If GTA V uses Motionscan technology, will the game presentation be too realistic in regards to the potential levels of violence?
My one and only comment, thanks to the ghosts. Regardless of the violence or who is playing GTA V, with motionscanTM it would be brilliant for the target audience.
I like realism.
People who cant distinguish whats real or whats a game shouldn't be playing games anyway, they should be taking their medications instead...
Really though, what % of the population can't distinguish that? Why should we have to suffer
Motionscan technology merely means they look more realistic. Overall which better conveys the story and makes them more human. Getting closer and closer to eliminating the gap, because gamers do not just want flashier graphics they want less pixelated feel and more realism to help tell a story. Imagining GTA san andreas with this technology alone makes me excited, so I am excited to see what they can do. Parents must watch what their kids play, having worked at a game store in which many 7-10 year olds came in for Saints Row 3 and Modern Warfare 3 I can say at the end of the day it comes down to advertising.
MEH!!! I've seen more realistic violence just looking out my front window! Rockstar has there work cut out for them. lol
lol so fn true gta games are becoming real life with today's world to a point.
So in GTAV will the Hookers allow us to perform anal? it may increase a Hookers chances of not getting ran over as i will be too busy with wet naps and hand sanitizer!! lol
you made my night/morning the hand sanitizer would have to wait till after i ran that bitch over 6 times
Well, games from the 90's used full motion video in games where you could shoot things in the face so what's the problem here?
I agree with RaidensRising....too bad parents don't watch what their kids (or care for that matter) and what they play. These aren't the vidoegames of yesterday where it was Donkey Kong, Pacman, and Mario. Developers try to immerse their audience as much as possible. I say bring it on!! The more realistic the better.
The author seems uninformed, he mentions: "GTA IV allowed for the first time to grab hookers from the side walks, take them somewhere quiet, engage in sexual activity, followed by the choice of murdering them to get back the money spent, or just for the hell of it." Firstly, everyone but this author knows that this was already possible in gta 3. "If Rockstar San Diego really do go to town with the production values and make NPCs play a more active role in the gameplay instead of simply using them to populate the city..." Secondly, Rockstar North are making this game and Rockstar San Diego are only responsible for the Midnight Club titles and the Red Dead series and they have never worked on a Grand Theft Auto game. So this pretty much confirms that the author hasnt played any grand theft autos before the 4th. Although his points on GTA5 with motion scan may appear too realistic, however I see the GTA series prosper from this. At this moment in time, It doesnt seem that Rockstar North is utilising this tech so this article is pretty much pointless.
Totally agree. Mis-information. Uninformed so-called journalists writing some useless, meaningless articles.
"The author seems uninformed..." It is after all msxbox-world. In several recent remarks I have echoed the sentiments of Psychemax. N4G, with their more loose policies as regards what constitutes journalism, have unwittingly assisted in the proliferation of all things idiotic. I cannot recall the last time msxbox-world published an article that possessed a modicum of research and common sense. In that department they are little different from a host of articles that find their way here to this site, elusive in their ability to manifest themselves unchecked by higher brain functions or simple good taste.
Remember all of the backlash HHG used to get... I think msxbox-world.com needs the same treatment. I think they are pathetic.
Haha...personal attacks on the internet are AWESOME!!! Back it up...first I heard of this as well as many other gamers I'm sure. Most don't have time to troll all over the place on the web.
Sorry, Gearshead, where's the personal attack? This so-called article is meaningless, not trustable, useless and NOT-INFORMED.
@morganfell Mods should ban msxbox-world, but i guess they are too busy trolling themselves... I am probably going to get flagged as trolling, but mods, dont take it as an insult. Think of it as a constructive criticism. I like N4G just as you like it.
Isn't this the site that had that article about how xbox won over ps3 last year, even though the author couldn't give reasons why. And also, there was an article about how you should get the xbox version of bf3 over both the ps3 and pc versions, listling several bullcrap reasons like psn never working and gaming pcs costing several thousands of dollars. Or was that another xbox site? I know that there are two that I see a lot, and I'm pretty sure they are both garbage.
Well ss potted and thanks for pointing that out. I played gta 3 so long ago now and reviewed the double pack on xbox which is posted on the site back in 2003. Having played so many games the mind does get foggy. However you have every right to call me out over the wrong developer. Thanks for taking the time to respond. That goes for all of you, including the haters. I will say, if you dont like the site, simply ignore the stories. Payne. Weve never posted such stories, must be another site.
You're right. It was planet xbox. Similar name, I always get them mixed up. Sorry about that. I also apologize if your site isn't actually garbage, like I said, it's hard for me to remember which is which. ;)
The point of your whole article may be or may be not a nice one, I'm not arguing about this. What I totally dislike is your way to "do" Journalism. You think you can write anything you think, without doing a little research. I COULD understand the "hookers" defaiance, if only you have made a little, one sec google research for the dev name. The things you are talking about are, for someone, interesting. I'm really interested in reading accurate Game Journalism, so I totally HATE when I read some garbage like this article. Sorry for the bad language and the bad english.
AMAZING ! "cover my eyes"
Usually, I am very harsh on realistic graphics because I get enough realism in real life, why would I want to play a game like that? BUT In the case of GTA, youve backed yourself into a corner where you kinda of have to 1 up yourself with each game. So it has to be somehow better than IV and la noire. So in this case, your damned if you do, damned if you dont
There are realistic games because these games propose the experience of a different life in this world that you might not want to live IRL (due to your conviction or the risks involved) but you are still interested in (eg. being a gangster or a soldier). These kinds of game need to have a world that behaves in a realistic way in order to offer a credible and cohesive experience.
