Samurai_tbag
-
Content Count
154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Samurai_tbag
-
-
OP's "tips" aren't really tips. That info is out in the open so tons of people jump on it. Plus there's no guarantee you'll make out in the end. You'll go to sell high and in a split second you'll be losing money.
Yea, 'tips' probably isn't the right word.
Legal stock market information is always in the open, and people jumping on it is how you make money, better still when corporations and banks jump on it. For example, a company like Thompson may consider buying shares in Thomas Cook while they're dirt cheap, as soon as that happens, share prices will rocket. Hypothetically, if I already have £200 worth (1000 shares) bought at 20p a piece, and another company invested a couple hundred thousand in their shares, their value would probably triple, or even quadruple as people see the likely hood of a revival. Limited risk, losing £200 is not such a big deal, potential to double, triple or quadruple your investment within the next year or two.
Obviously there's no guarantee, that's the whole point of trading, but the TTWO shares won't fluctuate that much (I predict, based on previous records and market factors), so they're the safe bet, while the TCG shares would be the gamble. In any event, the likelihood is, I wouldn't lose money, even if I lost my TCG investment, as TTWO will cover my loss.
Just sayin', as you're all GTA fans here, its a worthy risk to take for the sake of a couple hundred pounds.
-
if i bought gold, i wouldn't be trying to make money off it... i would plan on holding on to it for when the world's economy collapses and the paper money in your bank doesn't exist... gold will still be the world currency... too bad the price of gold and silver has skyrocketed lately...
If the money in my bank ceased to exist, so would your gold, unless of course you have the actual gold under your bed (i.e. not in a bank).
But yea, I'm looking to make money rather than save it, hence taking the gamble.
-
I've been thinking about it recently but decided buying gold is the better option. I'd recommend gold over stocks and shares.
You'd need a hugeeee startup fund to make any serious money out of gold though.
I've also heard the rare-earths are a smart investment.
-
So I'm thinking about putting a bit of money on the stock market today. (around £300/£400).
I've been tipped for two things:
Thomas Cook: 20p a share today, were £2.10 earlier in the year, just received big bailout and slated to increase in value.
Take Two: around $14 a share, typically they reach double that each time a GTA is released, so its a certain 'double your money' situation.
Anyone else got any experience/tips?
-
Too many quests, I didn't think being an adventurer would be so stressful
Tell me about it, I'm balls-deep in quests at the moment. Dark Brotherhood are my priority at the minute though. Most entertaining.
-
Far Cry 2 was crap. You couldn't do anything without being constantly ambushed, it just took forever to get anywhere. Enemies had super x-ray vision, stealth wasn't a tactic as you would have expected in a dense jungle environment. And the whole malaria thing was a pointless game mechanic too, the fact you would die without warning because you didn't press LB every so often to take your malaria pills.
So no, I'm not particularly interested in FC3.
You are right about every point there. There stealth mechanics were incredibly flawed, especially as the game was marketed in a way that would have you believe you could play it as you want. The most annoying thing was the ambushes as soon as you drove ANYWHERE on the roads, also the fact that once you cleared an outpost, they respawn within minutes. The milaria thing, I think, was just their attempt to keep you engaged in the game and moving forward, as opposed to just dicking around burning villages. The story was really good though, its basically the same as Apocalypse Now (Heart of Darkness), but the way in which it was told was pretty suspect to say the least. You never really felt involved.
I on the other hand am very excited for FC3. Did noone see the gameplay demo at E3? The stealth mechanics seem massively improved. As does the gunplay and diversity of the gameplay. On that basis alone I'm pretty hyped. Stealth based FPS's are a personal favourite of mine.
-
Decided to keep it and play it through. I was wrong about gang customisation. Although the amount of stuff they removed from the second one has led me to sell the third. I would never sell the second though. That says something. Ah well, Skyrim, BF3 and Arkham City can keep me company till Mass Effect 3, and that will do me until GTA V I guess.
-
I'm not impressed. Just bought it, played through the first three missions, which were fun, but the game seems to be a bit of a downgrade from Saints 2. For instance, far less customisation, there's only two clothing stores, no jewellery stores and crib and gang customisation seems to be completely gone.
