XXXXXX

48 results
1
2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@ariabed said:

@Jacanuk: watchdogs has a lot more variety of things to do outside of main missions, gta5 is a good game with a lot of attention to little details but they didn't put enough attention into giving the player enough interesting things to do outside the main missions, other than just getting bored and running pedestrians over and getting chased by the police. Each game can learn a lot from the other.

I mean I so wish that gta5 had side missions like, clearing an area/building of a rival gang members, missions to do with the businesses you own, and even being able to rob banks and plan your own smaller scale hiest, just se side missions of substance would have been good.

Equally I wish watchdogs was a little more polished.

Hmm, i dont see that much more in Watch Dogs, in fact most of the side stuff you can do is pretty much the same shit over and over and over and over and over and over again, you see a crime, you prevent it, the criminal runs, you either shoot or take him down and it ends. The "e-trips" are fun but after the 10th time it gets old fast.

GTA5 has a lot of the same problem, but its easier to overlook because the world feel real and its a lot easier to immerse in.

GTAIV was a gem and imo after Vice City the best GTA game ever made, the DLC added so much that even though it was a lot smaller and in the same world, both DLC´s made the world new and exciting even thought you just plowed through it in the main game.

But ya its clear that the extra 6 months delay went on adding a multiplayer or fixing that more than it did polishing the game, and honestly right now i regret buying it on release, at least i got it 40% of but still for me it was another Blacklist, a terrible broken unpolished glitchy, buggy and all in all a dread to play and as they say you can fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and shame on me, and i won't let Ubisoft do that a 3rd time.

10 years ago

6612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2010 • 6612 Posts

@yukushi said:

Watch dogs lets me appreciate rockstar even more, after all these years no developer can make a open world shooting game that can compare to grand theft auto, these open world games just let me pass the time until the next grand theft auto comes out.

Volition made a couple Saints Row games that are easily more fun than any GTA.

10 years ago

586

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2013 • 586 Posts

@Jacanuk said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@Jacanuk said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@Jacanuk said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@Jacanuk: How about an overall sense of fun? While I agree the shooting feels solid (as you'd expect since Rockstar uses the exact same shooting style in just about every one of their games) the characters don't move very well and going on a rampage can be unfun since it's so hard to make a stand. Not only that, but the realism gets in the way of things. It doesn't allow for really over the top, player made fun.

Meanwhile, in a game like Just Cause 2, realism is thrown out the window and you are given an abundance of opportunities to destroy things and wreak mayhem. Plus, the side missions actually make sense unlike, say, Red Dead Redemption where each one felt like a completely random and inconsequential story that didn't really add anything to the game (and before you say RDR isn't a GTA game, it may as well be).

I can appreciate the technology put into the games, but the attention to detail and reactionary physics doesn't do much of the game isn't that fun.

Ahh i was beginning to suspect that something like Just Cause 2 was more something you would like.

And i get where we split ways. I am not a big fan of pointless mayhem, there has to be a reason for the insanity and Just Cause 2 was a terrible pile of manure, no point to the missions, no side missions worth anything, and after the 10th time you destroy a car, plane or chopper into something it gets tiresome and the worst part was that the whole main story felt like watching paint dry.

So ya if you don't want realism Its not GTA because thats what GTA does best, it makes the mayhem have a point, the side missions to have a place and the main story to feel like a story with characters that have a appeal.

Same thing with RDR.

But I have to ask what the point of realism is if it doesn't really add anything? It gives an atmosphere when you're just observing, but like someone else said, the awkward controls are really out of place and, to use a buzzword that I despise, it breaks the immersion that so many people praise the games for. Also like somebody else said, the core gamepaly is still incredibly simple and doesn't have a whole lot of depth.

In some other games you have options on how to approach a gun fight. With GTA, it's pretty much always "hide behind cover and wait for an opening." And like I said, what good is all that focus on realism and immersion if the gameplay is still the same damn thing with barely any tweaking? I'll give it to you that at least the characters in GTAV have some special abilities, but even that has been done in other games with more combat options.

The point of realism is to help you immerse yourself in the game and also to provide a great gaming experience. Its also what distinguishes a great game from a average game like GTA and Watch Dogs. And its just realism in the grand scale, its also the small things. If you look at Watch Dogs there is just so many things that are left out, some small some big, like being able to see where your shooting even in water to the big things like no cops on water, except if the helicopter follows you which is pretty easy to get rid of. Also the small map of Chicago doesn't help it either, even GTA3 seems a lot bigger.

