Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Why San Andreas felt "wrong", to me

105 replies to this topic
Flesh-n-Bone
  • Flesh-n-Bone

    OG

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2008

#31

Posted 21 June 2013 - 11:35 PM

QUOTE (GTAKing3197 @ Thursday, Jun 20 2013, 22:16)
Don't forget Victor Vance. He talks about how he doesn't want to sell drugs and how it just causes trouble yet he still does it anyway.

Vic and Niko are similar in the way that they both want peace but end up in the crime world just to get their money and search for the peaceful life they want.

Carl is not like that at all despite what some say about him "whining". The reason he does lots of different stuff is because he's forced to. His main mission is to get his hood back together and help the remains of his family live comfortably away from the drugs and rival gangs that have ruined the city. But he has a corrupt cop on him and when things go wrong, he's forced out of town. There, he does lots of different things like opening a garage or robbing small banks and betting shops just to make his money and find a better place to live. It's all explained in the story. Granted, stealing a jetpack from a highly guarded army base or jumping from a plane into another in mid-air is unrealistic but so are a lot of things in the GTA series from every game.

Bi0ha2ard_q8
  • Bi0ha2ard_q8

    Scam Artist

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2013

#32

Posted 21 June 2013 - 11:46 PM Edited by Bi0ha2ard_q8, 21 June 2013 - 11:56 PM.

QUOTE (PaddsterG2k3 @ Wednesday, Jun 19 2013, 18:39)

The same could be said about Niko. One second he's Mr. Morals - not wishing to kill anyone. The next he'll commit genocide "if it pays". I think this is often glossed over.

What I will admit with SA is that it was at times "too" silly - Woozie and Ran Fa Li (sp?) were meant to be ruthless Triad Snakeheads and yet came across as some kind of joke. In this sense I am glad IV was more serious.


I don't think time is kind to SA and thus more start to dislike it. That said, I do, genuinely feel some members of here wear an "anti-SA" badge of honour to appear more sophisticated (not you Miami). But thats just me.

And to whoever said IV was III reincarted? Just no.



GTA IV echos GTA III in many aspects. Mission motivation, killing old bosses and the revenge storyline around betrayal.
Niko being a freelance Henchman and assassin, like Claude.

He's not Mr.Morals, the idea was that life is tough and he had no other options. See, he's not exactly a middle class overfed westerner.

CJ was a weak character. You never feel that he's an actual gangster the same way that Tommy is a mobster. The respect thing was needless the way they did it, and the fact that a black street gang in the 90's did't sell drugs was laughable. He would kill hundreds of other gang members but hesitated when someone asked him to kill someone.

Niko killed. He was a criminal. He did anything. And he didn't even have the same hunger for respect that CJ had.

I think you need to sophisticate your mind a bit. Gain an ability to analyse and understand sh*t. Either do that or actually play the single player game.

Hint: Silliness defined the GTA III Era. GTA IV is where you expect the realism.

QUOTE (Niko Vercetti 112 @ Friday, Jun 21 2013, 05:19)

Although it was good to see that at least one protagonist in the 3D era had an evident third dimension to them.
I agree, but for GTA I kinda like more to be someone as Claude, a character who would do anything for money. That and I just liked the idea that the main character was suppose to represent you.


Yeah but to create a "you" protagonist, the game wouldn't have as much personality.

Mr.Mordecai
  • Mr.Mordecai

    To be, or not to be. That is the question.

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2012

#33

Posted 21 June 2013 - 11:50 PM

San Andreas had better gameplay.

IV had a way better story. Nuff said.

golf wang
  • golf wang

    Bout that life

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2011

#34

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:59 AM

People try really hard to make GTA IV seem like it was some kind of masterpiece in storytelling, it really wasn't. The story itself was well-written, but it's delivery was just all over the place. Besides, the story just isn't as enjoyable to me as SA's story. IV's story was depressing and the ending was completely unsatisfying. I get that it was trying to send a "message" and all, but it doesn't change the fact that ending just sucked. And with all your hard earned money at the end, all you can spend it on are guns and some minigames. SA's story was great because was it was like a journey. You start off a small time gangster in South LA and you end up a multimillionaire with business assets in Las Vegas. I love that whole rags to riches feel and you really like you have accomplished a lot by the end of the game. It was inconsistent and contradictory at times, but overall a much more enjoyable experience than GTA IV (IMO). I would put it like this, Citizen Kane is an amazing film with a great story but I have a lot more fun watching a movie like Die Hard, which doesn't have nearly as deep a plot as Citizen Kane. That's how I feel about IV and SA. For me in regards to video games: enjoyability>deep story.

PaddsterG2k3
  • PaddsterG2k3

    The Bee's Knees

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2003

#35

Posted 22 June 2013 - 02:55 PM Edited by PaddsterG2k3, 22 June 2013 - 02:58 PM.

QUOTE (Mr.Mordecai @ Friday, Jun 21 2013, 23:50)
San Andreas had better gameplay.

IV had a way better story. Nuff said.

I will agree with this.

@Miami - I know you are right. Its unfortunate that there is a constant war on here between pro-SA and pro-IV while the rest of the GTA canon gets lost. I find myself frustratingly stuck in the middle.


SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Give me Liberty

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia

#36

Posted 23 June 2013 - 01:39 AM Edited by Miamivicecity, 23 June 2013 - 01:46 AM.

QUOTE (golf wang @ Saturday, Jun 22 2013, 21:59)
People try really hard to make GTA IV seem like it was some kind of masterpiece in storytelling, it really wasn't. The story itself was well-written, but it's delivery was just all over the place. Besides, the story just isn't as enjoyable to me as SA's story. IV's story was depressing and the ending was completely unsatisfying. I get that it was trying to send a "message" and all, but it doesn't change the fact that ending just sucked. And with all your hard earned money at the end, all you can spend it on are guns and some minigames. SA's story was great because was it was like a journey. You start off a small time gangster in South LA and you end up a multimillionaire with business assets in Las Vegas. I love that whole rags to riches feel and you really like you have accomplished a lot by the end of the game. It was inconsistent and contradictory at times, but overall a much more enjoyable experience than GTA IV (IMO). I would put it like this, Citizen Kane is an amazing film with a great story but I have a lot more fun watching a movie like Die Hard, which doesn't have nearly as deep a plot as Citizen Kane. That's how I feel about IV and SA. For me in regards to video games: enjoyability>deep story.

The end "sucking" is not a fact. I thought both of the endings in GTA IV were quite well done to cap off what was an emotional rollecrcoaster for Niko.

GTA IV just had a very different approach. SA's story was more enjoyable to me when I was younger and didn't care so much for depth, but everytime I try to immerse myself in it now I find I can't.

I agree that the way some people carry on about GTA IV's story being a masterpiece and sometimes comparing it to a Scorcese film is a bit much, but for a video game it's respectable.


DarrinPA
  • DarrinPA

    Orange Grove Member

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2009
  • None

#37

Posted 23 June 2013 - 02:46 AM

QUOTE (Bi0ha2ard_q8 @ Friday, Jun 21 2013, 18:46)
CJ was a weak character. You never feel that he's an actual gangster the same way that Tommy is a mobster. The respect thing was needless the way they did it, and the fact that a black street gang in the 90's did't sell drugs was laughable. He would kill hundreds of other gang members but hesitated when someone asked him to kill someone.

CJ's passiveness is often confused with weakness. As for the anti-drug approach being "laughable", it was inspired by MC Hammer who was a famous rapper in the early 1990's who went broke because he realized that his road crew would start using drugs when they weren't on tour because they had no income. So he decided to pay them all year long to keep them out of trouble, which lead to bankruptcy.

QUOTE
I think you need to sophisticate your mind a bit. Gain an ability to analyse and understand sh*t. Either do that or actually play the single player game.
Hint: Silliness defined the GTA III Era. GTA IV is where you expect the realism.

Most of GTA SA was based on true stories. Where as GTA IV is just a fictional story pulled out of thin air. C.R.A.S.H. was an actual operations unit of the Los Angeles Police Department. Those members of C.R.A.S.H. were the cause of the Rampart scandal. Cops killing cops, robbing banks, intimidating gang members, selling drugs, framing fellow law enforcement members was all real. Officer Tenpenny, Pulaski, Hernandez, and Pendelbury all have their real life counterparts. The Crack epidemic and LA Riots were just the surface problems of L.A. at the time and GTA SA did a great job of exploring the underlying causes of the tumultuous and fragile society at the time.

SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Give me Liberty

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia

#38

Posted 23 June 2013 - 02:57 AM Edited by Miamivicecity, 23 June 2013 - 03:13 AM.

The paranoia surrounding terrorism exploited in GTA IV is very much the modern post 911 NYC equivalent of the crack epidemic and riots of early 90s LA.

DarrinPA
  • DarrinPA

    Orange Grove Member

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2009
  • None

#39

Posted 23 June 2013 - 07:12 AM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Saturday, Jun 22 2013, 21:57)
The paranoia surrounding terrorism exploited in GTA IV is very much the modern post 911 NYC equivalent of the crack epidemic and riots of early 90s LA.

Yes, I agree. But that's why I said they were just the surface problems of each respective city. GTA SA did a great job of exploring the underlying causes of the tumultuous and fragile society at the time by exploring the individual stories of the corrupt cops and oppressed citizens. GTA IV touched on some aspects of it but didn't get too deep into it. But I honestly think that's for the best, considering the subject matter. I think IV's time setting wasn't the best thing to explore at the time because it was, and still is, a sensitive subject. So instead they had to rely on a fictious person and storyline that could have been shoehorned into any time or setting.

But I don't want to derail this thread talking about GTA IV...

QUOTE (Bi0ha2ard_q8)
San Andreas though...you never know what's up, first CJ is a gangster then a business owner (while working for the triads) then a secret super agent and before going back to being an über gangster he turns into Danny Ocean while f***ing with the mafia.

It's not impossible for a black male to work in any of those situations. For example Sammy Gravano was one of the biggest and most powerful mobsters during the time, when he was released from jail he began working with the local youth gangs to help him get back on top. Gravano and the gang's 23-year-old leader started a major ecstasy trafficking organization, selling over 30,000 tablets and grossing $500,000 a week.

