Superegos deny us that wish, for (most of us) we can restrain ourselves from what is reality and what is not reality, for the purposes of being able to weigh right and wrong.

GTA brought to people this fulfillment of curiosity of the unknown. A sense of "I wonder if...," if you will. That is the reason why GTA is popular. Now, I know people will start the traditional flamewars "I LIKES IT BECAUSE I GETS TO SHOOTS PPL AND BE AN UBER 1337 GANGSTER!!!1!" -ing, but seriously, people. A guy in California was just arrested for being a huge drug lord or something, and everything he did, ALL of it, he got from playing GTA religiously. I'm not saying, "Grow up, kids!" because I know a dozen or so people 20 years older than I am that quite enjoy playing the GTA series. Just don't you dare to presume ANYTHING revolutionary for the entire video games industry without backing it up, and trust me, you didn't. And if you'd like to back it up, feel free to do so now.

This all boils down to what you consider "amazing." If you consider this "amazing:"

Main Guy: Ah, crap. My homies backstabbed meh.
Plot Guy: You should kill all the crime lords in the city and become the crime in the city.
Main Guy: Ok. [Insert bloodthirsty revenge here]

Just....umm...okay? Yay originality? Yay for feeding the stereotypes? I see nothing "amazing" here.

Also, top-notch voice actor talent? I can go find 20 guys on the street in ten minutes that could sound like italian mobsters. Or current urban mobsters in my own classes right now, for that matter. Sorry, buddy. Just.. no.

Because you don't enjoy the gameplay doesn't mean everyone else can't, nor does it mean that everyone else shouldn't. Perhaps the following might shed some light on something: Production quality.

Look back at Star Wars. Be honest with yourself for a minute, was that plot original? A farmboy with a secret past saving a princess from an evil empire? Destroying a superweapon? Hell, look deeper than that. The Jedi were nothing more than Stoic Samurai. Even the actors were wary of their own roles. Sir Alec Guinness thought that the entire production wasn't worth half a donkey and hated having ever agreed to be in it. James Earl Jones didn't even want to be credited for his role! And the rest were relatively no named, having either little background or just bit-roles.

But what did it have? Good production value. The actors weren't amazing, few of them had any big names among the industry; that's OK. They fit their roles perfectly. The special effects were great for their time--which heightens the value and the experience. The score was amazing for the movie. So was the directing.

And what does GTA have that makes it a fun game? Production value. I have fun when I'm playing GTA, and it's not because I want to associate with some culture that I'm not part of, nor is it because I want to engage in criminal and immoral acts (by the same logic, people play Evil characters in D&D because they truly want to be vile and apprehensible creatures, not because it provides a challenge to their own personality and world-view). A lot of the missions have a challenge to them, specifically in reference to tactics. I recall in Vice City, a mission where you had to steal a tank from a parade. I found it a bloody difficult mission, but there were so many ways going about it.

A lot of you say that good voice-actors and great graphics don't make good gameplay. You're right, they don't govern that. But they often play a part in production quality, and that has a frickin' huge part of gameplay. Without a good production quality, it's a waste of time playing a game. Morrowind, Oblivion--all of those Elder Scroll games--have great production quality.

I don't care if you're an anti-hypist. Nor do I really care if you just don't like the games. That's cool. I'm not here to convince you it's a game you must, you should play. I'm simply dispelling a sweeping generalization.

For myself, I can't wait for GTA IV to come out. I'll have fun playing it. As fun as anyone else'll have playing any other game, at least.

2007-04-02, 04:20 AM

You will not make this claim without backing it up. GTA did NOT revolutionize the gaming industry.To coin a new phrase when examining the impact of a game on the computer industry - "Count the clones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTA_clone)".

Frankly it is absolutely ludicrous to contend that the impact of GTA on the computer industry has been anything short of revolutionary. But then you do go on to insist that the sole reason people enjoy the series is to live out their depraved fantasies, so I doubt that common sense is a factor here.

Premier

2007-04-02, 04:44 AM

To coin a new phrase when examining the impact of a game on the computer industry - "Count the clones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTA_clone)".

Frankly it is absolutely ludicrous to contend that the impact of GTA on the computer industry has been anything short of revolutionary. But then you do go on to insist that the sole reason people enjoy the series is to live out their depraved fantasies, so I doubt that common sense is a factor here.

You're mixing together two completely different things, namely "impact on the industry" and "revolutionary". Impact means how many copies are sold, how many clones are made, how popular the game becomes. It's a measurement of success. Being revolutionary means doing things and employing solutions never done before. It's a measurement of innovation. And these two things definitely do NOT automatically go together hand in hand.

And a side note about whether it was GTA, Morrowind or Daggerfall that invented the sandbox environment: even without bothering to search for really old sandbox games, I can tell you that none of them did. (http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/darklands)

2007-04-02, 05:41 AM

You're mixing together two completely different things, namely "impact on the industry" and "revolutionary".The two are very much linked. Note that I'm not considering "impact on the industry" to be sales but rather influence on other developers. Obviously sales tend to get peoples' attention.

A game that simply copies what came before cannot revolutionise the industry. That is a role reserved entirely for games with innovative and new features. These are games that take the established logic and twist it into something new.

For example, Tomb Raider was revolutionary on its debut. While drawing on roots that were almost as old as the game industry itself, it signalled the transformation of the adventure genre and had massive impact on games that followed in its wake. The same goes for the likes of Doom, Baldur's Gate and Half Life. These were massively influential games that effectively changed the landscape of their respective genres. GTA falls squarely into this bracket.

Of course it is perfectly possible for a game to be innovative and progressive in so many ways and yet sink into obscurity. These may contain revolutionary features but, for whatever reason, do not revolutionise the industry. There's a clear distinction.

And a side note about whether it was GTA, Morrowind or Daggerfall that invented the sandbox environment: even without bothering to search for really old sandbox games, I can tell you that none of them did. (http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/darklands)I'm sure that many games had sandbox play before GTA. What I'm equally sure of is that none of them were done well enough to impact the industry to the extent that GTA did. Just as Dune II can be considered the first modern RTS, it was C&C that actually established the genre and revolutionised gaming.

Dragor

2007-04-02, 06:49 AM

Now, even though I'm not a big fan of GTA (although I have III and Vice City), I am excited about this. From the looks of the trailer on the official site, it's still retaining Rockstar's sense of humour, and the graphics are top notch. And with Rockstar's sense of humour, we get the radio stations, and from there we get....

Etc.

This should be an ace game, if Rockstar nail it. They seem to be concentrating more on storyline this time around. I did like Tommy Vercetti more that any of the other characters in the GTA series.

Ranis

2007-04-02, 07:02 AM

Because you don't enjoy the gameplay doesn't mean everyone else can't, nor does it mean that everyone else shouldn't. Perhaps the following might shed some light on something: Production quality.

