Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GTA IV Information Leaked From Game Informer

Posted by Zonk on from the everybody-can-stop-talking-about-this-for-a-while-now dept.

The next issue of Game Informer magazine has been scanned and submitted to the legions of eager GTA fans out there. Right there on the cover is the mook from the GTA IV trailer, and the British Gaming Blog has a synopsis of the information passed around in the scans. "The game will only take place in a single city, so Rockstar has taken out aircraft to give the city a more realistic feel. Motorbikes however, are firmly engraved in the Grand Theft Auto formula, and will be present in IV. With the 2007, present day time scale, the radio station will have a lot in common with GTA 3 or Saints Row; not so much bands and songs you know well, but with modern music conventions that give an air of authenticity. Also like THQ's Saints Row, the game will load when you power up the game, and then never again; even breaks from internal to external locations are gone." Though I'm sure it's less interesting to you than the Game Informer information, GameDaily has comments from Take-Two as the company tries to shake off its recent problems. The money phrase from new chairman Strauss Zelnick: 'GTA is Our James Bond'.

72 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. The thing about NYC by fistfullast33l · · Score: 2, Interesting

    is the scale - so many people don't realize how huge NYC really is when you include all 5 boroughs. If the idea of other cities is dropped for Staten Island (difficult because you can't really get there directly from Manhattan by car) and even outer Brooklyn/Queens and the Bronx, you'll have a ton of real estate to cover. Almost to the point where I doubt they'll be able to do even close to 1:1 scale. I would venture that the game would have to be about the size of Oblivion (possibly a little smaller) to achieve that. The thing that gives Oblivion a truly large feel is the fact that you don't have a fast car, you have a moderately fast horse or slow walking, so it seems bigger than it really is.

    1. Re:The thing about NYC by badasscat · · Score: 1

      is the scale - so many people don't realize how huge NYC really is when you include all 5 boroughs.

      NYC is physically smaller than Los Angeles, which Los Santos in San Andreas was based on. So you can't take the size of the real city as indicative of anything whatsoever. It will no doubt be much smaller than the real NYC, and I believe they even say it's smaller than the world in San Andreas.

      btw, since when is an outright magazine article "leaked" information? This information was put there intentionally by Game Informer and Rockstar.

    2. Re:The thing about NYC by Kelbear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True Crime: Streets of NYC may have tried to mimic NYC's streets like True Crime: Streets of LA.

      However, GTAIV is not set in NYC, it's set in Liberty City, an imaginary city that's just taking thematic inspirations from existing cities.

    3. Re:The thing about NYC by \\ · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that a copy of the magazine itself was scanned and leaked before it's normal publication date, but the /. post isn't really too clear.

  2. Jack Thompson wins by User+956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Rockstar has taken out aircraft to give the city a more realistic feel.

    and not at all because they're worried some press wanker will call it a "terrorism simulator".

    If you remember, aircraft were cut from GTAIII (also set in "new york") for a similar reason, since the game came out pretty soon after 9/11.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:Jack Thompson wins by iabervon · · Score: 1

      Except, of course, that GTAIII had aircraft. Actually taking off and flying the Dodo was somewhat impractical, but possible. While you could actually fly it into a building, it didn't damage the building (since nothing damaged buildings in GTAIII), and if it blew up, the explosion wasn't any more significant than a car blowing up.

    2. Re:Jack Thompson wins by User+956 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except, of course, that GTAIII had aircraft. Actually taking off and flying the Dodo was somewhat impractical, but possible.

      Yeah, it was possible, but difficult to fly the airplane with no wings. They clipped the wings for the aforementioned reason (9/11 paranoia), and removed the mission(s) that were slated to have used the plane in its full form.

      That's completely different from the range of civilian/military aircraft available in later games, especially San Andreas. There's no reason they couldn't include similar aircraft GTA4, even just as a fun easter-egg, unless, of course, they're bending to pressure from outside forces (like Thompson, Lieberman, and so on).

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    3. Re:Jack Thompson wins by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "If you remember, aircraft were cut from GTAIII (also set in "new york") for a similar reason, since the game came out pretty soon after 9/11."

