gmt
-
Content Count
377 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by gmt
-
-
dude who gives a fuck about building comparisons just enjoy the pictures and pray for a 2012 release date or have you got that much spare time on your hands you find the need to go through every picture released and compare everything GET A FUCKING LIFE
I got a life, thanks for the advice tho.
Just cuz you can't stand that ppl do more than just jizz their pants looking at a picture and actually wanna put the shown something into context... jeez... get a life yourself
-
has anyone already pointed out that the jet in the trailer and the jet from the screenshot are two different types?
-
as for issue three, I'll stick with it's a pergola. look at the shadows on the balkony, you can clearly see that it's not a solid structure above it, but rather several beams running parallel, supported by crossing beams and held high by the pillars, typical pergola construction, so I guess one can rule out that the main roof also covers the balcony for the trailer scene.
With the screenshot, there's some pixels irritating this impression. you took them for the sides of the roof. I took them for being some of the beams of the pergola as they, looking at the shadows, are a little overhanging to the right (when facing towards the house) and also considered the house to be flat-roofed like the neighboring house and the one from the screenshot seems to be alike (at least the right wing of it does lack any hints towards a gabled roof) but the distance and therefore LOD really makes it hard to be definite.
with issues one and two, I'm with you, but this might also be due to LOD, such distortions are unfortunately not uncommon and it happens that even prominent features like windows/doors seem different.
-
This is nothing big, but at the end of the trailer, when the plane comes over Vinewood.
Just as the GRAND THEFT AUTO V logo comes up, you can see the undercarriage coming down.
A video on YouTube showed it, which I watched last week, but I can't seem to find it now, or it may have been removed by the user...
Those, are called WHEELS. You could do it in San Andreas too.
actually, undercarriage is the "correct" term for landing gear in aviation... but wheels does the trick aswell I guess
-
From "Victor Maitland Villa" or "tennis Villa", we can see another house on the hills, looks like the trailer "fisical exercise" estate.
actually a pretty good find, there's quite a lot of similarities between the 2 houses imho.
1 the white wall at the dj pult
2 the pillar supporting what looks like a pergola above the balkony (judging from the shadows in the trailer)
3 the windows going around the corner
4 the greyish tiles on the wall, when you look closely on the screenshot you can see that the corresponding area is a little greyish in the screenshot, not as whiteish as the other parts of the house
5 if you look through the windows mentioned in 3, you can see another, setback window which seems to be part of that house, similar setup in the screenshot
EDIT: not to mention the cliff directly below the house
-
2
-
-
I am.
And I was quite happy with these sidkicks in every GTA that had them, be it the sidemissions in the previous titles or just the "stupid" stuff like dating in SA/4.
apart from getting you deeper into the game world, it also adds to the gameplay. I mean, what use is an open world game if the world is dead and barren? also, if I want a game that pulls me through the story and has nothing else to offer, I can also buy a random shooter
-
1
-
-
as for the size of the gps, it's not a gps in common sense but rather the digital replacement of printed maps used for maritime navigation and therefore the screens are this big so you can easily read and work with them.
I don't even go down the purpose-lane. for most parts, they're a legal requirement aswell as they have crucial info on the waters you drive, useless in game of course, but like I said, I don't wanna go there as you can basically question everything R* puts into the game then
Of course 3 months ahead isn't that much time ahead compared to the whole pr campaign we're looking at and also the visual quality of this "leak" isn't much to get excited about either, but still enough and better than nothing imho.
oh well let's wait and see...
-
know what just crossed my mind?
I wonder if R* accidentally leaks the map themselves.
I mean, back when 4 was advertised, in the 3rd trailer (move up, ladies) the map was visible in the cop-boat scene and if i'm right, this was well before it "officially" popped up. maybe something similar happens these days?
-
I have allready wrote that 3rd picture graphics are to sharp. Great, but Im concern about PS3 capacity to get that level of quality. I think this will be the 1st GTA Im gona play in PC version.
The bike is perfect, the bike pedals, the weels, the Shimano gear system or the break disk, amazing. Probably we will do the "Tour of SanAndreas" and get the yellow shirt.
Cant wait to see the mountain bike, the BMX bike and the classical old school bike.
if you'd ask me, the polygon count on the biker and the bike isn't that high considering the edgy arms and legs and stuff. seems to be slightly higher than in 4 only
-
the whole fuselage (=body) of the jet looks like an F16, especially the canopy and the radar dome, plus the opening on the left which looks exactly like the board cannon muzzle of the F16.
the wings and empennage (=tail) tho remind me of an F18
EDIT: well, at least it looks nothing like the F-35 to me, but more like a mix of the two mentioned...
-
of course this wont be the last GTA. It's one of the best selling entertainment franchises ever, they'd be stupid to call it quits after 5.
Ok, at a certain point down the line as were shown with the Final Fantasy series, ppl just wont give a fuck anymore if like GTA 23 is announced, probably with the 15th time in Liberty City (until this date probably a 1:1 replica of nyc in a virtual reality environment massive multiplayer online carnage), but that shouldn't bother anyone right now.
on topic: I really hope and also think that the map and the usage of jets work well together. I don't expect it to be like JC2 where it takes countless minutes to jet from one corner to the other, but it'll sure as hell be longer and more fun than it was in San Andreas, although I think if technical aspects where suitable to host such big maps back then, R* would have done it already.
-
I was referring to the open blank grey space in between and behind most buildings.
Oh I see. Thought you were talking bout the loads of open land you won't come across during story progression.
But I think, with the level of detail seen in 4, these areas would not give the feeling of wasted space, as 4 also has lots of this stuff, but thanks to the great care R* put into detailing the map they don't come up as such an eyesore as in SA.
That'd be pretty cool, especially if you could use it as a cheat later in the game on various parts of the map (without them being blocked off, though). I still think the best reason for areas being blocked of would be roads and bridges closed due to earthquake damage. That makes so much sense since L.A. practically sits on top of the San Andreas fault. It would be an awesome in-game feature, too (and also as a cheat). I'll actually be a little disappointed/surprised if earthquakes don't play into the game anywhere, but c'est la vie.
Who knows, maybe Rockstar will get rid of the closed map. I doubt it, but you never know. Since they suggest Los Santos is the only city and the only other populated areas are surrounding "towns," it would make sense to have the protag begin the game outside of the city and work through missions to get into LS itself (a la IV when you started in Broker and played your way into Algonquin); however, I still think map-wise, R* has some tricks up its sleeve. I'd actually be surprised if they didn't include San Diego (a sizeable city in its own right) in the game. It's only about 130 miles south of Los Angeles, so it's conceivable it'll be there.
fires and earthquakes are good, although I must say wildfires are the more suitable option imho, as an earthquake would have too much of a largescale impact on the entireness of the map, while a wildfire is a more or less condensed event that barely hits the outskirts of the city (if the LSFD does it's job right, that is...)
having an earthquake to exclude certain map areas at the beginning would demand too much shit going on throughout the city, (damage, chaos, whatever) to be plausible and not feel artificial just for the sake of having it limit access.
wildfires can block access to entire areas without having to "adjust" large areas of the map to this event to be plausible. Just a roadblock, some LSFD equipment, some lighting adjustments due to the smoke and of course the fire itself.
flooding and mudslides due to heavy rain in the mountains also come to mind as they are pretty much limited in their impact and also realistic for the location, LA is full of flood control for a reason and there's been heavy flooding in the past.
or, as simple as it can get, road construction.
idk there's many ways to limit access at the beginning of the game, but I wonder if it's necessary at all? Ok, it would float down the same river as every GTA, but then again, every GTA was made out of seperate islands (which also made it easy: bridge is closed pizzaboy, find another way home) but this one wont have seperate islands if they stick to the real-life geography. I don't really like it, but I bet R* will come up with a way of doing it
-
I'm not too bothered about the actual size of the map, as long as their is no wasted space. San Andreas may have been a bigger map, but there were a lot of areas that seemed to be there for the sake of it. GTA IV had a more compact feel to it because they used every inch of the map for something relevant.
depends on how you define relevant.
if you look at it from a gameplay perspective, you could also settle down and call most parts liberty city wasted space. you could condense the locations of the gameplay to an island about the size of brooker, with a little space in between to give the illusion of actually moving between them.
to deliver a certain feeling to the player, both gta 4 and san andreas did their job very well. liberty really gives you the feeling of an nyc-ish metropolis with vast urban areas, while san andreas delivered the feeling of travelling through a state, especially thanks to the "wasted space" - I'd rather call it landscape, as this adds so much to the illusion of a whole state.
of course, again, condense it to the gameplay-relevant areas and you can cope with a fraction of the area used.
-
1
-
-
Is propagating fire part of the physics engine?
I want that back. If they are bringing back the countryside, I really wanna start a forest fire. Bad.
Haha i know, pretty imaginative, and that is actualy what i imagined the game to look. I mean, tankers that COULD be carrying somthing ( more than likely gasoline, altough a certain misson it might be somthing else), and it could leak and explode. I like the looting idea, Buut i think itd take away from the main focus of the game. to an extent, it would be awesome to just steal ur stuff than buy it, but that could be a good idea if it is done right. Have huge mansion with a room filled with stoled luxury items, that sounds pretty appealing to me. I guess that has nothing to do with physics realy, buuut its a great idea none-the-less!
Shoplifting like in Mafia II would be interesting.
Yea, i have never played Mafia 2, although shoplifting does seem like a good idea. I dont want it to turn into an RPG where you have a "back pack" filled with crap. I think if rockstar can find a good way to fit that into the game, then i think they should.
been a while since I played mafia 2, but if I remeber correctly, it's just taking the cash and not actual shoplifting.
-
the car sounds in the trailer was good
The only engine we got to hear properly was the red convertible revving at the traffic lights, and it sounded just as flat and lifeless as the cars in GTA IV.
I agree it sounded like the cars from IV, but seriously, I had no problem with the cars sounds in IV. After playing ugly games like TDU 2 and stuff, the cars sounds in IV were superb IMO. Better than the fake sounds in III.
whats wrong with the car sounds in tdu2? ok, they aren't that realistic either (as in copying the respective cars real life sound), but to me, they're much more convincing than those in IV
-
the car sounds in the trailer was good
The only engine we got to hear properly was the red convertible revving at the traffic lights, and it sounded just as flat and lifeless as the cars in GTA IV.
Just what I thought.
In 4, the car sounds where not bad at all but, like you said, they came up flat and lifeless, as if they were heavily clipped in their range. And it looks the same in the trailer, but I really hope they've changed this by now.
To me, the car sounds in SA fitted better to the cars, just think how flat the old muscle sounds in 4 compared to SA. The idling sounds better then the revving, go figure.
-
[...] otherwise it would be a pretty short trip from one side of the island to the other.
Like in San Andreas...
-
I think I said this in one of the car threads already, but I'm with the improved car damage thing.
I like the basic realism cars deform upon impact and in realtion to velocity, hitzone and object hit. (plus, of course, the eyecandy like scratches and even the bullet holes)
I also find it kind of a nice catch that mirrors, doors, hoods and attachments like taxi signs react to inertia upon impact or whatever else would set them lose.
If this would be included for other things aswell, first and foremost the bumpers and wheels, but also other things like hardtops on convertibles (I know the felzer came with soft- and hardtop) and maybe even exhausts that get ripped off.
I would even go as far as to ask for a damage model, that makes a difference whether the hit part is plastic or metal to accomodate for the fact that most cars nowadays have plastic bumpers and sideskirts, thus giving us breaking/splintering bumpers and bending doors, hoods etc and that roofs can actually be torn off when crashing under a rig.
but as I think that little of these changes are actually implemented I would feel perfectly fine if the deformation would look realistic all the way from a little dent to a completely trashed car, so scenes like bboi posted wont happen.
-
Also After looking at the new screenshot with the helicopter again, there is clearly sea in the background. Look at the position of the downtown buildings, then look at them in the screencap you highlighted, the sea is/should be behind the camera...
no it's not behind the camera, I guess you're a little confused with the respective points of view.
look at these two images I fiddled with:
comparing the marked buildings (and many other buldings visible in both pictures), you can determine the direction of sight in the new screenshot, I marked the approximate direction with the arrow in the old picture.
taking this into account, what you identified (correctly) as sealine in the new screenshot, would be about where I put the blue line in the old picture.
now, what I circled red, at least for the middle and the right, can be clearly identified as clouds. comparing the edges of these with the red circled thing on the left, I come to the conclusion that this is most likely a cloud aswell.
Also, a similar thing is missing in the new screenshot which has a much further draw distance and therefore - again considering the perspective - should show something in the center-right area if it was a ground feature like a mountain range.
EDIT: if you want, take a look at the downtown towers aswell and count them through in both pictures.
the new screenshot has the westin bonaventure in front of the library tower in front of the construction tower
in the old picture, the same order goes right to left
-
1
-
-
I felt like doing some topography
Mountains.
I don't quite get this picture.
there's only one mountain line in this picture, about the 1/4th of the right.
everything else looks more like the upper edge of evening fog/smog to me, look around the setting sun, it has too faded edges.
also it wouldn't make sense in a geographical perspective as the plane flies east to west over Los Santos and as it represents LA, there's supposed to be water.
-
doesn't really look younger to me on the right side... I mean look at the hair. apart from that it's the same cut over and over again (just a small thing, but I feel like ppl change their haircut over time and dont turn like 50yrs with 5 decades of a single haircut) the greying sideburns look pretty much the same in all 3 scenes, which is better visible in the trailer than on the pics.
but the idea of a narrative storyline is tempting. who knows, maybe there're some flashbacks or some other sort of distinguishable timeline throughout the story.
-
Yes, Area 51 was in San Andreas, and it was a reasonable distance from Las Venturas (which is obviously not in GTA V) at a time where R* wasn't quite as concerned with making a realistic setting as they are now. The setup of the map from a game made nearly eight years ago, when Rockstar wasn't trying to make GTA realistic, has no bearing on what GTA V will be like, so the point you were trying to make is invalid.
It wasn't a point, it was a question.? = question, duh. Now that I think about it, there were to Military Areas in Las Ventures. The other one was to the North by Burger Shot. Was that area just R* doing or is it based on an actual Military Base? Im not to familiar with the West Coast.
You're talking about that kacc military aviation fuel depot you crash in one of the missions (up up and away), right?
Well the most prominent military complex in northern Vegas is Nellis AFB together with Lake Mead Base (Ammo depot incl. nuclear weapons, big times when the NTS was still active) and Nellis Water System Annex.
Since the big sign says military aviation fuel, I guess R* very very losely based this complex on the Nellis AFB site... well... sort of... let's stick with they drew inspiration from it as the only things in common are the word aviation and the location
-
i dought area 51 will be in the game but there is a military base in Oakland off of San Francisco, and the do test heavy artillery and once and a while a nuclear weapon.
LOL! 100% bullshit. Unless you can prove it. There is probably a military base, sure. But nuclear tests? No way.
once and a while meaning very rare. and they usually would not do a test near inhabitants of cali.... and they are saying people like me ignore logic? smh
the last surface test was in 1963, then the US and others signed a ban on surface testing due to fallout hazards, from then on all tests were conducted subsurface, official sources state the last one was 20 years ago, 1992.
EDIT: and as someone stated already, most of these tests were made in Nevada, the testing site counts 925 tests until 1992, 825 of them subsurface.
-
oh sorry, I got the more square thing wrong.
there's a lotta small details that look different, but like you said, good chances MHC is influenced by this building
Gta V likely for March 2013
in GTA 5 Pre-Release Discussion (Closed)
Posted · Report reply
I'm with the Q1 of fiscal 2013 2014 but as long as they dont start to postpone the release over and over again like with LA Noire, I'm fine with everything within the next 12 months
EDIT: I just realized we're already in fiscal 2013...