Jump to content

TrialByFire

Members
  • Content Count

    1,450
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by TrialByFire


  1.  

    http://gta.wikia.com/Impound_Garage

     

    "In GTA V, Impound Garages return. If the player loses a vehicle that they have modified at a Los Santos Customs garage or ordered online, they will be able to retrieve the modified vehicle for a fee from the Impound Lot, so long as the vehicle is not destroyed."

     

    Either of you have the option to cite your sources next time you want to be persuasive. 

     

    First off, a wiki page alone, unless it actually cites a source, isn't persuasive of anything. I don't deny that wikis are useful (as I came to this site as part of the merger with Grand Theft Wiki), but they aren't necessarily discussion-ending.

     

    Secondly, I'm not trying to be persuasive of anything, I'm just stating that this message about impounded cars supposedly being crushed never appeared to me and that of all the vehicles I've abandoned (both customized and not) throughout the course of my second playthrough, the only vehicle that appears in the impound for me is the same black and orange Bati 800.

     

    If you really want some conclusive evidence, launch GTA Online, get in one of your insured vehicles, get a wanted level and let the police kill you. When you respawn look in the top left and read the message that it displays


  2.  

    I am fairly certain the first time your car gets impounded a tutorial box pops up telling you that if you do not get it back within a certain time they will crush it.

     

    No, never seen such a message.

     

    Well, I have. Definitely did not imagine it.


  3.  

    As opposed to gimmicy DLCs like undead/zombies/vampires I would much prefer R* to release a DLC like they did for GTA IV with a whole new story line perhaps set somewhere like San Fierro? Las Venturas?

     

    I doubt that will happen. It would take far too long and too much work to build the cities just for mere DLC.

     

    They are going to charge us for it presumably? If I am paying for a product I want it to be worth while

     

     

    They're gonna charge us for any DLC regardless of whether you consider it worthwhile or not, but this is irrelevant to the fact. You aren't taking into account the amount of time it takes to actually build these in-game worlds, which is a lot. That would be too much work over too long a period of time to create a mere DLC story. LS and Blaine County weren't churned out in a single weekend, it took years to build them.

     

    I wasn't arguing that point at all believe me I am acutely aware of how long it will take, I was just voicing my opinion of what I would like to see as a DLC, please put away your pitch fork


  4.  

    As opposed to gimmicy DLCs like undead/zombies/vampires I would much prefer R* to release a DLC like they did for GTA IV with a whole new story line perhaps set somewhere like San Fierro? Las Venturas?

     

    I doubt that will happen. It would take far too long and too much work to build the cities just for mere DLC.

     

    They are going to charge us for it presumably? If I am paying for a product I want it to be worth while


  5.  

    In single player you can go to the police station and get a car out of impound

     

    The impounding seems to stop after the first couple of vehicles you abandon, with the rest afterward just disappearing as per the series standard.

     

    If you don't retrieve them after a certain amount of time they get crushed


  6. I like the idea of being able to hop the fence so to speak and play as the police.

     

    I am not sure how well that would lend itself to the story mode but certainly in online that would be good maybe when you join a session you can select a 'criminal character' or a 'cop character' to play as and maybe if you play as a cop you would get notified of other players in the session committing crimes and you get like a last known whereabouts area on the map and you hunt them down.

     

    As for the female character thing, I do think that needs to happen all of the women I have spoken to who play GTA V have said 'It's great, absolutely brilliant, but you would have thought they might have made one of the playable characters a woman...'


  7.  

    Everyone acts as if Rockstar isn't going to release a PC version because it didn't come out at the same time as the console versions. Neither did GTA IV. Neither did San Andreas. Are you guys just not use to this yet?

     

    I'm sure many said the same thing in the wake of Red Dead Redemption's release. GTA V could very well follow in similar footsteps. I'd like to emphasize I said could, not that it definitely will. But it could. I hope it doesn't and I hope PC gamers get to mod the hell out of the game. I really do. But it could end up a console exclusive. And just for the record, I'm of the opinion that platform/console exclusivity is a dated concept that needs to be done away with entirely.

     

    Besides, what's the difference between worrying that it will never see a PC release and convincing oneself it will see a PC release when Rockstar haven't stated anything whatsoever to indicate that it will happen?

     

    Red Dead Redemption is a different franchise, Grand Theft Auto has a history of doing well on PC. There is no good reason for them not to release V for PC. Every other game in the franchise has been released for PC and they have all been released after their console counterparts so why oh why is there such a hoo-haa because GTA V wasn't released at the same time as the console versions? It will come, be patient, personally I would rather wait a couple of months longer for a better PC port than go out to the shop tomorrow and buy a half arsed port that runs shitty and is poorly optimised.


  8. I enjoyed playing as all the characters apart from Trevor really. Don't get me wrong, I love Trevor as a character but his missions just annoyed me a bit to be honest, I much preferred Michael and Franklins' missions. I wasn't sure I was going to like the whole character switching thing at first but it brings a whole new extremely useful dynamic to the game and I now can't imagine not having it.


