Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

I hope that R* doesn't pull a San Andreas

171 replies to this topic
Degrees
  • Degrees

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2011

#151

Posted 29 July 2013 - 01:38 PM

QUOTE (legend9090 @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 13:26)
by pulling a 'san andreas' do you mean creating a memorable game that everyone loves?

Oh snap.

Anyway I didn't think the SA story was bad but it dragged and side tracked at times. For me VCS was the best gta story wise. IV was alright but that dragged too and Niko also was side tracked like CJ.

I hope V just gets to the point the dynamic missions and Random encounters can side track the story for me.

JoeM
  • JoeM

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2005

#152

Posted 29 July 2013 - 01:43 PM

SA is by far the best GTA to date, that said I fully expect V to top it.

While SA may not have been all the believeable it was at least fun, apart from the follow the train mission, that sucked balls lol.

Mister Pink
  • Mister Pink

    ThePinkFloydSound

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2004
  • None

#153

Posted 29 July 2013 - 02:49 PM

QUOTE (thegtaman531 @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 14:25)
QUOTE (SomeManForGTA @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 13:24)
QUOTE (thegtaman531 @ Sunday, Jul 28 2013, 04:14)
Alright guys, let's face it.
The San Andreas story was bad.

Stopped Reading.

Glad that you're contributing greatly to this topic.
@TPFS The characters aren't bad at all, I love em' biggrin.gif Same goes for the features.
@Below I was regarding the story.
I might take back the first sentence of "Lets face it, the story was bad" I understand that people liked the story because of Carl's journey, but my problem is that is was a bit messy.


Cool man. Just sounded like you thought the story and game was atrocious.

I can agree with you up to a point. Maybe it could have been a little more refined but I enjoyed it so much that I went from thinking it was messy to just probably seeing it as a non-issue.

Agni
  • Agni

    Rex Ignaviae

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2012

#154

Posted 29 July 2013 - 02:56 PM

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.


CTCCoco
  • CTCCoco

    Homie

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2008

#155

Posted 29 July 2013 - 03:05 PM

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.

user posted image

CTCCoco
  • CTCCoco

    Homie

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2008

#156

Posted 29 July 2013 - 03:07 PM

QUOTE (Agni @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 14:56)
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 call improved gameplay at popping textures, models appearing in your face along your run, flickering shadows / textures?

Yeaaa, very very good, a masterpiece I must say.

richard1997jones
  • richard1997jones

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2012

#157

Posted 29 July 2013 - 03:14 PM

SA was the first completed GTA I never completing any gta dating before SA. But I actually enjoyed SA. When Liberty city stories came out I found it boring and never completed but then china town wars came out and although the drug dealing, hotwiring and filling up bottles with petrol was a bit fun the rest was sh*t I mean everyone expect our player was killed the overhead view was like an 80's game so I say SA is better than china town wars. Then came IV, good graphics but story was boring but I liked the linking in, then came the episodes of liberty city which was brilliant in Gay Tony but a bit dull in Lost and Damned. So conclusion, Gay Tony best story followed by SA if V doesn't match and hopefully beat that then I will be gutted.

Agni
  • Agni

    Rex Ignaviae

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2012

#158

Posted 29 July 2013 - 03:15 PM

QUOTE (CTCCoco @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 15:07)
QUOTE (Agni @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 14:56)
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 call improved gameplay at popping textures, models appearing in your face along your run, flickering shadows / textures?

Yeaaa, very very good, a masterpiece I must say.

Nah, I'm talking about vastly improved physics, shooting, and driving. SA is just dated these days.

Mister Pink
  • Mister Pink

    ThePinkFloydSound

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2004
  • None

#159

Posted 29 July 2013 - 03:28 PM

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.


B Dawg
  • B Dawg

    Whoop some ass!

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2008
  • None

#160

Posted 29 July 2013 - 03:30 PM Edited by DarkKingBernard, 29 July 2013 - 03:33 PM.

QUOTE (Agni @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 15:56)
But SA is not a good game. It was stuffed with stuff that wasn't very good. It's pure quantity over quality.

Bitch please. I will bring a few examples:

A ton more races with more variety than in IV, Fighter jets, Miniguns, Heat Seeking Rockets, Fire Extinguishers, Demolition Derby, Dirtbike Challenges, Cranes, Very Good Cheats, RC Vehicles, and so on. It was all quality entertainment that made you play it even more.

@richard1997jones TBOGT is the sh*ttiest GTA to date. The theme was awful and hardly enjoyable, ruining Liberty City with bright ass colors. They all worked well in Vice City, because the theme was good and the music wasn't sh*t!

TheKrigeron
  • TheKrigeron

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 May 2013

#161

Posted 29 July 2013 - 03:45 PM

QUOTE
OP reads like a Cracked(.com) article



Exactly what I tought with the caption and all icon14.gif

OT: I hope the story branches but it still makes sense, I'd take an inconsistent Story that makes me do a lot of stuff (SA) than a consistent one that makes me go from Gray-ass factory to another (IV), but the two aren't incompatible
Note: funny how the best mission in IV (Three Leaf Clover) came out of nowhere

walkingsickness
  • walkingsickness

    Mr. "Blow Your Head Off"

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2005

#162

Posted 29 July 2013 - 03:55 PM

I liked SA storyline up to a certain point...then it just got stupid.
I hated the fact that we owned a casino with that blind guy, but never
got payments from it like with the other properties/business.

