• 86 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for deathstriker
#1 Posted by Deathstriker (495 posts) -

I'm having a hard time thinking of a character creator (for a major game) that's worse than GTA Online's. For those who don't know, you pick your four grandparents and that changes how your guy looks. You can't change his nose, mouth, etc directly like you would in a normal game. That might sound cool to some people or some reason, but it mainly feels like a disguise and you're really choosing between a dozen or so preset faces. I usually make a black guy in these situations, but they really don't have any "black noses", so my guy kinda just looks like an Aztec lol. You can change your hair, but unlike in the campaign, the hair looks weird. You can't change your body at all from what I can tell so far.

Anyone else a little disappointed or can name some worse creators? Rockstar has never been good at MP, so I've always tried to lower my expectations for this.

Avatar image for project343
#2 Posted by project343 (2895 posts) -

It makes sense. The less exhaustive the character options, the less intensive it is on the hardware.

Avatar image for demoskinos
#3 Posted by Demoskinos (17325 posts) -

I actually sort of liked it once I played with it for awhile. I'd show my character off but seeing as I can't get the online to work....

Avatar image for brodehouse
#4 Posted by Brodehouse (10827 posts) -

The characters look waxy.

Avatar image for flappy
#5 Edited by Flappy (2415 posts) -
Avatar image for krullban
#6 Posted by Krullban (1471 posts) -

The characters look waxy.

They look completely different in-game than the creator.

Avatar image for face15
#7 Posted by face15 (1377 posts) -

The creator is pretty terrible and the characters look like ass.

It just seems like a really, really weird idea to have you pick grandparents instead of a traditional character creator. I really can't imagine what Rockstar's motivation is on this.

Avatar image for brendan
#8 Edited by Brendan (9036 posts) -

Its an interesting idea, but I'm not surprised players don't like feeling that control is being taken away from them.

Avatar image for ares42
#9 Posted by Ares42 (3554 posts) -

You don't just choose between a certain amount of pre-sets (as you can change how much or little their appearance is inherited over 2 generations), but ye it's pretty terrible. Fun concept, but absolutely no control so it could've just as well been a forced random button until you found something you liked.

Avatar image for stevevacation
#10 Posted by SteveVacation (398 posts) -

It took a good 30 minutes but I made a pretty rad looking character. I like how they were going for more of a CHARACTER and less of just an online avatar.

Then I timed out looking for a match immediately lol.

Avatar image for somejerk
#11 Posted by SomeJerk (4077 posts) -

I'm just disappointed all player models are the same base male or female. I wanted a BBW for a main character.

Avatar image for gruebacca
#12 Edited by Gruebacca (813 posts) -

I imagine that Rockstar doesn't want people to end up making this.

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for jazgalaxy
#13 Posted by JazGalaxy (1638 posts) -

@face15 said:

The creator is pretty terrible and the characters look like ass.

It just seems like a really, really weird idea to have you pick grandparents instead of a traditional character creator. I really can't imagine what Rockstar's motivation is on this.

I'm nearly positive their motivation was not to let people make stupid characters.

When you give people the ability to make characters, they will look at all the options, be overwhelmed, and then just opt for something stupid, or copying a copyrighted character. Any game like Saints Row or City Of Heroes faces the same problem.

It would ruin 90% of what Rockstar was trying to create with GTA Online if people were able to make their dumb "naked tophat man" character and ruin everyone else's experience.

Avatar image for mideonnviscera
#14 Edited by MideonNViscera (2269 posts) -

I picked a black grandparent so I look tanned haha I didn't mind it really. I got what I wanted more or less. Plus he's rocking a Giant Bomb t-shirt.

Avatar image for spraynardtatum
#15 Posted by spraynardtatum (4368 posts) -

@face15 said:

The creator is pretty terrible and the characters look like ass.

It just seems like a really, really weird idea to have you pick grandparents instead of a traditional character creator. I really can't imagine what Rockstar's motivation is on this.

I'm nearly positive their motivation was not to let people make stupid characters.

When you give people the ability to make characters, they will look at all the options, be overwhelmed, and then just opt for something stupid, or copying a copyrighted character. Any game like Saints Row or City Of Heroes faces the same problem.

It would ruin 90% of what Rockstar was trying to create with GTA Online if people were able to make their dumb "naked tophat man" character and ruin everyone else's experience.


How on earth would a dumb looking character "ruin everyone else's experience"?

Avatar image for deathstriker
#16 Posted by Deathstriker (495 posts) -

It makes sense. The less exhaustive the character options, the less intensive it is on the hardware.

