Topic: GT4 & San Andreas - Revolutionary, Evolutionary or Neither?

[Shift Key]

Ok, this thread continues on from here

Quote
Furthermore it is not a Sony/Sega/Nintendo thing at all. Polyphony Digital is completely separate from Sony and is really a 2nd party.

If you want to be technical, a second party is not completely separate from their owner. They are wholly owned by Sony. Just because they are not an internal party like EAD is to Nintendo, doesn't mean they aren't in Sony's back pocket. Compare them to Camelot -  they are a Nintendo second party, but get their projects and direction from Nintendo.

Quote
When I say GTA 5 I mean San Andreas, even though they're not numbering the games now it is still the 5th official installment (minus that London game which was essentially an expansion pack). Saying a game can't be that different from another because it uses the same game engine doesn't hold much to it. Many sequels use the same game engine and are vastly different.

I don't consider GTA:VC to be a new installment. Because
1. It uses an enhanced engine from GTA3
2. It is much of the same premise as GTA3(run, shoot, steal repeat)
3. It might be a new city, but that's an obvious step for a sequel. MORE + BIGGER + FASTER  != BETTER
4. Rockstar hasn't called it a sequel. Its GTA:SA to them. So why should you be different?

Quote
Entirely separate franchise are created using the same engines as others and both have succeeded. They have done a major overhaul to the engine, please read the Game Informer 10 page feature on GTA:SA if you're going to state viewpoints about the game since really nothing was none before that except 3 screenshots. And the other recent articles about it online barely touch the surface.

That's nice . I'd like to hear some facts in there regarding 'separate franchises' using the same engine. I have little interest in SA despite what you say. And imported magazines cost a lot more (despite the exchange rate being the reverse) and an imported magazine detailing a series I've had little interest in since the original is worth even less to me.

Quote
He has said numerous times that car damage is something they're looking into.

Do we need a commitee or something? What on earth is stopping them?

Quote
Obviously he wants to include it, is negotiating with the companies to, and has said he really hopes they will be able to include it in GT5.

Prove it. Link me up. As far as I know, the problem is the power of the PS2 (IGN chat) and haven't heard your suggestion.

Quote
As for GT4, knowing alot about the creator Kazunori Yamauchi, he lives and breathes cars and he would never dream of taking away the car licenses to include damage

You remind me of someone.

Quote
Originally Posted by: OMGWHOCOULDTHISBE?:
Anyway, I've been a fan long enough to basically think like Capcom with their thoughts on Resident Evil.

[boggy b]

It annoys me that people think that if a game isn't going to be revolutionary, that it must automatically suck.

I mean really; what was the last REVOLUTIONARY game to be released? I'm not talking about ones that brought interesting or quirky ideas to an old genre, I'm talking about the creation of a new genre. The only one I can think of is Dance Dance Revolution, and that's nearly five years old!

But, is that to say that since DDR there hasn't been a single fun game, since none of them are revolutionary? Not at all! There are loads of great games that simply build on ideas and gameplay from previous titles.

Heh, sorry to but in. Just my 2 cents.

[Shift Key]

Wario Ware comes to mind as a genre unto itself. Or is that not mainstream enough for you?

The point I'm trying to make is that games like GTA and GT are over-hyped. They are encouraging stagnation in terms of creativity in the industry, which is already swarmed with look-alike games as it is. When I hear people say that a sequel will revolutionise a series or a genre, I can't help but be annoyed. Becuase the majority of games borrow from their previous incarnations or rival products, and yet somehow they don't compare apparently according to the fans. That makes no sense at all. If the story goes in a new direction, its an evolution. If its more bonuses, its an evolution. If its updated visuals, its an evolution.

And I use the term evolution loosely.  

[Mario]

Quote
I don't consider GTA:VC to be a new installment. Because
1. It uses an enhanced engine from GTA3
2. It is much of the same premise as GTA3(run, shoot, steal repeat)
3. It might be a new city, but that's an obvious step for a sequel. MORE + BIGGER + FASTER != BETTER
4. Rockstar hasn't called it a sequel. Its GTA:SA to them. So why should you be different?

Would you say the same thing about Majora's Mask?

