GTA is about looking lived in - Houser

By Robert Purchese Published 31 March, 2008

R* boss upset at graphical critique.

Rockstar boss Dan Houser has said Grand Theft Auto has always been about looking "lived in", and is upset that some feel graphics have not been its strongest point.

"The thing that I probably get the most upset about is when people go, 'Well GTA's not about the graphics,'" Houser told IGN. "I don't agree with that point. It's not about hi-res graphics (as hi-res as they can be) but the worlds always looked - and maybe I'm deluded in this - but they always looked lived in, in a way most people can't achieve."

Graphics will be one of the areas improved for Grand Theft Auto IV, but the visual aspect is apparently just one of many ares worked on to make it "feel" like a next-generation title.

"Video games are tactile by their nature, and for it to feel next-generation it had to feel better," continued Houser. "We wanted to redo all the targeting, redo everything mechanical, how missions flowed into each other - all of that side of things."

The "cinematic or narrative experience" was also focused on, and Houser believes the cut-scenes add up to about twice the length of a regular film. But probably the biggest area was creating a real world.

From the "idiotic level of detail" brought about by enormous teams of researchers studying everything from photos to censuses, to more structured spare time activities like bowling and dating, Houser believes the end result was worth it.

"Those kind of three ideas, the world, the story, and the pure videogame guts of it all - we thought if we improved all those and stayed consistent, we'd have something pretty special," he said.

"We've always loved doing open world games, but that was something we really felt this time... We can really bring it alive in a way people haven't really seen before."

Grand Theft Auto IV is due out on PS3 and 360 on 29th April. You might have heard of it.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (39) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • agparrot #1 4 years ago

    GTA != Graphics Importance.

    Fact.

  • Olemak #2 4 years ago

    Slow news day, eh?

  • Moz #3 4 years ago

    Who's been saying it looks bad, look bloody impressive to me. it's not Gears or VF5 but then theres alot more going on on the screen at one time.

  • Psychotext #4 4 years ago

    People say graphics aren't important for GTA simply because GTA games rarely look good.

  • penhalion #5 4 years ago

    @agparrot

    hu?

    Sorry mate but, if the graphics look the same or only slightly better than on my 10 year old PS2, it's a rental for me. I'm simply not buying the bollocks about them not being important to the gameplay experience. Heck the character graphics aren't as good as saints row for frak sake and you could custmose the hell out of those!

    EDIT: Or even customise ;) (slaps hand for being so bad at typing)
    Edited by penhalion at 31/03/08 @ 11:31

  • Killerbee #6 4 years ago

    GTA has never had the greatest graphics - I mean, even on the PS2 it was miles behind God of War, for instance - but it has always had a great art style. The characters have never lacked character, the cars look and feel perfect for the game they're in and the city environments have always delivered enough graphically that after a little while, you can easily navigate your way around by the landmarks, rather than looking at a map. I don't think GTA needs anything like the Gran Turismo level of realism to deliver a cracking game.

    That said, I think they did drop the ball slightly by having far too much open, bland, empty space in San Andreas, but hopefully thing are right back on track with GTAIV.

  • bitesize #7 4 years ago

    People say graphics aren't important for GTA simply because GTA games rarely look good.

    ... and yet the games are still brilliant anyway. i think that's the point.

  • PlugMonkey #8 4 years ago

    We wanted to redo all the targeting

    Heh. No shit.

    Penhalion - I think you're suffering from a little selective amnesia there.

  • kingnothing12 #9 4 years ago

    @penhalion

    well you have fun with your 2 day rental scheme and get basically nothing out of it while the rest of us will have a blast on it for months to come, graphics don't mean shit, i've recently been playing mario kart 64 on the wii through the virtual console with a few mates and had an absolute blast, and that game is 12 years old, bollocks to the graphic whores.

    and sorry but Any GTA> Saints row, simple as.

  • Darren #10 4 years ago

    I think GTA IV looks graphically excellent from the footage I've seen, it certainly has a distinctive art style that gives it its own unique look plus it looks better than the last-gen GTA games ever did even on the PC!

  • penhalion #11 4 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    hu? you'll have to refresh my memory then :)

    @kingnothing12

    While graphics are not the top of the list for games (playability always should be). I do take offence when a company simply creates crap graphics and then defends then with the pathetic statement of

    "but they always looked lived in, in a way most people can't achieve."

    I don't think anyone here would say San Andreas looked lived in. Empty and somehow underpopulated maybe but, not lived in. Couple that with all the glitches we are always having to make excuses for when playing (pop up buildings and traffic that appears in front of you making you crash for the millionth time. Mission restarts that mean you backtrack half the map etc. etc.)

