|QUOTE (Agni @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 15:56)|
|QUOTE (ThePinkFloydSound @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 13:05)|
| San Andreas' story was great fun. This was when Rockstar wasn't pretentiously trying to up their own arse by writing the great 'American' story. Also defending IV's lack of features because a previous title had loads is pathetic. It's not what people expect from their gaming experience. This is simple common knowledge. Also, the point Mokrie made about people still playing III and VC even though it doesn't have many features is ludicrous. You'll find that most of those people are re-buying those games and are enjoying it for nostalgia. You'll rarely find someone buying those games that never played them before. People gave out about IV's lack of features as it was the title after San Andreas on a next gen console. Previous GTA's usually made bigger and better games as each title came out adding features. IV broke this trend. You can't deny that. You can try spin some sort of warped meaning from it to suite your sentiments but the bottom line and pure truth is many fans believe IV was a step backwards. Any progression of achievement in the evolution and improvement that GTA made with the release of IV was expected. |
As for San Andreas, the first time I played San Andreas the story seemed a little incoherent in places. However, I played it about 6 times and played it earlier this year again. The story isn't incoherent at all. I was probably just more immature at the time. OP said (possibly rhetorically) that then we went to San Fierro for some strange reason. CJ was exiled from Los Santos. The whole city was after him and Tenpenny threatened him so he had to leave. It's not out of the or too crazy to meet the Truth. Tenpenny introduced you to him. Not strange for cops to meet people from all walks of life, especially drug smugglers.
And this snotty attitude that people who enjoy San Andreas' features or story are kids is ridiculous. It's a video game and people like to have fun playing games. I have my favourite TV shows like The Wire for gritty realism and thing that doesn't really translate well as a fun GTA game.
Give me eccentric characters like The Truth, Mike Toreno and Woozie any day over more bland characters like IV's.
EDIT: If you thought SA was an incoherent mess, you probably didn't figure out that the game needs some move and thinking on on your part. Stick to one set of missions at a time. Once you do that, you'll realise it's not incoherent at all. Also there's a suggested path of how you complete missions in that game. Follow it and stick to one set of missions at a time. Don't go around doing 3 different sets and expect to be following everything.
But SA is not a good game. It was stuffed with stuff that wasn't very good. It's pure quantity over quality.
IV, on the other hand, actually had a damn story that made sense, vastly improved gameplay and overall wasn't bloated with endless filler.
You believe SA is not a good game? Wow.
I think it's one of the best games ever made. I don't recall any other game that allows you to do the things there are to do in that game. Exploring a re-imagined Los Angeles that during an era made famous because of the music and culture that existed (emergence and and popularisation of the Hip Hop sub culture, Gangster rap and gangster films).
It's so original for a game. I mean the content of the game is taken from popular culture but as a game, it's completely original as a concept in a time where gaming was dominated by future Sci-Fi themed games, war games etc.
If you don't like it, fine. But don't say it's a bad game. Because it didn't suite your agenda doesn't make it a bad game.
I never said IV was a bad game. In the context of the GTA series, it's definitely not the strongest title. People love free-roaming, environmental variety (mountains, sea, countryside and city) rewards for side missions and collectibles - things outside the story and IV didn't excel in any of them.
If San Andreas was so bad, why is V seemingly more like San Andreas than it is IV? Why didn't they just pick another grey city like Boston, leave out the countryside and leave out enjoyable free-roaming activities?
Answer me this: Do you think you will enjoy GTA VI (6) on next gen consoles if it's just one city with no countryside, decent rewards, explorable sea, flying, customisation after enjoying GTA V? Something tells me after enjoying the feature fest that V will be that you might understand many peoples feelings about V. To go from so much to do and a see to so little is a big step backwards.