ID:183849
 Mar 29 2007, 12:39 pm
|
|
The trailer has been released today. You can see it here.
| |
|
Mar 29 2007, 1:27 pm
|
|
ShadowLera
 |
Damn, I should've lied about my age. Now I can't view it. XD
|
I would like to post the idiocity and chronological confusion in the name "Grand Theft Auto IV" (4). Simply put, it isn't the 4th one is it?
Grand Theft Auto Grand Theft Auto II Grand Theft Auto III G.T.A. Vice City G.T.A. San Andreas (sp?) Grand Theft Auto IV Hmm...a couple games of the same title between III and IV? So REALLY, they shoulda named it like this. Grand Theft Auto Grand Theft Auto II Grand Theft Auto III Grand Theft Auto IV Grand Theft Auto V Grand Theft Auto VI | |
Vice City and San Andreas weren't part of the numbered series. Just like Super Mario World on the SNES isn't Super Mario Brothers 4.
| |
Well, GTA VC and SA are both using the 3 engine. Although they were sequels and prequels, they were still the same engine, and the gameplay was pretty much the same. GTA4 is supposed to have a new engine, and the gameplay is suppose to reflect that. A fresh start for GTA.
I mean heck, looks like they are really going for New York, not just mimicking it. You also forgot GTA: London, Liberty City Stories, and Vice City Stories in that list. | |
Game looks extremly fun and awsome + really really good graphics for that type of sandbox game...
Man I can't wait... | |
That trailer was uninspiring, uninteresting and uninformative.
I currently feel no urge to even play it. Heres hoping they hype it up some more. | |
Mona Lisa, that doesn't make me want it any more then I currently do.. which is not a whole lot... unless it was a nude.
| |
I know just because something looks good, doesn't mean it will be good. But other than the main character being Russian, there isn't much else to say about it.
| |
I guess you stopped watching before the bit where he starts smashing some dolphins' faces in.
Personally I thought it was very pretty. | |
Sequel numbering is pretty lame anyway, really. If the movie industry can get away without using sequel numbers all the time (James Bond and the Matrix trilogy come to mind as obvious examples), then why can't the games industry?
(Of course there are some movies that do use sequel numbers. But it's not done nearly as consistently as with games. A game sequel is almost always called Game Name 2.) | |
I wish I had seen him bashing in some dolphin faces, I would rush out and pre-order it at EBgames right now.
| |
Crispy wrote:
Sequel numbering is pretty lame anyway, really. Nintendo have always been pretty good at giving their sequels special names. And they do it alot considering they're pretty much the oldest game makers around. Think Zelda (Adventure of Link, Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, Ocarina, Majora's, etc. etc.), Metroid, Mario and the like. | |
I'm not a GTA fan, so I don't go around following all of its titles. I must say I loved GTA III, but....there were too many add ons to it. I personally detest when games/movies get really popular and the makers simply make a huge line of sequals, BUT DON'T NUMBER THEM!
Reason I hate GTA so much is, like you said, the same engine was used throughout them all. It was like I was playing through GTA III again, except all I could do was point out the little differences they implemented. "Oh, I can drive a motorcycle now. Ok, whatever, I just fall off the damn thing most of the time anyway. Not much of an add on." -playing vice city. | |
I don't see what the problem is, the new engines are effectively numbered, while the others are seen as sub-games on the same engine. Its actually quite a good system to employ, given the way that Rockstar has developed the series.
| |
Well, all the GTA III games were considered to be III for a reason. The game was great, and every new game was bigger and had more to do. I couldn't hardly get enough GTA III. Even after Vice City, I wanted more. I beat GTA III, VC, and SA 100%. I loved those games(III was the best of the bunch, but the otheres were welcome additions).
It will be nice to see something new out of GTA. I can only imagine the possibilities that this new one will hold. My biggest issue is that they are releasing it on multiple consoles which means either: A. Multi-DVDs for the XBox and one Blu-Ray for the PS3 or B. Less content to fit on one DVD, so even the PS3 will suffer. With the massive world that SA saw, it was clear that a bigger storage media would be needed if the game was to get larger/more detailed. I am sure they maxed out that DVD on the last game, now just imagin the same game with high resolution textures. | |
Danial.Beta wrote:
Well, all the GTA III games were considered to be III for a reason. The game was great, and every new game was bigger and had more to do. I couldn't hardly get enough GTA III. Even after Vice City, I wanted more. I beat GTA III, VC, and SA 100%. I loved those games(III was the best of the bunch, but the otheres were welcome additions). You do know Gears of War, a eye candy game is only 6.4 gigs right... Oblivion is 5.4 gigs... 360 has way better compression than the PS3, so im sure they got it to fit | |