There's really no excuse, I've played crappy games made by guys I went to school with that did it better and this is the biggest game this year, possibly this gen.

Avatar image for jazgalaxy
#17 Posted by JazGalaxy (1638 posts) -

@jazgalaxy said:

@face15 said:

The creator is pretty terrible and the characters look like ass.

It just seems like a really, really weird idea to have you pick grandparents instead of a traditional character creator. I really can't imagine what Rockstar's motivation is on this.

I'm nearly positive their motivation was not to let people make stupid characters.

When you give people the ability to make characters, they will look at all the options, be overwhelmed, and then just opt for something stupid, or copying a copyrighted character. Any game like Saints Row or City Of Heroes faces the same problem.

It would ruin 90% of what Rockstar was trying to create with GTA Online if people were able to make their dumb "naked tophat man" character and ruin everyone else's experience.

How on earth would a dumb looking character "ruin everyone else's experience"?

Written like someone who frequently ruins other people's experiences.

If you can't understand why driving through Los Santos and seeing a poorly made Cyclops analog named "PsychlopsBonghitter99" with no pants rounding the corner would ruin a lot of what the game is, I can't help you.

Avatar image for circlenine
#18 Posted by CircleNine (411 posts) -

I'm sorry that a tophat man has the potential to ruin your immersion in the game where you're running over scores of pedestrians, crashing planes and helicopters onto them, and getting the army called in as you gun down hundreds of cops.

Avatar image for face15
#19 Posted by face15 (1377 posts) -

@jazgalaxy: I suppose I can see that. Still, they definately could've given us more direct control over the appearance without letting people make weird demon-faced people.

A lot of games won't give you sliders but let you pick from like 10 different noses and 14 different eye shapes or whatever. That way you actually get control over how your character works but without letting you get too crazy with it.

Avatar image for probablytuna
#20 Posted by probablytuna (4916 posts) -

Let's see some of those hideously looking characters!

Avatar image for deathstriker
#21 Posted by Deathstriker (495 posts) -

@spraynardtatum said:
@jazgalaxy said:

@face15 said:

The creator is pretty terrible and the characters look like ass.

It just seems like a really, really weird idea to have you pick grandparents instead of a traditional character creator. I really can't imagine what Rockstar's motivation is on this.

I'm nearly positive their motivation was not to let people make stupid characters.

When you give people the ability to make characters, they will look at all the options, be overwhelmed, and then just opt for something stupid, or copying a copyrighted character. Any game like Saints Row or City Of Heroes faces the same problem.

It would ruin 90% of what Rockstar was trying to create with GTA Online if people were able to make their dumb "naked tophat man" character and ruin everyone else's experience.

How on earth would a dumb looking character "ruin everyone else's experience"?

Written like someone who frequently ruins other people's experiences.

If you can't understand why driving through Los Santos and seeing a poorly made Cyclops analog named "PsychlopsBonghitter99" with no pants rounding the corner would ruin a lot of what the game is, I can't help you.

That's silly. Someone is taking things too seriously or is too sensitive if that would mess up their experience. Also, there might be masks online too, so you could see pig faces and Jason/hockey masks running around, which does the same thing. Not to mention, it seems weird to do the co-op stuff with randoms anyway.

Avatar image for yummylee
#22 Posted by Yummylee (24646 posts) -

Kingdoms of Amalaur's character creator was pretty basic, and given that it was an RPG, you'd expect a lot more options. But yes, GTA Online's isn't especially fun to tinker around with either.

I was at least able to see one (of many lost) characters during the opening cutscene--before it crashed just as soon the race was about to begin--and she looked a little better than she did in the creator menu at least.

Avatar image for rafaelfc
#23 Edited by Rafaelfc (2224 posts) -

After about 40 minutes of fudging around with controls I finally was able to create a female character I was happy with. She is a giant compared to most guys in game, but that's ok.

Now if only I could actually play the online it would be swell.

Avatar image for jazgalaxy
#24 Posted by JazGalaxy (1638 posts) -

@jazgalaxy said:

@spraynardtatum said:
@jazgalaxy said:

@face15 said:

The creator is pretty terrible and the characters look like ass.

It just seems like a really, really weird idea to have you pick grandparents instead of a traditional character creator. I really can't imagine what Rockstar's motivation is on this.

I'm nearly positive their motivation was not to let people make stupid characters.

When you give people the ability to make characters, they will look at all the options, be overwhelmed, and then just opt for something stupid, or copying a copyrighted character. Any game like Saints Row or City Of Heroes faces the same problem.