I never said that I didn't enjoy the gameplay. What I said is that it is in no way revolutionary. At all. It's just popular. Now, something like Halo? A game that single-handedly galvanized an entire console into saving itself? THAT is revolutionary. GTA is just another pot-hole in the proverbial road that is being paved in Gaming History.

And yes, at the time, Star Wars was an original plot.

Arang

2007-04-02, 08:07 AM

What was so revolutionary about Halo? It was just your standard run-of-the-mill FPS. It wasn't even a very good one. The Wii was revolutionary, Halo was popular.

beholder

2007-04-02, 09:50 AM

just a question
did anyone play GTAVC first, then when playin GTA3 think the hero is tommy vercetti? they look so similar

Ranis

2007-04-02, 11:11 AM

What was so revolutionary about Halo? It was just your standard run-of-the-mill FPS. It wasn't even a very good one.

Right, so, the most popular FPS ever made, which, even three years after it's release, still has global tournaments? And it's NOT revolutionary? Everything in it may have been done before, but it did standardize the entire FPS industry. Something GTA can't boast.

Premier

2007-04-02, 11:17 AM

The two are very much linked. Note that I'm not considering "impact on the industry" to be sales but rather influence on other developers. Obviously sales tend to get peoples' attention.

There's a very important distinction that must be made: a game being revolutionary does NOT mean that it revolutionises the industry. A game can be revolutionary by simply doing something no game has done before. This does not necessarily mean that this brand new thing will have a sweeping effect on the industry (or in other words, that it will revolutionise the industry).

Another distinction is between "making a great impact" on the industry and "revolutionising" it. The latter would imply a permanent effect that determines the course of the gaming industry for many year. Developing the joystick, or later the mouse and even later graphic cards would be such revolutionary steps, since these changes determined the history of gaming for decades.

GTA - or in fact most very popular games -, however, do not even approximate this level of influence. Yes, the have a great impact. Yes, they spawn a great number of clones. Yes, they make one particular game genre or the other very popular - for what? About two or three years? Or five? And then likely as not, the meme and the genre just disappear. One example would be the sudden rise and subsequent decline of the "Interactive Movie" genre that shot to popularity with the spreading of CD drives, then fell into oblivion a few years later. As of this time, there's no reason to believe that GTA-likes will be much longer lasting that that. So, "great impact", yes. "Revolutionise", no.

For example, Tomb Raider was revolutionary on its debut. While drawing on roots that were almost as old as the game industry itself, it signalled the transformation of the adventure genre and had massive impact on games that followed in its wake. I have to say Tomb Raider does not belong to the "adventure" genre by any stretch of the word. A story about a female Indy-lookalike searching for fantastic archaelogical finds does NOT make it adventure. What it is is a 3D platformer.

These may contain revolutionary features but, for whatever reason, do not revolutionise the industry. There's a clear distinction.

Yes, that's one of the points I made above.

I'm sure that many games had sandbox play before GTA. What I'm equally sure of is that none of them were done well enough to impact the industry to the extent that GTA did.I think that's a claim that simply cannot be verified nor disproven. You can cite figures of profits, copies sold and the like, but you can't use that data to compare a present-day game to a game published 10 or 15 years ago. Back then, the gaming market was much, much smaller than today, so it's simply impossible to make a comparison.

On the other hand, there ARE other ways of making comparison, too. Back in the late 80-ies and early 90-ies, a "star" game was one that avid players played and nigh-religiously discussed for years. Tell me, can you imagine anyone doing that today?

IncredibleGeek

2007-04-02, 11:31 AM

2007-04-02, 11:40 AM

Right, so, the most popular FPS ever made, which, even three years after it's release, still has global tournaments? And it's NOT revolutionary? Everything in it may have been done before, but it did standardize the entire FPS industry. Something GTA can't boast.No because GTA is not a FPS :smallconfused:

You're arguing two conflicting points here...

Actually my mistake there. After looking back at your original post I see that your argument revolves around a moral judgment regarding GTA's content. Because you can indulge in violence it is not a revolutionary game. I'm that sure I don't need to point out the staggering chasm in your logic there? Nevermind the comparison with the violence of Halo.

Halo was a bog standard FPS. It was novel only that it was the first of the genre to obtain significant popularity on a console. This comes back to Premier's point above where he correctly states that sales alone are no indication of a game's revolutionary nature. It has to change something.

A comparison - Starcraft is an excellent RTS game with a massive fanbase, with resulting sales, and professional tournaments still take place today. Yet it would be extremely hard to call Starcraft revolutionary. It did everything extremely well but neither introduced significantly different gameplay or otherwise altered the RTS genre.

There's a very important distinction that must be made: a game being revolutionary does NOT mean that it revolutionises the industry
That is where I disagree. Was C&C revolutionary? I don't know anyone who would argue that it wasn't. Despite the fact that the gameplay was merely a refinement of Dune II it transformed the strategy genre and led to massive changes right across the industry. The exact same can be said for Doom.

According to a strict interpretation of the term "revolutionary" neither of the above games qualify for this tag.

GTA - or in fact most very popular games -, however, do not even approximate this level of influence. Yes, the have a great impact. Yes, they spawn a great number of clones. Yes, they make one particular game genre or the other very popular - for what? About two or three years? Or five? And then likely as not, the meme and the genre just disappear.We're still waiting for the RTS or FPS genre to die down. As a matter of fact GTA clones are still being produced and selling well. This assertion is simply unfounded.

Minimising the impact of games like Civilisation, Doom, GTA etc etc cannot but produce difficulties in explaining the evolution of the game industry. Even a cursory glance at this history reveals that there have been periods at which point the industry underwent seismic shifts as a game propelled development forward. This is natural for such a young industry.

I have to say Tomb Raider does not belong to the "adventure" genre by any stretch of the word. A story about a female Indy-lookalike searching for fantastic archaelogical finds does NOT make it adventure. What it is is a 3D platformer.Don't get me wrong, I despise Tomb Raider and the changes it wrought. However its almost undeniable that this game transformed the genre and heralded the death of my beloved "point and click". Suddenly the latter were dwarfed by the number of "action-adventure" titles being released... a trend that shows no sign of changing. The impact of TR was revolutionary.

I think that's a claim that simply cannot be verified nor disproven. You can cite figures of profits, copies sold and the like, but you can't use that data to compare a present-day game to a game published 10 or 15 years ago. Back then, the gaming market was much, much smaller than today, so it's simply impossible to make a comparisonTo my mind its very much self-evident. As I said above, "count the clones". For example, Doom's impact was almost immediate and certainly very visible. Ditto for C&C. Today development times are longer but there mere fact that I people know what I mean by a "GTA style" game really says it all.

Back in the late 80-ies and early 90-ies, a "star" game was one that avid players played and nigh-religiously discussed for years. Tell me, can you imagine anyone doing that today?Oh most certainly. Some games, not necessarily revolutionary ones (ie Starcraft), gain cult following and a significant lifetime. I have no doubt that CivII will still be on my hard drive in a decade and that I'll still look back with fondness at Vice City or EUII.