[Shift Key]

I didn't consider MM to be a new installment - it was an offshoot. I've said it before here:

Quote
Leave OoT and MM on their own, because they work so well together on their relationship that they don't really relate at all, just linked by a few common features.

It told a completely different story, and the game was played at a varying pace. A gaming tangent to the Zelda story, if you want an analogy.

[DrZoidberg]

I'd say it's not as good as OoT, but has better music, but it's also better than WW for annoyed Bill lols

I'm looking forward to GTASA (moer liek GTASS), but it won't be that groin rumblingly different that it will set consoles on fire (well except ps2's am i rite mario (think NFSU)).

[Mario]

Fair enough Shifty. I think that like OoT and MM, Vice City and San Andreas (or GTA3 and Vice City) can co-exist perfectly well. "Completely" different stories for Zelda, and "completely" different areas to explore for GTA are the highlight, and pretty much the reason both games exist, to show two different stories/areas or something. If the developers of GTA still have more ideas to put into a game i say let them do it however they want. I look forward to what San Andreas has to offer, and I won't go any further into it since i really have no idea what it will have to offer.  

[Shift Key]

Quote
If the developers of GTA still have more ideas to put into a game i say let them do it however they want.

Agreed. But at the moment its looking like being GTA3.11 for Workgroups (FAT-O-METER? ahahahaha that's gold, we can all be members of the Big Kev Mafia), so meh.

No news ain't good news.

[thecubedcanuck]

Who gives a rats arse.
If the game is fun to play, why the hell should anything else matter?
I am sick of all these self appointed know it alls who think they know what is best for the gaming industry. Especially when their only point of referance is their own personal opinion.
Since when does a game have to be revolutionary, evolutionary?
Just play the darn games for what they are. If you like em, play em, if you dont, then dont play em.
Just for the love of god, stop thinking that because you dont like a game that it must be crappy, especially whne the game is months from being played.

[DrZoidberg]

Quote
I am sick of all these self appointed know it alls who think they know what is best for the gaming industry. Especially when their only point of referance is their own personal opinion

I'm sick of you too

[Infernal Monkey]

No GTA is a sequel of the last, because they've all revolved around different characters and stuff. They're installments.
Additional lol note, Gran Turismo is anything but 'the real racing simulator' or whatever its tag has been. YEAH I'M DRIVING AT 300 KM/H AND I HIT A WALL, THE CAR BOUNCES A BIT AND I SPEED OFF AT THE SPEED OF ZOOOOOOM!

[Shift Key]

Quote
If the game is fun to play, why the hell should anything else matter?

When I start hearing about a game being better than sliced bread, despite it not being actually released or even showed in playable form, is when it matters, cubed.

[boggy b]

[EDIT]Re-wrote my post, cause the last itteration was too flamebaity.

Quote
Wario Ware comes to mind as a genre unto itself. Or is that not mainstream enough for you?

Hmmm, I don't really see it as making an entirely new genre since it was just a collection of minigames (something which Sid Meir's Pirates! did nearly ten years ago). It was a pretty refreshing idea, though.

Quote
The point I'm trying to make is that games like GTA and GT are over-hyped. They are encouraging stagnation in terms of creativity in the industry, which is already swarmed with look-alike games as it is.

Tell me, just quickly, do you Nintendo games such as the new Legend of Zelda and Metroid Prime 2 as encouraging no creativity? It will help me get a better understanding, depending on what your answer is.

Quote
When I hear people say that a sequel will revolutionise a series or a genre, I can't help but be annoyed. Because the majority of games borrow from their previous incarnations or rival products, and yet somehow they don't compare apparently according to the fans.

I can't really answer this until I hear your answer to the above question.

Quote
That makes no sense at all. If the story goes in a new direction, its an evolution. If its more bonuses, its an evolution. If its updated visuals, its an evolution.

Depends on where you draw the line. Like I pointed out earlier, it's stupid to only think revolutionary games will be good, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, there are none about if you talk about truly revolutionary games. Secondly, time and time again, 'evolutions' of old products have turned out to be just as fun, if not better, than other products in the field.

Quote
And I use the term evolution loosely.

Evolution isn't the word I'd use at all. Improvement is a much better one, IMO.