As for working with the government agent; We never find out if Toreno was supposed to be dealing drugs or not which I believe he wasn't. Which leads me to believe Toreno's story is based loosely on Oliver North 's illegal drug and gun trafficking which was the heart of the Iran Contra Affair. He sold guns to Iran to fund the Contras. The Contras in the Nicaraguan conflict were funded with drug money, of which the United States was aware. Manuel Noriega was the drug kingpin, being funded by the CIA, that was funding most of this, and Oliver North was meeting with Manuel Noriega even though America indicted him on drug charges. An agent like Toerno [or Oliver North] would need somebody to steal weapons and distribute drugs, that's where street gangs come in. CJ being able to steal weapons made him the perfect candidate.

QUOTE
CJ's character and personality never convinced me of this infinite ability to be whatever needs to be. He's easily the dumbest of all the protagonists and has a hypocritical holier than though morality. Reluctant on being a cold hearted hitman but being fine with killing for his friends/gang.

He is very passive. He's not dumb either, he had to go up against some of the most powerful antagonists we have seen in the GTA series. He knows how to not "rock the boat", and that "you have to play the sucker to catch a sucker". It's like being a hussler or a poolshark. You can't show everything you've got right away or you won't have any defense stratagies "cultivate an air of unpredictability".
As for him not being cold hearted but still killing; He was motivated by two things, finding his mother's killer and to stop the drugs that was ruining society. When faced with such difficulties, along with fearing for his own life due to police oppression, the idea of what's wrong and right begin to change and those lines tend to blur.

SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Give me Liberty

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia

#40

Posted 23 June 2013 - 07:46 AM

I think R* faced the same problem with the riots in SA. The real LA riots were race fueled and it was probably a sore subject to dive heavily into.

I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere. Sensitive subject matter such as the attitude towards terrorism and the LA riots had to be convincing enough whilst not being overly offensive. I really admire the research that went into parts of SA's story however it still felt to me that the story was chopped up far too much.

I can imagine how epic SA's story would've been if it was a 100% focussed, gritty look at street gang life in early 90s LA. That's why sometimes I think R* should've made LS on its own and put all the eggs into that basket.

Bi0ha2ard_q8
  • Bi0ha2ard_q8

    Scam Artist

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2013

#41

Posted 23 June 2013 - 08:05 AM Edited by Bi0ha2ard_q8, 26 June 2013 - 12:16 AM.

Parts of GTA IV were inspired by real life events too. The waning Irish mob, NY mafia swallowing up New Jersey, Latin Kings Documentary and the rise of new criminal organisations (E.g. Russian mob and Jamaicans). I'm sure there's more.

R* also touched on the new post 9/11 United States by portraying a xenophobic state run by fear. The news both in the radio and the internet show this.

They also handled the new attitude towards immigration. Many references on "dirty immigrants" or when Niko saves Hossan and they mention how the immigrants are the new slave class.
All that is part of Niko's world the same way that rising racial tensions apply to Carl's.

The effects of terrorism were featured, it just wasn't a main focus; it just foreshadowed the country's unforgiving stance against immigrants.

And NOOSE, the games equivalent to Homeland security. The creation of the agency marks the country's shift in attitude.

Racecarlock
  • Racecarlock

    The floor here will kill you, try to avoid it.

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009

#42

Posted 23 June 2013 - 09:14 AM

I never really played GTA games for story. So SA is tops for me. Planes, a varied world, many different vehicles, lots of fun weapons, it was a blast.

Sure, IV has those nice new physics to play with that encourages the player to "make their own fun". But how is it easier to make your own fun when you have less tools? Planes might have seemed unnecessary in liberty city, but who cares? Flying is fun and no amount of bullsh*tting is going to stop flying from being fun. I would have loved to use jets in IV, and so would have a lot of other people.

"But what about the minigames?"

I like bowling and pool, but I'm playing GTA to play GTA. I have a pool table in my basement and I live 5 minutes from a bowling alley. Even if I didn't, you can find specialized games that do both of those way better.

Comedy clubs? This is the youtube generation where I can just look up any comedian and watch him. Even if that wasn't there, comedy central still exists. Then there's the cabaret club. Juggling and comedic magic acts? Again, youtube. It's easy. There's even a comedian magician. Then there's the even more easy to find on other mediums done better bluesy saint john, who sings regular blues but with more drugs and sex thrown in. And the cowboy mime? Are you serious? I'm supposed to be entertained by mimes now? Stephen Colbert is the only one who can pull the good mime thing off these days anyways.

What I don't have is a fighter jet. An ATV. A giant ass stunt ramp. Racing cars straight from the track. A monster truck. A jetpack. A chainsaw. A flamethrower. Tanks. All of which and more San Andreas gives me. Did IV have a good story? More or less. Did it have good gameplay? Yes, but not as good as SA.

Flesh-n-Bone
  • Flesh-n-Bone

    OG

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2008

#43

Posted 23 June 2013 - 05:08 PM

QUOTE (Bi0ha2ard_q8 @ Saturday, Jun 8 2013, 10:05)
CJ's character and personality never convinced me of this infinite ability to be whatever needs to be. He's easily the dumbest of all the protagonists and has a hypocritical holier than though morality. Reluctant on being a cold hearted hitman but being fine with killing for his friends/gang.