And i don't see your complaints in GTA at all, gunplay is a fluid as any other game of the genre, and its not a FPS. But how did you want the gun-action to be? after all its a gun you aim and shoot,

Apparently we have different definitions of what a great game is. I can appreciate that Rockstar goes to the trouble of adding a lot of small details, but I'd rather just wreak havoc and have a bunch of fun than stare at light coming through the trees or things like that. I get that it affects the gameplay in certain ways but it never feels like it's really meaningful; it feels more like it's put in the game just to have people gush over the technology. To me a great game is something that does have that attention to detail but also doesn't get in its own way when trying to give the player a fun time.

And what I mean about the gunplay is that there's very little options or depth to it. All it is is cover based shooting. That's it. I can get that in a bunch of other games, and some of them do it better. Take Sleeping Dogs. That also has a cover system, but it also allows the cool ability to trigger slow motion and slide out to gain ground on your enemies. Realistic? No. Fun as hell? Yes. And I understand that you can have slow motion in GTAV, but there's no smooth movement. It's just "break from cover when you can and get behind more cover and continue popping out and shooting."

Or, take Far Cry 3. There are so many different ways to get things done in that game. Hell, when you're fully upgraded, you have options just from taking an enemy down. You can pull the pin on their grenade and kick them into more enemies. You can take their firearm and shoot at their friends while using their body as a shield. I'm not saying I need all rooty tooty point and shooty games to have that much depth, but the shooting in GTA (and most Rockstar games) is just incredibly basic. There's no hook or feature that makes it stand out from any other generic shooter, aside from the bullet physics on the body of an enemy. And, again, I can appreciate that, but it doesn't change the fact that all you are doing is poking out from behind cover and taking a few shots every now and then.

Yes, it seems we do indeed have a different view on what makes a great game. As i said i can't stand the mindless pointless mayhem that are in a game like Just Cause 2, there has to be a reason for the madness, so yes i rather have Rockstar´s eye for details. Als for me it does affect the gameplay and in a major way, i simply can't look past that in a game like Watchdogs in 2014 they "forgot/neglected" to add police boats, forgot to add bullet effects and other effects to the water, make it possible for boats to jump and not just jump and sink like a rock, or show you the entire map just to close some of it off by invisible walls, areas you clearly are going to later in the story or make every shot a kill shot.

Ahh ok so what you are looking for is bullet time and other "tricks" to allow you to "alternate" the gun action, i get that but dont agree, its a gun you point and shoot and yes it is more fun to have some cool feature like bullet-time but for me it does not rank highly at all, i like the more stealthy approach anyways so if thats there i always use it.

Hmm, in regards to FarCry 3 you do also have a bit different game, GTA is a 3rd person openworld action game, where Farcry is a 1st person open world shooter. So its bound to cause some differences but in my eyes they are not that different from GTA.

I think that an important question to ask you is what do you do outside of the main story after it is over? Do you just take time to enjoy the details in the world? Do you feel like GTA V's side content could have been better and is lacking compared to past games?

Also, I am pretty sure that turtle was just suggesting that GTA needs to step up its combat and shooting when he mentioned bullet time and talked about Far Cry 3. Something like a human shield is used a lot now. Yes, that may make it unoriginal, but it is something that you would have expected GTA V to have. Prior to playing the game, the scene ( which was apparently from the mission where you take the guy who is being interrogated from the FIB for other members of the FIB) i thought that it hinted at a human shield or hostage mechanic, it did not. There are so many things that GTA could do, but there has not really been any progressions since 4.

10 years ago

2121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Member since 2014 • 2121 Posts

@Jacanuk: nope San Andreas was the best gta IMO of course gta5 is the worst simply because you have this beautiful world with nothing interesting to do in it, it's a waste of what could have been an amazing epic experience outside the main missions, and being as though it's the 5th game in the series that's not good enough, I look back fondly at hours spent with San Andreas outside of main missions.

Anyway watchdogs is far from perfect I'm just hoping watchdogs2 addresses everyone's complaints.

10 years ago

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2004 • 25 Posts

@cooolio: i play watchdogs, im still playing it. Its a good game, but its not what they promised. Its the usual Ubisoft xperience minus combat.