Marcotic

2007-04-02, 01:11 PM

You know what mission i found difficult in Vice City? That mission where you had to break all of the mall windows in 5 minutes. I could NOT do that one FOR THE LIFE A ME!!!! any suggestions?

Back to GTA
my fav GTA is San Andreas. Maybe this is because I am black, I dunno, but I really relate to CJ, not that I have had a life at all like his, but there's somthing about him.
He isn't, (unless you play him that way) a really evil guy, what he's trying to do for the most part is protect his hometown, granted he does nasty things to do it, but his heart is in the right place. He's also one of the more human Theives, he has a family, his friends (those that don't F- him over) are really people that he would stick his neck out for.
the story in GTA SA gives us more with CJ, you get to really have an idea of who he is and where he came from, his motives are more then personal power or greed. thats why I like GTA SA the best, CJ.

Wether or not GTA is a ground breaking series, is debatable, but one thing that is for sure is Hype or no, it's one of the best game series out there IMO. (full envirnments, logical motives, fun up the wazzoo, good funny humor, lassed with cynical comments about american culture, amazing musical score,) Dare i say that the GTA series is on par with even the Mario series, when it comes to an all around good game. But thats just where I stand on the issue, theres stuff to be said against GTA just as there is any other game series.

Daze

2007-04-02, 02:20 PM

Wow... I leave for a couple of days, come back and find quite the verbal assault against an easily defended point (and thank you to those who did so in my absence).

Ahem, anyways.. according to Webster Revolution, def. a : a sudden, radical, or complete change. b: Activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation. c: A fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something. d: A change of paradigm

So are you saying there was nothing radically different about GTA? That it didn't change gaming philosophy? If we can look past personal views on the content for a moment, we would see that the "gangster" genre simply did not exist before GTA.. 2D, 3D, whatever...
A small, little seen game by it's very nature can not be revolutionary. To relate it to, say, the American Revolution... you couldn't have had just a couple of farmers in the backwoods of Virginia talking about how much they hate the British. It had to be widespread, everyone had to at least know about it, if not actively participate. Otherwise, at best, it's a good idea... not revolution.

And I almost spit my drink all over my screen when I read this:

Also, top-notch voice actor talent? I can go find 20 guys on the street in ten minutes that could sound like italian mobsters. Or current urban mobsters in my own classes right now, for that matter. Sorry, buddy. Just.. no.

You're kidding me right? Well for the record I AM Italian and can assure you that's not so (kinda offending actually). And more importantly, you name one game company that gets all the top notch hollywood talent as voices in their games. Sure one may get a star or two every once in a while, but nothing compared to the quality of GTA...

Bottom line, GTA is one of a kind. No one in their right mind can deny that. It's changed the way we think about what games can be. Forget the gaming aspects of it for a moment, now I can expect a gaming industry the cares about adult gamers (props to leisure suit larry, but that was too small scale to change much). That fact alone cements the revolution. So when you get a bit older Ranis and can perhaps purchase this game or one like it legally... you can say thank you... thank you GTA...

(oh almost forgot! Halo?!?!?!? you almost made me spit my drink again....)

Ranis

2007-04-02, 02:39 PM

(oh almost forgot! Halo?!?!?!? you almost made me spit my drink again....)

The fact that you compare the garbage that is GTA favorably to Halo disgusts me.

Daze

2007-04-02, 03:17 PM

The fact that you compare the garbage that is GTA favorably to Halo disgusts me.

The fact that you compare the rote boredom that is the unoriginal FPS Halo (with servers ever so populated by legions of the most annoying fan boys you'll ever meet) to the original beauty that is GTA makes me wonder about your tastes.

I have the feeling if you had your way, we'd still all be playing Qbert and Frogger... realistic blood would be banned and the government would dictate what we could view or play.

Please I beg you, come up with one legitimate reason why GTA isnt a good (we dont even have to go as far as revolutionary if you dont want) game series. Please spare me the details of some psychopath drug "kingpin" in California who could just as easily blame his situation on a violent temperment and poor parenting.

Neon Knight

2007-04-02, 03:56 PM

The fact that you compare the rote boredom that is the unoriginal FPS Halo (with servers ever so populated by legions of the most annoying fan boys you'll ever meet) to the original beauty that is GTA makes me wonder about your tastes.

I have the feeling if you had your way, we'd still all be playing Qbert and Frogger... realistic blood would be banned and the government would dictate what we could view or play.

Please I beg you, come up with one legitimate reason why GTA isnt a good (we dont even have to go as far as revolutionary if you dont want) game series. Please spare me the details of some psychopath drug "kingpin" in California who could just as easily blame his situation on a violent temperment and poor parenting.

You're beating around the wrong bush, man. People are not saying they aren't good games; they're taking offense to you saying it is super original.

They feel, as I once did, that the game is in the vein of Halo; popular, but not innovative. I think we've proven that since the first game predated Morrowind, it may have a claim as a innovator of sandbox style gameplay.

On the subject of Halo: I thought it was a solid by-the-book FPS. And that's all it was. The storyline wasn't enthralling. As noted, gameplay was by-the-book. It wasn't boring; it just wasn't life dominating.

WampaX

2007-04-02, 04:02 PM

come up with one legitimate reason why GTA isnt a good game series.

But any reason he gives is a subjective one.

Any reason I give that I like Halo, and GTA, and Frogger, and Dune II, and Q*Bert, and etc. would also be subjective. Why do I like them? As has been said before, I find them to be fun. My definition of fun is apparently different from other people's definitions, but hey, that happens.

I'm sure there is someone out there that thinks E.T. for the Atari 2600 is the greatest game ever made and there would be little I could do to convince them otherwise. What it all boils down to is do you enjoy playing it? If you can answer that in the affirmative, there is little I can do to convince you that you are not having fun.

Premier

2007-04-02, 04:13 PM

That is where I disagree. Was C&C revolutionary? I don't know anyone who would argue that it wasn't. Despite the fact that the gameplay was merely a refinement of Dune II it transformed the strategy genre and led to massive changes right across the industry. The exact same can be said for Doom.

According to a strict interpretation of the term "revolutionary" neither of the above games qualify for this tag.

Personally, I would strongly argue that C&C was not revolutionary at all - just like you said, it was merely a refinement of Dune II. However, like Doom, it DID transform the genre, there's no doubt about it. This, in my eyes, is just further proof that being revolutionary (in terms of technology and/or gameplay) is a quality highly independent of the ability to change (if you will, revolutionise) the genre.

Minimising the impact of games like Civilisation, Doom, GTA etc etc cannot but produce difficulties in explaining the evolution of the game industry. Even a cursory glance at this history reveals that there have been periods at which point the industry underwent seismic shifts as a game propelled development forward. This is natural for such a young industry.