      The Dodo in pre-911 screenshots had the short wingspan. I'm not an authority on this, but I don't remember promises of flying planes around in that game. I also remember that it was BFD that the Vice City engine actually supported flight.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    4. Re:Jack Thompson wins by ROBOKATZ · · Score: 1

      Well, for me in San Andreas at least, once I got aircraft the world certainly shrunk quite a bit, and shattered the illusion of scale they had so carefully created. Also, they flew just terrible, not the least bit realistic and were no fun at all -- missions involving them were usually simply frustrating. So, I am glad there will be no aircraft, and agree with their stated reason -- consider they also stated the world would be smaller than San Andreas.

    5. Re:Jack Thompson wins by XO · · Score: 1

      You could definitely get in the Dodo and fly it around. I've seen people do it. Never got that far in the first GTA3 game, though, I always got lost once the second island opened up :(

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    6. Re:Jack Thompson wins by robson · · Score: 1

      Except, of course, that GTAIII had aircraft. Actually taking off and flying the Dodo was somewhat impractical, but possible.

      Yeah, it was possible, but difficult to fly the airplane with no wings. They clipped the wings for the aforementioned reason (9/11 paranoia), and removed the mission(s) that were slated to have used the plane in its full form. Do you have a source on this claim? IIRC, GTA 3 hit stores on October 31, which means Rockstar North would've had a very short period of time to make this change, submit a new version to Rockstar, get it passed, submit to Sony for approval, get it passed, send to the manufacturers for duplication, and distribute copies to stores.

      In short, it doesn't seem like they'd have enough response time to have actually made any changes as a reaction to 9/11.
  3. Missing the open environments by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that the lack of the open environments is going to get tired quickly. Driving around at high speeds is one of my favorite things to do. The other is fly around cities in the helicopters, which is also going away. I guess I don't need to run out and buy an Xbox 360, I can wait for this one to hit PC.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Missing the open environments by Lightwarrior · · Score: 1

      Where'd you see that helicopters are going away? There's nothing that says this in the linked article.

      --
      Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
      World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
    2. Re:Missing the open environments by Nimey · · Score: 1

      It said aircraft are going away. It didn't say "airplanes". Helicopters are a member of class Aircraft.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    3. Re:Missing the open environments by Lightwarrior · · Score: 1

      That's a rather myopic interpretation. Consider previous installments of the game - GTA3 and VC. Both took place in a single city, a relatively small area, and both had helicopters.

      San Andreas was much larger, and offered significantly more flight options - including "real" planes. Saying that, due to the smaller size of the game aircraft were removed, strongly says (to me) that just "real" planes were removed.

      Call me optimistic or whatever, but I'll be stunned if all modes of flight are removed from the player.

      --
      Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
      World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
    4. Re:Missing the open environments by Lightwarrior · · Score: 1

      Only on the PC. Maybe your version didn't have helicopters, but I *strongly* doubt it.

      Here's some proof:

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/GTA3 boxcover.jpg
      There's a helicopter on the cover of the game.

      http://www.gouranga.com/images/gta3/gta3_102.jpg
      Helicopter in-game.

      http://www.gouranga.com/images/gta3/gta3_199.jpg
      Another shot of in-game helicopters.

      http://www.gta3.com/index.php?zone=review1
      "Ok then, now, the other ways to travel: boat, plane, train, subway, and on foot. It is scarce that you use other ways besides by foot or in car. Now, there are different aircraft you can fly. The helicopter you can fly and the non-winged dodo plane, but there is an exception on the dodo."

      I don't remember whether or not they were *flyable* like the review here indicates, but I certainly remember blowing them out of the sky with the rocket launcher. There definitely were helicopters in the game.

      But thanks for proving my point either way: GTA3 had aircraft the player could pilot, and was smaller than any of the other games.

      --
      Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
      World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
    5. Re:Missing the open environments by Nimey · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Those were non-flyable police helicopters, you idiot. You have never played GTA3.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:Missing the open environments by CFTM · · Score: 1

      My copy sure had helicopters in it; first there were the Helicopters that would come after me when I raised a major ruckus....then towards the end of the game it was possible to steal a military helicopter if you did things properly though I never did it nor did I see anyone do it so it may have just been Internet lore...

      And that dodo thing sucked ass :)

    7. Re:Missing the open environments by dave562 · · Score: 1

      I did it. You could fly the Apache around. It had rockets to blow things up with.