I skipped the opening post but after reading another post quoting it, I have to call bullsh*t on this part.

CJ is the DUMBEST? No, more like smartest. He's the mastermind behind the downfall of the Loco Syndicate, the Caligula Heist and Triad's victory over Da Nang Boys in the storyline. How does that make him dumb? Sometimes I think people just don't pay attention to the story and talk a bunch of nonsense that don't add up whatsoever. Instead of showing himself as this super tough guy who takes no sh*t, he let the likes of Jizzy and T-Bone push him around so he could earn their trust and find out about their business then use that to bring them down.

Can you show me any part in the game where CJ was hesitant to kill somebody? Sure, he showed compassion for his former friends turned traitors but otherwise, he never thought twice about killing strangers or enemies. If there's somebody who didn't want to commit crimes but still did it, Niko and Vic Vance fit the description more accurately.

_StackS_
  • _StackS_

    Mr.CountItUp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2013

#44

Posted 23 June 2013 - 06:55 PM

I know many and many of new comers and some old love iv and think its the best gta so far. I think its all based on opinion. And my opinion is no its not. I personally didn't like niko or the lack of weapons, side missions, aircraft, properties, and enjoyable collectables compared to san andreas. I didn't like niko that much either. He always complained about him killing people and would carry on and on about it but was just quick just to contridict himself for money. He just seemed (to me) a big depressing contridiction. All he wants is for darko to be dead but when you do it the game makes you feel like you made the wrong decision with all the dialogue from the characters. I didn't like the illusion of SOME choices in the beginning. I had the choice to kill ivan the terrible so I did so I didn't have to deal with him later but later in the storyline somehow ivan the terrible is running guns and I have to destroy operations!?! I would of enjoyed the all over the place storyline if they would have made them varied like one requires you to swim underwater and then climb a boat to destroy a gun shipment or fly a coptor over some building and parachute off to get to something that wouldn't have been accesable from the floor. Too many of the missions in IV are drive here. Kill guy. Drive back. Not varied enough. I still enjoyed IV don't get me wrong but I certianly don't think it was better than san andreas. San andreas had many many more things than iv did. The only thing better in iv is obviously the graphics. And let me finish this off by saying while san andreas is the best gta, vice city is my favorite biggrin.gif

TheDeaconBosco
  • TheDeaconBosco

    A car so nice, they've named it twice

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2012

#45

Posted 23 June 2013 - 07:17 PM

QUOTE (_StackS_ @ Sunday, Jun 23 2013, 18:55)
I know many and many of new comers and some old love iv and think its the best gta so far. I think its all based on opinion. And my opinion is no its not. I personally didn't like niko or the lack of weapons, side missions, aircraft, properties, and enjoyable collectables compared to san andreas. I didn't like niko that much either. He always complained about him killing people and would carry on and on about it but was just quick just to contridict himself for money. He just seemed (to me) a big depressing contridiction. All he wants is for darko to be dead but when you do it the game makes you feel like you made the wrong decision with all the dialogue from the characters. I didn't like the illusion of SOME choices in the beginning. I had the choice to kill ivan the terrible so I did so I didn't have to deal with him later but later in the storyline somehow ivan the terrible is running guns and I have to destroy operations!?! I would of enjoyed the all over the place storyline if they would have made them varied like one requires you to swim underwater and then climb a boat to destroy a gun shipment or fly a coptor over some building and parachute off to get to something that wouldn't have been accesable from the floor. Too many of the missions in IV are drive here. Kill guy. Drive back. Not varied enough. I still enjoyed IV don't get me wrong but I certianly don't think it was better than san andreas. San andreas had many many more things than iv did. The only thing better in iv is obviously the graphics. And let me finish this off by saying while san andreas is the best gta, vice city is my favorite biggrin.gif

Ivan the Terrible was a Russian Monarch who was feared for his ruthlessness, Jon Gravelli used that as a figure of speech to refer to the Russian mob (Dimitri's mob) in general.

"Ivan the not so terrible" was named like this because the Ivan in the game is actually quite a nice guy.

reform
  • reform

    Beaten, battered, bruised, Told to get down

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2009

#46

Posted 23 June 2013 - 07:47 PM

I guess it comes down to IV (and even III & VC) being better, more cohesive stories, and SA being the bigger, better sandbox.

There's no denying that SA was the best sandbox GTA experience so far. All other aspecs took a backseat for that reason.

Those who favour SA likely value that aspect for what it can provide post-story, and those who favour IV value story (and perhaps technical advancement with regards to driving/ragdoll/other physics) over a broader sandbox experience.



Andreas
  • Andreas

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 27 May 2012
  • Austria

#47

Posted 23 June 2013 - 08:44 PM Edited by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian, 25 June 2013 - 09:35 AM.

QUOTE (golf wang @ Saturday, Jun 22 2013, 12:59)
People try really hard to make GTA IV seem like it was some kind of masterpiece in storytelling, it really wasn't. The story itself was well-written, but it's delivery was just all over the place. [...] IV's story was depressing and the ending was completely unsatisfying.