I definitely do not mean to minimise the impact of Civilisation or Doom. GTA, however, I consider to be an entirely different matter. The very first GTA game, that was certainly innovative. Certainly not revolutionary in terms of affecting the industry - at least I don't know of any successful clones of the "drive and walk around in top-down view" concept, but highly innovative in terms of gameplay. The later GTA titles, however, could not even be called innovative, let alone revolutionary. The gameplay was a direct copy of (of all games) the first GTA, while the technological aspect was the direct copy of the countless third-person games already on the market. The GTA series as it is known today (by which I mean the 3D GTA games) do nothing that hasn't been done before. And the fact that some of it was "done before" by the old 2D GTA game does not count.

Don't get me wrong, I despise Tomb Raider and the changes it wrought. However its almost undeniable that this game transformed the genre and heralded the death of my beloved "point and click". Suddenly the latter were dwarfed by the number of "action-adventure" titles being released... a trend that shows no sign of changing. The impact of TR was revolutionary.

Personally, I don't so much despise the Tomb Raider games as find myself absolutely disinterested. However, I wouldn't say that the decline of the point-and-click adventure genre was caused by the advent of action adventures and nothing else. I'd say that this decline was the result of wider, more generic changes in the industry, namely the rise and fetishisation of graphics over everything else, and the decreasing attention span of younger gamers. However, that's neither here nor there, so I suggest we don't get into a discussion of this, or at least not in this thread.

Today development times are longer but there mere fact that I people know what I mean by a "GTA style" game really says it all.

However, people also know what I mean by "all those Electronic Arts sports games", and those are certainly not innovative! Popular recognition does not necessarily mean innovation.

Daze

2007-04-02, 04:29 PM

You're beating around the wrong bush, man. People are not saying they aren't good games; they're taking offense to you saying it is super original.

They feel, as I once did, that the game is in the vein of Halo; popular, but not innovative. I think we've proven that since the first game predated Morrowind, it may have a claim as a innovator of sandbox style gameplay.

On the subject of Halo: I thought it was a solid by-the-book FPS. And that's all it was. The storyline wasn't enthralling. As noted, gameplay was by-the-book. It wasn't boring; it just wasn't life dominating.

Good assesment of Halo, I can totally agree with that.

And I dont think I'm neccessarily beating around the wrong bush:

The fact that you compare the garbage that is GTA favorably to Halo disgusts me.

The garbage that is GTA? We can debate originality all day long, but to make such a blanket statement about one of the most popular and critcally acclaimed game series of all time is in my opinion, highly misguided. (not that you think that of course)

But any reason he gives is a subjective one.

Any reason I give that I like Halo, and GTA, and Frogger, and Dune II, and Q*Bert, and etc. would also be subjective. Why do I like them? As has been said before, I find them to be fun. My definition of fun is apparently different from other people's definitions, but hey, that happens.

I'm sure there is someone out there that thinks E.T. for the Atari 2600 is the greatest game ever made and there would be little I could do to convince them otherwise. What it all boils down to is do you enjoy playing it? If you can answer that in the affirmative, there is little I can do to convince you that you are not having fun.

Oh WampaX, you and I are sincerely in the utmost of agreements on that. Like what you like, no one can make you do otherwise, nor should they. Heck, more often than not I'm the one who's totally out of whack with what everyone else thinks.

But subjectivity is not absolute. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that doesnt make said opinion knowledgeable or correct. Someone may say a monkey throwing paint on a canvas is more beautiful than the Mona Lisa, but that doesn't make it so, or particulary well informed for that matter.

In this particular case, I'm fine with someone saying they dont like GTA. Whether its for political/religous reasons (wont mention here! heh), they dont like that style of gameplay, only get into tetris... whatever. That doesnt mean someone has the right to trash a game and what it's meant to an enitre industry without a least some validation.

So I'd have to say again, someone calls GTA "garbage" and I'd like to hear at least an explanation as to why. If you have opinions and feel strongly about them, it's imperative you back them up...

oh.. heh, almost forgot... E.T. for Atari was an aboslutely horrid game. For those that remember, it actually made no sense whatsoever... now Missle Command, THERE was a game! ;)

Daze

2007-04-02, 04:43 PM

However, people also know what I mean by "all those Electronic Arts sports games", and those are certainly not innovative! Popular recognition does not necessarily mean innovation.

That's a bit misleading. "All those EA sports games" cover a wide spectrum of different titles that have little to do with each other.. football, basketball, baseball, boxing, etc.... it's a false anaology. We're talking about ONE game series here... one series, which may not have been the "first", but as I said in my previous post about the american revolution... first is not neccessarily what people remember or attribute change to. I'm sure George Washington wasn't the first man to decide to revolt, but we sure do remember him don't we? Is he not a revolutionary because some shlub in Boston we never heard of may have been thie first one with the idea?
Anyway, besides that... the only game comparable to the sandbox that is GTA was Morrowind (another favorite game of mine). However, Elder Scrolls has not revolutionized the industry.. Bethesda is still the only company building those kind of epics... (and i'm glad, as much as i love em).
And dont get too caught up in "first 3d game" or what have you in terms of graphics.. eventually most companies use the same (or similar) game engines when the technology expands... the revolution of GTA is not what it looked like, but what it was... the first game made specifically for adults.... the first game unabashedly real-world violent, the game that started the ESRB... the game that has sold millions upon millions of copies worldwide... the game every other company wished they developed... the game that revolutionized the gaming industry.

Kosmopolite

2007-04-02, 05:00 PM

I don't really care what it represents, or what games are better etc. I've loved every one of the GTA series (including the top-down originals) and I loved Saints Row and Crackdown. This game looks amazing, though I would've preferred a white, American main character, simply because the stereotypes in Crackdown and Saints Row Russian started to grate on me.

Look at the three gangs in the former: Chinese technology baron, Hispanic drug dealers and Russian mobsters. Seriously? I would've liked to see this game acknowledge the fact that the white people aren't always the good, law-abiding guys.

Nonetheless, I'll buy it and I'll love it. The video is just a trailer, though, and not in-game footage. It's more likely to be VT than anything else. Nonetheless, it looks pretty impressive.

IncredibleGeek

2007-04-02, 05:07 PM

That's a bit misleading. "All those EA sports games" cover a wide spectrum of different titles that have little to do with each other.. football, basketball, baseball, boxing, etc.... it's a false anaology. We're talking about ONE game series here... one series, which may not have been the "first", but as I said in my previous post about the american revolution... first is not neccessarily what people remember or attribute change to. I'm sure George Washington wasn't the first man to decide to revolt, but we sure do remember him don't we? Is he not a revolutionary because some shlub in Boston we never heard of may have been thie first one with the idea?
Anyway, besides that... the only game comparable to the sandbox that is GTA was Morrowind (another favorite game of mine). However, Elder Scrolls has not revolutionized the industry.. Bethesda is still the only company building those kind of epics... (and i'm glad, as much as i love em).
And dont get too caught up in "first 3d game" or what have you in terms of graphics.. eventually most companies use the same (or similar) game engines when the technology expands... the revolution of GTA is not what it looked like, but what it was... the first game made specifically for adults.... the first game unabashedly real-world violent, the game that started the ESRB... the game that has sold millions upon millions of copies worldwide... the game every other company wished they developed... the game that revolutionized the gaming industry.