    I'm simply no longer prepared to put my money down simply because the game has GTA in the title. So yep I'll have my 7 day rental and probably complete it in that time. Not sure what's wrong with that myself but hey it's your money as they say.

  • QPRHOOPS81 #12 4 years ago

    It looks good enough but the frame rate apears to be shocking. All the footage ive seen has been a complete jerk fest.

  • IronGiant #13 4 years ago

    Im not too bothered about the level of detail or shine on display but what does bother me is the framerate, there's nothing else that destroys the sense of being part of a gameworld more than a chugging framerate. Lock it at 30fps and lower the detail if necessary but please keep it smooth.

  • mode7 #14 4 years ago

    I've always thought the graphic on GTA games suited the game perfectly. I think the art style is more important than the technical polygon pushing side.

  • Skooch #15 4 years ago

    GTA graphics are not poor by any means, but they aren't exactly groundbreadkingly good either. The point is, they didn't need to be; the rest of the package was so good it never really mattered.

    I love great graphics and will be interested to see what IV can deliver.

  • Beano #16 4 years ago

    @penhalion : "!=" = "not" :)

  • superdelphinus #17 4 years ago

    is it just me or are more and more typos appearing in Eurogamer?

    either that or i'm becoming more and more autistic

  • agparrot #18 4 years ago

    @penhalion.

    Whilst no 'in HUD' gameplay footage has been released for IV, I have been playing Saints Row fairly recently, and graphically that doesn't really stand too far above the PS2-era GTAs. I'm enjoying Saints Row, but I think it is too early to say the character models for IV aren't as good as SR yet.

    Despite that, I think that if the graphics were the same as San Andreas, I'd probably still be happy, given that this would allow a silky-smooth framerate and far-off draw distance. I'm hoping that the new physics model will prove to be a better hook to the game than what it looks like but underneath it all GTA has been, to me personally, more about the freedom, humour and tone than the prettiness.

    Perhaps I am just more forgiving than some. I wish that it could look like Gears or whatnot, but I accept that if it doesn't , this is because it brings other things to the table.

  • Arcadiian #19 4 years ago

    When GTA III was released, it did have good graphics. It's just they weren't improved much for Vice City or San Andreas, with R* choosing to go for larger maps instead. Personally, I think GTA IV looks amazing, considering the scale of the whole thing.

  • PlugMonkey #20 4 years ago

    @penhalion

    I just think if you side by side GTA IV and GTA SA you'd have to be blind, mad or stupid to think the graphics were only 'slightly better'.

  • Notorious_LRO #21 4 years ago

    *Shoots communications panel*
    Boring conversation anyway.

  • Darren #22 4 years ago

    As long as GTA IV has a more believable world to play around in than the completely unconvincing sterile artificial reality of Crackdown than I really don't care what the graphics are like. Bully quality without the glitchy textures and less pop up would do me fine but whatever you think of the previous GTA games visually, you can't deny that they do a reasonable job of making you think you're in a living, breathing world.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #23 4 years ago

    When GTA III was released, it did have good graphics

    GTA 3 came out in the same month as Devil May Cry, and several months after Gran Turismo 3. It's graphics were not impressive at the time, which is part of the reason it seemed to have come out of nowhere, since it looked awful in all its previews.

    I've always thought of the GTA games' graphics as 'workmanlike'. The same goes for most other open-world games, including what I've seen of GTA4.

  • agparrot #24 4 years ago

    "GTA != Graphics Importance" makes no sense are you guys special needs?

    Yup.

  • superdelphinus #25 4 years ago

    ah they've corrected it :o)

  • kangarootoo #26 4 years ago

    @WaxBrazillian

    "!= is "Not Equal To" so it's not simply "Not" so FFS stop using such geeky nerdy stupid statements in a thread ur still a dumbass consider the original statement why the fuck you use a value identifier to be clever you come over all cock "

    You utter geek.

  • asphaltcowboy #27 4 years ago

    Load of rubbish! GTA1 was a good looking game and GTA3 was a good looking game (kinda). Bought Vice City for PS2 last week and it looks bloody awful (forget 'lived in' - are there any textures? and what's with the entire screen blurring all the time?). San Andreas was just as bad, if not worse! Thankfully, GTAIV looks much nicer, but it's still a way off!

  • ED209 #28 4 years ago

    I find your lack of faith disturbing.

  • oreillymj #29 4 years ago

    <> = !=

    ;-)

  • Kaparen #30 4 years ago

    Vice City was the pinnacle of GTA series, I'm a bit suprised that they haven't gotten rid of dating this time around.
    Edited by Kaparen at 31/03/08 @ 14:51

  • OnlyMe #31 4 years ago

    @asphaltcowboy

    Are you kidding? GTA1 had good graphics? It was super-simplistic, even for its time. I had (and still have) Amiga games that look better than that. Alien Breed came in '91, and looks better than GTA1 (although it wasn't 3D). I also have an Amiga GTA Clone that looks better than GTA1 (and it's called Payback, and available on MAC and GBA as well).

