this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
589 points (91.4% liked)
Games
32654 readers
1483 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Knowing Rockstar put off development of this game for as long as they did just so they could milk GTAO for every last penny makes me hesitant at best.
I have never been let down by a GTA campaign, but they know where the money is, I'm hesitant to believe they will give this one the attention it deserves after seeing the profits from GTAO. Or maybe I'm just pessimistic
GTA5's campaign was fairly good, but it sucks they abandoned the planned additions and shoved the assets into GTAO only. I do not care to play GTAO, but I would have liked more things to do in single player. Knowing that this is likely going to have single player solely as a pipeline into GTAO though, yeah I'm sceptical too.
I think GTAO (and RDR2-O) is pretty much unplayable with all the obvious cheaters in each session. Rockstar doesnt even care if someone runs around with a K:D of > 1000:1, ruining the game for everyone else ...
Yep. I hate to say this, but they should maybe but MTX into the singleplayer game. I really don't like the idea of it, but if it's between that and nothing, I guess it's better than nothing. One time purchase DLC is clearly not appealing enough to them. That said, I could totally see it ruining singleplayer so maybe that's not the best idea...
I just wonder if they can actually figure out a way to make GTA online actually fun. Because It really isn't a good game mode.
All of the online modes that are actually fun are all modded servers. The mental servers are awful you spawn in and get blown up instantly, how's that fun?
GTAOnline has suffered from feature pile-on. I think there's an official software development term for it, but I can't remember it. It's fun, aside from the astronomical grind and push for shark cards (but there are ways around that wink wink) Even considering that, getting into it as a new player is wild.
Scope creep I think.
That's probably the wrong term. Scope creep is when you're working on a project and you keep adding new requirements to the design before you finish the existing ones. Your scope creeps further and further into the future. GTAO is a project that is available, and increasing scope hasn't seemed to delay new content.
That said, I don't know what the "correct" term would be either.
Maybe feature creep?
I usually think of scope creep as adding more and more work items, like this: you're building a bridge between two buildings. During design, you find out one of the buildings has terrible foundations that should really just be replaced. Scope creep would be deciding to replace the building foundations as part of the bridge project.
It's possible I'm not using the term correctly either though. Maybe what I've described instead is design creep, or something.
They finished GTA V release in 2015, released Red Dead Redemption II in 2018, and this will be 2025
Sounds like continuous development to me?
It’s 10 fucking years. GTA 3, Vice City, and San Andreas were all less than a couple years apart. They need to reuse that strategy of working in parallel and reusing the game engine for a few sequels before moving to the next generation.
I’m confident they would’ve released more games if GTA Online wasn’t such a money printer for them. For those of us that liked the single player though and didn’t touch online, it’s been a while!
Games were way lower fidelity and quicker to make back then, bro. It's nowhere near the same thing.
It took billions of years to make pacman and 14 years to make pacman 2. They should be able able to make GTA 6 in a week. GTA 7 should come out before Christmas.
The earlier GTA games where quicker to develop because the computers did not have the CPU power or RAM to support large cities, many different NPC models, detailed cars, objects or enviroments. This means levels, assests and the engines where much quicker to develop.
if you double width+height of your map, you have to fill 4x the area with meaningfull content, belivable cities, scripted events, nature, streets, shops, maybe NPS who have a daily routine to walk from one place to another.
Plus, you have to create a large amount of different(!) buildings to place around your map, because you dont want to recognize the same house, shop, park or Parking lot multiple times in the same street. On top of that is car physics, traffic simulation, cop chase behavior and now apparently NPCs interact with each other.
None of this has been done before, and getting this right and bugfree is not trivial - see cyberpunk.
It's 10 years since last GTA. In the middle there is a little game known as Red Dead Redemption 2, which is massive and took the whole studio to make.
Yeah I played that one. Also pretty great. Hope they build another one soon. It’s already been 5 years.
RDR2 was still phenomenal after getting the GTAO money. Rockstar can still make great single-player content when they want to.
I agree. It's just that this is the same series.. Idk maybe it will kick ass, I'm just overly cynical I guess lol
My expectation is that it will be very good, but will have no single player DLC whatsoever in lieu of GTAO2 or whatever they call it. And no, I've never forgiven them for doing that with V. At least this time I won't be expecting it.
What if it doesn't need DLC? When the concept of DLC first came out, everyone complained that devs were just releasing unfinished games and that you were obligated to buy DLC to enjoy a full experience. Now people only buy games because they're expecting DLC?
Because Rockstar did some good DLC for GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption. I agree that DLC isn't a good thing if it's carved out of the base game, but Rockstar had a good track record of making good DLC for already feature-complete games.
Unnecessarily cynical. The same series? Are Vice City, SA, and 4 considered bad games?
Did you even read my initial comment?
I explicitly said that I have never been let down by a GTA campaign. What I was saying was that RDR2 is a different series that plays by different rules. For that reason I don't feel like it's necessarily fair to use RDR2 as an example of how they will treat GTA with the respect the series deserves.
They're not going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing a new game only to focus on GTAV online.
Counterpoint: Warzone.
Why does it make you hesitant? GTAV isn't GTA6.