IV storyline, even though more direct with its approach, was boring to me.
I think R* has updated themselves enough to make a storyline that will be
worth a damn, but I hope it's like that for all three of the protagonist.
I will be a let down if Micheal's storyline was great but Trevor storyline
was unbelievable and cartoonish.

Agni
  • Agni

    Rex Ignaviae

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2012

#163

Posted 29 July 2013 - 05:08 PM

QUOTE (ThePinkFloydSound @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 15:28)

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.

ALright, MAYBE I was a little tough on SA.

It's not that bad of a game. Actually, it's pretty good--I just think in terms of sheer gameplay, IV is much better. That's why I'm hype for V--it'll give us the quantity of SA with the quality of V.

RandomStunt
  • RandomStunt

    What the hell do those 3d glasses mean?

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2013
  • Netherlands

#164

Posted 29 July 2013 - 05:14 PM

Every GTA is a bit the same.

Every bridge is locked.
You f*ck up Right when the bridges are unlocked and go to another country.
You work for many people to get back and kill your enemy.
The last mission is about killing the one who made you f*ck up.

cerenn
  • cerenn

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2013

#165

Posted 29 July 2013 - 06:39 PM Edited by cerenn, 29 July 2013 - 06:42 PM.

I am surprised how many people on this thread enjoyed GTA IV's story. Less than 30% of people who played GTA IV with an XBOX Live connection beat the game. That's compared to over 70% for COD 4 and Halo 3. ( http://www.escapistm...r-Finished-GTA4 ). When I read message boards on the topic, it's often people stating the story was boring, gloomy, or not fun. Others complained about gameplay changes/subtractions and or the difficulty of certain missions.

To me, GTA SA vs GTA IV is like an episodic cartoon vs a serious novel. In an abstract way, I enjoyed both stories, maybe SA more for the fun characters and IV more for the realistic plot. However, I think SA's story fits a lot better in a funny, violent video game. A realistic story meant trading-off some the comedy and gameplay elements. For example, thank God Ammu-Nation is back. It's certainly realistic to have gun stores banned in Liberty City, but I hate to lose the hilarious commercials ("Hey kids, why spend Saturdays watching boring cartoons about fighting aliens when you can help fight real illegal aliens...") No one would try to steal a jet pack from a military base. Doesn't make any sense, yet I think it's worth having in the game because it's so fun. To me, it's unfortunate that GTA IV doesn't allow for that type lunacy. Good story, but bad for gameplay and comedy.

Also, my impression of the jeuxactu.com blurb about the 3 protagonists in SA was that it was an idea early in the design process. Not something they wrote a story for and changed at the last minute.

Finally, if you want some good insight on how Dan Houser developed the story for GTA V, read the old Game Informer interview. (This site has the full story in screen caps at the bottom of the page: http://beefjack.com/...shots-revealed/ ) It had good info like that the story revolves around bank heists because people loved the "Three Leaf Clover" mission in GTA IV.

RogueStatus
  • RogueStatus

    DTA Posse

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2012

#166

Posted 29 July 2013 - 06:41 PM

QUOTE (Innovention @ Sunday, Jul 28 2013, 04:16)
IV's story was garbage. More garbage than SA. I felt like I needed an IV to finish IV. That or a white russian.

i see what you did there... cookie.gif

theworldfamous
  • theworldfamous

    all your game are belong to I

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2011

#167

Posted 29 July 2013 - 06:51 PM

I really enjoyed the story and I don't really care about those percentages. It's a pointless discussion cause a lot of reason people quote why they didn't like IV (bleak, gritty, lack of variety) are why I really liked it. I could do with more gameplay variety, but I admire the focus IV had. Absolutely everything about that game is there to support the story and the story, characters, gameplay and world together have a message.. something like 'you can't hide from your past, you can only find redemption in yourself.'

I suspect at least some people didn't like the story because they didn't like the message it had for them.

pokemon4ever
  • pokemon4ever

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2008
  • None

#168

Posted 29 July 2013 - 07:44 PM

you guys will argue about anything lol. SA and IV were both awesome games and had great storylines that fit their era and atmosphere just fine

grandtheftchronic
  • grandtheftchronic

    Grand Thief Toker

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2013

#169

Posted 29 July 2013 - 07:48 PM

I feel like iv wad maybe too linear. I always like a shake up in the story, a random contact

018361
  • 018361

    Human

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2010
  • None

#170

Posted 29 July 2013 - 08:03 PM

I personally prefer the silliness of SA over the boring repetitiveness of IV. Both the stories had their high and low points, but for the most part I think San Andreas is more fun.

Mister Pink
  • Mister Pink

    ThePinkFloydSound

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2004
  • None

#171

Posted 30 July 2013 - 11:53 AM

QUOTE (Agni @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 18:08)
QUOTE (ThePinkFloydSound @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 15:28)

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.

ALright, MAYBE I was a little tough on SA.

It's not that bad of a game. Actually, it's pretty good--I just think in terms of sheer gameplay, IV is much better. That's why I'm hype for V--it'll give us the quantity of SA with the quality of V.

Yeah, I mean the combined amazing forces of IV and SA will be nice. icon14.gif

I really believe V will be my future favourite game of all time. I just moved in to a house with my friend who's big GTA fan. There's going to be so much GTA in my house, I love it!

RockKiller
  • RockKiller

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jul 2013

#172

Posted 30 July 2013 - 11:56 AM

GTA:SA history was't garbage, just were non-sense.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users