[Shift Key]

EDIT: Not a fan of postcounting, so I'll follow the trend.

Quote
Tell me, just quickly, do you Nintendo games such as the new Legend of Zelda and Metroid Prime 2 as encouraging no creativity?

1. They are headline franchises - of course they are going to be creatively limited by what they can do.
2. Remember last years E3? The outcry from the connectivity focus (THAT'S CREATIVITY) probably pushed Nintendo to focus on these games because it was what that fans want.
3. There are games on other systems which are pushing the creativity (Four Swords, MP: Hunters).

Quote
Depends on where you draw the line.

I am not talking about fun at all. That is irrelevant. I am talking about the future of games, and the flooding of sequels (good and bad).

I haven't been hyping up the new Zelda. Hell, I've been hyping up Reggie more. I'm still a little skeptical of how this game will differ from OoT, so I'm waiting for new details and the like. And DK:Jungle Beat owns you also.

Quote
if anything it's encouraging MORE creation since the developers have to squeeze every teensy weensy bit of fun out of the same ideas.

That makes no sense. More creation by using the same ideas? Riiiiight.  

[thecubedcanuck]

" When I start hearing about a game being better than sliced bread, despite it not being actually released or even showed in playable form, is when it matters, cubed."

Again I ask, WHY?
I doesnt affect you in any way, shape, or form.
Either you will like it when it is released or you wont. Nothing else really matters.

"I'm sick of you too"

DrZoidberg, considering your opinion means as much to me a mole on Reta Mc Neils arse, I say boo hoo to you.

[Termin8Anakin]

Revolutionary is not really the best term to throw at games these days. Unless you are talking about JUST the relevant series, in which case it's more evolutionary. So GTA:SA may be revolutionary in the franchise, but it sure as hell ain't revolutionary in all of gaming. People would probably call it that cause it's modelled after a real city and stuff like that, but really, all that just comes with advancements in hardware.
GTA3 was DEFINITELY a revolutionary game for the time, and in terms of the series (GTA2 being top-down.
Was Mario 64 revolutionary? Hell yes. Was Mario Sunshine? Hell no.

As of now, I really don't see the point of trying to argue the bad points of the Grand Theft Auto franchise anymore, cause it's always gonna do well because of the violence and the name brand recognition alone.

Gran Turismo? Well, thats just plain shite nowadays
People are moving toward streetracing games like NFSU and SRS, because of that whole culture.
I'll bet you ANY money that GT5 will include some sort of illegal street racing element in it.
And people will be calling it revolutionary.
And surely, if companies allowed car damage in Project Gotham, then damage in GT would be allowed too. But nope.
Hahaha. Realistic my ASS!!!

[boggy b]

Quote
I haven't been hyping up the new Zelda. Hell, I've been hyping up Reggie more.

But does hyping up Zelda annoy you? Or is it just hyping of PlayStation and XBOX games that annoys you?

Quote
And DK:Jungle Beat owns you also.

Not really. It looks a bit gimmicky if you ask me.

Quote
That makes no sense. More creation by using the same ideas? Riiiiight.

In some ways, yes it is. Obviously, in some ways (creation of gameplay etc.) it isn't. But in others, such as refinement, it is.

[Shift Key]

Quote
But does hyping up Zelda annoy you? Or is it just hyping of PlayStation and XBOX games that annoys you?

Hype in general annoys me. If I get excited over a game, then I'll join in. But the last game that did that for me was Metroid Prime (Super Metroid was a looooooong time ago). And unfortunately I'm not aboard the hype bandwagon at all right now.

Quote
Not really. It looks a bit gimmicky if you ask me.

Unfamiliar concepts usually are looked at as gimmicky. Give it some time and wait for more news. From the hands-on I've heard, its a lot of fun.

[BigHit30]

I wouldnt say that it would be revolutionary.  Looks the same only instead of using mobsters they are using LA street gangs.  You can bet the NAACP isn't gonna be happy when this comes out as it looks like it might stereotype African Americans.  Anyway, there isn't a chance that it will be better than Halo 2, MGS 3, MP2, Zelda, or Half Life 2.

[joeamis]

Quote
Originally posted by: Shifty
Ok, this thread continues on from here
They are wholly owned by Sony.