    8. Re:Missing the open environments by Nimey · · Score: 1

      If you could actually fly the Apache/Hunter in GTA3's ending sequence (*not* Vice City) why can't I find anything on Google about that?

      Methinks I'm being trolled.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    9. Re:Missing the open environments by ShawnMcCool42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And of course you're ignoring anything else new that this game may offer.

    10. Re:Missing the open environments by Lightwarrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're acting like a troll and you got what you deserve.

      Original quote:
      "The game will only take place in a single city, so Rockstar has taken out aircraft to give the city a more realistic feel."

      The uber-parent said (paraphrased):
      "One of my favorite things to do in GTA games is to fly around cities in the helicopters, which is going away."

      I asked him where it said they were removing helicopters - which I thought was quite reasonable - and you embarked on this literal crusade. Helicopters have been in the GTA series since at least GTA3, regardless of whether you could fly them. The article makes it sound like all aircraft has been removed, including police helicopters. You stated that your copy "had no helicopters", which is blatantly wrong, and you threw in an ad hominem to boot.

      So let's recap:
      The article says there are no aircraft because the game's play area has been reduced in size from San Andreas.
      drinkypoo lamented that one of his favorite things to do in GTA games is fly around in helicopters.
      I ask where it's explicitly stated that helicopters are removed, since even the smallest GTA game has had them.
      You incorrectly state that GTA3 had no helicopters, and begin acting like an ass.
      I point out how you're wrong.
      You flame in response, and are modded accordingly.

      Regardless of how you interpret the article, and spin "there were no helicopters in GTA3", there *were* vehicles capable of flight in the smallest of the GTA games. Toss in that helicopters have played a major role in GTAs since the third, *and* that they were flyable in the smaller-than-SA VC... doesn't it seem a little more likely that "Rockstar has taken out aircraft" means "no player-flyable planes" than "no literal-definition-of-aircraft in the game, regardless of how the player can interact with them"?

      --
      Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
      World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
    11. Re:Missing the open environments by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      He isn't a moron. You said that there were no helicopters in GTA3. He simply pointed out that there was. If you meant that there were no helicopters that were usable by the player, then you should have been more specific.

      --
      Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
    12. Re:Missing the open environments by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And of course you're ignoring anything else new that this game may offer.

      Most of the new stuff that was offered in GTA3 was a complete gimmick, such as the in-game arcade machines. While neat, it did not advance gameplay.

      I have no doubt that GTA4 will be the same. So far the only new mechanic announced has been the use of the cellphone that you can use to call people, instead of it being receive-only as in GTA3. While I'm sure it's even older, the first time I encountered a feature like this was in the game Metal Gear on the NES.

      I'm happy that they claim there will be no loading times, although frankly I had no loading times worth mentioning on my Xbox until its DVD-ROM started to go tits up.

      I purchased GTA3 not because of any of the new stuff in it, although SOME of it was kind of nifty, but because it is so very much more expansive than its predecessor. It's going to have to be truly amazing to draw me (and many others) in without offering something substantially new. I have two suggestions for them, neither of which I expect to actually make it into the game: first suggestion is to not totally fuck with the controls in ways that make no sense when you get into a new type of vehicle. The second is to make the camera actually do something useful occasionally so I don't need three hands to play the fucking game.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Missing the open environments by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      It's strange. In the past few days, I've seen a few of my fairly mild posts get modded down. "Troll" and "flamebait" don't mean "you're not nice."

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    14. Re:Missing the open environments by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was Vice City. They all sort of run together after a while. Now that you mention it, it definitely was Vice City that I flew the helo in.

    15. Re:Missing the open environments by Nimey · · Score: 1

      No. You were whining about not being able to fly around in GTA IV. So the conversation was about flyable vehicles. Don't get your panties in a wad because your comprehension skills suck.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  4. What I really want to know... by Cerberus7 · · Score: 1

    ...is will we PC gamers have to wait a year longer to play it? Anybody know?

    On topic: One city is plenty fine, especially given what I've seen so far. I'd be interested to see how much of the interior spaces are accessible. Anybody have info on that?

    I hope they at least keep helicopters, and especially a gunship. I gotta have SOMETHING to strafe interstates with.

