Grand Theft Auto... a dead end?

[ManekiNeko]

In a recent episode of G4TV.com, the hosts quoted Nintendo as saying that Grand Theft Auto was "a dead end" for the video game industry... then mocked this statement by reminding the audience that the series has sold sixteen million copies.

While this may indeed be the case, it's worth pointing out that in today's industry, a popular series of video games never STAYS popular for very long. Tomb Raider is an excellent example... it sold millions of copies when it was first introduced, but now, it's been almost completely forgotten by gamers.

The game playing public is much more fickle than it used to be... mascots and even series of games just don't have the staying power they once did. Even twin Playstation mascots Crash Bandicoot and Spyro the Dragon don't have nearly as much influence as they did in 1997.

Tommy Vercetti and the Grand Theft Auto series is quite popular NOW, but both this greasy thug and his game could find themselves in the trash with all those other disposable franchises in just a few short years.

JR

[Neil Koch]

I think GTA has a future... if you look at it from the first game to VC it's a huge step, unlike stuff like Tomb Raider which never even adressed the series' core problem of crap control.

It probably won't be hugely popular as other games like True Crime come out, and the whole drive/run/shoot fad kind of wears off. There just seems to be a big genre every few years and right now GTA is the poster boy for it.

[Captain Wrong]

Why are you so obsessed with this game?

Just curious.

[Brian_Provinciano]

I love GTA, and have been playing it since the originals. However, I used to play it so much, not doing missions, just running around commiting chaos. After a while, that wore off, but I got much more into the missions. I've pretty much just been playing missions ever since, and when I finish the game, I start from the beginning again--it does have a lot of replay value with the actual missions, not just the free roaming chaos.

I'm positive the next GTA will be great, but I can see a possiblity that in the future, the general public might grow tired of it, like Crash, Tomb Raider, etc. I'm sure the next GTA will be a HUGE hit though.

[Oobgarm]

The key factor here is improvements and tweaks. As long as Rockstar keeps the formula and adds and tweaks it in new and exciting ways, then the series will have staying power.

You give weak examples, Tomb Raider was stagnant for years, it never evolved. Crash and Spyro both enjoyed trememndous success when Naughty Dog and Insomniac had them, respectively. Now they're in the hands of sub-par folks (in comparison) and they just don't have that fun factor they used to.

Oh yeah, enjoying the Rockstar hat I gave you? :P

[MarioAllStar2600]

Yes but not for me. Kids love killing, sex, stealing, and everything else illegal in that game. No matter how crappy the game gets (plot wise) kids are going to keep playing it causeits something they are forbidden from. I though Vice City wasn't much fun, cause it lost it's shock value but alot of people argue with me. So yes, the game has a future, but not for someone like me who thinks the plot is becoming kind of played out.

PS- I still enjoyed Vice City but it's not a game I would spend $50 dollars on.

[ManekiNeko]

Why are you so obsessed with this game?

I have a tendency to bitch endlessly about games and industry trends that annoy me. Ask any of my friends... I poked fun at Tomb Raider and Lara Croft's big boobies for years when it was popular.

My feelings aside, I still think this is a legitimate question.

You give weak examples, Tomb Raider was stagnant for years, it never evolved. Crash and Spyro both enjoyed trememndous success when Naughty Dog and Insomniac had them, respectively. Now they're in the hands of sub-par folks (in comparison) and they just don't have that fun factor they used to.

Although you do make some good points, I don't think the examples I gave were necessarily bad ones. Tomb Raider, Crash Bandicoot, and Spyro the Dragon all had a lot of influence in the industry when they were first introduced... but neither Sony nor the designers of these games did enough to keep them in the public eye.

Whatever your opinion of Sony, it's hard to deny that the company has never really supported its mascots and system-selling games the way that its competitors have. Characters like Sonic and Mario endure for many years, while the properties Sony uses to promote its systems fade away quickly.

It's been interesting watching Sony over the years... their business strategy has been entirely different than Nintendo's or Atari's, yet they've been just as successful as either of them. I'm most surprised by the Playstation's lack of an enduring mascot... Sony was convinced from the start that they never needed one, and when you look at all the systems they've sold, you can't help but admit that they were right.