Remember on Saints 2 you could buy a t-shirt, then buy a shirt on top and chose to have it unbuttoned? Not possible anymore. One store (the Saints one) sells everything, you can change the colours, but thats about it. The other store (the fancy dress one) sells, in my opinion, stupid shit.
Further, the map also feels considerably smaller than Saints 2, I'm not sure it actually is, but it sure feels it. On top of that it feels like there's even less interiors than were on Saints 2 (WTF??).
The reasons I loved Saints were the incredible customisation and the crazy yet not 'stupid' stuff you could do. This game feels like they've compromised the customisation for the craziness, the end result being plain stupidity.
Oh, and there's no more robbing stores. Cheers THQ.
It may be that I'm playing this game amidst such other impressive titles (Arkham City, BF3, Skyrim) but it really feels like a let down. I'm also not sure why all the review sites have given this game such high reviews? Bizzarre. Anyway, save your cash folks. I'm planning on selling this thing, I'm going to give it a couple more hours, but at this rate its on eBay by the end of the day.
-
Wind turbine scene. Top left.
I've watched it about a hundred times, but there's always more than you think. They'll be excellent for drug smuggling missions.
-
Someone did spot some sea planes in the trailer i swear?
Really? At what point in the trailer?
-
Peds have weapons and ped riots are the favourites. Just sit at the top of a tower sniping them as they all fight.
-
Not a massive fan of dark themes, but goes nicely with the 'V' theme I guess.
-
-
Old Samurai_tbag here. Used to run GTAStunters.com a while back. Good to see some familiar names around here.
-
-
I don't see why not, it was a nice addition to Chinatown Wars.
-
Originally I was thinking we'd only see Los Santos, but I did some digging around and here's what I found:
San Andreas 13 Sq. Miles
GTA 4 6 Sq. Miles
RDR 26 Sq. Miles
L.A. Noire 8 Sq. Miles
If it quite literally is the biggest game they've made, it must be more than 26 Sq. miles. If Liberty City was just 6, we can easily expect to see more than one city in GTA V. I'd imagine that we would see a very big Los Santos around 5/6 sq. miles (slightly smaller than L.A. Noire and LC, LA Noire was so large that much of it was unvisited and LC included another state, technically anyway, Algonquin), and a slightly smaller SF/LV at perhaps 3/4 Sq. miles each (as they were smaller in SA, and are much smaller in real life, besides, with LV especially, we wouldn't want much more than downtown and the strip, etc)
that means about 11 to 14 Sq. miles of city. If, going by RDR standards, that leaves 11 to 15 Sq. miles of country/desert. Though, I'd imagine we'd see more, as they said, it is bigger than their previous titles. So perhaps 16 to 20 Sq. Miles of country/desert. Therefore, 3:1 ratio, very similar to San Andreas's ratio.
In comparison, Just Cause 2 was 400 Sq. Miles and was only one disc on the 360. I do understand though that GTA is a far more detail heavy game, much more sound files, animations, etc.. However, 400 Sq. miles was achieved on one disc, most of which is country (as this is relatively less data intensive). So it wouldn't be too unrealistic to see 30/35 Sq. miles of much more detailed data on one disc (with two thirds being less data heavy countryside/desert). Perhaps one option for Rockstar would be the optional installation of the radio stations, as they take up considerable data (2 to 3 GB) and, to be honest, they're not essential to the gameplay.
Also, just a bit of personal speculation, but the guy who we assume is the protagonist at the moment, the old white guy. He seems to fit the 'Venturas' bill doesn't he? The dollar sign on the GTA V logo, "the pursuit of the almighty dollar", they all point towards Venturas playing some sort of role. Plus, where does everyone go to lose money?
Just my thoughts.
-
1
-
-
Anyway, The Door isn't that funny, a lot of Spanish cities names have literal meanings - El Paso is "the step."
El Paso isnt a Spanish city, it's in the US.
-
I think people forget the transformation Liberty City underwent from III => IV. I expect there'll be lots of complaints about it just being LS and the surrounding area, but it won't be anything like the one in SA. They'll make it work regardless of where it's set.