It would ruin 90% of what Rockstar was trying to create with GTA Online if people were able to make their dumb "naked tophat man" character and ruin everyone else's experience.

How on earth would a dumb looking character "ruin everyone else's experience"?

Written like someone who frequently ruins other people's experiences.

If you can't understand why driving through Los Santos and seeing a poorly made Cyclops analog named "PsychlopsBonghitter99" with no pants rounding the corner would ruin a lot of what the game is, I can't help you.

That's silly. Someone is taking things too seriously or is too sensitive if that would mess up their experience. Also, there might be masks online too, so you could see pig faces and Jason/hockey masks running around, which does the same thing. Not to mention, it seems weird to do the co-op stuff with randoms anyway.

Lol. Well, that's your opinion.

You are free to play games how you like, but you were saying you couldn't understand why Rockstar would do this? It sounds like you are basically the exact player that led to them choosing this. And if you can't understand why... well, that's your answer right there.

Avatar image for donchipotle
#25 Posted by DonChipotle (3386 posts) -

I managed to make someone alright looking. But she is forever stuck in the "error joining session" purgatory.

Avatar image for mooseymcman
#26 Posted by MooseyMcMan (12538 posts) -

The default for "dad" was John Marston (for me at least, I know someone who said it wasn't for him), so I'll let it pass because that made me laugh.

Avatar image for jazgalaxy
#27 Posted by JazGalaxy (1638 posts) -

@face15 said:

@jazgalaxy: I suppose I can see that. Still, they definately could've given us more direct control over the appearance without letting people make weird demon-faced people.

A lot of games won't give you sliders but let you pick from like 10 different noses and 14 different eye shapes or whatever. That way you actually get control over how your character works but without letting you get too crazy with it.

I also think a lot of people find that overwhelming. I mean, I know I do in games like skyrim where I spend like 2 hours in the creator before I start the game trying to figure out what half the terms are supposed to mean.

Don't get me wrong, I LIKE that and look forward to it. But, I think the geneology thing is an interesting thing to try as well.

Avatar image for deathstriker
#28 Edited by Deathstriker (495 posts) -

@deathstriker said:

@jazgalaxy said:

@spraynardtatum said:
@jazgalaxy said:

@face15 said:

The creator is pretty terrible and the characters look like ass.

It just seems like a really, really weird idea to have you pick grandparents instead of a traditional character creator. I really can't imagine what Rockstar's motivation is on this.

I'm nearly positive their motivation was not to let people make stupid characters.

When you give people the ability to make characters, they will look at all the options, be overwhelmed, and then just opt for something stupid, or copying a copyrighted character. Any game like Saints Row or City Of Heroes faces the same problem.

It would ruin 90% of what Rockstar was trying to create with GTA Online if people were able to make their dumb "naked tophat man" character and ruin everyone else's experience.

How on earth would a dumb looking character "ruin everyone else's experience"?

Written like someone who frequently ruins other people's experiences.

If you can't understand why driving through Los Santos and seeing a poorly made Cyclops analog named "PsychlopsBonghitter99" with no pants rounding the corner would ruin a lot of what the game is, I can't help you.

That's silly. Someone is taking things too seriously or is too sensitive if that would mess up their experience. Also, there might be masks online too, so you could see pig faces and Jason/hockey masks running around, which does the same thing. Not to mention, it seems weird to do the co-op stuff with randoms anyway.

Lol. Well, that's your opinion.

You are free to play games how you like, but you were saying you couldn't understand why Rockstar would do this? It sounds like you are basically the exact player that led to them choosing this. And if you can't understand why... well, that's your answer right there.

You're assuming that's the reason Rockstar did it. I think they either didn't have the time and/or interest in doing a proper creation tool. Nothing I said makes it sound like I would create some monster looking character... that's a dumb thing to say; seeing a silly character wouldn't affect me at all nor any other normal person. By that logic, no game would have it, yet MMOs, RPGs, and some shooters (Rainbow Six) do it with no major problems.

Avatar image for jazgalaxy
#29 Edited by JazGalaxy (1638 posts) -

I'm sorry that a tophat man has the potential to ruin your immersion in the game where you're running over scores of pedestrians, crashing planes and helicopters onto them, and getting the army called in as you gun down hundreds of cops.

I never said it ruined MY experience. I said it is likely why Rockstar chose to do it that way. My experience HAS been ruined in games, though. I remember playing Star Wars Galaxies, which I bought on launch day, after dreaming up a background of my character for weeks before launch. I was going to be a smuggler. Not remarkable in any real way. Just living the scoundrel's life and doing good where I could. I made by guy about average height and build. As soon as I got in the world I came to find out that everyone else had jacked their characters up to maximum height (like 8 feet tall) and maximum athletic prowess. At like 5'10" I was a midget in a world of giants. Not to mention everyone was a rip off of luke skywalkers with crappy knockoff names.