Quote
When I say GTA 5 I mean San Andreas, even though they're not numbering the games now it is still the 5th official installment (minus that London game which was essentially an expansion pack). Saying a game can't be that different from another because it uses the same game engine doesn't hold much to it. Many sequels use the same game engine and are vastly different.

I don't consider GTA:VC to be a new installment. Because
1. It uses an enhanced engine from GTA3
2. It is much of the same premise as GTA3(run, shoot, steal repeat)
3. It might be a new city, but that's an obvious step for a sequel. MORE + BIGGER + FASTER  != BETTER
4. Rockstar hasn't called it a sequel. Its GTA:SA to them. So why should you be different?

That's nice . I'd like to hear some facts in there regarding 'separate franchises' using the same engine. I have little interest in SA despite what you say. And imported magazines cost a lot more (despite the exchange rate being the reverse) and an imported magazine detailing a series I've had little interest in since the original is worth even less to me.

Quote
Obviously he wants to include it, is negotiating with the companies to, and has said he really hopes they will be able to include it in GT5.

Prove it. Link me up. As far as I know, the problem is the power of the PS2 (IGN chat) and haven't heard your suggestion.


By your logic any game that uses an enhanced engine of a prior game in the franchise is not a new installment then?  So the new Zelda is not a new installment of the franchise because it uses the Windwaker engine?  Zelda also uses the same premise as the earlier games (you're Link, you fight with swords, etc)  Heres a quote from the GI feature: "Like the Final Fantasy series, each new GTA is a fresh start for the franchise: new worlds to conquer, new stories, and new experiences."  So I guess none of the Final Fantasy games are new installments either too?  Look at a thesaurus for the word installment and you will find the word: chapter.  A few lines down from that first quote in the GI feature there is this quote: "Then, after it was officially confirmed that the next chapter would be named GTA:SA, rumor soon spread that the title would take place in a fictionalized Los Angeles."  

Separate franchises using the same engine?  Okay: Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Kart 64 used the same engine.  The new MMORPG Vanguard: Saga of Heros is the latest game to use the Unreal Engine.  Quote: "The Unreal Engine has been instrumental in bringing dozens of titles to market on multiple platforms with fast, clean, and polished production value."  Postal 2 uses the Unreal 2 Engine.  Splinter Cell uses the older version of the Unreal 2 Warfare engine.  Dues Ex 2 uses the Unreal Warfare engine except for the physics engine is Havoc.  Spider Man for N64 used the engine from Tony Hawk 64.  Heretic used the Doom engine.  Half Life used a modified Quake engine.  Half Life 2 uses the Havoc engine used in DX2 I stated above for it's physics engine as well.  There are tons more examples and much better examples that I read about over the years but can't remember.  I'll post more later perhaps.  

Since you've had little interest since the first game in the series as you say, then you really haven't read much about it, so you really shouldn't argue about it, especially when there's only a few small paragraphs with close to no information about the changes that have been made from the online sources (who are the only ones outside of GI to report about the game yet).

Onto GT4 regarding car damage, well I'll let Kazunori himself respond to your argument.  LINKY: Kazunori Interview
If you watch atleast half of that interview you will hear him say that BOTH the limits of the PS2 and the car companies are why there is no damage effects in the game.

Gran Turismo hasn't encouraged stagnation, it redefined racing games and made the benchmark so high noone has even equaled their past efforts yet.  I guess if it never came out, then things would be better playing the latest Need for Speed or Test Drive games which both rely so much more on flash than GT with them focusing the only cars being Super cars or tricked out to the fullest street racers.  Hell in GT start off driving the cars you actually own (and used as well), whats so flashy about that?

One thing about GTA causing stagnation...  What is the biggest gameplay feature of GTA?  Absolute freedom in a large living city.  Even Miyamato liked that about the game.  I guess it would be better if all games continued to be strictly linear?  GTA has made strides to change that.  I'll post alot more about GT4 and GTA:SA soon.  Also since you don't believe games can be better without a new game engine, you should know that GT4 game engine has been rebuilt from the ground up and the separate physics engine has been rebuilt.  The reason there is stagnation is because of the other developers who can't come up with original ideas who just try to milk off other people.  So blame them.

