Quake3World

[lvlshot]http://www.hardocp.com/images/news/1368042168R8alB3ZofC_1_1_l.jpg[/lvlshot]

[lvlshot]http://www.hardocp.com/images/news/1368042168R8alB3ZofC_1_2_l.jpg[/lvlshot]

[lvlshot]http://www.hardocp.com/images/news/1368042168R8alB3ZofC_1_3_l.jpg[/lvlshot]

[lvlshot]http://www.hardocp.com/images/news/1368042168R8alB3ZofC_1_4_l.jpg[/lvlshot]

[lvlshot]http://www.hardocp.com/images/news/1368042168R8alB3ZofC_1_5_l.jpg[/lvlshot]

[lvlshot]http://www.hardocp.com/images/news/1368042168R8alB3ZofC_1_6_l.jpg[/lvlshot]

Hmmmm, they look a little too good to be in-game GTA screenshots...

xer0s wrote:Hmmmm, they look a little too good to be in-game GTA screenshots...

lol wut?

There are alot more screenies here.

looks like 2004...

The textures on the beach look kinda shite. Also, why no antialiasing?

[/o'dium]

Get it in the GTA5 thread

Memphis wrote:Too good? Just Cause 2 looks better. Lol.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

xer0s wrote:Hmmmm, they look a little too good to be in-game GTA screenshots...

lol wut?

I was inferring that GTA games typically look much worse. But not implying they look good...

Since all GTA games have used in-engine cinematics and cutscenes and there is no indication the trend will change with GTA V, I am led to believe your suspicions are baseless and idiotic.

Good day.

Don Carlos wrote:GTA4 looks dated now, but is an epic game. One of the best of this generation of consoles for sure.

Aye, if it wasn't for GTA4 and Forza I doubt I'd have a console. I think it was a step back in the series though, in SA you had jets and some pretty sweet character customisations and for me Vice City was the stand out of the series, the setting / characters and the step up on GTA3 by including bikes n shit gave me plenty of wood, the same was going on when it was on the PS1 n all. GTA4 has done nothing like that for this generation of consoles unless I've missed a gem ?, left me kinda disapointed tbh as good as the game was.

Vice City was the best.

Yeah I'd go with that - the whole 80s vibe lent itself very well

the only reason I never liked the GTA games is because they just hit too close to home.. if I wanted to fuck about in some trashy ass ghetto city with a bunch of outdated hoopty rides, and questionable characters, I'd just as easily walk outside

Tsakali wrote:the only reason I never liked the GTA games is because they just hit too close to home.. if I wanted to fuck about in some trashy ass ghetto city with a bunch of outdated hoopty rides, and questionable characters, I'd just as easily walk outside

I know, right!

I liked GTA, GTA:London and GTA2. The rest are repetitive cut-scene riddled linear POSs full of shitty vehicles, graphics that make it hard to see gameplay featuring detail (rather than superfluous detail) and nightime with a distinct lack of both illuminating street lights and illuminating headlights, in other words, lights that actually, SHOCK, shine light so you can see stuff! (GTA2 had nightime but as an option, you could switch it to daytime and nighttime was done in such a way that you could see stuff pretty clearly, just not clearly enough so it was a novelty to play at nighttime rather than a gameplay feature.) Basically they are a disgrace to what made the GTA games great - stealing vehicles and doing WTF you wanted, quickly. On top of that, it's a console game, you can play Gran Turismo on a console if you want to drive cars fast. The 3D GTA games are slow shit and for slow people who like being told what to do by a computer, or console. "Hey we have to do this thing or you can't [play the game, basically]". Originally the GTA games were all about freedom. When you funnel the whole experience into a pre-written story, that throws the baby out with the bathwater.

They were infuenced by the instant playability of arcade games before; it just shows everything that is wrong with console games now and everything that is right with arcade games.

I rather enjoyed them. I think SA was the sweet spot for them.

So, serious question about Saints Row, keeping in mind that it appears to get rated very favourably compared to GTA by some people here. I started SR2 a short while ago, and found that I had to have enough rep to start a story mission.

So I did a few missions, and it went something like: do a mission, go towards next mission, oh shit I don't have enough rep, go do some side games, return to mission and complete it, go towards next mission, oh fuck I need more rep again?!?, go do some more side games .. etc.

To me, this seems needlessly tedious and seriously puts me off the game altogether. I want to do side games optionally, at my discretion, not be forced to do a handful between each story mission. I'd like to be able to play the story continuously without distractions.

Is it not possible to avoid being forced into side games? And how is everyone OK with being forced to do this between missions? I don't get it.

It's not possible to skip, but you don't have to do them all.
I like it because it makes you sample the different things the game has to offer. The side activities also each have their own story arc so you're not doing just things randomly.
The third thing I like about it is that it gives you a sense of time. This way there are a few days between main story events, rather than having the entire story play out in a week's time.
That's what always felt awkward in Gta. Complete a mission, spawn outside the mission giver's place, walk in again 3 seconds later and the guy goes "oh hey finally thereyou are listen blabla".

Boo! I don't like it. Is SR3 like this as well?

Not sure, don't think so.
Sr3 story doesn't make sense tho, not in the slightest.

Don't mind about the story. I'd rather play a game that doesn't force you earn a wage and then spend it to play the fun bits. Thanks.

Holy crap, SR3 is incredible.

Yeah? I might give it a whirl...

It even has coop

yoink, gameplay with commentaries.
I like the tilted minimap.