  9.  

     

    Because if he is insane which judging by what you said previously is a matter of trivial relevance in the American justice system, then he should be dealt with accordingly. You can't just sentence a man to death because on the surface he seems to be no more than a remorseless murder, if there are underlying psychological issues then does the man not deserve to be treated for these issues?

    but you cant just treat every crime as a mental disorder. people need to be held accountable for their actions. not every crime is a result of a mental disorder. sometimes a person is just bad. and a person who has the mental capacity to plan this out so thoroughly for so long is NOT insane and unable to understand his actions 

     

    I am not saying every crime is committed by someone who has the potential to be declared insane at all what I am saying is in cases where it is likely that the person has some sort of mental problem you cannot treat them like any 'normal' criminal. This doesn't mean that will walk free it means that will be detained in an appropriate environment for their mental state. Also you could not be more wrong about what defines someone as insane or with mental problems. I have had many in depth conversations with people who are/have studied both this subject area in terms of its psychological implications and the legal implications of a crime being committed by someone who does not have all of their faculties. Just because they have planned it out does not necessarily mean that understand that the plans they have made are illegal or that once they have killed the person they will no longer be alive. Please do your homework before you make bold sweeping statements like that which are quite obviously factually incorrect.

    Well thats great that you've talked to experts, cuz so have I. one being a judge, who has devoted his entire life to studying criminal law. i think he knows what qualifies as legally insane. and thats the key here: LEGALLY insane. cuz legal definitions are all that matters in a court of law. medical definitions have no relevance. im sure medically he may have some inbalance. he would have to in order to want to kill so many people. but legally, i dont see that qualifying as insanity. for an insanity defense. He would have to have been incapable of Knowing the nature and quality of his act, Understanding the nature and quality of act, Distinguishing what is morally right and wrong, Distinguishing what is legally right and wrong. now granted thats the definition of Legal insanity in the state of California. but I'm sure it would be pretty close to the same in colorado...hopefully cuz i'll be sickened if he is found not guilty by reason of insanity. this guy deserves a lethal injection

     

    Hmmmm there seems to be a trend emerging on these forums recently. This whole debate could have been avoided if you had said what you meant from the start. However I am still not sure I agree with how the system works, surely it is not up for a legal professional to decide whether or not a potential criminals' mental state has deteriorated enough to warrant medical help as opposed to death row. That in my opinion, should be left up to a medical professional who will have a much better idea of what constitutes as mental able than a judge.  


  10. Oh shit sorry, that sentence got mixed up in my head, what I really meant to say was:

     

    Please Tun3r, please oh please say more idiotic shit that is clearly wrong just so I can bring you up on it and make myself feel good, for without your existence for me to undermine, mine would be a boring, futile pathetic excuse for a life. It's totally not as if I have things to do with my life like finish my degree or look for a job or become a productive member of society, no oh no Tun3r I live to correct you because lets not forget everyone Tun3r is the centre of the fucking universe and everything revolves around him!

     

    I apreciate your honesty, douche.

    That's quite alright, I am just so glad I have finally got that off my chest, it's been a big weight on my shoulders for weeks now but now it's out in the open I think I can move on with my life knowing that you are ware of how much of a God you are in my eyes, I only wish that someday I can be just as much of toolbag as you are


  11. Because if he is insane which judging by what you said previously is a matter of trivial relevance in the American justice system, then he should be dealt with accordingly. You can't just sentence a man to death because on the surface he seems to be no more than a remorseless murder, if there are underlying psychological issues then does the man not deserve to be treated for these issues?

    but you cant just treat every crime as a mental disorder. people need to be held accountable for their actions. not every crime is a result of a mental disorder. sometimes a person is just bad. and a person who has the mental capacity to plan this out so thoroughly for so long is NOT insane and unable to understand his actions 

     

    I am not saying every crime is committed by someone who has the potential to be declared insane at all what I am saying is in cases where it is likely that the person has some sort of mental problem you cannot treat them like any 'normal' criminal. This doesn't mean that will walk free it means that will be detained in an appropriate environment for their mental state. Also you could not be more wrong about what defines someone as insane or with mental problems. I have had many in depth conversations with people who are/have studied both this subject area in terms of its psychological implications and the legal implications of a crime being committed by someone who does not have all of their faculties. Just because they have planned it out does not necessarily mean that understand that the plans they have made are illegal or that once they have killed the person they will no longer be alive. Please do your homework before you make bold sweeping statements like that which are quite obviously factually incorrect.


  12. Oh shit sorry, that sentence got mixed up in my head, what I really meant to say was:

     

    Please Tun3r, please oh please say more idiotic shit that is clearly wrong just so I can bring you up on it and make myself feel good, for without your existence for me to undermine, mine would be a boring, futile pathetic excuse for a life. It's totally not as if I have things to do with my life like finish my degree or look for a job or become a productive member of society, no oh no Tun3r I live to correct you because lets not forget everyone Tun3r is the centre of the fucking universe and everything revolves around him!

    • Like 1
×