The story in IV was pretty good, considering that this is a videogame we are talking about. Especially when it comes to the depth of the characters and the protagonist, GTAIV definitely nailed it the way San Andreas and other games of the series never did. However, it entirely depends on your taste which of these two games' storyline you prefer. Depth is not everything that the story of a game defines, at least that is what a lot of people tend to think, which is true. And not everyone would choose a believable, dark and more serious story over an early 90's gangster-themed story.

QUOTE (Flesh-n-Bone @ Sunday, Jun 23 2013, 19:08)
CJ is the DUMBEST? No, more like smartest.

I don't think that he was literally talking about CJ's intelligence. Think about all the events in San Andreas, and all the missions you have to do. Then look why CJ returned to Los Santos in the first place, and what his target was after he found out that the Grove Street Families are estranged. Basically, the story and the initial thoughts of Carl are contradicting his actions throughout the game. The problem was that the story was not focused on one thing the whole time, as it was the case with GTA III and IV, which is what made both games great in that regard. After C.R.A.S.H. more or less forced CJ to leave Los Santos, the story doesn't seem to make sense aynmore. That's the thing I critize the most about the game. I do enjoy GTA:SA, but the story of it is weak compared to the ones of III, Vice City and IV. At least, that is what I think.

QUOTE (_StackS_ @ Sunday, Jun 23 2013, 20:55)
I didn't like niko that much either. He always complained about him killing people and would carry on and on about it but was just quick just to contridict himself for money. He just seemed (to me) a big depressing contridiction. All he wants is for darko to be dead but when you do it the game makes you feel like you made the wrong decision with all the dialogue from the characters.

Niko left his home country and came to Liberty City for a new start, to visit his cousin and to kill the person who killed all his friends a decade ago. He 'lost his soul' in the war, and he was mentally a wreck, so to speak. He didn't kill people for no reason and not because he enjoyed it. He killed people because he didn't have another choice and his past catched him up. If you're following the whole storyline, and if you think about all actions you have to do, then you will realize that things were different in the end than NB initially thought. It wasn't his target to kill Vlad, then work for Faustin who he has to kill later, then have Dimitri as foe, and so on. All these things happened because it turned out this way. It's not the first time that someone says that Niko is being whiny. Even in the game itself, Roman says that Niko is “melodramatic”, and that for a good reason: he experienced a lot of bad things ever since the war in former Yugoslavia.

QUOTE (_StackS_ @ Sunday, Jun 23 2013, 20:55)
I had the choice to kill ivan the terrible so I did so I didn't have to deal with him later but later in the storyline somehow ivan the terrible is running guns and I have to destroy operations!?!
[...]
San andreas had many many more things than iv did. The only thing better in iv is obviously the graphics.

The mission was called “Ivan The Not So Terrible” for a reason, and if I remember correctly, it didn't make any difference whether you killed him or not.

The only thing IV did better is the graphics - obviously?! I do not agree at all. Let us see what IV did better than SA:
driving and flying physics
shooting mechanics
storyline and depth
cover system
natural motion

There is certainly more than what I have listed, but that are the things I know from the top of my head.

Flesh-n-Bone
  • Flesh-n-Bone

    OG

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2008

#48

Posted 23 June 2013 - 08:52 PM

QUOTE (Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian @ Sunday, Jun 23 2013, 21:44)
I don't think that he was literally talking about CJ's intelligence. Think about all the events in San Andreas, and all the missions you have to do. Then look why CJ returned to Los Santos in the first place, and what his target was after he found out that the Grove Street Families are estranged. Basically, the story and the initial thoughts of Carl are contradicting his actions throughout the game. The problem was that the story was not focused on one thing the whole time, as it was the case with GTA III and IV, which is what made both games great in that regard. After C.R.A.S.H. more or less forced CJ to leave Los Santos, the story doesn't seem to make sense. That's the thing I critize the most about that game. I do enjoy GTA:SA but the story of it is weakif you compare it to the ones of III, Vice City and IV. At least that is what I think.

That's part of why I love it. Considering how huge the game was, it only made sense to have a storyline reason to exit Los Santos and for what they did, I think R★ did an excellent job. CJ wants to get back at the Ballas, find out who killed his mother and get the control back to Grove Street hands but things get out of control and he's forced out of town. There, he realizes that he can't focus on what he came back for so instead, he builds up on new alternatives such as running a garage just to make his money and live. In the end, he's pretty much settled in his new ways of life until his brother pretty much forces him to return to the hood to take back what he returned for in the first place. And once that's also done and over with, he not only has control of the Los Santos streets but plenty of other business ventures which he uses to make his money and help his family and friends. I think it's an excellent story that is the best way to have something with more replay value, variety, length and level of entertainment. Plus much more satisfying in the end compared to the rest of the games other than maybe Vice City where you truly feel on top in the same way.

