I just do not understand how improved graphics and realistic animations would detract from the game? It just sounds to me like us consumers are making excuses for developers to get lazy and not have to change the game for the better. Don't get me wrong, I love the freedom of GTA. However, San Andreas had more than enough freedom... how much more do we need? I think it would be MORE intriguing and groundbreaking of a game with immensely detailed environments, excellent animations, collision detection, destructible environments, etc. Who wants to watch a cut scene when the damn peoples fingers look like mittens? I am just saying I think the GTA series has already been known to have free roaming environments, I just want to see something new and fresh that they can be proud to add to the series. CaNiBuSKiD69

the graphics in games like GTA arent the way they are because the developers are lazy, it is because they are working on a completely different scale tothe games with amazing graphics that people are whining about. a lot of games focus more on indoor areas, or if they have a large open area it is surrounded by loading screens - and mountains that block you from seeing much further. if you do see further, then you arent looking at the actual assets you will see when you reach that level after a loading screen, but simplified versions of those made to look good from that angle and distance. essentially, the games are broken into bite size chunks that the developers know will run onthe machine. remember doom 3? looked great at the time but everything was small rooms because the engine wasnt going to run well in large open areas.

gta gamesallow you to wander freely throught a much larger more complicated world.as you have more things you have to draw,with a largerview distance,and more complexgeometry within that view, then moreprocessing is required. the reason there are often graphical "shortcuts" is because they dont want a beautiful open game that runs like a slideshow. try to build a GTA world in one of these other engines and you will soon realise that it wont work. the limitation is the processing power of the machine the game is running on. even crysis, which manages to render some impressively large areas withsharp graphics couldnt manage the full open world of gta.

[QUOTE="whoady4shoady"]actually that is a myth, a mouse and keyboard are not generally faster. only to certian individual, they both have pros and cons. and neither has anything substantially better going for it, the controller or a mouse and keyboard, is only preference, to think that one person with one would beat the other person with the opposite is not only dumb but very closed minded. SicsStringFreak

a mouse and keyboard are a far better control than a stick because they are a much closer control metaphor for the movement they are controlling. a stick is great for things like 3rd person movement, but to "look" with a stick, you actually have to steer your view around. when you turn your head, you dont think "left, up, more left, up a bit more, there". you just naturally move there. mouselook allows you that kind of position movement that does not exist in the stick setup. a stick represents direction and speed, but a mouse directly represents position.

the problem with the stick-only crowd is that you want to deny others the ability to play the games the way they want. i will not play fps games with a stick because its just frustrating and crap. mouse based fps is fast and furious. ive heard people argue its too easy with a mouse but the simple fact is that the mouse allows a pace and competition that will never happen with a stick. stick play is slow and tends to ignore more vertical play. the stick control was always a compromise, and its a shame now that its become an issue where a certain crowd wants to deny another crowd. thats what suprised me most - this isnt about choosing one over the other, the mouse crowd seems happy to allow both, yet the stick people want to make sure they are the only way.