Oh yeah, enjoying the Rockstar hat I gave you?

Oh yeah, that. Um, er, thanks?

JR

[ianoid]

Great games die a long, slow, painful death.

See Pitfall.

[Captain Wrong]

Why are you so obsessed with this game?

I have a tendency to bitch endlessly about games and industry trends that annoy me. Ask any of my friends... I poked fun at Tomb Raider and Lara Croft's big boobies for years when it was popular.

My feelings aside, I still think this is a legitimate question.

Fair enough.

As to your point about Sony not supporting mascots or system selling games, I think that could have more to do with those things being more often than not a third party thing. I can see where it might be in Sony's interest to keep some of these properties in the limelight, but if they don't own them, I can also see why they wouldn't really care either. I suppose they feel like if one property drops off another will come up to fill the void, and that seems to be the case so far.

I dunno, maybe the day of an official system mascot are over.

(BTW, I know Crash was an unofficial mascot, but has Sony ever really declared an "official" mascot?)

[evilmess]

Will R* be able to milk the GTA franchise like Nintendo has done with oh... say... Mario?

The short answer is NO!

GTA Golf, probably not, GTA 2525, maybe, could be interesting to jack spaceships and play in a future GTA setting but the whole crime thing is just about played out so where does is go from there?

At some point I'm sure we'll see the GTA machine peak and my geuss is that we'll see another GTA (or two) in the next generation but unless it takes on an RPG element and or goes MMOG we can't really expect it to have a spin-off life like Mario.

[Spartacus]

Rockstar is challenged with keeping all the things that made so many, like myself, truly enjoy the game, while changing it enough to dodge the one trick pony (AKA Tomb Raider) analogy. I think there's enough room for improvement to pull it off. A new town, a new story and star power voice acting won't be enough. Proof is that I enjoy GTA III over Vice City, for all it's "improvements". I thought GTA III was dark and gritty and perfectly suited to 'role playing' a thug. I also liked the fact that the gangs never forgave you and hunted you down mercilessly when on their turf. Which made me 'hate' them so much, I felt compelled to kill any I found, on site. I loved the feeling of freedom this game gave and hope the next game map is huge! I hope to find random events sprinkled through out the game that have nothing to do with the storyline but when I 'discover' them I think to myself "WOW, I never thought I'd see THAT in a video game!" I loved doing random acts of violence and hope the NP's reactions are unpredictable! I hope to see and feel more fear and more anger. I guess I have a lot of hopes for this game. We'll just have to wait and see what Rockstar does.

[ManekiNeko]

As to your point about Sony not supporting mascots or system selling games, I think that could have more to do with those things being more often than not a third party thing. I can see where it might be in Sony's interest to keep some of these properties in the limelight, but if they don't own them, I can also see why they wouldn't really care either. I suppose they feel like if one property drops off another will come up to fill the void, and that seems to be the case so far.

I dunno, maybe the day of an official system mascot are over.

(BTW, I know Crash was an unofficial mascot, but has Sony ever really declared an "official" mascot?)

You know, I really should have started this discussion in another thread. I think it could spark some really entertaining debate and insightful observations about the industry... but I'm hesitant to start the thread myself as it could easily be misinterpreted as an anti-Sony thread. "Oh, it's just ManekiNeko, bitching about Sony just like he always does. I'll pass on this one."

Anyway, you ARE right about many of the Playstation's psuedo-mascots being created by third parties. That leads me to wonder... why exactly did Sony themselves not create a mascot for the Playstation? For that matter, why is the Playstation almost entirely driven by third party support, rather than being supported by the company that designed the system?

My suspicion is that Sony wanted the Playstation to be more dynamic than other game systems. They didn't want it to be associated with any one character for more than two years, as this would result in both the system and the mascot being inseperable in the minds of most players. When the mascot started to falter (which is precisely what happened to Toshinden's Sofia and Lara Croft), the Playstation would be dragged down with it... which is why Sony cut them loose after juicing all the publicity it could get out of them.