AtchooMatchew
  • AtchooMatchew

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2013

#49

Posted 23 June 2013 - 10:21 PM

I think the only thing GTA IV had going for its story was the DLCs, honestly. Don't get me wrong: I enjoyed some of the characters immensely, and some of my favorite missions in the GTA series were in IV ("Three Leaf Clover"). That said, I didn't find Niko's story even remotely relatable. And he spent as much time doing sh*t that wasn't leading him to his target as CJ did.

DarrinPA
  • DarrinPA

    Orange Grove Member

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2009
  • None

#50

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:18 AM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Sunday, Jun 23 2013, 02:46)
I think R* faced the same problem with the riots in SA. The real LA riots were race fueled and it was probably a sore subject to dive heavily into.

I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere. Sensitive subject matter such as the attitude towards terrorism and the LA riots had to be convincing enough whilst not being overly offensive.

I definitly see your point. They did waterdown the reasoning behind the riots, considering that they made the riots non-race related and just focused on the overly oppressive police officers actions. That does make GTA IV a bit more even I suppose.

QUOTE (Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian)
The problem was that the story was not focused on one thing the whole time,..... After C.R.A.S.H. more or less forced CJ to leave Los Santos, the story doesn't seem to make sense aynmore.

No offense, but it seems like you mave have not understood the story once the setting changed. The Loco Syndicate [which funds the Ballas activities] is [partially] located in San Fierro/whestone. Considering that the Ballas are responsible for his mother's death, he finds their meeting place and then begins to meet seperatly with each member of the syndicate to take them down. The transition to the desert is to follow the last known member - Toreno. All of this is happening while being threaten by Tennpenny.

guib
  • guib

    Do you hear the Whisper Men? The Whisper Men Are Near.

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009

#51

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:02 PM

QUOTE (DarrinPA @ Monday, Jun 24 2013, 01:18)
No offense, but it seems like you mave have not understood the story once the setting changed. The Loco Syndicate [which funds the Ballas activities] is [partially] located in San Fierro/whestone. Considering that the Ballas are responsible for his mother's death, he finds their meeting place and then begins to meet seperatly with each member of the syndicate to take them down. The transition to the desert is to follow the last known member - Toreno. All of this is happening while being threaten by Tennpenny.

He doesn't kill the members of the syndicate because of the death of his mother though.
The treating by tenpenny is the only thing that really recurred back through the whole storyline.
SA storyline was just all over the place, it needed to be that way to go to all the city's. And that basically made the storyline terrible.

Flesh-n-Bone
  • Flesh-n-Bone

    OG

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2008

#52

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:44 PM

QUOTE (guib @ Monday, Jun 24 2013, 22:02)
He doesn't kill the members of the syndicate because of the death of his mother though.
The treating by tenpenny is the only thing that really recurred back through the whole storyline.
SA storyline was just all over the place, it needed to be that way to go to all the city's. And that basically made the storyline terrible.

Actually, he kills the syndicate members to get back at Ballas since they use that organization to spread drugs throughout the state. Which also goes back to the death of his mother since Ballas are responsible for it. He can't directly fight them in Los Santos since it's a death wish so he took out the syndicate while waiting for the opportunity to return to LS.

Akaviri
  • Akaviri

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 May 2012

#53

Posted 25 June 2013 - 05:36 AM Edited by Akaviri, 25 June 2013 - 05:48 AM.

QUOTE (Flesh-n-Bone @ Sunday, Jun 23 2013, 20:52)
That's part of why I love it. Considering how huge the game was, it only made sense to have a storyline reason to exit Los Santos and for what they did, I think R★ did an excellent job. CJ wants to get back at the Ballas, find out who killed his mother and get the control back to Grove Street hands but things get out of control and he's forced out of town. There, he realizes that he can't focus on what he came back for so instead, he builds up on new alternatives such as running a garage just to make his money and live. In the end, he's pretty much settled in his new ways of life until his brother pretty much forces him to return to the hood to take back what he returned for in the first place. And once that's also done and over with, he not only has control of the Los Santos streets but plenty of other business ventures which he uses to make his money and help his family and friends. I think it's an excellent story that is the best way to have something with more replay value, variety, length and level of entertainment. Plus much more satisfying in the end compared to the rest of the games other than maybe Vice City where you truly feel on top in the same way.

This is a great explanation of San Andreas' story. Nobody seems to get it, though. San Andreas' story made sense and justified the huge expansive game world. Sure, it could have been consolidated into merely a hood tale but it would have had to have been restricted to only Los Santos. The journey beyond L.S sets up a much more ambitious story arc than CJ simply trying to find his mothers killer.

People complain mostly about the Mike Toreno missions because they are ridiculous (they are). However, Mike Toreno was very necessary to the story because only he had connections to get Sweet sprung out of prison.




On the topic of GTA IV, I believe the story was butchered. Although he was a groundbreaking detailed protagonist, he was a broken character. Like everyone says, he is a hypocrite. Maybe this is the fault of the diluted gameplay, because the story is told through spam of shallow murders for lack of a better device. Every mission was a deathmatch and a slaughter or a car chase and some explosions.

