u/aoltus

https://youtu.be/9jPzstz1DMM?si=3w5uLrgck0cSZ039

tl;dr

they talk about how unskippable cutscenes stem from certain design choices made during development, and that fixing or implementing a skip option isn't just 'a few clicks' like some people think. But they completely miss the point. They ignore the fact that players can be fully aware of those technical constraints and still consider it a major oversight. Explaining why it happened isn't a valid defense. It’s like buying a brand-new car, having the wheels fall off after 50 km, and AUDI just telling you: 'Well, that's how our engineers designed it, deal with it." Also, one of the guys talking here was responsible for the production of Ratchet & Clank. So we’re not talking about some random internet nobody. I wouldn't even bring this up if it were coming from someone completely detached from the industry.

I haven’t been this pissed off by a discussion in a long time. The one I linked above is a perfect example of how developers can, in exactly the same way as their management, just keep sniffing their own farts.

Can they even entertain the idea that the audience might be aware too? I perfectly understand what game development looks like from the inside, that one comma in the code can cause the entire logic of a game to collapse and fixing it can take months. But why should I, as a consumer, care about that? I judge the final product. The fact that their 3D artist prepared five assets for the entire game because someone higher up decided they would hire only one person for that position instead of two absolutely does not justify the fact that every dead end on the map is blocked off by a fucking dumpster that our protagonist could easily step over.

And generally, I have no problem with these kinds of tricks. I have no problem suspending my disbelief in situations like that because I understand that certain limitations have to be enforced, otherwise you simply won't ship a product that has to make money within a predetermined release window, and the budget isn't infinite.

For me, certain solutions in games that I would describe as cutting corners are the result of incompetence. NO, NOT YOU, you poor little snowflake of an individual developer who didn't have enough time to polish that system, but the production as a whole. I don't take that into account AT ALL when making the final judgment of whether a game meets my expectations.

At the same time, though, I absolutely love digging into WHY something ended up the way it did. Game development itself fascinates the shit out of me.

And this ties into GTA 6 incredibly well. That game has a level of production value that basically no other game on the market can match, and that's one of the reasons I'm so excited about it. It's going to be a unique experience. Your indie game that you play with your girlfriend, even if you pour 99% of yourself into making it, simply cannot give me that. You know what I mean?

because I never finished the DLCs and wanted to see if my memory of the game was actually accurate.

[s]This is the only screenshot I managed to take because for some reason the game kept minimizing every time I pressed Print Screen and I couldn't be bothered to figure out why.[/s]

First of all, the driving really isn't that different from GTA V. The biggest changes are that cars take longer to brake, the suspension is ridiculously soft so the rear end bounces around like crazy, and even the smallest curb feels like an obstacle you can't get over. Other than that, it drives surprisingly similarly. Overall, the differences are much more cosmetic than I remembered.

The gunplay is definitely better though. Weapons sound much punchier, and the way enemies react to getting shot feels better too. Maybe not more realistic, but more exaggerated and dramatic, which makes shooting far more satisfying.

Melee combat is also better, although that doesn't say much because GTA V set the bar incredibly low. You could argue it barely has a melee system at all. GTA IV is still a step back compared to San Andreas, and Red Dead Redemption 2 does it much better as well.

I haven't played enough missions yet. I know The Ballad of Gay Tony addressed one of the biggest complaints about the base game by making the missions far more varied, so I'll have to see for myself.

And don't get me wrong, I also think GTA V relies way too much on fail states, but the missions themselves are incredibly diverse and constantly throw new ideas at the player.

What I had completely forgotten, though, is how weird the storytelling feels. The game doesn't really have a strong central plot constantly pushing the story forward. Instead, things just... happen. Someone calls you out of nowhere:

>"Hey, you won't believe what happened. We need to go kill someone."

A marker appears on the map, you start the mission, and that's it. Three Leaf Clover is the perfect example. Packie suddenly calls you, and the next thing you know you're robbing a bank. Seriously, there's barely any buildup to one of the biggest missions in the game.

I haven't replayed the ending obviously yet, where you have to rescue Roman, but if I remember correctly that also came out of nowhere.

And then there's the optimization. I honestly thought a 5060 Ti would lock this game to 60 FPS at 4K without breaking a sweat, but I still get frame drops. I haven't played the PC version of GTA V in years, and back then my hardware was much weaker, but I'm almost certain it ran better than this.

this "podcast" piss me so much

Out of curiosity I went back to GTA IV