• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

GTA V has gone gold.

It doesn't just mean that. It is also a rather... ummm... indelicate term for female genitalia.
I'm sure there's multiple meanings for many words in many dialecs. But I doubt the clothing store is named after female genitalia as opposed to being "crap" clothing.


Precisely. This thread has thoroughly killed any remaining humour left in my Bawsaqs.

We were discussing the humorous references Rockstar North make in the GTA series. A few people were curious about the Bawsaq reference so I explained it, then I continued the discussion with some more examples of the developer's humour. If you don't find the humour in GTA to your liking that's fair enough but we're free to enjoy it among ourselves.
 
I'm sure there's multiple meanings for many words in many dialecs. But I doubt the clothing store is named after female genitalia as opposed to being "crap" clothing.

I'm pretty sure they are aware of and are employing both meanings.

If you don't find the humour in GTA to your liking that's fair enough but we're free to enjoy it among ourselves.

I'm not sure where you got that idea from.
 
I never knew "Baw" means "Balls" in Scotland or any other country. You could still very easily put the 2 together, Bawsaq sounds close enough to ballsack without needing to say it with an accent - you can get the concept.


As for someone trying to argue that gash isn't a reference to a womans spadger, what world are you from?
 
http://imgur.com/a/yEjKM

ikpTk5wScW8Hx.gif

HYh7OuwNzspJK6t3tiLcOTbcHIXYUtYEDp7XjGJnQdxdZ--ul2-e3vrrIqLFXyP8Pg0np6pnqDua39iGyMQh_-OofE0vQYfFsXlBt42uwSDtvzAhOrn9VueC1Q
 
I never knew "Baw" means "Balls" in Scotland or any other country. You could still very easily put the 2 together, Bawsaq sounds close enough to ballsack without needing to say it with an accent - you can get the concept.


As for someone trying to argue that gash isn't a reference to a womans spadger, what world are you from?

tumblr_lthg6vjPS21ql141xo1_400.gif
 
When does the first reviews usually shows up for a game close to release? 1 or 2 days before it hits the stores, or it's pretty much always after it's released? I'm drawing a blank and I'm ashamed. lol
 
I was debating whether to get the digital download version of GTA V, or the standard release, then I decided that GTA V will probably never leave my PS3 anyway. I bought a new one just for it, specifically in the event that my older PS3 craps out.

Just over 2 weeks, now.
 
So I was down town where I live in Spain pretty rural area and noticed this shop selling some PC stuff. I went inside and noticed he had games as well. Had a chat with this guy and it was hard due to the language barrier but he got that I was interested in GTA 5.

After some confusion he wrote down the days he was hoping to get in store which was the 11th-13th mostly PS3 but some X360. I don't know how legit he is but it's only a 30 minute drive so I'll head down there next week.

If and I mean if I do actually get a copy I will put some gameplay up for download. Not YouTube though I'll use some sharing service so people can download the videos to PC. I'll also do screens of the landscapes no story or spoilers.
 
So I was down town where I live in Spain pretty rural area and noticed this shop selling some PC stuff. I went inside and noticed he had games as well. Had a chat with this guy and it was hard due to the language barrier but he got that I was interested in GTA 5.

After some confusion he wrote down the days he was hoping to get in store which was the 11th-13th mostly PS3 but some X360. I don't know how legit he is but it's only a 30 minute drive so I'll head down there next week.

If and I mean if I do actually get a copy I will put some gameplay up for download. Not YouTube though I'll use some sharing service so people can download the videos to PC. I'll also do screens of the landscapes no story or spoilers.
Remember to link them as links, not as images.
So people on black out can avoid them and still join the discussions. :P
 
I think Dark Souls II will beat it quite easily.

Nah, GTA V has the massive hype behind it and IF it can even deliver half of what we all expect, it has it in the bag IMO.
The ambition behind the game is just ridiculous and puts many devs to shame.

Which aspects do you think will make it good enough to earn any of those titles? From what I can tell it's another iteration on a winning formula, but I haven't noticed anything particularly innovative about this entry.

For me it's just how much stuff is added ( wildlife, proper under water exploration, the most vehicles/ weapons ever in a gta game ( SA had a lot ), diversity of the weapons/vehicles, RPG elements and being able to stealth in an open world game, massive world THAT also is gonna be very detailed, the main missions and how it works ( choose how to rob banks, stealth or all out action), massive customisation, fully fledged and detailed side activities and who knows what else it has.

Sure some games offer some of those features but 0 games offer ALL of them in one game and that to me is what makes it special ( and considering the budget of the game, it will all be high quality stuff, from the physics, shooting, gameplay, driving, characters etc...)
 
Game of the year, game of the generation, game of all time, pretty sure it's not too far fetched saying GTA V could become all of those.

Which aspects do you think will make it good enough to earn any of those titles? From what I can tell it's another iteration on a winning formula, but I haven't noticed anything particularly innovative about this entry.
 
It'll probably be my GOTY (though Last of Us is a tough contender).
Game of the Generation is a steeper road, however.

Whatever the case, i'm just glad this gen is over and we can move on.
 
If they nail the mission variety and the controls, then this will be one of the defining games of this generation, much like how SA was for the last generation.
 
If they nail the mission variety and the controls, then this will be one the defining games of this generation, much like how SA was for the last generation.

Its all about execution. GTA IV had tons of stuff that looked good on paper like bowling and golf, but the execution sucked. Hopefully they get it right this time.
 
Its all about execution. GTA IV had tons of stuff that looked good on paper like bowling and golf, but the execution sucked. Hopefully they get it right this time.