Sony could also have been worried about the success of the Playstation in its early years. That sounds pretty ridiculous NOW, but think back to 1995, when the Playstation was new to the market and Sony's most memorable releases were awful games like Sewer Shark and The Last Action Hero. There were signs that Sony was approaching the video game market timidly... games like WipeOut and Toshinden were licensed out to Sony's competitors, which is a pretty big deal when you consider that they were the Playstation's first killer apps.

This could also be the reason that Sony was so hesitant to adopt its own mascot... it would be far better for a third party to take that risk, rather than pouring big bucks into creating or publicizing a character that wouldn't catch on in the United States. Sony could have adopted any one of a number of promising video game characters as the Playstation mascot, including Robbit from Jumping Flash (probably the most appropriate one, considering Sony's fondness for 3D) and Hermie Hopperhead. However, if any of those characters wound up being failures, the Playstation itself could have gone swirling down the drain along with them.

JR

[Captain Wrong]

You know, I really should have started this discussion in another thread. I think it could spark some really entertaining debate and insightful observations about the industry... but I'm hesitant to start the thread myself as it could easily be misinterpreted as an anti-Sony thread. "Oh, it's just ManekiNeko, bitching about Sony just like he always does. I'll pass on this one."

Tell you what, I agree with you, so I'll start it.

[sabre2922]

I luv the series even played the "old" 2-D ones way before it was cool to have the latest GTA
anyway I have to say that I dont like the direction that the current addition San Andreas is heading I MEAN DO WE REALLY NEED OR WANT HOUSE BREAKINS IN ANY FREAKIN GAME THAT IS JUST NOT COOL
I do still play and enjoy parts 3 and vice city on both Xbox and PS2 although I am hoping that part 4 will return this series to its GANGSTER (i.e. the Godfather) roots rather than the GANGSTA direction of San Andreas although ILL hold final judgment until the game is released

[jerkov]

Yes I think it has a future. Like a few others here, I've been a loyal GTA fan way back when the first one hit the PC. My friends and I got a hold of the demo all those years ago before the game was released, I think you had a 5 minute timer and the game would stop. So we would cause as much mayhem for 5 minutes as possible and then it'd be the next person's turn. Great fun. Yeah, the series has really become mainstream since then, but some of us have been here since the humble beginnings.

Why don't I think it will ever get old? Because it's the closest thing I can to causing total mayhem in real life. You're unleashed in a virtual city, allowed to do whatever the hell you want. I also enjoy the missions very much, gives you a chance to interact in so many different ways with the city. The only limits are the limits of your imagination. As long as Rockstar keeps throwing in huge, different cities, and a large variety of new vehicles, I'll keep coming back.

I really don't know why these games are so despised by so many people on here.

[little arms]

Sure as long as the mainstream stays interested in it--- im finally playing it for the first time(im a few years behind) and its really not that sweet---the missions anyway-

[sabre2922]

I also have to point out that MANHUNT has made just as much if not a much bigger impression on me that GTA3 did when I first played it.
While not entirely original it certainly FEELS more original than any game released since GTA3.
I used to think that Rockstar simply got lucky with GTA3 but after experiencing the horrific masterpiece that is Manhunt I have very high expectations for Rockstars future and would easily include them in the top 3 Developers along side the likes of KONAMI and CAPCOM.

[dmhawkmoon]

I said NO because as a game, GTA is pretty sloppy and if this kind of genre survives the long run, I don't think you'll see it as "GTA" in 5-10 years. I don't have much faith that these guys will put out better versions that will convince people to buy them one after another. The shock value will wear off, too.

[EnemyZero]

as long as there are angry people who want to do go on killing spree's, steal cars, pick up ho's , and get drugs.... without the consequences...then GTA will sell - therefore, it has a future -

[petewhitley]

as long as there are angry people who want to do go on killing spree's, steal cars, pick up ho's , and get drugs.... without the consequences...then GTA will sell - therefore, it has a future -

And as long as there are gamers who want envelope-pushing storylines, innovative licensed soundtracks, high production values, and open-ended gameplay ... without having to apologize to holier-than-thou prudes who haven't actually played the game ... then GTA will sell - therefore, it has a future.