    --
    I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
    1. Re:What I really want to know... by the_wishbone · · Score: 1

      On topic: One city is plenty fine, especially given what I've seen so far. I'd be interested to see how much of the interior spaces are accessible. Anybody have info on that?

      I hear you can actually take the hookers into a hotel room, which is a bit more classy than the backseat of a stolen car. You can even beat them over the head with a lamp from the nightstand and take your money back, rather than having to resort to an old baseball bat.

    2. Re:What I really want to know... by crhylove · · Score: 1

      So, no PC version, no airplanes/skydiving, no multiplayer.... How on earth is this going to be more fun than San Andreas? Especially for those of us who are PC only and won't even get to play it at all? Rockstar seems to have let congress not just remove their balls, but their brains simultaneously.

      rhY

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  5. One more thing by fistfullast33l · · Score: 1

    Almost forgot - another thing to note about NYC is the ethnicity lines in certain neighborhoods. NYC has always been known for its ethnic diversity, and it's always segregated somehow. The use of Russians, for instance, is interesting because most Russian populations today live in the Brighton Beach and Coney Island area of Brooklyn and also in distant Queens as well. To my knowledge, there isn't a distinctly Russian neighborhood in Manhattan (someone can correct me). So they almost have to commit to this kind of scale if they want to be true to life. Of course, it's a video game and they can take artistic license, but I just thought I'd point that out.

    1. Re:One more thing by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      most Russian populations today live in the Brighton Beach and Coney Island area of Brooklyn

      You saying they soldiered into the Warriors' turf?!? Without parlay?!?!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  6. Sounds To Be The Best Protaganist Yet... by morari · · Score: 1

    The first three games in the series didn't really have a main character at all; Vice City had some wanna-be gangster gweedo (of course, the 80s had no redeeming qualities in real life either), and San Andreas had some low level gangbanger. At least San Andreas really brought a lot back to the series, which made the lacking III and Vice City all-to-unentertaining. I'm curious to see what the multiplayer will be like though, as GTA2's deathmatch made for a great diversion at LAN parties.

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    1. Re:Sounds To Be The Best Protaganist Yet... by spxero · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think you're a little off base there. Obviously this is an opinion, but San Andreas was the worst of the series. Vice City was the peak, and GTA3 was extremely innovative for the time. Too much time in SA was spent on nonsensical tasks (working out? in a video game?) instead of missions and weapons. Yeah, the map was bigger, but the gameplay sucked. SA took the fun out of the series.

    2. Re:Sounds To Be The Best Protaganist Yet... by XO · · Score: 1

      Once you had everything pretty well pumped up, though (literally), and the training missions in (I still haven't passed flight training, I had to download someone's saved game to get past that.. although I did do ALL the other flight missions.. flying through those damn circles is just impossible for me.. also makes playing the MTA Race impossible for me, because I seem to be the only person who plays it that can't fly worth a damn), and got the hell out of the shit jobs at the beginning, the game got a LOT better.

      I almost gave up on SA towards the end of the first third, and then once I got into the second city, the game became sweet again.. then it started introducing characters from GTA3 and VC, and it was awesome. But, the first part absolutely sucked.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    3. Re:Sounds To Be The Best Protaganist Yet... by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      I mostly agree, GTA is an generally curve and for the most part SA is as good as VC with the obvious adition of the fact that the protagonist can swim (I think SA was the first to allow that, how annoying was falling out of the boat) and has more content (which is good if you enjoy playing the game) but the chores (eating, working out) and the whole dancing thing almost spoilt the experience. It just shows that trying to add roleplaying elements can take away "the fun".

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    4. Re:Sounds To Be The Best Protaganist Yet... by morari · · Score: 1

      Myself, I found 3 to be boring and almost a complete letdown from the fun I had in 2. It was fun enough for short periods of time, but far too repetitive for long gaming sessions. It was almost nothing but fetch missions. San Andreas had a very nice variety to its missions. And I might be one of the few, but I enjoyed the exercising angle, but I like roleplaying games. The large map really has little to do with my overall enjoyment. It certainly made the world feel more realistic, but a small area can be utilized just as well. Besides, I was criticizing the main characters, not the gameplay. Vice City was a step in the right direction (and leads ahead of 3) as far as game play went, but the 80s atmosphere was annoying overall. *shrugs*

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  7. No countryside? by hansamurai · · Score: 1

    I read somewhere else (I believe Kotaku), that the lack of planes lead people to believe that there would be no countryside area, which is kind of disappointing (but obviously not a confirmation). One of my favorite parts of San Andreas was cruising around a mountain on a hog listening to the country station. It actually felt like I was there...

    --
    Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
    1. Re:No countryside? by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 1

      I HATED the countryside in San Andreas, it's the reason I stoped playing the game. In particular having missions that frequently involved driving across 2/3 of the map really started to annoy me.

    2. Re:No countryside? by misleb · · Score: 1

      A fast motorcycle could cover the distances pretty quickly. You can't say you didn't like the offroad car races though. Come on. The countryside MADE that game, IMO.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    3. Re:No countryside? by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      I couldn't get the feel of that map, and I suspect that your complaint is related to that problem.

      Was it really about 5 times the size of Vice City (and mostly totally goddamn empty) or is that just my imagination?

      That said, the "rich people" hill (my name for it), which was largely empty, was cool. That mission in the rapper's house up there was fun, and the area was cool; plus, it was nice to have a really high spot with a sharp drop off to screw around on.

    4. Re:No countryside? by ShawnDoc · · Score: 1

      That was one of my biggest complaints too. It just took to fucking long to get from one city to the next. I'd have friends over, go "Oh, you gotta really see this cool thing", boot up the game, realize I was on the wrong part of the map, and then have to say, "Well, go do something for 20 minutes and by then I should be close to what I want to show you." Not to mention it was just too easy to get lost without having to look at the big map.

    5. Re:No countryside? by NeilTheStupidHead · · Score: 1

      A fast motorcycle could cover the distances pretty quickly.

      Yeah, until you go careening off a ledge and crash into a river. :P
      --
      Lose: misplace or fail || Loose: not bound together
    6. Re:No countryside? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      That is what the jets were for. All the GTA maps are actually pretty small if you measure them out. The largest is the San Andreas map, which is something like 3 or 4 miles on a side. In fact, there were spots where you could be in the air and see LA to one side and SF to the other. Curvy roads, indirect routes, hills, and traffic are all that made it seem as big as it did.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  8. Message from SCO by Nimey · · Score: 1

    Where's my $699 license fee, you cock-smoking teabaggers?

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  9. no planes = no parachutes = major bummer... by insanius · · Score: 1

    the best way to get around in GTA:SA was to hop in a jet fly to where you wanted to go, turn 90 degrees towards space and when the plane starts to stall, jump out. i spent hours rolling around the desert and mountains looking for cool places to base jump. i just hope, they bring it back for GTA4:SomeOtherPlace in a few years...game experiences like that are very rare.

    1. Re:no planes = no parachutes = major bummer... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I agree. One of the moments in GTA:SA that really got me going was this mission-- I think you were supposed to steal a helicopter-- where you had to get into a heavily-gaurded area. It didn't really give you instructions, as far as I can remember, about how you needed to accomplish this, but I just flew a plane over the area, jumped out, and sky-dove to my target, opening my parachute as late as possible to that I'd be a hard target to hit. The experience was impressive.

      I suspect that the real reason might be that the setting, this time, it Liberty City. Being based loosely on NYC, there would probably be a big uproar if they let you fly planes into the skyscrapers.

    2. Re:no planes = no parachutes = major bummer... by Firefly1 · · Score: 1

      I suspect that the real reason might be that the setting, this time, it Liberty City. Being based loosely on NYC, there would probably be a big uproar if they let you fly planes into the skyscrapers.
      A big uproar raised by folks who utterly fail at distinguishing game from reality, you mean.
      Yeah right, like Los Santos, San Fierro, and Las Venturas don't have such things (or other major landmarks)... and how about that large dam (whose name escapes me at present)? To address a point raised elsewhere in this thread: no helos would, indeed, be a major drag; assuming it's true (and not just the result of someone thinking 'aircraft' and 'helicopter' are two different things), I'd love to hear them explain that away given that both Vice City and San Andreas have them.
      The op you're referring to is 'Up, Up, and Away', and while HALO-jumping into that facility is impressive, it's much easier with a jetpack and missile launcher (not the RPG).
      --
      - White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
    3. Re:no planes = no parachutes = major bummer... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying the distinction is reasonable, but it seems likely that the distinction would be made anyway. For as much carnage as you can create in San Andreas and Vice city, and as much non-airplane-related carnage as you can wreak in Liberty City, people will still be more sensitive to flying aircraft into tall buildings in a NYC-like city.