So, yes, you can ruin someone else's experience.

Avatar image for animathias
#30 Edited by animathias (1272 posts) -

I honestly like the creator... well, at least the concept and idea of it. The main problem with GTA V's in particular is that a large percentage of the characters generated look like ass. There's also the stark contrast of going from the story mode with these awesome looking characters to... this.

Avatar image for greggd
#31 Posted by GreggD (4595 posts) -

As stated in another thread, my parents were Misty and Claude from GTAIII, and my character looks like Claude. Perfection.

Avatar image for spraynardtatum
#32 Edited by spraynardtatum (4368 posts) -

@spraynardtatum said:
@jazgalaxy said:

@face15 said:

The creator is pretty terrible and the characters look like ass.

It just seems like a really, really weird idea to have you pick grandparents instead of a traditional character creator. I really can't imagine what Rockstar's motivation is on this.

I'm nearly positive their motivation was not to let people make stupid characters.

When you give people the ability to make characters, they will look at all the options, be overwhelmed, and then just opt for something stupid, or copying a copyrighted character. Any game like Saints Row or City Of Heroes faces the same problem.

It would ruin 90% of what Rockstar was trying to create with GTA Online if people were able to make their dumb "naked tophat man" character and ruin everyone else's experience.

How on earth would a dumb looking character "ruin everyone else's experience"?

Written like someone who frequently ruins other people's experiences.

If you can't understand why driving through Los Santos and seeing a poorly made Cyclops analog named "PsychlopsBonghitter99" with no pants rounding the corner would ruin a lot of what the game is, I can't help you.

I guess I am "frequently ruining other people's experience". Sorry I'm being such a horrible person by making silly characters in a video game. Is it ruining the immersion for you? Are you incapable of laughing? What exactly am I ruining?

Avatar image for gruebacca
#33 Posted by Gruebacca (813 posts) -

Guys. Guys. Civility please.

Saints Row IV is the kind of game where you can give yourself super shiny skin, a nose above your eyes, and no pants, and that totally fits the mood and vibe of the game.

GTA V is not that kind of game. It would not look silly. It would look stupid, and not the good kind of stupid.

Avatar image for deathstriker
#34 Posted by Deathstriker (495 posts) -

Guys. Guys. Civility please.

Saints Row IV is the kind of game where you can give yourself super shiny skin, a nose above your eyes, and no pants, and that totally fits the mood and vibe of the game.

GTA V is not that kind of game. It would not look silly. It would look stupid, and not the good kind of stupid.

No one here asked for any of those things. Saints Row is one of the few games where you could do those things, that's not the norm.

Avatar image for thatdutchguy
#35 Edited by thatdutchguy (1301 posts) -

@gruebacca said:

Guys. Guys. Civility please.

Saints Row IV is the kind of game where you can give yourself super shiny skin, a nose above your eyes, and no pants, and that totally fits the mood and vibe of the game.

GTA V is not that kind of game. It would not look silly. It would look stupid, and not the good kind of stupid.

No one here asked for any of those things. Saints Row is one of the few games where you could do those things, that's not the norm.

Goddamnit i want the nose above my eyes in GTA V or i'm gonna return this piece of shit.

Avatar image for spraynardtatum
#36 Edited by spraynardtatum (4368 posts) -

Guys. Guys. Civility please.

Saints Row IV is the kind of game where you can give yourself super shiny skin, a nose above your eyes, and no pants, and that totally fits the mood and vibe of the game.

GTA V is not that kind of game. It would not look silly. It would look stupid, and not the good kind of stupid.

I think it fits in any game. I used the camera in rainbow six to put my face in and I had a huge stupid smile on my face. I got so many compliments. There are plenty of people that appreciate stupid in any form.

Avatar image for monopolized
#37 Posted by Monopolized (554 posts) -

Adjust your expectations..

Avatar image for milkman
#38 Posted by Milkman (18913 posts) -

It amazes me that Rockstar has somehow fooled people into thinking that GTA V is some sort of super serious crime simulator and that having a silly looking character would somehow ruin that.

The game is a fucking cartoon, people.

Avatar image for greggd
#39 Posted by GreggD (4595 posts) -

You guys know you can give your character makeup at the barbershops, right? Like, regardless of gender?

