Money isn't useless. The game was really fun, expecially online. Online is where the game really was brought to life.

Yeay... now all of us can be slow bloated whales flailing around desert. Having "fun". Yea... there wasn't anything to do.

Edit
It doesn't help it looks like assssss, even for a console game. I had to sit so close to the TV to make any of the jagged blurry looking pixels out. Not good. Not good at all. So far it's the worst console graphics I've come across, and I hope never to see worse. I realize there is only so much power, but god. Just cut down the map size by like... I dunno 10-15% and give us some sort of anti aliasing. If that's even possible.

...what? It's one of the prettiest games I've ever seen. Great lighting, hundreds of foliage models on screen at any time, nice textures and colour palette, unbelieveable attention to detail...

I think it svcks when they take so long to release a game and it's just terrible. *cough*GTAIV*cough*

While peppering a loaded question with personal bias. Good form.

Dur pick flowers and sell. Dur shoot animals and sell. Dur play games and make some money. Money which is useless. Dur dur durrrrr.

You can make anything sound tedious and stupid by interjecting "dur" liberally.

"I have a dream dur that one day this nation will dur rise up and dur live out the true meaning of its durr creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident durhurdurrrr: that all men are created durrr equal."

- Martin Lu"Dur" King Jr.

Also I am the only person who loved GTA IV's driving? It's the only game where the cars feel real, like they actually have weight.

Also I am the only person who loved GTA IV's driving? It's the only game where the cars feel real, like they actually have weight.

This is a gaming forum. No [censored] there's gonna be bias. We like what we like, we hate what we don't and we're fully entitled to express that.

Sure. But why ask a loaded question, when you're not going to get an answer that matches up to your personal bias?

Example:

Why do you like it? - This is a fine, valid question.
Why do you like that crappy game? - Loaded, invalid question.

Sure. But why ask a loaded question, when you're not going to get an answer that matches up to your personal bias?

Example:

Why do you like it? - This is a fine, valid question.
Why do you like that crappy game? - Loaded, invalid question.

You really rate LA Noire more than Vice City, San Andreas and IV?

Noire has gorgeous environments but it's painfully shallow and dull.

I'm not sure how people can call GTA IV a bad game. It was disappointing when compared to San Andreas, though.

I don't like Rockstar, don't like their games either. The last one I enjoyed was GTA San Andreas. Their absolute worse has to be Either GTA 4, or Red Dead Redemption. They chose to go from entertaining kind of funny comedic stories to... that. Some of the most overused and generic stories often featured in books and films. The gameplay was not enough to save those games after the characters all got boring. Then they look at me with a straight face and expect me to care for these so overused and one dimensional characters.... ha. I don't think so. GTA 4 was dipped in molasses or something, playing the game felt slow. Like they don't know how a human body moves or works. I just got fed up trying to control what felt like a bloated whale. The slow down effect made everything in the game seem twice as boring. The whole reason why the free roam aspect is so fun in the older titles is they're fast. This is slow, and boring. There just didn't seem to be as much to see or do other than generic bad simulator 1.0.

Red Dead Redemption is guilty of all the same problems. The stuff in that game were again slow and boring. Nothing interesting to see or do. Again they somehow managed to get everything to feel like it got dipped in molasses. It was a slow game, with a generic slow plot that could easily have been wrapped up. But it grabs you by the temples and forcibly drags you through the mediocre dregs.

More and more I get the impression Rockstar wants to make movies and not games. That's good for them, but what makes a good movie doesn't make a good game for me. I have written them off. I will never ever play any of their stuff again. I just can't stand it, it all feels too much like some horrifically evil combination of a bad movie + bad simulator + tons of brown molasses to slow everything down and give it that brown veneer so many games love.

Edit
Don't even get me started on their absolute piss poor PC ports.

Btw, folks, this matter isn't about "quality over quantity." The CEO of Take Two in the article said, "I don't aim to annualize our non-sports titles because I think you run the risk of burning out the consumer -- even if its very high quality [product]."

This is just unfounded theories by the CEO. Quality is quality and crap is crap no matter how you slice it. If a game that took 1 year to do and it looks as great as the previous game that took 4 years to do, I'll buy it. This CEO is just using excuses to cover up whatever is in his sneaky mind.

Also I am the only person who loved GTA IV's driving? It's the only game where the cars feel real, like they actually have weight.

I don't like Rockstar, don't like their games either. The last one I enjoyed was GTA San Andreas. Their absolute worse has to be Either GTA 4, or Red Dead Redemption. They chose to go from entertaining kind of funny comedic stories to... that. Some of the most overused and generic stories often featured in books and films. The gameplay was not enough to save those games after the characters all got boring. Then they look at me with a straight face and expect me to care for these so overused and one dimensional characters.... ha. I don't think so. GTA 4 was dipped in molasses or something, playing the game felt slow. Like they don't know how a human body moves or works. I just got fed up trying to control what felt like a bloated whale. The slow down effect made everything in the game seem twice as boring. The whole reason why the free roam aspect is so fun in the older titles is they're fast. This is slow, and boring. There just didn't seem to be as much to see or do other than generic bad simulator 1.0.

Red Dead Redemption is guilty of all the same problems. The stuff in that game were again slow and boring. Nothing interesting to see or do. Again they somehow managed to get everything to feel like it got dipped in molasses. It was a slow game, with a generic slow plot that could easily have been wrapped up. But it grabs you by the temples and forcibly drags you through the mediocre dregs.

More and more I get the impression Rockstar wants to make movies and not games. That's good for them, but what makes a good movie doesn't make a good game for me. I have written them off. I will never ever play any of their stuff again. I just can't stand it, it all feels too much like some horrifically evil combination of a bad movie + bad simulator + tons of brown molasses to slow everything down and give it that brown veneer so many games love.

Edit
Don't even get me started on their absolute piss poor PC ports.

...What?

Why would anyone need to make excuses for taking their time on making a game instead of charging you every year for a slightly updated version of the previous games?