      Some people will, believe it or not, actually find it shocking and saddening to see a video game that they believe intends to allow players to recreate what is, for those people, a very traumatic event in their own lives. Of course, these people will be in the minority of the "uproar". The majority of roaring (I believe) will come from people who just enjoy being outraged.

      Either way, there will be an uproar about GTA4, I'm sure. People flipped out about GTA3, and this one will probably be just as bad but more realistic. My guess is that you'll hear people demanding that it's pulled from the shelves, but nothing will happen to stop sales. If you could fly a 747 into something that looked like the WTC, some horrible politician might actually try to do something about it.

      ... you know, anything to distract the cattle.

  10. I found a new music genre... by LanMan04 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    GTA3's "K-Jah" radio station introduced me to both Dub and Scientist, and I have been a huge fan of both the artist and the genre ever since. Heck, I would sit around just listening to that station on the game while not even playing it. Then I figured out who Scientist is and started getting real albums...

    On a related note, WipeOut XL (Wipeout 2097 for you non-Americans) introduced me to and got me hooked on techno (more specifically Big Beat) back in 1996, which eventually turned into a love-affair with all kinds of electronic music.

    I love it when games change my life.

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
    1. Re:I found a new music genre... by Control-Z · · Score: 1

      Me too, I put the KJAH station on my MP3 player and listened to it a LOT.

  11. Re:Music thoughts by metamatic · · Score: 1

    Well, so long as they don't follow the musical lead of San Andreas, I'll be happy. It might have been a great game in every other respect, but it had the worst soundtrack of the series.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  12. No Planes, No WTO Buildings by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    And you can't even skydive into the Hole.

    Man, I'd rather be playing Spiderman on the Wii.

    But, at least people will appreciate GTA: Emerald City (aka Seattle) when it comes out.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  13. Re:GTA IV - Gimped Thanks To The Xbox 360 by Pojut · · Score: 1

    Apparently, you are one of the many fools that judge things simply based on hardware...Microsoft aren't the only ones who should be accused of adding bloat to their software you know...

    See, a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, people had to actually be careful about how much memory and processing power they used...granted, they still need to be careful today, but I can assure you that programmers now do not code NEARLY as tight as they did 20 years ago.

    What's up with that?

    --
    Living With a Nerd
  14. And all this time I was figuring... by pushing-robot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    GTA: Baghdad.

    I mean, think about it.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  15. no aircraft? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    So, no police/army helicopters chasing you?

    In any case, I hope GTA4 has parachutes for base-jumping.

    1. Re:no aircraft? by User+956 · · Score: 1

      So, no police/army helicopters chasing you?

      If they do include those in GTA4, they probably won't be flyable. It'll be like GTA3.

      Obviously, the ultimate would be to have the Hunter (Apache) chopper from VC.

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  16. Re:Music thoughts by jcorno · · Score: 1

    I agree that it's a good thing, but it's really surprising, especially considering Take Two's money problems. It seems like there would be a lot of money involved in getting a song on a short playlist for a big game like this. I can't imagine why they would pass it up.

  17. Re:game magazines are dead by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

    The time it takes between writing the article and the article printing is what really dooms gaming magazines IMO. By the time the story is printed, its old news, and has been for about a month.
    Gaming, and technology in general, is something really more suited to the Internet, were articles can be published as soon as they're ready.

  18. GTA Baghdad?? by ObiWanStevobi · · Score: 1

    What fun would that be? There is no such thing as a wanted level, the city occupants will always be ready to shoot back (or first), travel would be mostly walking because of driving bans and checkpoints, and everything that might be fun to destroy would have already been blown up. Baghdad would be a horrible setting for GTA.