And about GTA V, it have great side missions. the mission where you as michael must find the parts of the submarine, the one where you play as travis and must set on fire a house. Or the one chase to catch a parody of swarchenegger, so the old couple who are fans can take a picture with him.

Its a matter of quality over cuantity. GTA V may not have a lot of side missions. BUT have the best and most varied side missions.

Dont understand it wrong. Watch Dogs is a good game, and in the end its fun.But its always the same side mission, and its not what they promised.

10 years ago

turtlethetaffer

18973

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 144

User Lists: 0

#56 turtlethetaffer

Member since 2009 • 18973 Posts

@cooolio said:

@Jacanuk said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@Jacanuk said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@Jacanuk said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@Jacanuk: How about an overall sense of fun? While I agree the shooting feels solid (as you'd expect since Rockstar uses the exact same shooting style in just about every one of their games) the characters don't move very well and going on a rampage can be unfun since it's so hard to make a stand. Not only that, but the realism gets in the way of things. It doesn't allow for really over the top, player made fun.

Meanwhile, in a game like Just Cause 2, realism is thrown out the window and you are given an abundance of opportunities to destroy things and wreak mayhem. Plus, the side missions actually make sense unlike, say, Red Dead Redemption where each one felt like a completely random and inconsequential story that didn't really add anything to the game (and before you say RDR isn't a GTA game, it may as well be).

I can appreciate the technology put into the games, but the attention to detail and reactionary physics doesn't do much of the game isn't that fun.

Ahh i was beginning to suspect that something like Just Cause 2 was more something you would like.

And i get where we split ways. I am not a big fan of pointless mayhem, there has to be a reason for the insanity and Just Cause 2 was a terrible pile of manure, no point to the missions, no side missions worth anything, and after the 10th time you destroy a car, plane or chopper into something it gets tiresome and the worst part was that the whole main story felt like watching paint dry.

So ya if you don't want realism Its not GTA because thats what GTA does best, it makes the mayhem have a point, the side missions to have a place and the main story to feel like a story with characters that have a appeal.

Same thing with RDR.

But I have to ask what the point of realism is if it doesn't really add anything? It gives an atmosphere when you're just observing, but like someone else said, the awkward controls are really out of place and, to use a buzzword that I despise, it breaks the immersion that so many people praise the games for. Also like somebody else said, the core gamepaly is still incredibly simple and doesn't have a whole lot of depth.

In some other games you have options on how to approach a gun fight. With GTA, it's pretty much always "hide behind cover and wait for an opening." And like I said, what good is all that focus on realism and immersion if the gameplay is still the same damn thing with barely any tweaking? I'll give it to you that at least the characters in GTAV have some special abilities, but even that has been done in other games with more combat options.

The point of realism is to help you immerse yourself in the game and also to provide a great gaming experience. Its also what distinguishes a great game from a average game like GTA and Watch Dogs. And its just realism in the grand scale, its also the small things. If you look at Watch Dogs there is just so many things that are left out, some small some big, like being able to see where your shooting even in water to the big things like no cops on water, except if the helicopter follows you which is pretty easy to get rid of. Also the small map of Chicago doesn't help it either, even GTA3 seems a lot bigger.

And i don't see your complaints in GTA at all, gunplay is a fluid as any other game of the genre, and its not a FPS. But how did you want the gun-action to be? after all its a gun you aim and shoot,

Apparently we have different definitions of what a great game is. I can appreciate that Rockstar goes to the trouble of adding a lot of small details, but I'd rather just wreak havoc and have a bunch of fun than stare at light coming through the trees or things like that. I get that it affects the gameplay in certain ways but it never feels like it's really meaningful; it feels more like it's put in the game just to have people gush over the technology. To me a great game is something that does have that attention to detail but also doesn't get in its own way when trying to give the player a fun time.

And what I mean about the gunplay is that there's very little options or depth to it. All it is is cover based shooting. That's it. I can get that in a bunch of other games, and some of them do it better. Take Sleeping Dogs. That also has a cover system, but it also allows the cool ability to trigger slow motion and slide out to gain ground on your enemies. Realistic? No. Fun as hell? Yes. And I understand that you can have slow motion in GTAV, but there's no smooth movement. It's just "break from cover when you can and get behind more cover and continue popping out and shooting."