I think Niko had great potential from the loose premise of his character - a cold, foreign immigrant killer fresh off the boat. The promotional work for the game had me sold on this idea. I mean, just look at this guy. But dude, he had too many negative feelings that conflicted his interests. The story comes full circle with Niko mourning again, in a worst state than when he arrived in the city. His attempts to redeem the deaths of his fallen comrades was counterproductive in the sense that it didn't make him feel better. Not only that, but he lacked intelligence and ambition. His pursuit of the American dream was a failure because he lacked the constructive mentality of other GTA protagonists - he didn't invest his money or set anything up, he just kept a complacent role as a hired gun from beginning to end. The money he earned from all his dirty work served no purpose in the story nor in the game itself. What a totally broken game in that aspect.

As far as the story, I think they curbed the Russian mob too early. Dimitri's betrayal was random and unnecessary. It didn't suffice for a long term vendetta in my opinion. Dimitri sold Niko out for a business opportunity - okay, that's fair game in the criminal underworld. It was a calculated decision, nothing personal. So why build on it like that?

Don't get me wrong, I love GTA IV for other reasons. The criminal universe is vastly detailed and realistic (just look at the police database). Many of the characters are f*cking awesome, like the entire McReary cast. Faustin was a badass. The UL Paper contact rivaled Mike Toreno in terms of secret government agenda. It's just... the game was cut too early to flesh out its potential. They had a lot of distraction, though. What with building a new game engine, and experimenting with the DLC episodes to test the waters for GTA V's concept of multiple protagonists. I just wish they could go back and do the game justice, release an expansion for Niko's story that offers some more interaction and diversity. I suppose that's too much to ask at this point.


Bi0ha2ard_q8
  • Bi0ha2ard_q8

    Scam Artist

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2013

#54

Posted 25 June 2013 - 11:57 PM Edited by Bi0ha2ard_q8, 26 June 2013 - 12:12 AM.

Akavir, He couldn't set up a business or advance himself.
He was an Illegal immigrant in a xenophobic Liberty City, Who had the Russian mob after him and a degenerate gambler as a Cousin.

He also didn't get the opportunity to gain connections with more powerful people. Like when Dimitri said that he wouldn't ally himself
with a cockroach like Niko in a A city as ambitious as New York. A cheap Henchman.

He is the downtrodden, like most of his friends. The waning Irish gang or depressed Ex-convict drug dealer.Even the most successful of them
were barely dealing with their own demons and delusions, besides them having no way of finding Darko.

He killed or moved up from his older "bosses" in order to get to some one who could actually find his target.
It was an obsession for him that distracted him of what he is.
And his obsession quelled the depression just enough to keep him moving. Remember, "I feel Nothing"?

See I think Niko realises what a monster life had made him, but he is stuck with this career because he has no other options.

It's very very very f*cking depressing I know.
But the balls it took for rockstar to do that to GTA!
To me, they made a 2d representation of 3 dimensions become reality with the characters' depth & humanity, despite the fact that Niko was an assassin for hire.

Bi0ha2ard_q8
  • Bi0ha2ard_q8

    Scam Artist

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2013

#55

Posted 26 June 2013 - 12:26 AM Edited by Bi0ha2ard_q8, 26 June 2013 - 12:36 AM.

QUOTE (DarrinPA @ Sunday, Jun 23 2013, 02:46)

QUOTE (Bi0ha2ard_q8 @ Friday, Jun 21 2013, 18:46)
I think you need to sophisticate your mind a bit. Gain an ability to analyse and understand sh*t. Either do that or actually play the single player game.
Hint: Silliness defined the GTA III Era. GTA IV is where you expect the realism.

Most of GTA SA was based on true stories. Where as GTA IV is just a fictional story pulled out of thin air. C.R.A.S.H. was an actual operations unit of the Los Angeles Police Department. Those members of C.R.A.S.H. were the cause of the Rampart scandal. Cops killing cops, robbing banks, intimidating gang members, selling drugs, framing fellow law enforcement members was all real. Officer Tenpenny, Pulaski, Hernandez, and Pendelbury all have their real life counterparts. The Crack epidemic and LA Riots were just the surface problems of L.A. at the time and GTA SA did a great job of exploring the underlying causes of the tumultuous and fragile society at the time.


You are Right. The Universe and supporting characters were amazing (like i said in the first post), for me it's just Carl...as a protag.

I don't mean to be pro-GTA IV or anti-San Andreas.
I played and loved all GTA's since III. I loved being a gangsta defending my hood with some homies I recruited.
I loved it when I got them MP5's and desert Eagles. I missed the weapons,clothes, planes, mayhem and muscles
as much as the next guy. But in my opinion, depth is worth it. We need it in this shallow Kim Kardashian World.

I'm just stating my preferences and why in a series that I love and grew up with.
I see more value in this than posting in the GTA V section which seems to have developed into a glorified wishlist.

GTAKid667
  • GTAKid667

    The Bad Fella

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 24 May 2010
  • United-Kingdom

#56

Posted 29 June 2013 - 01:38 PM

I completely agree with you! This is the one thing I really dislike confused.gif

Akaviri
  • Akaviri

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 May 2012

#57

Posted 29 June 2013 - 06:52 PM Edited by Akaviri, 29 June 2013 - 07:03 PM.

