RETIRED - The all inclusive video game thread

[CopperTom]

Red ring of death.

I couldn't resurrect her. I tried 4 times. Then I tried the "towel" trick and that allowed it to work for about 30 minutes. I'm thinking that this RRoD was related to the chips on the bottom of the board. The CPUs were covered in an appropriate amount of thermal paste and clearly transferring heat to the sinks. She was a "Day 1" unit and will be missed. Almost 10 years old.

The fact that it lasted 10 years is pretty insane. Mine RROD pretty early on.

The thing is all of my other consoles are original and work. I have everything since NES. Everything since N64 is a day 1 version. The only consoles that have failed are Xbox and Xbox 360. I expect a console to last forever. Maybe that thought is no longer realistic since the new consoles are mini super computers.

[CopperTom]

I just started playing CoD: Ghosts. I'm holding LV personally responsible for every smile or frown I experience.

[Simple Torture]

Just finished the GTA V campaign. Standard GTA fare with some inventive missions and such, but I was never really into the story. Not as driven to try to 100% this like I was with Red Dead Redemption. When I ordered it I also got a bunch of bonus cash for GTA Online, but I haven't even tried it and I'm not sure if I will.

Also, I've beat Rogue Legacy twice already, zeroing in on a third time. I'm going to stick with it until I can max out my stats, OCD style.

[LoathedVermin72]

I just started playing CoD: Ghosts. I'm holding LV personally responsible for every smile or frown I experience.

That game is all smiles, baby.

[LoathedVermin72]

Just finished the GTA V campaign. Standard GTA fare with some inventive missions and such, but I was never really into the story. Not as driven to try to 100% this like I was with Red Dead Redemption. When I ordered it I also got a bunch of bonus cash for GTA Online, but I haven't even tried it and I'm not sure if I will.

Also, I've beat Rogue Legacy twice already, zeroing in on a third time. I'm going to stick with it until I can max out my stats, OCD style.

GTA V was so disappointing.

[Simple Torture]

Just finished the GTA V campaign. Standard GTA fare with some inventive missions and such, but I was never really into the story. Not as driven to try to 100% this like I was with Red Dead Redemption. When I ordered it I also got a bunch of bonus cash for GTA Online, but I haven't even tried it and I'm not sure if I will.

Also, I've beat Rogue Legacy twice already, zeroing in on a third time. I'm going to stick with it until I can max out my stats, OCD style.

GTA V was so disappointing.

I think Rockstar did a great job of trying to mix it up a bit with the game mechanics; having three protagonists was cool, but besides their special abilities, they basically played the same (and Franklin's special was the only one I used on a regular basis). At this point, though, when it comes to GTA, I'm just tired of playing the same jaded anti-hero. Having a huge, immersive world is sorta pointless for me if you don't want to be the characters.

[tommymtcom]

They need to mix it up more next time around. Different country or different time period would be ideal.

[tommymtcom]

I would love a 3d GTA set in London.

[LoathedVermin72]

Yeah, differentiation is sorely needed in the next GTA. Staleness is anathema to a game series so dependent on transgressive thrill. I think a female protagonist would be a solid first step. Or, hell, go the create-your-own-character route like every other fucking series has already been smart enough to adopt.

[Monkey_Driven]

Yeah, differentiation is sorely needed in the next GTA. Staleness is anathema to a game series so dependent on transgressive thrill. I think a female protagonist would be a solid first step. Or, hell, go the create-your-own-character route like every other fucking series has already been smart enough to adopt.

I loved the heists in GTA V and the ability to switch between characters but otherwise the story was a bit stale. I would love the ability to create your own character and given more choices into how the story plays out.

I just picked up the PS4 version of the game and am really enjoying exploring and dicking around. I mostly re-purchased it for the Online Heists coming next week.

[LoathedVermin72]

Yeah, differentiation is sorely needed in the next GTA. Staleness is anathema to a game series so dependent on transgressive thrill. I think a female protagonist would be a solid first step. Or, hell, go the create-your-own-character route like every other fucking series has already been smart enough to adopt.

I loved the heists in GTA V and the ability to switch between characters but otherwise the story was a bit stale. I would love the ability to create your own character and given more choices into how the story plays out.

I just picked up the PS4 version of the game and am really enjoying exploring and dicking around. I mostly re-purchased it for the Online Heists coming next week.

