>>1923486 >it's real

>>1923486 lol lmao even

The biggest problem I have with these games is the campaign. I don't want to have to slowly unlock all the fun for 60 hours stuff for free mode having to role play as a base thug.

>>1923486 >real Ha! Well at least GTA5 won't take as long to release as pic related

gta could be delayed by 2 more years yet people would still dickride rockstars dick and would still end up a huge financial success

GTA is the most overrated, trash franchise there is. All they do is abuse tropes over and over in the writing department and retarded design decisions like you deviating slightly off course to how they want you to play and make you fail the mission because of it. It wasn't good in the early 2000s either, I mean just look at this tank in pic related. How the fuck is this thing supposed to turn? Even if it could turn, it would have the worst turning radius known to man

>>1947077 It was fine in the early 2000s, 3D GTA was pretty much just Driver+ and Vice City and San Andreas were developed very quickly for the amount of content they had. GTA4 is what really didn't improve the mission design in any substantial way, you have a whole sandbox with a fantastic physics system and the missions force you to do everything the devs want by the letter instead of having various ways to finish a mission. It's a fucking insult. >The tank That was made in the last stages of development and it's a literal normal fucking car entity, look at it, the door is still there. It's just a byproduct of the devs trying to put as much content as they can into the game in it's 9 month development. San Andreas had more development time and had much more content, including an actual Tank that looks and works like a Tank.

>>1947094 Again, that would have an absolute shit turning radius, it has the same issue the tank in Vice City had except it might even be worse in this case because it looks like the tires would rub against each other

>>1947105 Those wheels are supposed to mimic tracks anon

>>1947111 Wow a nonretarded looking military vehicle that can actually turn? It's a miracle! That's also not at all what tracks are supposed to look like which means the devs were either incredibly lazy, retarded, or both

>>1947120 >Anon can't understand engine and time constraints Why do you think they try to hide it with the side skirts? >GTA San Andreas >Lazy How fucking old are you?

>>1947122 There have been better games produced in half the time and with a much smaller budget. Kotor and Left for Dead 1+2 are better games without all the retarded design decisions thrown in

>>1947144 Neither are Open World games running on a fucking PS2. Also, L4D gargles almost as much balls as you do!

>>1947147 GTA games are open world games with literally nothing to do in them, kek. Hell even in shit franchises like Far Cry there is more shit to do and you actually interacting with the map fundamentally shapes how the game is played. Fallout New Vegas also got chugged out in a year and is a far superior game than any gta game and it had a smaller budget too. >but muh reused assets! Gta san andreas reused assets from gta vc and 3 too yet despite this, they still too stupid and/or lazy to properly design a game. The gang wars part of the story (literally half of the game or less) in SA was completely pointless and amounted to nothing. GTA and all it's linearity could be made exactly like The Warriors (an actually good game) putting the game into levels instead of a giant empty map and it would be a lot better for it

>>1947187 Sand Andreas, wasn't a buggy mess at launch, that would crash, if you had made too many saves. When you think of New Vegas, you think of the version that had a ton of updates, after it's release, plus the fan patchwork, all those years later, so it's not exactly "chugged out in a year".

>>1947221 NV was still a better game at launch than SA could ever hope to be kek. The only thing SA does better than NV is wasting players time

>accuses me of bait when he's the one baiting lol ok

>>1947094 You're not making any sense. Why would adding more to the tank shorten the development time?

>>1947307 I don't think that's what he is saying. From what I understand, he is claiming that the Vice City tank, was a rushed job, done in the last days of the development cycle, while in San Andreas, they had more time to polish the tank and make it closer to a real tank.

>>1947318 The official reasoning was technical limitations not time restraints. Which I don't believe at all btw because GTA CW had tracks

>>1947322 >The official reasoning was technical limitations not time restraints. It was both >CW Chinatown Wars was made made in like 2 years with a custom engine, it was not using RenderWare.

>>1947503 GTACW was a fucking psp game with much lower system requirements and you are telling us they couldn't figure out a way to put tracks in gta vc/san andreas? Give me a break

>>1947616 What do System Requirements have to do with engine limitations and time constraints? Even the whole team for that game was different, we're talking about a 2009 GTA game post Zelnicks Take2 takeover.

>>1947616 >>1947673 Adding to that: THOSE FUCKING TRACKS DON'T EVEN MOVE IT'S A TOP DOWN GAME How retarded can one be?

>>1947679 >>1947673 Here's the thing though anon, they actually did have tracks in gta sa and it absolutely had nothing to do with technical limitations, all they had to do is just reuse the assets of the rc tiger. As the other anon said, the devs were either retarded or lazy

>>1950047 Much like Chinatown Wars, those tracks don't move!

>>1950732 Tires underneath those tanks wouldn't be able to move either

>>1947094 sa tank is obviously a covert way of britain admitting french designs are superior

>>1950872 kek

2 3 and 4 were the best games in the series. GTA games were always meant to be have a dark gritty hopeless atmosphere. VC and SA were too colorful and happy but they were spinoffs. then V came out and brought this shit into the main series.

>>1954243 >4 >Good Stopped reading

>>1954243 what was wrong about it that isn't about removing dumb useless "features" SA had? it clearly was a big step up from 3. and the things it didn't have they could've just made a real sequel that added to what IV accomplished. but V came out and scrapped everything and was just a shitty remake of SA.

>>1954243 meant for >>1954247

>>1954247 >>1954292

>>1954292 >isn't about removing dumb useless "features" SA had? Stopped reading