Adults:
Leisure Suit Larry (1987-2004)

Violent:
Postal (1997)
Kingpin: Life of Crime (1999)

Sandbox:
Darklands (1992)
The Sims (2000)

Again, it's not first for anything. It just put it all together in one package.

Edit: Also...

ESRB established: 1994

GTA 1 Released: 1997/98

Daze

2007-04-02, 05:31 PM

Adults:
Leisure Suit Larry (1987-2004)

Violent:
Postal (1997)
Kingpin: Life of Crime (1999)

Sandbox:
Darklands (1992)
The Sims (2000)

Again, it's not first for anything. It just put it all together in one package.

Edit: Also...

ESRB established: 1994

GTA 1 Released: 1997/98

Well if you read my posts a bit more carefully you'd see I never inferred that being "first" meant a hill of beans. In fact I've clearly showed that being first was not the most important thing.

Besides...

Adults: Leisure Suit Larry... I gave props to this game already in a previous post.. Sierra games never got enough credit anyways (police quest, space quest, kings quest, quest for glory..) But LSL is no GTA.. as much as I miss typing interface games...

Violence: Postal: A poorly made spoof game, taking advantage of those postal killing sprees in the mid-late 90's. It never got a wide-system release I dont think.
Kingpin:Released after GTA, and nothing like GTA.. not fun at all.. as bad as Mob Rule was...

Sandbox: Darklands Never heard of it.. and I'm sure no one else has either.. so its relevance to a "revolutionary" discussion is irrelevant.
The Sims What does a simulator game have to do with a sandbox game? In the genre of "god" games.. simcity, simant, et al... not relevant again. (though I am psyched for Spore!)

As far as the ESRB goes.. I'm glad you looked up it up man, but it made no matter whatsoever until GTA hit the scene. You remember those congressional hearings? I do... and ESRB only revamped their ratings a few years ago... and retailers only started paying attention to the ratings (and subsequently IDing people) when the whole GTA bru-hah-hah went down... GTA gave the ESRB it's teeth... no doubt about that.

IncredibleGeek

2007-04-02, 07:31 PM

the revolution of GTA is not what it looked like, but what it was... the first game made specifically for adults.... the first game unabashedly real-world violent, the game that started the ESRB... the game that has sold millions upon millions of copies worldwide... the game every other company wished they developed... the game that revolutionized the gaming industry.

My post was made based on these statements, so all I was doing was pointing out that they're wrong.

The games I mentioned have nothing to do with GTA, but as I said, GTA was the first to really tie all those elements together.

And if you had read all the posts, you would've seen that someone had mentioned Darklands, so there. :)

Kingpin was a terrible game, yes, but it did come before GTA 3, as a very violent 3d game, so that's why I mentioned it.

Daze

2007-04-02, 07:39 PM

My post was made based on these statements, so all I was doing was pointing out that they're wrong.

The games I mentioned have nothing to do with GTA, but as I said, GTA was the first to really tie all those elements together.

And if you had read all the posts, you would've seen that someone had mentioned Darklands, so there. :)

Kingpin was a terrible game, yes, but it did come before GTA 3, as a very violent 3d game, so that's why I mentioned it.

Ok, my bad.. looking at those statements quoted by themselves, I can see why you'd think that.

Heh, ok... someone else heard of Darklands, but did you??? :P
I'm gonna have to look that up, never, ever heard of it... which is odd for a geek like me ;)

And Kingpin was indeed atrocious.. egad, I dont know who designed that game, but I sincerely hope their no longer working in the industry! I wasted 45 bucks way back when on that piece of junk...

Its a good point that GTA was the first to bring these all together... which by itself is an impressive feat. The variety of activity in GTA is it's crowning achievement I think... but I must like that sort of thing... *bump bump goes a pedestrian* ;)

Ranis

2007-04-02, 08:22 PM

But any reason he gives is a subjective one.

Wait, what? Subjective statements are what opinions are, no one has given anything else in this thread.

And a clarification-I am not against removing violence from games, quite to the contrary. I'm just saying that GTA was far from revolutionary by any means whatsoever.

You want one reason? Okay. You drive around in cars. And kill prostitutes. And kill innocents. And run from police. Umm....yay?

This...this is fun? How?

Daze

2007-04-02, 09:09 PM

Wait, what? Subjective statements are what opinions are, no one has given anything else in this thread.

And a clarification-I am not against removing violence from games, quite to the contrary. I'm just saying that GTA was far from revolutionary by any means whatsoever.

You want one reason? Okay. You drive around in cars. And kill prostitutes. And kill innocents. And run from police. Umm....yay?

This...this is fun? How?

Actually, there's been quite a few objective statements in this thread, regarding the origins of GTA, it's effects on the industry and how it compares to other games (and how it compares to no other games).

Forgive me for thinking you wanted censorship, but your previous posts seemed to point in that direction.

drive around in cars, kill prostitutes and run from police? You think that's all there is? Have you actually played any of The GTA's? one of em? two? Sure, those three things definitely exist in the game in a big way (particulary the driving cars part), but there's a whole lot more than that. I wish I could explain how in depth and fun some of the missions are.... casino heists, drug trafficking, busting up chinese slave rings, defending territories, shootouts with various ethnic mobs.. and thats just one small sliver of GTA:SA.. you can have girlfiends, buy properties, change cloths & hair (wide variety!).. go for a bike ride, fly a plane, hang out in a helicoptor.. go on a mindless rampage (yes there is always that)... do ambulance, police, fire, courier missions... jeez.. and thats still just a fraction! not to mention the riveting storylines which carry you along...

saying "You drive around in cars. And kill prostitutes. And kill innocents. And run from police" really sounds like you never actually played it... and are making a subjective moral judgement on a game series (with no regard to gameplay) which objectively has won nearly every major award, recieved tons of praise from gamers, has massive critical acclaim and the most ridiculous sales numbers you can think of.