The game definitely looks and plays great, but yeah, the narrative/characters/overall experience leaves a lot to be desired. Despite the technical improvements and innovations, the game is nowhere near as fun and exciting as Vice City and San Andreas were. I think the grounded, gritty "crime story" thing they've been trying to do in (to a slightly lesser extent) IV and V is a somewhat misguided place to take the series.

[ABNorman]

I don't have any love for the GTA games. Loved Red Dead Redemption, though.

[LoathedVermin72]

I don't have any love for the GTA games. Loved Red Dead Redemption, though.

I wonder if RDR (good as it was) is part of the reason why GTA V is so damn serious (read: not fun). The somber tone and gritty, character-driven material was appropriate for RDR, but it's a mistake for Rockstar to think that game's model for artistic success should be applied to the GTA universe, which used to involve chainsaws and jetpacks.

[Monkey_Driven]

I don't have any love for the GTA games. Loved Red Dead Redemption, though.

I wonder if RDR (good as it was) is part of the reason why GTA V is so damn serious (read: not fun). The somber tone and gritty, character-driven material was appropriate for RDR, but it's a mistake for Rockstar to think that game's model for artisitic success should be applied to the GTA universe, which used to involve chainsaws and jetpacks.

To be fair, GTA IV was darker in tone than V.

[LoathedVermin72]

I don't have any love for the GTA games. Loved Red Dead Redemption, though.

I wonder if RDR (good as it was) is part of the reason why GTA V is so damn serious (read: not fun). The somber tone and gritty, character-driven material was appropriate for RDR, but it's a mistake for Rockstar to think that game's model for artisitic success should be applied to the GTA universe, which used to involve chainsaws and jetpacks.

To be fair, GTA IV was darker in tone than V.

I dunno, I think GTA IV had a darker ending, but the majority of the actual game didn't feel as dark as V. Then again, maybe the technical improvements back when IV came out were more impressive and distracted me.

[LoathedVermin72]

I don't have any love for the GTA games. Loved Red Dead Redemption, though.

I wonder if RDR (good as it was) is part of the reason why GTA V is so damn serious (read: not fun). The somber tone and gritty, character-driven material was appropriate for RDR, but it's a mistake for Rockstar to think that game's model for artisitic success should be applied to the GTA universe, which used to involve chainsaws and jetpacks.

To be fair, GTA IV was darker in tone than V.

I dunno, I think GTA IV had a darker ending, but the majority of the actual game didn't feel as dark as V. Then again, maybe the technical improvements back when IV came out were more impressive and distracted me.

Actually, I take this back. You're right; IV was darker in tone. But the difference is that IV did not feel stale. It was a big change from San Andreas in many ways. It didn't feel like been-there-done-that. It felt exciting.

V did not feel new or exciting.

[Monkey_Driven]

I don't have any love for the GTA games. Loved Red Dead Redemption, though.

I wonder if RDR (good as it was) is part of the reason why GTA V is so damn serious (read: not fun). The somber tone and gritty, character-driven material was appropriate for RDR, but it's a mistake for Rockstar to think that game's model for artisitic success should be applied to the GTA universe, which used to involve chainsaws and jetpacks.

To be fair, GTA IV was darker in tone than V.

I dunno, I think GTA IV had a darker ending, but the majority of the actual game didn't feel as dark as V. Then again, maybe the technical improvements back when IV came out were more impressive and distracted me.

Actually, I take this back. You're right; IV was darker in tone. But the difference is that IV did not feel stale. It was a big change from San Andreas in many ways. It didn't feel like been-there-done-that. It felt exciting.

V did not feel new or exciting.

That's an interesting point I haven't considered. It may be there were way more "sandbox" or "open world" games last generation that innovated where GTA had in previous generations. I thought the level design/variety and number of things to do were much better in V than in IV. The ability to switch between characters really helped. None of the characters were particular interesting but they did add variety. The drive to this location, do this, and drive again routine gets pretty old after awhile so the variety was much appreciated.

[LoathedVermin72]

I don't have any love for the GTA games. Loved Red Dead Redemption, though.

I wonder if RDR (good as it was) is part of the reason why GTA V is so damn serious (read: not fun). The somber tone and gritty, character-driven material was appropriate for RDR, but it's a mistake for Rockstar to think that game's model for artisitic success should be applied to the GTA universe, which used to involve chainsaws and jetpacks.

To be fair, GTA IV was darker in tone than V.

I dunno, I think GTA IV had a darker ending, but the majority of the actual game didn't feel as dark as V. Then again, maybe the technical improvements back when IV came out were more impressive and distracted me.