Avatar image for spraynardtatum
#40 Posted by spraynardtatum (4368 posts) -
Avatar image for demoskinos
#41 Edited by Demoskinos (17325 posts) -

@greggd said:

As stated in another thread, my parents were Misty and Claude from GTAIII, and my character looks like Claude. Perfection.

Special edition I take it?

Avatar image for greggd
#42 Posted by GreggD (4595 posts) -

@greggd said:

As stated in another thread, my parents were Misty and Claude from GTAIII, and my character looks like Claude. Perfection.

Special edition I take it?

...yes. Worth every penny, btw.

Avatar image for demoskinos
#43 Edited by Demoskinos (17325 posts) -

@milkman said:

It amazes me that Rockstar has somehow fooled people into thinking that GTA V is some sort of super serious crime simulator and that having a silly looking character would somehow ruin that.

The game is a fucking cartoon, people.

Disagree. While not going for as serious/somber a tone that GTA IV went for GTA V still isn't nearly as silly as Vice City or San Andreas. There is a clear vibe and vision to what Rockstar wants for their products and garish looking characters would completely subvert that tone.

Avatar image for zeforgotten
#44 Posted by ZeForgotten (10368 posts) -

@greggd said:

@demoskinos said:

@greggd said:

As stated in another thread, my parents were Misty and Claude from GTAIII, and my character looks like Claude. Perfection.

Special edition I take it?

...yes. Worth every penny, btw.

Ok yeah, you win when you look like Claude.

Avatar image for zevvion
#45 Posted by Zevvion (5217 posts) -

Yeah, it's terrible. It takes ages to get your guy looking how you want. I just gave up and went with someone I was only semi-okay with. Perhaps that's what they were going for though, so you'd be inclined to create multiple characters. But whatever their motivation: it's terrible nonetheless. If you want to motivate me to play with multiple characters, then don't punish me in order to get there. Make it attractive to do so.

Either way, besides that, I haven't been able to play GTA Online all day. I wonder if the live stream will continue. The thing seems broken as hell. They say it's server problems, which seems likely. The mission marker disappears for me so I'm unable to start the first mission. When it doesn't, it's 'waiting for other players' forever.

Not a good start and I actually don't expect I'll be playing it online a bunch. Rockstar isn't good at good online play and they definitely aren't good at creating cool systems for competitive play. I'll probably play this a bit in co-op and am very curious, but besides that, I've pretty much already written this off.

Avatar image for nodima
#46 Edited by Nodima (1971 posts) -

Let's also not forget - while I didn't indulge - that Trevor can have a dumb-ass friar's cut with huge girly shine blockers and a woman's dress on. And most of Michael's default attire leaves him wearing swim trunks and flip flops before and even during action-packed missions. GTA V leaves the silly out there for you if you want it.

Avatar image for 49th
#47 Posted by 49th (3547 posts) -

That is bizarre. I have no idea why they would decide to do something like that.

Avatar image for spraynardtatum
#48 Posted by spraynardtatum (4368 posts) -

@nodima: Plus a few of the strangers and freaks missions throw reality out the window as well as a good chunk of the collectibles. Also lets not forget that GTA IV online allowed people to have zombie avatars.

Avatar image for milkman
#49 Edited by Milkman (18913 posts) -

@demoskinos said:

@milkman said:

It amazes me that Rockstar has somehow fooled people into thinking that GTA V is some sort of super serious crime simulator and that having a silly looking character would somehow ruin that.

The game is a fucking cartoon, people.

Disagree. While not going for as serious/somber a tone that GTA IV went for GTA V still isn't nearly as silly as Vice City or San Andreas. There is a clear vibe and vision to what Rockstar wants for their products and garish looking characters would completely subvert that tone.

You can play the entire game with Trevor in his tighty whities.

There's also a Strangers and Freaks mission where Franklin talks to a dog.

Avatar image for spraynardtatum
#50 Posted by spraynardtatum (4368 posts) -

@milkman said:

@demoskinos said:

@milkman said:

It amazes me that Rockstar has somehow fooled people into thinking that GTA V is some sort of super serious crime simulator and that having a silly looking character would somehow ruin that.

The game is a fucking cartoon, people.

Disagree. While not going for as serious/somber a tone that GTA IV went for GTA V still isn't nearly as silly as Vice City or San Andreas. There is a clear vibe and vision to what Rockstar wants for their products and garish looking characters would completely subvert that tone.

You can play the entire game with Trevor in his tighty whities.

There's also a Strangers and Freaks mission where Franklin talks to a dog.

I need to play that....so hard...