I just want your opinions based from experience dude, not trying to give ya a hard time... trying to keep away from that "everyone likes it, therefore I hate it" logic

IncredibleGeek

2007-04-02, 10:12 PM

-clip-

Heh, ok... someone else heard of Darklands, but did you??? :P
I'm gonna have to look that up, never, ever heard of it... which is odd for a geek like me ;)

-clip-

Hee hee, I actually have the CD right here. Never got it working in XP though. Gonna try it on a 98 laptop sometime when I have the chance. :smallsmile:

Marcotic

2007-04-02, 11:31 PM

I'm sure there is someone out there that thinks E.T. for the Atari 2600 is the greatest game ever made

What are you talking about that game was the sheeat ! Run ET from the .... ....
Cop? thing? watch out for the splotches, I mean pits! You'll fall down! Use you amazing neck to fly outa there ET! Run around searching frantically for the plot, objective of the game! That game, oh how I want to play it again. (drunk and or high that is!)

Premier

2007-04-03, 05:27 AM

Hee hee, I actually have the CD right here. Never got it working in XP though. Gonna try it on a 98 laptop sometime when I have the chance. :smallsmile:

DOSBox is your friend. (http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/news.php?show_news=1)

2007-04-03, 07:45 AM

Personally, I would strongly argue that C&C was not revolutionary at all - just like you said, it was merely a refinement of Dune II. However, like Doom, it DID transform the genre, there's no doubt about it. This, in my eyes, is just further proof that being revolutionary (in terms of technology and/or gameplay) is a quality highly independent of the ability to change (if you will, revolutionise) the genre.Then I think that we are arguing at cross purposes here and that the real issue is a matter of definitions.

Is it safe to say that a game having a "revolutionary" impact on the industry/genre does not necessarily mean that that a game is entirely "original"? So that the likes of Doom and C&C can be regarded as revolutionary in that they transformed their respective genres but not in that their technical features were unique at the time.

The later GTA titles, however, could not even be called innovative, let alone revolutionary.The revolutionary nature of GTA3 is twofold - first it was the first true 3D sandbox game in which the city was laid out for you to wander around. Secondly it had a much greater impact on the industry as developers rushed to copy the game's premise and form.

However, I wouldn't say that the decline of the point-and-click adventure genre was caused by the advent of action adventures and nothing else.My point was merely that Tomb Raider signalled a sea change in the development of adventure games.

However, people also know what I mean by "all those Electronic Arts sports games", and those are certainly not innovative! Popular recognition does not necessarily mean innovation.Ah but I was not contending that "GTA style" games are innovative but that the existence of clones proves the revolutionary nature of the original game. If you want to track down the first "EA sports" game then I'm sure you'd agree that that would be revolutionary.

You want one reason? Okay. You drive around in cars. And kill prostitutes. And kill innocents. And run from police. Umm....yay? Again you are failing to provide a reason that is not motivated by moral outrage.

Ranis

2007-04-03, 08:03 AM

Again you are failing to provide a reason that is not motivated by moral outrage.

No, that's really what the game is about, have you played it?

2007-04-03, 08:14 AM

No, that's really what the game is about, have you played it?I have played the series and I wonder just what exactly this violence has to do with qualifying the game as revolutionary or not. In other words, the morality of the game's content is irrelevant

Alex Kidd

2007-04-03, 09:41 AM

Agreed Om. I'm wondering if Ranis is running into flaming territory even. Does blind ignorance and moral oral diarhea count as flaming?

And yeah GTa does count as revolutionary for a number of reasons. The full 3d sandbox and even to a degree crime sim genres are pretty much built around it.

Also revolutionary =/= innovative.
Revolutionary is just something that rocks the industry, GTA does that. And you're right the Madden type games aren't revolutionary. The first one probably was though(even if it isn't the first American football game), soley on it being responsible for the yearly update that pretty much all sport games now follow.

Furthermore the fact you can kill hookers and cops in GTA (pretty much never innocents, seriously listen to the peds in the game:smalltongue: ) does not disqualify it from anything. It is a fun game, it is a good game and it spawned it's own subgenre. And hell you don't even have to if follow the story or just your kicks out of the cars and the gameworld (like me, though admittedly nicking a tank/apache and rampaging can be fun).

Finally "the later GTA games were hardly revolutionary" freaking duh, so you expect every sequel to reinvent the wheel? Personally if a game's good enough (as GTA 3 was) I'm perfectly happy for them to spend the next couple of years tuning up the formula. They keep it up too long or take too long releasing a sequel, yeah it gets tired and you expect more, but two years? 3? Not a problem.

Daze

2007-04-03, 01:31 PM

Hee hee, I actually have the CD right here. Never got it working in XP though. Gonna try it on a 98 laptop sometime when I have the chance. :smallsmile:

Heh, cool... well let me know how it is! I'm always interested in revolutionary games :P

Daze

2007-04-03, 01:34 PM

Also revolutionary =/= innovative.
Revolutionary is just something that rocks the industry, GTA does that. And you're right the Madden type games aren't revolutionary. The first one probably was though(even if it isn't the first American football game), soley on it being responsible for the yearly update that pretty much all sport games now follow.

I might give that credit to Joe Montana's Sports Talk Football... it kinda blew away what was around previously.. although due credit to Tecmo Bowl. wow, that brings back memories...

Erloas

2007-04-03, 02:28 PM

Neon Knight

2007-04-03, 02:34 PM

Daze

2007-04-03, 03:30 PM

The first 3d sandbox game doesn't mean anything in terms of innovation if it wasn't the first 3d game nor the first sandbox game. Being the first 3d sandbox game was mostly because it was a sandbox game made when 3d starting becoming much more common.
Privateer was a great sandbox game and that was from 93. Sure it may have been based in space but that doesn't mean it didn't involve a great deal of freedom of movement and actions that is what make a sandbox a sandbox. There are probably a number of others too just the first and earliest that came to mind for me.

I think the first GTA I played was 2. It was pretty good but I didn't think it was anything too special. I never found anything in GTA 3 to be worth playing for me. Nothing in it stood out to me as being greatly new and different, though I suppose it may have if I hadn't been playing games for a long time before it came out. GTA 3 was (like many games before it) a big hit with a new generation of gamers that believed it was the first to do what it was doing, but that was just because they didn't know or even care to know what other games did it before then. You get the same thing with WoW right now. WoW has done just about nothing new and original but it was done well and is full of "new" things for a large number of gamers. GTA 3 was the same way, it wasn't that what it offered was actually new, it was just that it was the first game that did those things rather well to a new generation of gamers. The people that I know that like GTA the most are younger and/or less experienced gamers, where what GTA offered them was new to them. (there are of course always exceptions and it doesn't mean people that are expereinced gamers don't like GTA)

