Why do Rockstar Games characters...

...always look so damn geometric? It was fine back in 2001, even acceptable a few years later, but why do they stick to those crappy designs even now, when there are consoles powerful enough to support some incredibly detailed and realistic graphics? The geometric character design is a sort of trademark for Rockstar, but do they plan to stick to it forever?

I'm saying this because GTA4 kinda sucks in that department. There's not a lot of expression on the character's faces and their movements look kind of stiff. I will definitely be buying it and playing it, and most likely I'll love it, but the graphics are quite a disappointing thing.

It's kind of a staple thing for R*, they promote gameplay over graphics. At least they have more cloth-like features on the clothing, that to me makes up for the bland hands and fingers.

Plus, the environments and effects have stepped up quite a bit from the vids I have watched and from what I read in the latest Playstation Official Magazine. Explosions look so much better, and helicopters will rip in half is just some of the stuff they pointed out.

Rockstar tries to cram as many people and objects into an environment as possible. These objects take alot of polygons, so if they were to do alot of detail on each character in the game you will have less people and objects. Example think about how good God father and Saints row looked and the level of character detail they had. Now think about how many people and objects were around you when you played compared to the GTA series. Compared to GTA they did not have that many. They sacrifice detail characters for a more detailed world around you.

Well, thats at least what I think.

...always look so damn geometric? It was fine back in 2001, even acceptable a few years later, but why do they stick to those crappy designs even now, when there are consoles powerful enough to support some incredibly detailed and realistic graphics? The geometric character design is a sort of trademark for Rockstar, but do they plan to stick to it forever?

I'm saying this because GTA4 kinda sucks in that department. There's not a lot of expression on the character's faces and their movements look kind of stiff. I will definitely be buying it and playing it, and most likely I'll love it, but the graphics are quite a disappointing thing.

Clauricaune

Won't somebody please think of the children!

Seriously another topic about Grand Theft Autos graphics .. :roll:

^^you don't need to reply to topics you don't like.

In any case, yeah, the graphics have improved considerably on GTA4, but I don't think there's any excuse for keeping the same simplistic character design. Take a look to Assassin's Creed, for example: that's the biggest achievement on gaming when it comes to creating fully animated, life-like cities. Now look at GTA4 (taking into account that it was GTA3 which started the whole living city thing), and there's no point of comparison. AC is superior in pretty much every aspect (too bad the gameplay kinda sucks).

Now, if only Rockstar could do something similar, what we'd be having is the most stellar game of its kind.

^^you don't need to reply to topics you don't like.

In any case, yeah, the graphics have improved considerably on GTA4, but I don't think there's any excuse for keeping the same simplistic character design. Take a look to Assassin's Creed, for example: that's the biggest achievement on gaming when it comes to creating fully animated, life-like cities. Now look at GTA4 (taking into account that it was GTA3 which started the whole living city thing), and there's no point of comparison. AC is superior in pretty much every aspect (too bad the gameplay kinda sucks).

Now, if only Rockstar could do something similar, what we'd be having is the most stellar game of its kind.

Clauricaune

It's just old to hear .. it's not about the graphics ..

Ever think of this? Assassins Creed is 10 hours long, zero online .. enough said ..

Theres a whole hell of a lot more going on in GTA than there was goin on is AC in terms of depth of potential gamplay. AC had no variance, It was not breakthrough IMO it was just acceptable. That is not a relevant comparison.

Every movement, action, physical model, animation, vehicle, NPC, mission, dialogue, and on and on and on, requires space and processing power to generate on screen. The more you have going on, the more you have to program and allow the hardware to process. The bottom line is that R* has made the choice to program more content in the GTA franchise than flashier graphics. That is a choice that has been widely accepted by the gaming market hence why it is one of the best selling franchises of all time. I also appreciate having more cars and guns and unique jumps, over a few more polygons in the facial models of characters. Until hardware gets better dont expect a 200 hour, free roaming game to have perfectly detailed graphics, there are limitations of the hardware.

Rockstar tries to cram as many people and objects into an environment as possible. These objects take alot of polygons, so if they were to do alot of detail on each character in the game you will have less people and objects. Example think about how good God father and Saints row looked and the level of character detail they had. Now think about how many people and objects were around you when you played compared to the GTA series. Compared to GTA they did not have that many. They sacrifice detail characters for a more detailed world around you.

Well, thats at least what I think.

baller72

Exactly... and if we're not at a point that I can play a game like GTA with Uncharted-style graphics, then I'd rather have them nerf the graphics than the gameplay.

Dude you know why?

Cause the GTA environments are HUGE, so it'd be stupid to focus just on the character and leave out all the terrain annd buildings etc... Besides R* was always gameplay over graphics, but looking at the trailers for GTA IV I see now that they're going to be trying something new.. Gameplay AND graphics :D

^^you don't need to reply to topics you don't like.

In any case, yeah, the graphics have improved considerably on GTA4, but I don't think there's any excuse for keeping the same simplistic character design. Take a look to Assassin's Creed, for example: that's the biggest achievement on gaming when it comes to creating fully animated, life-like cities. Now look at GTA4 (taking into account that it was GTA3 which started the whole living city thing), and there's no point of comparison. AC is superior in pretty much every aspect (too bad the gameplay kinda sucks).

Now, if only Rockstar could do something similar, what we'd be having is the most stellar game of its kind.

Clauricaune

Just like baller72 said, the more detail the less objects, and dont forget Liberty City is based on NYC so there'll be a lotta cars and ppl on screen.

AC could have been longer only if it was designed for a blu-ray disc. of course, GTA wouldn't be very long if it used AC-quality graphics, but all I'm saying is that it could have been better, and rather easily. it doesn't need to have THAT much quality, but it could certainly be improved. in many aspects, GTA4 still looks like a PS2 game.Clauricaune

Also, it looks like a live cartoon on purpose. This was something they always tried to do, but is much more refined by next gen consoles. And I like it, too bad te PS3 version looks more realistic, Well, it really isnt that much of a big deal, plus we will have splitscreen.