That's the thing, bigger is not better. In fact, it usually brings the opposite since as the scope of your game expands, your ideas lose focus. I was really refreshed by the tightness of Dark Souls when I played it, since it's an open world game that really felt like everything in the world was interesting and worth exploring. It wasn't gigantic like Skyrim, but it emphasized quality over quantity. I've felt the GTA games going the other direction since III, and I've played all of them other than the Episodes from Liberty City (I just ordered a PS3 disc of this actually) and Vice City Stories, so I really need something fresh to keep me interested.
 
That's the thing, bigger is not better. In fact, it usually brings the opposite since as the scope of your game expands, your ideas lose focus. I was really refreshed by the tightness of Dark Souls when I played it, since it's an open world game that really felt like everything in the world was interesting and worth exploring. It wasn't gigantic like Skyrim, but it emphasized quality over quantity. I've felt the GTA games going the other direction since III, and I've played all of them other than the Episodes from Liberty City (I just ordered a PS3 disc of this actually) and Vice City Stories, so I really need something fresh to keep me interested.

I always scratch my head at this argument, because i think it's an oversimplification of the issue.
Bigger is not always better, we agree on that, but the opposite is also untrue, not everything has to go for the laser focus experience.

An empty space has very much a time and a place in the pacing of an open world game, a game which is meant to sell you on the vastness and mystery of a land, such as Shadow of the Colossus, would be total crap if it removed the empty spaces to keep the Dark Soul's density and pacing.

Much in the same way, if you create a desert or a forest that is meant to convey a sense of disorientation, you can't put it directly attached to the city with an overload of breadcrumbs connecting the two.

Empty space in an open world is necessary to convey a certain type of pacing, even in the designing of a map.
When you travel from "coast to coast" in an Elder Scrolls, you're supposed to feel like you've crossed a nation, it has got to have some empty space without enemies, loot and other crap distracting you.
It's a very different goal than something like Dark Souls, infact.

I would argue that Skyrim doesn't have ENOUGH empty spaces, since every two steps a were-rabbit is out to get you.

Speaking of GTA, more over, the huge map has even more sense, since they're trying to sell 3 different characters that should live far apart from each other (metaphorically and geographically) with the addendum of needing enough space to give planes some sense.
 
You opened my eyes to the truth! :D

can-i-get-an-amen-kitty.jpg


XD

I always scratch my head at this argument, because i think it's an oversimplification of the issue.
Bigger is not always better, we agree on that, but the opposite is also untrue, not everything has to go for the laser focus experience.

An empty space has very much a time and a place in the pacing of an open world game, a game which is meant to sell you on the vastness and mystery of a land, such as Shadow of the Colossus, would be total crap if it removed the empty spaces to keep the Dark Soul's density and pacing.

Much in the same way, if you create a desert or a forest that is meant to convey a sense of disorientation, you can't put it directly attached to the city with an overload of breadcrumbs connecting the two.

Empty space in an open world is necessary to convey a certain type of pacing, even in the designing of a map.
When you travel from "coast to coast" in an Elder Scrolls, you're supposed to feel like you've crossed a nation, it has got to have some empty space without enemies, loot and other crap distracting you.
It's a very different goal than something like Dark Souls, infact.

I would argue that Skyrim doesn't have ENOUGH empty spaces, since every two steps a were-rabbit is out to get you.

Speaking of GTA, more over, the huge map has even more sense, since they're trying to sell 3 different characters that should live far apart from each other (metaphorically and geographically) with the addendum of needing enough space to give planes some sense.

Don't forget those RDR deserts. R* had a nice balance of activities with space.
 
I always scratch my head at this argument, because i think it's an oversimplification of the issue.
Bigger is not always better, we agree on that, but the opposite is also untrue, not everything has to go for the laser focus experience.

An empty space has very much a time and a place in the pacing of an open world game, a game which is meant to sell you on the vastness and mystery of a land, such as Shadow of the Colossus, would be total crap if it removed the empty spaces to keep the Dark Soul's density and pacing.

Much in the same way, if you create a desert or a forest that is meant to convey a sense of disorientation, you can't put it directly attached to the city with an overload of breadcrumbs connecting the two.

Empty space in an open world is necessary to convey a certain type of pacing, even in the designing of a map.
When you travel from "coast to coast" in an Elder Scrolls, you're supposed to feel like you've crossed a nation, it has got to have some empty space without enemies, loot and other crap distracting you.
It's a very different goal than something like Dark Souls, infact.

I would argue that Skyrim doesn't have ENOUGH empty spaces, since every two steps a were-rabbit is out to get you.

Speaking of GTA, more over, the huge map has even more sense, since they're trying to sell 3 different characters that should live far apart from each other (metaphorically and geographically) with the addendum of needing enough space to give planes some sense.

I didn't say I was opposed to empty spaces. I loved the loneliness of your entry to Mexico in Red Dead Redemption, and the underworld awe-factor of Ash Lake in Dark Souls. Big spaces and big worlds are fine as long as they're interesting, I just find that in most titles a huge world is not really a positive thing for gameplay.
 
I didn't say I was opposed to empty spaces. I loved the loneliness of your entry to Mexico in Red Dead Redemption, and the underworld awe-factor of Ash Lake in Dark Souls. Big spaces and big worlds are fine as long as they're interesting, I just find that in most titles a huge world is not really a positive thing for gameplay.

I agree with UrbanRat's overall point, but I think you're spot on in your last sentence about Just Cause 2. Game world was huge and beautiful, but I just felt like it was so cookie cutter boring. No area felt unique. Seemed like the same cars, the same traffic, the same people walking around doing the same things.

Unique areas are really what make something memorable. San Andreas was huge, but had these very distinct feelings depending on the area, and what made the wilderness feel so isolated (like when CJ gets dropped off in the middle of nowhere after the Los Santos chapter), was that you had Los Santos as this over-bearing inescapable city -- getting shot at at every turn, congested, busy.
 
Top Bottom