Can I get a witness?
my feeling is games should do things movies dont. Whimsy, fun, a real hard look at art styles. Thats what the industry is to me
While I enjoy those as well I think there is a place for realism in videogames. Whatever is fun for the player comes 1st and foremost though.
i'm more interested in euphoria
MSXBox is Soft
I'm cool with the inclusion, it's a natural evolution in terms of technology and it's an 18+ game after all.
I think LA Noire's motion scan tech was critisised on Xbox for being the reason to have 3 game discs. I wouldn't think it's some much a requirement for GTA as it remains a pretty convincing experience as is, the technology itself is wonderful though, and I see it being more useful in games that have a heavy focus on NPC's and talking, and would be great for RPGs such as Skyrim where that side of the experience, a big one at that, is where the immersion really falls short.
This technology is highly impractical for a game like Skyrim which is heavily dynamic in nature. Remember, every different character have to be recorded with a different actor, and every line in the game has to be recorded by their respective actor, both of which is abundant in Skyrim. That's not even counting all the different things they say based on variables such as the player's race, story progress, gender, faction, attire, status(s), stats, etc etc. Also this technology would look very unnatural in a first person game. The NPCs' eyes would fixed at whatever position the actors were looking at at the time of recording, and because it is impossible for the actors to know where the player is standing in relation to their NPC characters at anytime during gameplay... well, you get the idea.
You know, a 3D model isn't a statue. The devs, if they want it, can fix the place, the form and movements of any 3d model in any game. So, after a couple of stunts recorded with this tech, they can use it even for a Skyrim Like Game: main character with this tech, rest of 'em modified by a procedurally generated algorithm. This tech is WAY TOO expensive to be used in games, at the actual stadium. Maybe, if the people buy a lot of games with it in, it can drop the price. Sorry for bad english.
Whats this fascination with this technology? It looks realistic sure, but technologically speaking its primitive. There is no dynamicity. everything is basically prebaked. On top of that the faces are shot with such low resolution cameras when played on the PC everyone's faces looked like blobs compared with everything else.
i dont really get off murdering innocents in gta games. its kind of fun tryin not to hurt anyone then accidentely hitting one with your car. more realistic that way if you ask me.
The author probably hasn't played a single game since GTA IV and his knowledge is only limited to the GTA series. Have you ever heard a little game called Battlefield 3? It's a horrifyngly realistic war simulator with a probable scenario that MAY actually happen one day and it contains the best visuals on the planet right now while GTA series have some humor in it and always keep it fictional to a degree. GTA is not realistic, that the game is one of the first 3D open world games doesn't necessarily mean that it should always be mentioned when it comes to violence and realism. You can 7/24 find news on TV and social media regarding wars happening somewhere in the world. Now that's REAL and SCARY to the utmost degree. I'd mention the infamous *caughs* beheading *caughs* scene in Battlefield 3 but the author would probably die of a heart attack if he heard about it. Ups, slipped from my tongue there. The sad things is these kind of things have always happened, and will continue to happen, and it's not due to the depiction of violence in video games but due to us closing our eyes and turning our heads away when we see these kind of things. You don't condemn video games in order to fight violence, you first "accept" its existence and use your "reason" for a solution. If you're concerned that little kids might actually get their hands on these kind of realistic games, which of course is a valid concern, I say it would not be the fault of the gaming industry but a clear example of bad parenting. And if you say that some people might get carried away with games and for that reason, the realism in games should be kept at minimum, I'd say not being able to distinguish what's real and what's fictional is a serious -and I mean SERIOUS- psychological disorder.
It's an article making you aware of the topic, it's not meant to get you all riled up. Although that does seem like a bonus at the moment.
I'm not necessarily directing my comment to the author or this spesific article, either. What I wanted to focus on with my comment is the basic question of "how do you define realism in video games?". According to me, it's not a newly developed motion capture technology nor improved visuals that could make a game more realistic but rather its "context". In other words, usually it's not what the game offers to you in terms of visuals but how it makes you feel that creates an emotional bond between you and the game. For that reason I think games with world-war plots are the most terrifying of all. Not even horror games are scarier than them. It's just my opinion though, you may or may not agree.
that means manhunt was real....lol i like realistic movement who wants a robot stiff
That's exactly how I want it to be.
For real!!! Does anyone believes that GTA5 will have Motionscan - too realistic on the PS3 and X-box360. That it will be a big jump, in terms of graphics, to the last game of the serie??? Yeah right. I just hope for stable framerate... and less crappy DLC, the next day the game is out...
If you start making the case that GTA V is too real and people jump on the bandwagon, it threatens the creative freedom that developers have to create a masterpiece (violent or not). Games are already being banned in countries based on violence, so developers don't need any more reason to cut back just because someone mentally unstable could potentially use their game as an excuse to go out and actually kill some people. Society is reading too much into the media these days and trying to protect our children and our minds from "evil doers" such as Grand Theft Auto. However, someone who was unfit for society in the first place does NOT need a game to go out and kill people. They'll do it anyway. We need to stop focusing so much on the entertainment industry corrupting our minds and making all of us into uncontrollable killers. This article does absolutely nothing to help promote creative freedom and as a fan of video games it's saddening to see fellow fans (namely the author of this article) actually support the idea that games are getting "too real."
They should just changed the name and call it Life In America
So why exactly is the article picture from Manhunt?
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.