Actually, I take this back. You're right; IV was darker in tone. But the difference is that IV did not feel stale. It was a big change from San Andreas in many ways. It didn't feel like been-there-done-that. It felt exciting.

V did not feel new or exciting.

That's an interesting point I haven't considered. It may be there were way more "sandbox" or "open world" games last generation that innovated where GTA had in previous generations. I thought the level design/variety and number of things to do were much better in V than in IV. The ability to switch between characters really helped. None of the characters were particular interesting but they did add variety. The drive to this location, do this, and drive again routine gets pretty old after awhile so the variety was much appreciated.

You're right: the game is bigger and more varied. The sandbox is more developed. There is more to do. But that transgressive thrill that made previous GTA games so much fun, that made them feel so liberating...is all but gone.

This review does a brilliant job articulating what I mean: http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog ... ive.2.html

[Monkey_Driven]

I don't have any love for the GTA games. Loved Red Dead Redemption, though.

I wonder if RDR (good as it was) is part of the reason why GTA V is so damn serious (read: not fun). The somber tone and gritty, character-driven material was appropriate for RDR, but it's a mistake for Rockstar to think that game's model for artisitic success should be applied to the GTA universe, which used to involve chainsaws and jetpacks.

To be fair, GTA IV was darker in tone than V.

I dunno, I think GTA IV had a darker ending, but the majority of the actual game didn't feel as dark as V. Then again, maybe the technical improvements back when IV came out were more impressive and distracted me.

Actually, I take this back. You're right; IV was darker in tone. But the difference is that IV did not feel stale. It was a big change from San Andreas in many ways. It didn't feel like been-there-done-that. It felt exciting.

V did not feel new or exciting.

That's an interesting point I haven't considered. It may be there were way more "sandbox" or "open world" games last generation that innovated where GTA had in previous generations. I thought the level design/variety and number of things to do were much better in V than in IV. The ability to switch between characters really helped. None of the characters were particular interesting but they did add variety. The drive to this location, do this, and drive again routine gets pretty old after awhile so the variety was much appreciated.

You're right: the game is bigger and more varied. The sandbox is more developed. There is more to do. But that transgressive thrill that made previous GTA games so much fun, that made them feel so liberating...is all but gone.

This review does a brilliant job articulating what I mean: http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog ... ive.2.html

A female playable character would take the next GTA to another level of storytelling.

I often wonder how my experience with games like this would be different if it was the first game in the series I played. Something tells me I would have enjoyed it much more.

[LoathedVermin72]

I don't have any love for the GTA games. Loved Red Dead Redemption, though.

I wonder if RDR (good as it was) is part of the reason why GTA V is so damn serious (read: not fun). The somber tone and gritty, character-driven material was appropriate for RDR, but it's a mistake for Rockstar to think that game's model for artisitic success should be applied to the GTA universe, which used to involve chainsaws and jetpacks.

To be fair, GTA IV was darker in tone than V.

I dunno, I think GTA IV had a darker ending, but the majority of the actual game didn't feel as dark as V. Then again, maybe the technical improvements back when IV came out were more impressive and distracted me.

Actually, I take this back. You're right; IV was darker in tone. But the difference is that IV did not feel stale. It was a big change from San Andreas in many ways. It didn't feel like been-there-done-that. It felt exciting.

V did not feel new or exciting.

That's an interesting point I haven't considered. It may be there were way more "sandbox" or "open world" games last generation that innovated where GTA had in previous generations. I thought the level design/variety and number of things to do were much better in V than in IV. The ability to switch between characters really helped. None of the characters were particular interesting but they did add variety. The drive to this location, do this, and drive again routine gets pretty old after awhile so the variety was much appreciated.

You're right: the game is bigger and more varied. The sandbox is more developed. There is more to do. But that transgressive thrill that made previous GTA games so much fun, that made them feel so liberating...is all but gone.

This review does a brilliant job articulating what I mean: http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog ... ive.2.html

A female playable character would take the next GTA to another level of storytelling.

I often wonder how my experience with games like this would be different if it was the first game in the series I played. Something tells me I would have enjoyed it much more.

Yeah, I actually remember thinking the same thing about The Grand Budapest Hotel. I mean, talk about a movie with immaculate production design, shot selection, costume design, cinematography, editing, tone - Wes Anderson has MASTERFUL control over all the elements in that movie. But having seen everything he's made before it...it felt a little stale. A little been-there-done-that. (Much like GTA V.) But I could very easily see someone who's never seen a Wes Anderson movie watching it and being totally blown away.