Top
The story is too old to be commented.
Fizzler1136d ago ShowReplies(1)
Webbyy1136d ago

Man oh man, It sure will be nice to revisit the game in 1st person view.

Give it to me.

Massacred1136d ago (Edited 1136d ago )

I am a self proclaimed Rockstar super fan, but I'm not entirely sold on this. just three years ago they were touting how First Person Shooters were something they just wouldn't do.

“We’re deliberately avoiding that right now, it’s in our DNA to avoid doing what other companies are doing…You have to have originality in your games; you have to have some kind of interesting message. You could say that the goalpoint of Rockstar is to have the players really feel what we’re trying to do.”

-Rockstar Games

Now I'm not saying this is necessarily going to be bad, more just that it seems to kind of divide the focus.

For example, you could always play Skyrim in Third Person, but most people play in First Person. Something akin to that.

Approach with trepidation.

CaptainObvious8781136d ago

FPS is a genre, not a camera perspective.

All R* are doing is putting a first person CAMERA in their 3rd person sandbox game.

I'm actually kinda excited to try it out.

esemce1136d ago

FPS mode is optional GET IT so if you don't like it that's fine. The more options the better thanks R*.

b163o11136d ago (Edited 1136d ago )

Skyrim!!! I think i need to revisit Skyrim and New Vegas. True enough GTA5 on next-gen is great in all, but I for one am looking for something new. Like if your dying to hear something about FALLOUT4! lol I just finished GTA5 for the second time, so i'm not rushing to get this one. just being honest

Massacred1136d ago (Edited 1136d ago )

I suppose that's fair. But what about online? Are you going to have both FPS people and people just trying to play the game it was originally designed? That will just result in a subset of people completely destroying everyone else because they can aim so much faster and more precise. So what do you do? Add a filter? Then you have a fractured community who aren't even competing with the same skill sets. At this point, why not just make a game designed from the ground up to be and FPS?

When designing a game, you start with an idea then built everything, graphics, mechanics game-play style to further that idea. This to me seems less of playing into that idea and more oh we see a ton of people playing Destiny and Call of Duty let's see if we can get them. (for the record I enjoy both of those games immensely)

Omnisonne1136d ago

@Massacred

I dont think 1st person view is going to affect the MP that much, most people play on auto-aim mode anyway.

You might actually think 3rd person will be the better option, since it gives you a wider field of view

bouzebbal1136d ago (Edited 1136d ago )

You could play all of MGS4 in first person view. doesn't make it a COD or Killzone clone.
Rockstar dont make first person SHOOTERS, but they are allowed to make games in FIRST PERSON, and here it's optional like MGS IV.

TheSaint1136d ago

'just' three years? That's a long ass time in gaming bud.

BABY-JEDI1136d ago

I think it's good to have the choice.

thricetold1135d ago

There will be no advantage or disadvantages bud. If your good/bad at shooters it doesn't/won't matter what perspective is being used.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1135d ago
THEDON82z11136d ago

This is exactly what I need never been a good person at 3rd person perspective when it comes to online shooters. As a grand theft auto fan for years but never was really good at the online portion....NOW with first person perspective added....Its on now in online mode, time to have blast..cu all there!!!

Neonridr1136d ago Show
gangsta_red1136d ago (Edited 1136d ago )

Interesting...an open world game that is 1080p and at 30fps on next gen systems...

I think some of us on this here site owes Ubi an apology.

@Neonridr

Indeed, it's just hilarious that everyone thought that a game specifically built from the ground up for the next gen systems, by a third party dev should have been 1080p and 60fps for PS4 or else it meant MS paid Ubi for parity.

A certain person I was talking to was using ports as a justification as to why he thought Ubi was paid off for parity.

As I told a certain "person" on this site, the PS4 couldn't even handle Infamous with those settings and it didn't do nearly as much as Unity is doing.

Neonridr1136d ago

at least Unity is a game built for next gen only. This is basically a port when you break it down.

Metallox1136d ago

Considering GTA V ran very well at 720p and 26-30FPS on last gen, there's no surprise here. Rockstar made a good job with the game.

theXtReMe11136d ago (Edited 1136d ago )

Why would we apologize to them? GTA V is not a UBisoft game. This just shows that a game that looks better than assassins creed unity, can run at 1080p and 30 frames per second and also include first and third person views along with more things to do in the world. Not to mention, AI that actually reacts to the players actions and doesn't just slide out of the way.

I highly doubt that UBisoft will put out anything that comes close to the visual fidelity and interactivity of this game, a game that was released last generation for last generation systems.

If anything... UBisoft owes an apology to gamers. Because obviously, they lied about what was possible on next generation systems. Caring only about parity and how many characters they can get on the screen at once as opposed to actual visual fidelity and gameworld interactivity. Everything in this game destroys what Ubisoft did in Unity. Texture resolution, lighting, frame rate, draw distance, interactivity, AA, no pop in, no LOD draw.

So UBisoft may want to think about the next time they open up their mouth and tell people what is possible on next generation systems. Because Rockstar just put a boot up their ass and showed them what is possible and this is their first try on next gen systems. Not their fifth. Sixth, if you count Rayman.

Neonridr1136d ago (Edited 1136d ago )

GTA V is a port, not a next-gen attempt. All the assets were built around the PS3 and 360. I bet the polygon counts aren't the same when you compare between GTA V and Unity

I am not defending Unity here as I haven't played it. But let's wait until we see GTA 6 before we start going bananas.

jdaboss1136d ago Show
Raider691136d ago

You know that trailer on rockstargames.com showing first person mode etc....is actually PC footage on very high settings!!

starchild1136d ago (Edited 1136d ago )

You're delusional if you think GTA5 looks better than AC Unity. Seriously, that's ridiculous.

Unless the new gen version of GTA5 is massively improved over the last gen version, AC Unity utterly demolishes it in the graphics department.

"Texture resolution, lighting, frame rate, draw distance, interactivity, AA, no pop in, no LOD draw."

What the hell are you talking about? We haven't even seen gameplay of the new gen version of GTA5 and the last gen version is pretty terrible in most of those areas, so your comment makes zero sense. Unity is far more graphically advanced in all of those areas, and is using new graphics techniques that GTA5 lacks completely.

Forn1136d ago

I'm going to leave this comparison video I found on YouTube which compares the last-gen version of GTA V to the next-gen version. I can tell you and you can see for yourself that it's almost night and day. Pretty impressive.

http://youtu.be/pBkCB1zRIx4

boneso821136d ago

GTA and AC are 2 of my favourite franchises. I loved GTA5 on my PS3. However, I have seen gameplay footage of GTA5 "next-gen" and AC:Unity, GTA5 doesnt even come close to the level of detail shown in AC:U.
I'm not just talking about textures (Even though they are vastly more detailed), I also mean Volumetric lighting, Ambient Occlusion, Physics, AA options, Subsurface scattering, Volumetric fog etc etc... AC:U is far more advanced than GTA5 in the graphics department, that doesn't mean it's a better game, just better looking and technically further ahead.
My 2 cents...

dreamed1136d ago

Visual fidelity....dont make me laugh gta looks like shit compared to unity!!!

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1136d ago
GameDev11136d ago

"this here site owes Ubi an apology"

What? I...cant....even

Masterchief_thegoat1136d ago

Ubisoft apology haha stop being gangsta /s

JP13691136d ago (Edited 1136d ago )

Two things you're forgetting:

1) Unity is 900p and looks like it has frame rate issues.

2) inFAMOUS had a dev team 1/10 the size and still managed to hit a refresh rate in the mid 40s at times, all at a fidelity that Ubisoft hasn't yet manged with any game, including AssCreed. Unity, on the other hand, has multiple studios and nearly unlimited funding, yet still only looks okay and performs like ass. At least the NPCs in inFAMOUS don't suddenly appear thirty yards ahead of you and then perform a costume change when you've managed to halve the distance.

Adexus1136d ago

Comparing it to inFamous isn't the best comparison to make to be honest, it was an exclusive, took place on a pretty damn small map and it still had texture pop in issues and there wasn't many cars or pedestrians on screen at once at all.

The only other open world multiplatform games to compare Unity is other Ubisoft games really unless I'm forgetting one that isn't by them (excluding GTA V) but I can't think of any.

JP13691136d ago

I'm not the one that initially decided to compare the two. However, map size isn't really an issue, since you can still tell how good (or bad) the draw distance is on one game compared to another. inFamous does a much better job than Unity at the moment, with its occasional texture draw issues being much less noticeable than Unity's constant pop-in problems, with not just textures but geometry and NPCs.
Unless there's a patch to fix the current state of Unity, it doesn't live up to the expected standards of development from a team that size with the amount of time and money they had at their disposal.

starchild1136d ago

Unity looks better than Infamous Second Son and has much bigger scale and more going on. The pop-in in Infamous SS is pretty bad and the shadows are so low resolution they basically look like blobs until the higher resolution maps pop in to place about 5 feet in front of you.

It's a great looking game, but there is no doubt Unity is the more graphically advanced game out of the two.

Also, any 30fps game would run up into the 40s and 50s (fps) if they were uncapped. Rendering loads always vary and therefor framerates always fluctuate. The only way to get a fairly consistent 30fps is if you are actually pumping out between something like 30fps and 50fps and then just capping at 30fps for consistency. When I cap Infamous Second Son at 30fps I still get fairly frequent drops below 30fps, so it's not really doing any better than most other 30fps games out there.

Palitera1136d ago (Edited 1136d ago )

To everyone above: do you realize you are mad because not every company (specifically Ubisoft) is not as technically skilled as one of the two most skilled devs in the known universe?

You're not saying "Guerilla Games managed it, so Ubisoft could do it as well". You're talking about Rockstar. I have my grips with them, but they ARE able to achieve levels that other devs can't.

