Red Mosquito

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

ABNorman wrote: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.

It's unfortunate that our changing expectations can often alter our enjoyment and appreciate of art/media. Is it fair to the creator? Is it their job to constantly be innovating/changing or to bring in a new audience? Your Grand Budapest example is great.

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

ABNorman wrote: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.

It's unfortunate that our changing expectations can often alter our enjoyment and appreciate of art/media. Is it fair to the creator? Is it their job to constantly be innovating/changing or to bring in a new audience? Your Grand Budapest example is great.

It's an interesting discussion. Personally, I do feel like it is the viewer's job to be informed and aware of historical continuity if they want to be have credible opinions about a work of art. If an artist is repeating themselves, I think it's a totally fair criticism to call that out. We've seen it before, so it's no longer new or insightful.

Anything and everything can seem great if we're ignorant of historical precedents.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

ABNorman wrote: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.

It's unfortunate that our changing expectations can often alter our enjoyment and appreciate of art/media. Is it fair to the creator? Is it their job to constantly be innovating/changing or to bring in a new audience? Your Grand Budapest example is great.

It's an interesting discussion. Personally, I do feel like it is the viewer's job to be informed and aware of historical continuity if they want to be have credible opinions about a work of art. If an artist is repeating themselves, I think it's a totally fair criticism to call that out. We've seen it before, so it's no longer new or insightful.

Anything and everything can seem great if we're ignorant of historical precedents.

I agree to an extent. I hesitate to judge too harshly though if they are still inspired by what they are creating and if someone else is getting enjoyment.

I'm sure the creators of Grand Theft Auto (and other series) are constantly struggling with the desire to try new things and to maintain the current formula. There are shareholders and bottom lines to satisfy after all.

Monkey_Driven wrote:I'm sure the creators of Grand Theft Auto (and other series) are constantly struggling with the desire to try new things and to maintain the current formula. There are shareholders and bottom lines to satisfy after all.

Yes, that's a very good point. And thus that ol' money-versus-artistic-integrity argument rears its ugly head.

It's also worth considering that the landscape of video games has changed since earlier GTA installments. I mean, it's gotta be hard to remain transgressive in a climate where Saints Row has you beating people with giant dildos and ramming probes up people's asses. But something has to change. The ideology of GTA V felt last-gen, despite it's current-gen tech.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:I'm sure the creators of Grand Theft Auto (and other series) are constantly struggling with the desire to try new things and to maintain the current formula. There are shareholders and bottom lines to satisfy after all.

Yes, that's a very good point. And thus that ol' money-versus-artistic-integrity argument rears its ugly head.

It's also worth considering that the landscape of video games has changed since earlier GTA installments. I mean, it's gotta be hard to remain transgressive in a climate where Saints Row has you beating people with giant dildos and ramming probes up people's asses. But something has to change. The ideology of GTA V felt last-gen, despite it's current-gen tech.

I'm very intrigued by Valiant Hearts, one of the PS Plus games this month. Has anyone played it?

After playing my rented copy of Saints Row IV Re-Elected for about 10 hours, I decided to just buy a copy. Really digging this game. It lets me do stuff I've been wanting to do in a game forever (like jump over buildings).

Follow the damn train, CJ!

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:I'm sure the creators of Grand Theft Auto (and other series) are constantly struggling with the desire to try new things and to maintain the current formula. There are shareholders and bottom lines to satisfy after all.

Yes, that's a very good point. And thus that ol' money-versus-artistic-integrity argument rears its ugly head.

It's also worth considering that the landscape of video games has changed since earlier GTA installments. I mean, it's gotta be hard to remain transgressive in a climate where Saints Row has you beating people with giant dildos and ramming probes up people's asses. But something has to change. The ideology of GTA V felt last-gen, despite it's current-gen tech.

I'm very intrigued by Valiant Hearts, one of the PS Plus games this month. Has anyone played it?

I have. I never finished it. Good, not great.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:I'm sure the creators of Grand Theft Auto (and other series) are constantly struggling with the desire to try new things and to maintain the current formula. There are shareholders and bottom lines to satisfy after all.

Yes, that's a very good point. And thus that ol' money-versus-artistic-integrity argument rears its ugly head.

It's also worth considering that the landscape of video games has changed since earlier GTA installments. I mean, it's gotta be hard to remain transgressive in a climate where Saints Row has you beating people with giant dildos and ramming probes up people's asses. But something has to change. The ideology of GTA V felt last-gen, despite it's current-gen tech.

Haha yeah, i would imagine that Saints Row has probably forced GTA's hand away from the absurd stuff and more towards the gritty realism that they seem to be going for in the last 2 games. Which I don't have a problem with. I don't find the games particularly stale, though they are formulaic for sure. But it's a formula that I enjoy. You guys are right though there is certainly room for improvement.

Back before GTA V was announced, i thought it would be fun to have a GTA set during the prohibition. Essentially a Grand Theft Auto/Boardwalk Empire mashup.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/03/05/ ... ium=social

Took a year and a half but this sounds incredible. I just hope there is a good matchmaking component because I don't have many friends with the PS4 version.

mf wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:I'm sure the creators of Grand Theft Auto (and other series) are constantly struggling with the desire to try new things and to maintain the current formula. There are shareholders and bottom lines to satisfy after all.

Yes, that's a very good point. And thus that ol' money-versus-artistic-integrity argument rears its ugly head.

It's also worth considering that the landscape of video games has changed since earlier GTA installments. I mean, it's gotta be hard to remain transgressive in a climate where Saints Row has you beating people with giant dildos and ramming probes up people's asses. But something has to change. The ideology of GTA V felt last-gen, despite it's current-gen tech.

Haha yeah, i would imagine that Saints Row has probably forced GTA's hand away from the absurd stuff and more towards the gritty realism that they seem to be going for in the last 2 games. Which I don't have a problem with. I don't find the games particularly stale, though they are formulaic for sure. But it's a formula that I enjoy. You guys are right though there is certainly room for improvement.

Back before GTA V was announced, i thought it would be fun to have a GTA set during the prohibition. Essentially a Grand Theft Auto/Boardwalk Empire mashup.

Agreed. LA Noire gave us a glimpse of that.

Today I learned Yoshi's full name is Yoshisaur Munchakoopas.

Monkey_Driven wrote:Today I learned Yoshi's full name is Yoshisaur Munchakoopas.

It's T. Yoshiisaur Munchakoopas.

What does the T stand for?

tommymtcom wrote:What does the T stand for?

Very possibly Tommymtcom.

I always knew I was special.

Yoshi is kind of pretentious.

OlliOlli 2 is really fun. I never played the first one though.

hey yo suckas. do you like old school RPGs like Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale? Of course you nerds do. Well have I got the game for you! https://eternity.obsidian.net/

BurtReynolds wrote:hey yo suckas. do you like old school RPGs like Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale? Of course you nerds do. Well have I got the game for you! https://eternity.obsidian.net/

Game looks really good. Interested to see what they have done with a universe of their own making. No longer stuck with D&D rules too. Between this and Bloodborne I will be good for a long time.

Also thank you kickstarter. Apparently it saved Obsidian from bankruptcy.