Or, take Far Cry 3. There are so many different ways to get things done in that game. Hell, when you're fully upgraded, you have options just from taking an enemy down. You can pull the pin on their grenade and kick them into more enemies. You can take their firearm and shoot at their friends while using their body as a shield. I'm not saying I need all rooty tooty point and shooty games to have that much depth, but the shooting in GTA (and most Rockstar games) is just incredibly basic. There's no hook or feature that makes it stand out from any other generic shooter, aside from the bullet physics on the body of an enemy. And, again, I can appreciate that, but it doesn't change the fact that all you are doing is poking out from behind cover and taking a few shots every now and then.

Yes, it seems we do indeed have a different view on what makes a great game. As i said i can't stand the mindless pointless mayhem that are in a game like Just Cause 2, there has to be a reason for the madness, so yes i rather have Rockstar´s eye for details. Als for me it does affect the gameplay and in a major way, i simply can't look past that in a game like Watchdogs in 2014 they "forgot/neglected" to add police boats, forgot to add bullet effects and other effects to the water, make it possible for boats to jump and not just jump and sink like a rock, or show you the entire map just to close some of it off by invisible walls, areas you clearly are going to later in the story or make every shot a kill shot.

Ahh ok so what you are looking for is bullet time and other "tricks" to allow you to "alternate" the gun action, i get that but dont agree, its a gun you point and shoot and yes it is more fun to have some cool feature like bullet-time but for me it does not rank highly at all, i like the more stealthy approach anyways so if thats there i always use it.

Hmm, in regards to FarCry 3 you do also have a bit different game, GTA is a 3rd person openworld action game, where Farcry is a 1st person open world shooter. So its bound to cause some differences but in my eyes they are not that different from GTA.

I think that an important question to ask you is what do you do outside of the main story after it is over? Do you just take time to enjoy the details in the world? Do you feel like GTA V's side content could have been better and is lacking compared to past games?

Also, I am pretty sure that turtle was just suggesting that GTA needs to step up its combat and shooting when he mentioned bullet time and talked about Far Cry 3. Something like a human shield is used a lot now. Yes, that may make it unoriginal, but it is something that you would have expected GTA V to have. Prior to playing the game, the scene ( which was apparently from the mission where you take the guy who is being interrogated from the FIB for other members of the FIB) i thought that it hinted at a human shield or hostage mechanic, it did not. There are so many things that GTA could do, but there has not really been any progressions since 4.

Yup that is what I meant, not that it specifically needs to be more like Far Cry 3, just that it really needs something else to the combat to give it some more oomph. It's very, very basic compared to a lot of other open world games today.

10 years ago

586

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2013 • 586 Posts

@sebas_1987 said:

@cooolio: i play watchdogs, im still playing it. Its a good game, but its not what they promised. Its the usual Ubisoft xperience minus combat.

And about GTA V, it have great side missions. the mission where you as michael must find the parts of the submarine, the one where you play as travis and must set on fire a house. Or the one chase to catch a parody of swarchenegger, so the old couple who are fans can take a picture with him.

Its a matter of quality over cuantity. GTA V may not have a lot of side missions. BUT have the best and most varied side missions.

Dont understand it wrong. Watch Dogs is a good game, and in the end its fun.But its always the same side mission, and its not what they promised.

That mission with the old couple has you digging through "celebrities'" trash too. As for that missions with the submarine parts, I assume that you mean the one where you are using the submarine to look form waste and treasure. I do not know what the car chase you are talking about, but that is probably one of the few good ones. You forgot to mention the mission that has basically picking up drugs and delivering them, the other one that revolves around TOWING DAMN TRUCKS and the one that has you destroying signs. See, most of the missions are more humorous than good. Humor does not make quality in my opinion.

And the lack of good activities is bad. Golf and tennis are not enough. And you have to look at the fact that GTA IV's dlc added more and is criticized heavily, while GTA V did not improve on or adding an fun mini games and activities. It is more of a technical achievement than a game with amazing mechanics, just look at what most people talk about, the immersion. See, what gives it its edge is the detail and life in the world, that is it.

10 years ago

39

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#58 Micheljordon

Member since 2014 • 39 Posts

Wait for the "The Crew"

Don't you like the Car Racing Games, I read that "The Crew" of Ubisoft is releasing in 3rd quarter..of 2014

You can see gameplay & preview here

10 years ago

48 results
1
2

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment