In fairness, GTA 6 has a built in level of hype that a long advertising campaign might not be as necessary as it would be for any other title this generation.
I saw a calendar of releases leading up to November. Apparently, no AAA games are releasing after October. I take it that everybody wants to avoid being overshadowed by GTA VI.
That tells us that VI will already date itself with betting an outdated take on contemporary Florida.
GTA owes most of it's success to the endless controversies it's sparked, it sounds diminishing but it's true, a bit of media controversy can make anything bigger than it actually is
It's the legacy and history attached to it, that's the main selling point in the modern era, to ask this is to ask why people still buy Zelda and Mario games despite Nintendo getting scummier and shittier as time goes on
GTA has had it's imitators but those simply failed to live up to expectation which caused them to die out, I think the closest they had was Saints Row but they shot themselves in the foot trying to distance themselves from the "GTA clone" label which caused most of their fanbase to abandon the series by the fourth game, even by the third people were iffy.
No, I'm on the same boat, Battleye came out a couple months after buying Stand. Haven't tried Cherax yet, but it's apparantly the only one able to run in the new version of the game.
Feels like you guys are implying the games don't even hold any value beyond brand recognition. Rockstar is one of what, two or three companies that can still make a competent open world sandbox? (Sure, RDR2 is pretty old now but it's still the nearest point of reference and it's a fantastic game.) Regardless of how people feel about things like GTA Online or whatever doomer mentality is in place for the next game, nobody ever came close to offer what they do. Almost every GTA game they released in three decades dwarfs the previous one in scope and ambition. Whatever competition showed up over the years dies out because they lack the resources, or the know-how, or the commitment to actually outperform Rockstar, or all of those things combined. Cities, characters, soundtracks, vehicles, activities, visuals, Rockstar has ALWAYS been very consistent at delivering at all of those things. They've earned the glazing they get on the internet today, and while they haven't done a lot lately to keep earning it, they'd have a solid legacy to rest on if the studio suddenly went belly up tomorrow.
You just had to be there, really.
That's not exactly what I'm saying to make it clear, I was more trying to explain why it has that status now to this day, it's the legacy that follows it and the controversy the brand has accumulated combined with their output. I just believe that the controversy the series has props it up to a major degree, simply due to how massive it was and how much it's brought up in discussions about GTA and Rockstar as a whole.
I'm a little late but It's actually R1 R2 L1 R2 Left Down Right Up Left Down Right Up, or R1 R2 L1 R2 Left Down Right Up Left Down Down Left or R1 R2 L1 R2 Left Down Right Up Left Down Down Down
This is absolutely what happened, they resented the "GTA Clone" shit and started trying to set themselves apart by making SR the 'zany hijinks crime sandbox' game, and it actually did sort of work for SR3 [I believe SR3 was the best selling out of the series altogether?] but it started to backfire as soon as they made SR 4 essentially a fucking superhero game where you are unironically the President of the United States. They still had a chance to come back IMO, Volition did, but they squandered it entirely with the SR Reboot in 2022 that really just... didn't appeal to anybody, because they tried to appeal to a demographic that doesn't actually play games that aren't walking simulators. SR was the only series that had a snowball's chance in hell of competing and while they were never going to have the budget Rockstar does [or at least I doubt it], for a while there, they punched well above their weight class. SR1 and SR2 are great games and I'd argue, they represented a refinement of everything that made San Andreas great, they did their homework and learned from their competitors, and all of the bullshit nonsense about being a 'clone' was a moot point anyway because the first two games had more than enough to set themselves apart. Just for one example, GTA only had one game where the protagonist was in an actual street gang and not a 'fixer' for the mob or various other gangs, whereas with SR, that was always the focus until they started doing the wild hijinks shit.
Incorrect, they changed it to that in Vice City and San Andreas, wherein there were 3 weapons cheats on account of the larger number of weapons. The guys I was replying to were talking about GTA III, which only had one weapon cheat and it started with two R2's
I want to say because it came out at the right time within the right circumstances. @Would is correct. Consider the video game landscape within the 90s, games were catering to more mature audiences thanks to shifting consumer wants. Think going from the Golden Age of Hollywood from noir, bloodless movies like Mildred Pierce, Double Indemnity and The Big Sleep from the 40s to gangster geared, violent films like Scarface, Training Day and Pulp Fiction in the 90s.
four years is not enough time.
Agreed, they could've had Ned Luke killed. That goes for anybody that does swatting. Waste of resources for a "prank."
They tried to swat Ned Luke of all people. He seems to be a pretty decent dude and is a fan.