BTW, the other company is obviously Naughty Dog and I'm speaking about technical marvels, graphics, performance in a complex game. What these companies achieved in PS3/X360, in these terms, is unmatched and there's no reason why it shouldn't be different in this gen.

So, saying that this or that company can't hit the same level as Rockstar is irrelevant.

JVIV1136d ago

An apology?? you're a panzi ! Get out of here

CaptainObvious8781136d ago (Edited 1136d ago )

"Interesting...an open world game that is 1080p and at 30fps on next gen systems...

I think some of us on this here site owes Ubi an apology."

I cannot, for the life of me, follow that logic.

I'm hoping there's some advantage on the PS4 though.

JMyers1136d ago (Edited 1136d ago )

Why is Ubi owed an Apology? Infamous hits 1080p, 30fps easily. Ubi basically admitted to holding back one version "to avoid debates and stuff"... Then they back tracked by trying to appease the audience with excuses.

The marketing deal with MS and the game being touted to that platform probably is the reason. Most games run at 1080 on PS4, while most run at 900 on X1... That is fact anyway you slice it.

gangsta_red1135d ago

I disagree JMyers, multiple actual engineers from ubi have have stated why the PS4 version is at 900p, other articles have been submitted backing it up. The fact that people would rather listen and run with a production assistant and not actual engineers is puzzling.

Infamous SS doesn't have nearly the amount of features, multiplayer, interiors, NPC's and who knows what else that AC does. In fact Infamous's Seattle city was pretty bare compared to what AC is trying to do.

MS also had a marketing deal with CoD: Ghosts and that game was 720p on X1...you don't think MS would have paid Activision to gimp the PS4 version? CoD is a way bigger franchise than AC.

"Most games run at 1080p on PS4..."

Most... but not all and that is also a fact that anyway you slice it.

To get games to run at 1080p other aspects of the game must be sacrificed, Infamous and Driveclub should have showed you this. The PS4 maybe a bit more powerful than the X1, but it isn't the power house that Sony's PR keeps feeding everyone.

ziggurcat1135d ago

@ gangsta:

"... multiple actual engineers from ubi have have stated why the PS4 version is at 900p..."

yes... it was to avoid "debates and stuff."

JMyers1136d ago

@Starchild...

I dont think Unity looks better than Infamous. Espcially in the recent screenshots. The character models look poor with little detail, while the environments look great. Infamous had both looking really good.

Now keep in mind these are from recent screenshots. The E3 gameplay looked amazing (including the characters)... but so did WatchDogs, and looked what happened there.

JMyers1135d ago

I never said anyone paid anyone... The parity choice was made by Ubi, not MS. Secondly these "engineers" you speak of only came out after that comment was made. Where there is smoke, there is fire, and that's what Ubi was doing... putting fires out.

You COD example is also flawed. Many sites were asked not to show the PS4 version as it looked better. For Ubi this wouldnt be the case as the PS4 version was probably held back... PROBABLY.

I am also willing to bet the released version will not look as good as the E3 gameplay.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1135d ago
Corpser1136d ago

I'm fine waiting for the definitive pc version then

NBT911136d ago

Agreed. Mods, 4K, customizable control options, cheaper game. Not a bad deal to wait a couple of months extra for.
Hope to see more developers giving PC gamers the best possible experience where they can.

ATi_Elite1136d ago

I'm actually more excited for the mods than the actual vanilla game.

Why did we all get so many disagrees? Oh I know!

We all said PC 4k and mods.

Funny how Sony gamers love screaming, flaunting and throwing 1080p at xb1 owners but as soon as you say 4k those same gamers get mad like you just crushed their console and their mom won't buy them a new one.

FlyingFoxy1136d ago (Edited 1136d ago )

I'd rather 1080p and 60+fps.. 4k runs like utter ass unless you have deep pockets for 3-4 GPU's, and after 2 GPU's the scaling is poor at 4k resolution. In other words you spend out for a third or fourth GPU and you get minimal gains in return.

2 cards and 1440p max or bust, unless you want to run 4k with games at medium or lower settings.. at which point i'd say why bother having a gaming pc.

Pikminmaniac1136d ago

The disagrees are from people who are tired of the comments saying the PC is "the definitive" version in every thread about a game that's also coming to pc. We know.
Also, I am looking forward to the mods people use for GTA V. After watching other modded games, can't wait to see what they come up with.

user56695101136d ago (Edited 1136d ago )

Plus by them adding first person view most likely they are going to support ORift if not mods will take care of it. Im glad I don't have to settle. GtaV in VR.

Flying fox
Ur mad ain't cha. This game doesn't even look that intense to.run. it looks sharp. But I'm not seeing how it can cripple people's rig that was already doing 4k. What you're talking about again? This game does run 60fps on consoles like most console games. I like how kids try to down play things hes jealous about. Just say your mad that yoir ps4 is not on the cutting edge of technology like you always make it seem. You're mostly in the closet crying holding your ps4 right now. Ps4 could only be doing 720p you still would be saying pc gaming isnt worth it.

We all know what you do on your time off. hey you got something on your chin. I guess Sony missed your mouth

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1136d ago