It's less the transformation, more the setting for me. LA is a boring dull city in real life. It looks the same, there's nothing iconic about it, aside from the obvious few (Hollywood Blvd., Santa Monica/Venice Beach and Downtown). LA is just a massive suburb in my eyes, with a small Downtown area which features four or five skyscrapers. That is pretty incomparable to NY's skyline and its variety of architectural suburbs.
Miami has a much more unique mixture of both NY and LA. Miami's skyline is far more interesting than LA's (more scrapers, the best of NY), the architecture of Miami is much nicer than LA's (SoBe, Little Havana, etc..) and the various bridges and islands that compose Miami could be a lot more interesting than one big suburban sprawl. LA has beaches, great, Miami has nicer beaches. LA has hills, again great, but Miami has real rural 'red neck' America and swamps, much more interesting in my opinion.
Don't get me wrong, I'll be buying this the day it's released, but I'm just saying, LA is a poor choice, look at how boring LA based games have been in the past (L.A. Noire, Midnight Club L.A., True Crime LA, etc..). I'm just not sure how R* can make a boring city in real life, become an interesting one in a game.
-
Saw this coming. The level of detail was too good for more than one city. I'd take a guess that those mountains are going to be the border of the map as they were in RDR, making them un-climbable.
Slightly disappointing though, considering LS is a pretty boring city in comparison to LC. I think VC would've been a much smarter choice personally.
-
Also, did anyone notice how the van during the heist scene in the trailer had a different style San Andreas number plate to the others features. The one on the van is in the genuine California plate style. Weird.
-
It won't be just los santos. Rockstar wouldn't reveal everything in the first trailer, and wouldn't make it just los santos for the first GTA San Andreas revisit. My main concern is if they dare to make San Fierro and Las Venturas DLC add ons. As that, would be a fucking dick move.I'm pretty sure the GTA IV trailer revealed everything regarding the location of the game. I'm sure this one has done the same. Also, the leaked cast lists all point to LS only. To be honest, i personally found LA to be the most boring city in North America, and LS to be the most boring city in the GTA games too. Hopefully this one will change my opinion, I hope do at least, because I was down for revisiting Vice.
-
Also, did anyone else notice that Mt. Chillad looked inaccessible? I fear that R* may take the RDR approach to boarders.
That's what i've been saying, it looks too vast to be climbable. But then again we didn't have planes in RDR (well we had one plane) to fly over the land borders, and invisible walls around the map aren't really R*s style.
That is true, it could just be a case of not being able to reach an altitude high enough to fly over it? I guess that's clutching at straws, but something looks off about it. As you said, to vast.
BuickBoy, the old SA blueprints would be pretty useless considering everythings on a new engine.
-
I'm almost positive the other cities of San Andreas are in... If their are planes... Their has to be a large area... I mean imagine flying a jet in Liberty City... It's way to small of a map...To be honest, given the level of detail and scale of what we saw in the trailer, there would be very little space for other cities, technologically speaking. Rockstar wouldn't risk a required install on release, they think about profits and that would cost them a lot since many people don't have hardrives (for 360).
I guess in theory it could have multiple discs for the Xbox, but again that seems unlikely for a game that relies on seamless travel.
Furthermore, I find it very hard to believe that they could have created more than one city of that detail within the time they've had (I'm assuming since 2008).
I personally believe we'll see Los Santos, some surrounding rural areas and perhaps some smaller villages in those areas. Id love to see SF and LV included, but it seems farfetched.
Also, did anyone else notice that Mt. Chillad looked inaccessible? I fear that R* may take the RDR approach to boarders.
Why do you think The Lost and Damned wasn't as popular + GTA V DLC predictions
in GTA 5 Pre-Release Discussion (Closed)
Posted · Report reply
I personally preferred TLAD, TBOGT was a bit too much of a beg. The characters were too eccentric and it felt like a step backwards in terms of story and characters. I guess it's all subjective though, I personally loved GTAIV's shift to realism. If I want to play over the top sandbox games there's already a handfull to chose from.