QUOTE (Bi0ha2ard_q8 @ Tuesday, Jun 25 2013, 23:57)
Akavir, He couldn't set up a business or advance himself.
He was an Illegal immigrant in a xenophobic Liberty City, Who had the Russian mob after him and a degenerate gambler as a Cousin.

He also didn't get the opportunity to gain connections with more powerful people. Like when Dimitri said that he wouldn't ally himself
with a cockroach like Niko in a A city as ambitious as New York. A cheap Henchman.

He is the downtrodden, like most of his friends. The waning Irish gang or depressed Ex-convict drug dealer.Even the most successful of them
were barely dealing with their own demons and delusions, besides them having no way of finding Darko.

He killed or moved up from his older "bosses" in order to get to some one who could actually find his target.
It was an obsession for him that distracted him of what he is.
And his obsession quelled the depression just enough to keep him moving. Remember, "I feel Nothing"?

See I think Niko realises what a monster life had made him, but he is stuck with this career because he has no other options.

It's very very very f*cking depressing I know.
But the balls it took for rockstar to do that to GTA!
To me, they made a 2d representation of 3 dimensions become reality with the characters' depth & humanity, despite the fact that Niko was an assassin for hire.

I should rephrase my argument, because I actually agree GTAIV had a incredibly well written story. What you said is a very good analysis of Niko and his world. I guess I wasn't looking at it the right way; I take back what I said about the story being butchered. I was seeing it as the story was limiting the potential for gameplay by being so dark and unrewarded. That's not the way to look at it, though. To me, the game made for empty, aimless play once you got used to the little things that came with next-gen. I shouldn't necessarily blame the story, but rather the fact that there was such a severe lack of interactive detail to back it up. They simply didn't reflect enough of it into gameplay. Outside of the cutscenes I always felt detached from the story. The only redeeming points to me were the friends feature. The special abilities helped bring a piece of the story into the game outside of the missions, like calling Jacob to meet for guns or picking up some of Dwayne's tough hustler niggas to go do a job.

• The other crucial flaw was how devalued the money was, which basically threw off the whole game. The side missions had no point, you only ever needed money for guns or clothes. How much can you really spend on assault rifles and mafia suits? A couple thousand grand? All they needed to do was add some more consumerism. Car modding, properties, black market sh*t - they had plenty to work with but I guess they didn't have enough time to implement such things. Fortunately they are rectifying that with GTAV.

godforgivesthelostdont
  • godforgivesthelostdont

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2013

#58

Posted 01 July 2013 - 12:08 AM

QUOTE (Bi0ha2ard_q8 @ Saturday, Jun 8 2013, 09:05)
So the topic is a bit touchy (and over discussed), yes, but hear me out.

GTA III made a good go at portraying a heartless Hitman for hire with a personal vendetta.

Vice City had a street smart mafioso start a criminal empire in a new city. Forming new connections and developing businesses.

GTA IV (my favourite) was GTA III reincarnated in a "realistic" HD world.

---------San Andreas Spoilers!!!----------

San Andreas though...you never know what's up, first CJ is a gangster then a business owner (while working for the triads) then a secret super agent and before going back to being an über gangster he turns into Danny Ocean while f***ing with the mafia.

CJ's character and personality never convinced me of this infinite ability to be whatever needs to be. He's easily the dumbest of all the protagonists and has a hypocritical holier than though morality. Reluctant on being a cold hearted hitman but being fine with killing for his friends/gang.

All in all San Andreas is a great game, the universe is amazing, it's just CJ.

i agree that cj was a two dimensional character, but i think like Link and Gordon Freeman, he is meant to be you (and an observer of the game world, rather than a standalone character). this was cemented by all of the customization features.

also, the random, chaotic, surreal, and exaggerated nature of san andreas is what made it fun.

Bi0ha2ard_q8
  • Bi0ha2ard_q8

    Scam Artist

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2013

#59

Posted 03 July 2013 - 10:45 PM

Akaviri,

Yeah, the developers limited themselves with that story.
Money was strangely worthless and devalued especially with how Niko
and Roman obsessed about it.

I also enjoyed the perks you earn with friends and after missions (backup, wanted level and weapon delivery) but it could've been more satisfying and useful.

If CJ was ambitious, young and capable. I guess Niko was oppressed, spent-up and single minded.

I doubt that GTA V will disappoint with open world interactivity, world economy and satisfactory perks.

It's funny how you should mention butchered stories. I think all GTA stories are butchered in their own way,
there are gaps in all of them that allow for analysis and some imagination.

Sachs
  • Sachs

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2013

#60

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:18 PM

QUOTE (Flesh-n-Bone @ Sunday, Jun 23 2013, 17:08)
CJ is the DUMBEST? No, more like smartest. He's the mastermind behind the downfall of the Loco Syndicate, the Caligula Heist and Triad's victory over Da Nang Boys in the storyline. How does that make him dumb? Sometimes I think people just don't pay attention to the story and talk a bunch of nonsense that don't add up whatsoever. Instead of showing himself as this super tough guy who takes no sh*t, he let the likes of Jizzy and T-Bone push him around so he could earn their trust and find out about their business then use that to bring them down.

That. Remember that betrayal is the deadliest weapon.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users