[MultiTheft]

San Andreas had the best box art out of any other GTA games, no doubt!

[Atadritaata]

QUOTE (MultiTheft @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 16:40)

San Andreas had the best box art out of any other GTA games, no doubt!

gta iv was way better imo

[TheFIREFLY]

QUOTE (Atadritaata @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 17:54)

QUOTE (MultiTheft @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 16:40) San Andreas had the best box art out of any other GTA games, no doubt! gta iv was way better imo

Well I get most memories from Vice City, it was something I always loved looking at, bright colors. Loved it, SA isn't bad either, I don't like IV's cover at all

[FRA1Z3R]

QUOTE (reform @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 14:43)

QUOTE (FRA1Z3R @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 14:12) QUOTE (reform @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 13:06) QUOTE (FRA1Z3R @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 12:54) It doesn't really matter, the only way we could know for sure is if R* answered the question. Might be wrong, Might be right, but the stubbornness you speak of goes both ways. It would not be fact unless R* answered the question, so your argument has holes in it. Instead of talking around in circles on this, lets just accept that most box arts had the main character on it and 1 or 2 didn't, done. That's quite the fallacious paradox of a statement. You start off by saying that either case could be true and that it would need R* confirmation to prove that either party is correct, but then you pretty much end with "but let's accept that I'm right and then stop talking about it" To say that "most" box art had the main character on after your opening sentence is a contradiction in sentiment and logic. You can twist my words all you want, but you know what I meant. It was my opinion that it was him. Why does it matter if its him or not anyway? I dont know if it is a language barrier or what but I never said nor did I imply that you should accept that I am right. I even admitted I could be wrong or I could be right. This whole thing got turned into a lot more than it should've. If you feel the need to discuss this further, maybe you should go to the San Andreas forum. There's no twisting of your words involved here at all. You said: "It doesn't really matter, the only way we could know for sure is if R* answered the question." (i.e. - Neither side of the argument can be proven) Then you said: "lets just accept that most box arts had the main character on it and 1 or 2 didn't, done." (i.e. - Everyone should discard their opinion and adopt yours). It's a cut and dry contradiction and logical fallacy. It's not that you're not entitled to your opinion, it's that you covertly try to spin it as fact.

Believe what you will, but I did not mean that everyone should "adopt" my opinion. By me saying that is not what I meant, you can kick that sh*t right out of your head. What do we (referring to myself and others) need to accept? The Fact that there are main characters on most of the covers, no characters at all on the GTA advanced Box, no characters on GTA 1, 2, and London box. Some boxes feature antagonist, some feature protagonist<--- For Clarity; I am counting EFLC, some feature supporting characters. Should this have been necessary to explain? Personally, I dont believe so.

Don't take it out on me because you misinterpret what I say. All I was trying to do was sweep a meaningless and endless argument out the door. But you had to be a "cut and dry" ass-clown who thinks he has something to prove. Also, the only Fallacy here is with the ones who try and blatantly pass their opinion as fact, maybe you should shift your focus to them, in a PM.

If you want to talk about the Box art for GTAV, go to the GTAV Box Art thread, and any other box art you want to discuss, visit the appropriate forum. This thread is discuss the art work pictured.

[reform]

QUOTE (FRA1Z3R @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 17:50)

QUOTE (reform @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 13:06) There's no twisting of your words involved here at all. You said: "It doesn't really matter, the only way we could know for sure is if R* answered the question." (i.e. - Neither side of the argument can be proven) Then you said: "lets just accept that most box arts had the main character on it and 1 or 2 didn't, done." (i.e. - Everyone should discard their opinion and adopt yours). It's a cut and dry contradiction and logical fallacy. It's not that you're not entitled to your opinion, it's that you covertly try to spin it as fact. Believe what you will, but I did not mean that everyone should "adopt" my opinion. By me saying that is not what I meant, you can kick that sh*t right out of your head. What do we (referring to myself and others) need to accept? The Fact that there are main characters on most of the covers, no characters at all on the GTA advanced Box, no characters on GTA 1, 2, and London box. Some boxes feature antagonist, some feature protagonist<--- For Clarity; I am counting EFLC, some feature supporting characters. Should this have been necessary to explain? Personally, I dont believe so. Don't take it out on me because you misinterpret what I say. All I was trying to do was sweep a meaningless and endless argument out the door. But you had to be a "cut and dry" ass-clown who thinks he has something to prove. Also, the only Fallacy here is with the ones who try and blatantly pass their opinion as fact, maybe you should shift your focus to them, in a PM.

I don't appreciate the needless insults.

"The Main Character" and "main characters" imply two quite different things. The former being the character we play as, and the latter being a range of prominent characters across the cast.

You stated as fact that "The" main character appears on most box art, which is at the very least unproven, if not completely untrue.

I think it was very necessary for you to explain. Nobody at all would deny that most of the box art features "characters" from the games. I would never have said anything if this was what you had actually said.

This post has been edited by reform on Monday, Jan 28 2013, 18:21

[deffpony]

Seems like you guys are arguing over trivial details IMO

[productofboom]

Whoah, ive been sick over the past 3 days, new info is nice

[reform]

QUOTE (deffpony @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 18:33)

Seems like you guys are arguing over trivial details IMO

It's the internet!