You make some valid points, but are missing some others. In any "artistic" industry (I'm thinking movies and music here) there are definied moments of change. Changes based on different forms expression, popular opinion (for good or ill), next-gen stuff in other words. One doesnt say grunge music wasnt innovative and unique just because there had existed rock and roll before it.
GTA 3 wasn't the first 3D game.. which means what exactly? not much... considering nearly all games nowadays are some form of 3D. That's a technological change, whose credit should go to designers and programmers of all kinds, not an actual game. GTA's big thing was changing the way games were played. I'm still of the opinion it was the first successful sand box game. Don't discount what a new generation of gamers can do for the success of a new genre. (You wouldnt do that in music for instance). That doesnt mean you dont acknowledge what a new trend is based on, but the trend itself deserves it's own credit.
GTA stood as a new step forward in gaming. Showing that immersion and freedom could work in a game, not just for hardcore gamers, but ALL gamers.
Playing as a somewhat hardened criminal in a completely open environment simply didnt exist in any meaningful way before GTA. This one game brought it to the masses and has left a legacy of clones (some good, some bad) all over the place. That's were the revolution lies.
And for the record.. I'm an old gamer.. and can see this line in the gaming industry quite clearly... pre-GTA and post-GTA... it's been a long way since my Commodore Vic! (ok dating myself, ugh)

Premier

2007-04-03, 04:25 PM

And for the record.. I'm an old gamer.. and can see this line in the gaming industry quite clearly... pre-GTA and post-GTA... it's been a long way since my Commodore Vic! (ok dating myself, ugh)

Well, and there's a line at pre-Hitman and post-Hitman for combining 3rd person view, assassinations and "thinking FPS" gameplay; and one at pre-May Payne and post-Max Payne along bullet time; one at pre- and post-Kingdom Hearts for unexpected combination of two widely recognised but completely unrelated franchises; and a million and one other dividing lines. But these are not revolutionary. The lines (or more like mountain ranges) along pre- and post- Elite, Mario, Doom, Populous, Dune 2 and others are revolutionary. I'm sure you see the difference, and I'm sure you also see that the pre- and post-GTA line firmly belong in the first list, not the second.

Daze

2007-04-03, 04:49 PM

Well, and there's a line at pre-Hitman and post-Hitman for combining 3rd person view, assassinations and "thinking FPS" gameplay; and one at pre-May Payne and post-Max Payne along bullet time; one at pre- and post-Kingdom Hearts for unexpected combination of two widely recognised but completely unrelated franchises; and a million and one other dividing lines. But these are not revolutionary. The lines (or more like mountain ranges) along pre- and post- Elite, Mario, Doom, Populous, Dune 2 and others are revolutionary. I'm sure you see the difference, and I'm sure you also see that the pre- and post-GTA line firmly belong in the first list, not the second.

Wow, I hope your kidding. Couple of things...
Hitman and max payne would prolly not have been developed without GTA... "thinking fps??" an fps is an fps... sorry bro, no dice. The matrix movies started bullet time, not video games. Kingdom hearts wasnt the only game to combine franchises, but it was surely the only good one, but I daresay theres nothing original about Disney infilitrating a market. Terrible examples Amigo, you'll have to do a bit better than that.

GTA belongs firmly in that 2nd list.. though Im suprised you omitted civilization, which deserves credit like GTA deserves credit (brought a genre to everyone).

also.. Wolfenstein deserves credit before Doom does... but I like Doom so I'll let that slide...

Neon Knight

2007-04-03, 05:27 PM

Wow, I hope your kidding. Couple of things...
Hitman and max payne would prolly not have been developed without GTA... "thinking fps??" an fps is an fps... sorry bro, no dice. The matrix movies started bullet time, not video games. Kingdom hearts wasnt the only game to combine franchises, but it was surely the only good one, but I daresay theres nothing original about Disney infilitrating a market. Terrible examples Amigo, you'll have to do a bit better than that.

GTA belongs firmly in that 2nd list.. though Im suprised you omitted civilization, which deserves credit like GTA deserves credit (brought a genre to everyone).

also.. Wolfenstein deserves credit before Doom does... but I like Doom so I'll let that slide...

What? Have you even played Hitman? It's all about coming up with ways to kill people. Although in the first game there was only one way to really do it right, and the challenge was to find that way, later games give you multiple options or even let you come up with your own creative way to off your target. If you just try to run and gun you'll end up dead if you're playing on a respectable difficulty. The gmae also gives you a loew score if you just shoot your way there.

Hitman is all about stealth and strategy.

What about Splintercell? You have to think, gamble, plot, and carefully assess threats, otherwise you'll run afoul either of your enemies or of the mission requirements.

What about Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon? If you try to run and gun, you'll end up bleeding faster than you can say WTF. You have to take cover, fire in short bursts, and use your team members to tactically remove your opposition.

You can't claim thinking FPS's don't exist. They're my favorite genre.

Daze

2007-04-03, 05:42 PM

What? Have you even played Hitman? It's all about coming up with ways to kill people. Although in the first game there was only one way to really do it right, and the challenge was to find that way, later games give you multiple options or even let you come up with your own creative way to off your target. If you just try to run and gun you'll end up dead if you're playing on a respectable difficulty. The gmae also gives you a loew score if you just shoot your way there.

Hitman is all about stealth and strategy.

What about Splintercell? You have to think, gamble, plot, and carefully assess threats, otherwise you'll run afoul either of your enemies or of the mission requirements.

What about Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon? If you try to run and gun, you'll end up bleeding faster than you can say WTF. You have to take cover, fire in short bursts, and use your team members to tactically remove your opposition.

You can't claim thinking FPS's don't exist. They're my favorite genre.

I've played hitman (1 & 2).. dont consider it an FPS at all... falls under "stealth" in my mind... as does splinter cell, which I've enjoyed as well (and MGS for that matter, the best stealther of em all)...

If you want to call rainbow 6 and Ghost Recon "thinking FPS's".. fine.. I dont keep up on the FPS lingo, so you must forgive me. But to me, I'd think it's just an expansion of so-called traditional FPS.. ok, so you have to use your team members (counter strike anyone?) as support and you're not invincible (bleeding or what have you) and actually have to have a "real-life" strategy.... sounds fun and realistic and all... but it just adds on to what was there before it. Almost all FPS's nowadays add that level of realism anyways, particulary with the popularity of multiplayer. It only makes sense, I mean gaming magazines don't differentiate between 2 types of FPS... therefore, "thinking FPS"=FPS, no?
but like I implied.. its never really been my favorite genre, so I leave such judgements to you...

but I do know this: GTA was a new stepping stone in gaming.. it changed the industry. I've yet to see anyone present any good evidence to the contrary.

Premier

2007-04-03, 05:43 PM

Wow, I hope your kidding. Couple of things...
Hitman and max payne would prolly not have been developed without GTA... "thinking fps??" an fps is an fps... sorry bro, no dice.

No offense, but as it was pointed out by someone else above, you do sound like you don't actually know the series. Or the Thief series, for that matter, which, though more often referred to as "sneaker", is nevertheless a game in the FPS format that requires thinking to succeed in.

The matrix movies started bullet time, not video games. I'm sure you're fully aware what I meant was that Max Payne introduced bullet time into computer games. So please stop nitpicking, okay?

Terrible examples Amigo, you'll have to do a bit better than that.Instead of trying to claim some sort of "psychological victory" by sounding self-assured and condencending, how about actually debating the issue at hand with arguments? It would be more productive, after all. Same thing goes for "no dice, bro", "I hope you're kidding", and "I'll let it slide".