[Ian Sane]

"Gran Turismo hasn't encouraged stagnation, it redefined racing games and made the benchmark so high noone has even equaled their past efforts yet."

Gran Turismo redefined racing games.  Gran Turismo 2-4 encouraged stagnation.

My main "rule" with sequels (or spin-offs or prequels or installments or whatever) is that every game has to have a creative reason in terms of gameplay to exist.  One of the reasons I became a Nintendo fan was because (at least in the past) every game they made had a reason to exist.  Not every seqeul has to be completely original but they have to offer something unique that isn't in previous installments.  Something like Tomb Raider 3 for example has no real reason to exist because it's just more of the same.  If you played Tomb Raider 1 and 2 there's no real need to play TR3.  SSBM on the other hand plays very similar to SSB but it add so many new game modes and improves upon nearly everything that it does have a reason to exist even though it isn't too original.

GTA: SA has every reason to exist if it has enough new stuff to give the game a reason to exist.  And these changes have to add to the gameplay.  Superficial stuff like new cars and new levels and a new story don't mean anything if the game plays exactly the same.  The "reason to exist" rule is what seperates games that the designers wanted to make and games that were made purely for money.

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
Again I ask, WHY?
I doesnt affect you in any way, shape, or form.
Either you will like it when it is released or you wont. Nothing else really matters.

Why do YOU care what he thinks or cares about, cubed? It doesn't affect you at all, does it? No.

[/cubed mocking]

[thecubedcanuck]

"Why do YOU care what he thinks or cares about, cubed? It doesn't affect you at all, does it? No."

Atleast I dont start pointless threads about it.

[joeamis]

Obviously you haven't played GT 2 or 3 for more than one sitting...  Just because a game does not appeal to your tastes does not mean it's bad.  Arguing that Gran Turismo is simply mainstream is like arguing that Super Mario Brothers was simply mainstream throughout it's history.

Racing games are sports games.  Do you see sports games drastically altering their gameplay every single installment no.  You can't expect simulations to always drastically alter their gameplay with every new installment, it's not in their nature to.  Anyways if you try out each car they all control differently, some of them so drastically differently it's nothing short of amazing.  If adding over 400 cars from the last game (with that in mind) in the series isn't a change in gameplay then nothing is.  Also if you utilize the new G-force meter in GT4 that changes the gameplay even further... I wouldn't be surprised to see such a feature in a real racecar because it would help you race better.

If you saw the development building of Polyphony Digital then you would understand why I said Kazunori Yamauchi lives and breathes cars.  He loves cars, he just bought a 2004 Ford GT, only the 33rd one ever made.  The entire building is designed like a high tech parking garage, it even has columns labeled like a parking ramp, and an elevator that can deliver full size cars to any floor of the building.  All around the offices you can see bits and pieces of racing culture: shocks lying on the ground, racing fire suits hung up with the coats, dozens upon dozens of car models in each and every cube.  The hang out room has a gigantic collection of racing videos, and there is a parking garage on the roof of their development house where they keep cars for referencing while they make the game.

If you think they're not doing everything possible to make the game as realistic as possible you're just biased or uninformed.  They use so many parameters that they're able to get all 500+ cars in the game to match the AVERAGE lap time of the same car in real life down to less than a 1 second difference for the average lap times.  Over 30 parameters per car with over 500 cars...  that's a helluva lot of programming just for the cars alone.  They have a 15 person development team just for making the tracks alone.  They take 30,000 photos per track to get it as realistic as possible, now multiply that by the number of tracks in the game, 50.  That's 1,500,000 photographs just for the tracks...  They then use tape measures, helicopters, and even cranes to capture the design of each course.  When asked how many parameters per track they said too many to count.  They even measure the width and length of the road stripes, height of railings, and building measurements.  When it comes to cars they take 200 photos per car, 200 times 500+ cars is atleast another 100,000 photos right there.  Some manufacturers even give them their own CAD data for their cars.  They also even use Global Positioning Satellite imagery.  You have to atleast respect how much work they do just for a game.  It's no surprise they will have only released 2 games within the last 5+ years.  

[akdaman1]

Joeamis - You really have impressed me. You went all out. Theres noway anyone can argue with you now.