  19. Re:GTA IV - Gimped Thanks To The Xbox 360 by Jadware · · Score: 1

    Well you could actually blame Sony more than Microsoft for this trend. The PS2 was remarkably difficult to develop for, especially compared to the cross-platform compatibility of the MS DirectX architecture. The PS3 suffers from the same pitfall; it's a great piece of hardware, but it's just not incrementally beneficial. It is five steps sideways instead of one step forward. By the time the common developer is experienced and patient enough to develop tight code for a PS3, the PS4 will be out with another completely new and non-standard architecture. In the meantime, X360 code will simply be recompiled for XP/Vista.
    The game industry was taken over by middleware arguably because the hardware became too complex.

  20. Level of detail management by tepples · · Score: 1

    Being up in the air is just too much geometry to draw for the system and it was a tradeoff between downgrading the graphics vs taking out the aircraft. Then why not just bias the level of detail way down while the camera is in the air, like Star Fox and other flight shooters do? You need the aerial views for some establishing shots anyway. If Katamari Damacy manages to pull off (albeit stylized) views from 3055.29 m up, then why can't GTA?
    1. Re:Level of detail management by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm just wondering why they're not using multires. The technique has been known for some time now and can be accelerated through the use of older graphics techniques like BSP-trees, and this is precisely the kind of situation in which it can help.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  21. Gran Theft Turismo? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Driving around at high speeds is one of my favorite things to do. Then you need the other game whose name starts with "Gran[d] T" and ends with "o".
    1. Re:Gran Theft Turismo? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Then you need the other game whose name starts with "Gran[d] T" and ends with "o".

      In fact, I have all four Gran Turismo titles.

      However, the experience is not remotely the same. If I want to play a serious racing simulation, with all the frustration that entails (and sometimes that's what I want) then I play Gran Turismo. (No idea what game I'll play next since I'm boycotting Sony for the foreseeable future.)

      But if I want to drive around the highways running cars over and blowing them up with a motherfucking tank, then Gran Turismo probably isn't going to help me.

      It also doesn't have aircraft; thanks for ignoring part of my comment, as usual.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  22. Comparisons to other recent sandbox games by jchenx · · Score: 1

    Over the past year, there have been a number of sandbox games that have brought a lot to this "genre". Dead Rising did a lot of interesting things regarding variety of weapons, as well as the immersiveness of being in "one place with a lot of zombies". It was very challenging at times, since there was only one place to save, so there was true fear of being at the wrong end of the mall when nighttime came around, and you still haven't saved yet. Saint's Row was pretty much a GTA-clone, but a pretty well polished one at that. Finally, Crackdown introduced lots of new things, such as verticality (thanks to super-human jumping ability). Plus, all the fun you can do with a physics engine + super powers.

    I don't know if I'm alone in thinking that going "back" to an old school GTA game with nothing new to offer, is going to be quite a let down. GTA IV had better be more than just a prettier version of GTA3.

    --
    -- jchenx
    1. Re:Comparisons to other recent sandbox games by trouser · · Score: 1

      Verticality!

      --
      Now wash your hands.
    2. Re:Comparisons to other recent sandbox games by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there's more then one place to save in Dead Rising (although I may be wrong, I havn't played it in a while). Any toilets could be used as a save point, and I can't imagine a shopping mall with only one set of toilets.

  23. Re:GTA IV - Gimped Thanks To The Xbox 360 by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but they'll have to put all the data on the PS3 disc twice to overcome the crappy load times.

  24. Why dont I read the preview by Don_dumb · · Score: 1
    Correction: the first line should read

    GTA is a generally upward curve and for the most part SA is as good as VC with the obvious addition . . .
    --
    If this were really happening, what would you think?
  25. Re:GTA IV - Gimped Thanks To The Xbox 360 by Pojut · · Score: 1

    Ironically, I did this morning...::looks to his left:: and yes, I DO have a slide rule on my desk....hmmm......::starts to worry::

    This is still 1970, yes?

    --
    Living With a Nerd
  26. Re:Music thoughts by Dynedain · · Score: 1

    That's exactly why. They care enough about their work that they don't want it to just go to the highest bidder (read RIAA-pushed top-40 selection). Because if they did, the game would sound 'old' within 5-6 months of release. Or even sooner if the song came out before the game.

    Just like RockStar keeps ignoring the ratings board and those that want to censor them. They care about what they produce.

    --
    I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....