GTA belongs firmly in that 2nd list.. though Im suprised you omitted civilization, which deserves credit like GTA deserves credit (brought a genre to everyone).Well, opinions are free and to each his own, but I have to say... I think your opinion in this particular matter is simply biased and unreasonable. That's my opinion and nothing more, just like how your opinion is your opinion and nothing more, regardless of how authoritatively stated. We can agree to disagree, or we can continue supporting our opinions with arguments.

And I omitted quite a few things besides Civilisation, simply because I never wanted to provide a full list - such an endeavour would have been futile, anyway. Not because there are that many truly seminal, groundbreaking and revolutionary games around, but because neither you nor I am familiar enough with the entire history of computer gaming from the first day across all platforms and genres ever.

I mean gaming magazines don't differentiate between 2 types of FPS... therefore, "thinking FPS"=FPS, no?

No. There are these things called "subgenres", you see. I mean, going by your logic, a Dogma film by Lars von Trier would be the same thing as a 4-minute 60-ies Dadaist skit with flying hats and disappearing clocks, simply because movie review mags don't differentiate between different types of "experimental films".

Daze

2007-04-03, 06:09 PM

No offense, but as it was pointed out by someone else above, you do sound like you don't actually know the series. Or the Thief series, for that matter, which, though more often referred to as "sneaker", is nevertheless a game in the FPS format that requires thinking to succeed in.

I'm sure you're fully aware what I meant was that Max Payne introduced bullet time into computer games. So please stop nitpicking, okay?

Instead of trying to claim some sort of "psychological victory" by sounding self-assured and condencending, how about actually debating the issue at hand with arguments? It would be more productive, after all. Same thing goes for "no dice, bro", "I hope you're kidding", and "I'll let it slide".

Well, opinions are free and to each his own, but I have to say... I think your opinion in this particular matter is simply biased and unreasonable. That's my opinion and nothing more, just like how your opinion is your opinion and nothing more, regardless of how authoritatively stated. We can agree to disagree, or we can continue supporting our opinions with arguments.

And I omitted quite a few things besides Civilisation, simply because I never wanted to provide a full list - such an endeavour would have been futile, anyway. Not because there are that many truly seminal, groundbreaking and revolutionary games around, but because neither you nor I am familiar enough with the entire history of computer gaming from the first day across all platforms and genres ever.

Well if you read my last post (prolly posted while your typing, no worries), you'd see I am quite familiar with Hitman (and Thief for that matter).. but as you said it's a "sneaker" or a stealth game. Just beacause you have a crosshair on the screen, or can see through your characters eyes, doesnt make it an FPS... I wouldn't call Oblivion an FPS, would you?

I wasn't nitpicking about max payne, merely pointing out that the game was clearly in the vein of GTA.. only adding a new, relatively minor "techy" effect is hardly worthy of a mention when discussing gaming milestones.

I feel no need to claim "psychological victory" over you, so please get over it. It's the way I speak.. it wasn't meant as offense, merely to add emphasis. There's some condescension in the way you write too, so be careful before you throw too many stones.

And you think my opinion is "biased and unreasonable"?. Do you seriously want me to start posting game reviews, magazine articles and wall street sales figures in here? I was trying to stay away from that, as I didnt feel the need to support such an obvious thing as "Grand Theft Auto changed the way people looked at games".
Can you possible deny that is true?
I really dont care if you dont like the game.. or the genre... we're beyond that. That's absolutely your opinion and your more than entitled to it.
But whether or not GTA was a major achievement in gaming is NOT an opinion, is NOT subjective... you naming what a couple of games did differently (max payne, hitman, etc..) just proved my point further.
The proof is in the pudding, go check out Rockstar's (and later Take-two's) stock prices, pre-GTA and post-GTA... you dont get that kind rocket power by releasing max payne... I didnt see too many "bullet time" games after that, did you?

Of course $$ and popularity isn't everything.. but relative to this discussion I'd say it's worth mentioning... illustrating the raw strength GTA brought to the industry.

anyways, sorry if I seem aggravated by this, I'm really not... but I just found your examples way off point...

Premier

2007-04-04, 04:50 AM

I wasn't nitpicking about max payne, merely pointing out that the game was clearly in the vein of GTA.. only adding a new, relatively minor "techy" effect is hardly worthy of a mention when discussing gaming milestones.
My point, exactly. I was citing Hitman, Max Payne etc. to bring us examples of games which contain some amount of innovation, but which are not revolutionary; and contrasted these to games that were revolutionary in their time. And I did this as a response to your "there's a clear line dividing pre- and post-whatever" remark, which to me strongly implied the argument that if there is a clear line, then that game must be revolutionary. My examples prove that it's not so.

And you think my opinion is "biased and unreasonable"?. Do you seriously want me to start posting game reviews, magazine articles and wall street sales figures in here?

No, because:

A, Game reviews and magazine articles mean absolutely nothing. They measure not the quality of a game (or even the popular success of it), but the amount of hype. If you have some insight into the world of these mags, you must be aware that they constantly write glowing reviews about mediocre games, because of they don't, then the publisher will never give them exclusive preview options in the future. There are also many other reasons stemming from the "subculture" of these mags why many of them will not rate even the most excrementally awful game lower than 60 on a scale of 100, but let's not get into these, since it's another topic. But seriously, you can't be arguing that ratings in popular gaming mags are a reliable measurement of a game's quality.
And

B, Street sales figures? I already explained in a previous post that you can't use sales figures to compare the significance of a present-day game to the significance of a game in the late 80-ies, for example. The whole market was entirely different then! There was no mass-media advertising of games, no game publishing companies on the stock exchange, no online advertising, much, much fewer computers (and thus users) in existence, etc.. Ignoring this vast difference in the nature of the market would be akin to cite sales figures and stock quotes to claim that the Mazda Miata is a more revolutionary technology than the first Benz automobiles.

I was trying to stay away from that, as I didnt feel the need to support such an obvious thing as "Grand Theft Auto changed the way people looked at games".
Can you possible deny that is true?

This might be obvious to you personally, but that falls under the realm of subjective personal opinion. And so far I don't think you've done much to move that statement into the realm of objective, proven arguments. I mean, so far your single argument was that it created lots of clones, but frankly, I'm not sure I'm even convinced of that. I mean, let's make a list of GTA clones, and then compare it to lists of FPS clones, C&C clones, Civilisation clones, Super Mario clones and the like. I'm pretty sure that if we actually did engage in this excercise, we would find that the number of GTA clones would be much, much lower.

But whether or not GTA was a major achievement in gaming is NOT an opinion, is NOT subjective...

Exactly, it's not. It's rather objective, and like I saud just above, a bit of objective investigation would reveal that the objective answer is very likely "No, it wasn't".