[deffpony]

QUOTE (reform @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 13:36)

QUOTE (deffpony @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 18:33) Seems like you guys are arguing over trivial details IMO It's the internet!

Tusce

[Snake Without a Tongue]

QUOTE (deffpony @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 18:40)

Tusce

Stanley Tucci.

And I liked Vice City's artwork the best. I think R* has made a terrible mistake this generation by not having period piece settings.

[whatsstrength]

QUOTE (deffpony @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 13:40)

QUOTE (reform @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 13:36) QUOTE (deffpony @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 18:33) Seems like you guys are arguing over trivial details IMO It's the internet! Tusce

Dude, I'm so sorry but.

*touche*

To correct and serve...

[reform]

QUOTE (Snake Without a Tongue @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 18:43)

QUOTE (deffpony @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 18:40) Tusce Stanley Tucci. And I liked Vice City's artwork the best. I think R* has made a terrible mistake this generation by not having period piece settings.

What era could they have done though?

It's easy to do a present-day setting as they can reference things that are current/recent. Especially if they're doing a new game every 4-5 years. That's a lot of time for things to change.

Setting another game in the 80's or 90's is hard to do without retreading old ground, even if they did a new location.

And I don't think games set in the 60's or 70's would satisfy most of the playerbase these days.

And in-the-future settings are hard to pull off.

[whatsstrength]

QUOTE (reform @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 13:58)

QUOTE (Snake Without a Tongue @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 18:43) QUOTE (deffpony @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 18:40) Tusce Stanley Tucci. And I liked Vice City's artwork the best. I think R* has made a terrible mistake this generation by not having period piece settings. What era could they have done though? It's easy to do a present-day setting as they can reference things that are current/recent. Especially if they're doing a new game every 4-5 years. That's a lot of time for things to change. Setting another game in the 80's or 90's is hard to do without retreading old ground, even if they did a new location. And I don't think games set in the 60's or 70's would satisfy most of the playerbase these days. And in-the-future settings are hard to pull off.

I think the 70's is about as far back as they could go before losing all of the really powerful muscle cars and high speed chases. It's just a matter of what part of the country was the icon of the 70's. Florida is a good candidate, but we already had that for VC.

Come to think of it, the early 70s would be a great time period for GTA, what with all of those soldiers returning from Vietnam. Or maybe taking a vigilante-type approach to law enforcement after major events like the Kent State shootings.

This post has been edited by whatsstrength on Monday, Jan 28 2013, 19:05

[I Shot The Sheriff]

Jan 28, 2008, we got the GTA IV cover. But Jan 28, 2013, we don't get the GTA V cover, 5 years after.

I had a hope for that

[theomenofficial]

QUOTE (I Shot The Sheriff @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 20:09)

Jan 28, 2008, we got the GTA IV cover. But Jan 28, 2013, we don't get the GTA V cover, 5 years after. I had a hope for that

I know, I came back from Mosque hyped for the cover..
When I came back, I returned disappointed.

[whatsstrength]

QUOTE (theomenofficial @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 14:10)

QUOTE (I Shot The Sheriff @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 20:09) Jan 28, 2008, we got the GTA IV cover. But Jan 28, 2013, we don't get the GTA V cover, 5 years after.  I had a hope for that  I know, I came back from Mosque hyped for the cover.. When I came back, I returned disappointed.

The day isn't over yet. And there's always tomorrow, or the next day, or the day after that, or....

[NYC PATROL]

QUOTE (I Shot The Sheriff @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 15:09)

Jan 28, 2008, we got the GTA IV cover. But Jan 28, 2013, we don't get the GTA V cover, 5 years after.  I had a hope for that

http://kotaku.com/327472/gta-iv-box-art-revealed

Nov. 2007 Cover

Jan. 2008 Release Announcement

sorry i just like to keep the facts straight

This post has been edited by NYC PATROL on Monday, Jan 28 2013, 19:18

[reform]

QUOTE (whatsstrength @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 19:03)

QUOTE (reform @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 13:58) QUOTE (Snake Without a Tongue @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 18:43) QUOTE (deffpony @ Monday, Jan 28 2013, 18:40) Tusce Stanley Tucci. And I liked Vice City's artwork the best. I think R* has made a terrible mistake this generation by not having period piece settings. What era could they have done though? It's easy to do a present-day setting as they can reference things that are current/recent. Especially if they're doing a new game every 4-5 years. That's a lot of time for things to change. Setting another game in the 80's or 90's is hard to do without retreading old ground, even if they did a new location. And I don't think games set in the 60's or 70's would satisfy most of the playerbase these days. And in-the-future settings are hard to pull off. I think the 70's is about as far back as they could go before losing all of the really powerful muscle cars and high speed chases. It's just a matter of what part of the country was the icon of the 70's. Florida is a good candidate, but we already had that for VC. Come to think of it, the early 70s would be a great time period for GTA, what with all of those soldiers returning from Vietnam. Or maybe taking a vigilante-type approach to law enforcement after major events like the Kent State shootings.

Yeah I'd actually quite enjoy a 70's GTA, which is why I said "most" people wouldn't want it as I'm aware we're in the minority.

There's loads of classic 70's TV and films to draw from too.

[Moazzam Mughal]

it seems that R* is about 2 announce something bigg

[Buffalo Soldier]

In terms of Art Work;

Vice City Stories > San Andreas > Vice City > GTA IV > GTA III