    GTA3 didn't stun me with the graphics... at all. I already had Devil May Cry, Dark Cloud, Gran Turismo 3 and the Metal Gear Solid 2 demo (that came with Zone of the Enders, obviously) when the game came out. I was stunned by how alive and atmospheric the game was, and obviously the freedom to go basically everywhere and do basically everything.

  • agparrot #32 4 years ago

    @Wax

    @penhalion

    @Beano

    @agparrot

    != is "Not Equal To" so it's not simply "Not" so FFS stop using such geeky nerdy stupid statements in a thread ur still a dumbass consider the original statement why the fuck you use a value identifier to be clever you come over all cock

    "GTA != Graphics Importance" makes no sense are you guys special needs?

    I've only just read what you actually wrote - previously it just sort of got processed as 'blah blah blah, are you special needs', but I've just realised that you actually seem quite worked up about this!

    Do you actually, you know, have steam coming out of your ears?

    My original intention was to display that, to me, the importance of the GTA games was not concerned with their graphical excellence. Whilst perhaps not strictly accurate, my quickly-typed != was meant to convey this, rather than be any attempt at technical didjery-pokery or stuff like that. I think even you managed to see past any inaccuracy to the meaning, otherwise you wouldn't have been so... moved... to make your comments.

    And it's true anyway, GTA != Graphics Importance.

    Those two things simply aren't equal, are they? So there isn't even anything wrong with it in absolute terms. Despite the fact that it is true, whilst being technically meaningless it has conveyed what I meant, and somehow, this has made you angry, and swear.

    It's the best laugh I've had all day though, so thanks.

  • Kiigan #33 4 years ago

    Well, the 3D GTA games have always looks like fucking Thunderbirds, and rather behind the times visually. And they always feature piss-poor framerates. But then they're usually good fun anyway, so who cares? Only nerds I suppose. Still, would be nice if the got their shit together and made a GTA game that looked as good as it played. Instead of going for scale (bigger cities, more irrelevant mini-games etc) I'd appreciate more depth.

  • oreillymj #34 4 years ago

    @WaxBrazillian

    <> is the symbol for NOT EQUALS in many programming languages such as VB

    != is the symbol for NOT EQUALS in C and Javascript amongst others.

    So.

    <> = !=

    Now back to school and figure out the HTML codes for < and >

    Then you can correct me.

  • slave23d #35 4 years ago

    holy crap EG, how to take a small part of a lengthy interview and make a completely out of context article!!

    (which is an interesting read if you havent read already)

    His quote makes him sound a bit whiney, or is it just me?

  • MGG #36 4 years ago

    @penhalion

    @kingnothing12

    While graphics are not the top of the list for games (playability always should be). I do take offence when a company simply creates crap graphics and then defends then with the pathetic statement of

    "but they always looked lived in, in a way most people can't achieve."

    I don't think anyone here would say San Andreas looked lived in. Empty and somehow underpopulated maybe but, not lived in. Couple that with all the glitches we are always having to make excuses for when playing (pop up buildings and traffic that appears in front of you making you crash for the millionth time. Mission restarts that mean you backtrack half the map etc. etc.)

    I'm simply no longer prepared to put my money down simply because the game has GTA in the title. So yep I'll have my 7 day rental and probably complete it in that time. Not sure what's wrong with that myself but hey it's your money as they say.


    JFC. You are complaining that the graphics in SA were poor and the game a bit sparse (the countryside was, I don't remember the cities being like that.....) in a game that stretched the PS2 to its absolute limits? I mean, it was R*'s design decision to build a map that big, but once you knew that was the case, surely you understand the impossibility of what you ask? The same with GTA4 - you do realise how sodding big this game is, yes? How many anims, how many things are going on, how much AI, etc etc and it all has to fit on a DVD - what do you want, a miracle? Mind, seeing as you don't appear to understand what != is, then maybe this is going above your head a little bit.......

    Oh and keep up with those 7 day rentals, I bet the guys who have been working for years to make GTA4 are really happy you are deciding to not reward them in anyway for your entertainment. Bravo.

  • Amoebalove #37 4 years ago

    @headbog

    You’re a cock!!!!

  • Ryze #38 4 years ago

    Dan Houser must be reading these comment threads.

  • WinterSnowblind #39 4 years ago

    I don't even really understand the complaints about the graphics, from what we've seen the game looks great, especially considering this is a huge open world, with an apparant flawless frame rate and great draw distance. We won't really know until we get to play it, or at least see some actual gameplay footage, but in my opinion the graphics are fine.