Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

GTA has been on a downward spiral since 2004, my rant on why this game

345 replies to this topic
bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#331

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:25 AM Edited by bish0p2004, 28 September 2013 - 03:27 AM.

You do realize that there are a lot of people who prefer Vice City over San Andreas, right? And that game has much less content. Think about that for a minute.

You do realize those people only prefer the game over San Andreas is the 80's vibe it gave out with its great 80's soundtrack.
 You do know why SA was everyone favorite game right? It had a little bit of things for everyone. It had 3 cities for you to pick with 3 countrysides. 
 
Assumptions, assumptions, and some more assumptions. You can only speak for yourself and give your opinion.
 
No he's right, the praise I hear most about VC is the setting, music and Tommy Vercetti.  All 3 of those are opinion based.  SA added everything VC had and more.  Also, a lot of people didn't like playing as a black street gangbanger.
I wouldn't say that's entirely true. Actually when I look at the series as whole VC is the true sleeper of the bunch.
It introduced the first protagonist with a real personality, clothing options, proper air travel, empire building and the only GTA to have an actual airport interior. I guess you could put the shopping mall in there too.
SA's mechanics are better, but the only thing that stands out for me in SA as being a true addition is the tri city state. It expanded more than it added IMO.
That's why I've never understood the hype surrounding SA. It's not as revolutionary as it's made out to be when the majority of its features were in GTA III and VC.
In saying that I've always had a soft spot for VC and consider it to be the high point of the GTA III era anyway. I loved the approached R* used to develop VC. SA lost its soul by comparison.
See, I don't have the same feelings as you do in regards to VC. Out of all the GTA games, 3 was the revolutionary one. I was extremely disappointed VC at the time, because I hated the map. The 80's setting was nice, but the map ruined it for me.

As for the story, I've never really cared for them in video games as I prefer to get my story fix from movies and books...but that's just me. As such, I didn't care for Tommy, or CJ for that matter (although it was great to play as a non white character for once). I even remember being pissed that they decided to get an actor to voice the main character as I felt it would take the focus away from the actual gameplay (which is the most important aspect of a video game for me). Even more, I felt it would ruin the connection I had with a silent protagonist whose personality I could shape into my own because he had none.

Anyways, SA was a masterpiece for me because it was the culmination of all the games before it while adding even more in the gameplay. It basically had everything I wanted in a game at the time.

I hope I don't have to explain why GTA V doesn't feel that way.

TheOtherRyan
  • TheOtherRyan

    The American Dream

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#332

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:33 AM

 

 

 

 

 

You do realize that there are a lot of people who prefer Vice City over San Andreas, right? And that game has much less content. Think about that for a minute.

You do realize those people only prefer the game over San Andreas is the 80's vibe it gave out with its great 80's soundtrack.
 You do know why SA was everyone favorite game right? It had a little bit of things for everyone. It had 3 cities for you to pick with 3 countrysides. 
 
Assumptions, assumptions, and some more assumptions. You can only speak for yourself and give your opinion.
 
No he's right, the praise I hear most about VC is the setting, music and Tommy Vercetti.  All 3 of those are opinion based.  SA added everything VC had and more.  Also, a lot of people didn't like playing as a black street gangbanger.
I wouldn't say that's entirely true. Actually when I look at the series as whole VC is the true sleeper of the bunch.
It introduced the first protagonist with a real personality, clothing options, proper air travel, empire building and the only GTA to have an actual airport interior. I guess you could put the shopping mall in there too.
SA's mechanics are better, but the only thing that stands out for me in SA as being a true addition is the tri city state. It expanded more than it added IMO.
That's why I've never understood the hype surrounding SA. It's not as revolutionary as it's made out to be when the majority of its features were in GTA III and VC.
In saying that I've always had a soft spot for VC and consider it to be the high point of the GTA III era anyway. I loved the approached R* used to develop VC. SA lost its soul by comparison.
See, I don't have the same feelings as you do in regards to VC. Out of all the GTA games, 3 was the revolutionary one. I was extremely disappointed VC at the time, because I hated the map. The 80's setting was nice, but the map ruined it for me.

As for the story, I've never really cared for them in video games as I prefer to get my story fix from movies and books...but that's just me. As such, I didn't care for Tommy, or CJ for that matter (although it was great to play as a non white character for once). I even remember being pissed that they decided to get an actor to voice the main character as I felt it would take the focus away from the actual gameplay (which is the most important aspect of a video game for me). Even more, I felt it would ruin the connection I had with a silent protagonist whose personality I could shape into my own because he had none.

Anyways, SA was a masterpiece for me because it was the culmination of all the games before it while adding even more in the gameplay. It basically had everything I wanted in a game at the time.

I hope I don't have to explain why GTA V doesn't feel that way.

 

 

Well know you know how I feel in regards to SA. If we all felt passionate about the same thing discussion would be kind of boring.

 

SA to be blunt doesn't do much for me at all with the exception of its soundtrack, but even then I'd say VC's was better. Subjective I know.


RichBlackGuy
  • RichBlackGuy

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2013

#333

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:36 AM


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#334

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:47 AM


 

 

 

 

 

You do realize that there are a lot of people who prefer Vice City over San Andreas, right? And that game has much less content. Think about that for a minute.

You do realize those people only prefer the game over San Andreas is the 80's vibe it gave out with its great 80's soundtrack.
 You do know why SA was everyone favorite game right? It had a little bit of things for everyone. It had 3 cities for you to pick with 3 countrysides. 
 
Assumptions, assumptions, and some more assumptions. You can only speak for yourself and give your opinion.
 
No he's right, the praise I hear most about VC is the setting, music and Tommy Vercetti.  All 3 of those are opinion based.  SA added everything VC had and more.  Also, a lot of people didn't like playing as a black street gangbanger.
I wouldn't say that's entirely true. Actually when I look at the series as whole VC is the true sleeper of the bunch.
It introduced the first protagonist with a real personality, clothing options, proper air travel, empire building and the only GTA to have an actual airport interior. I guess you could put the shopping mall in there too.
SA's mechanics are better, but the only thing that stands out for me in SA as being a true addition is the tri city state. It expanded more than it added IMO.
That's why I've never understood the hype surrounding SA. It's not as revolutionary as it's made out to be when the majority of its features were in GTA III and VC.
In saying that I've always had a soft spot for VC and consider it to be the high point of the GTA III era anyway. I loved the approached R* used to develop VC. SA lost its soul by comparison.
See, I don't have the same feelings as you do in regards to VC. Out of all the GTA games, 3 was the revolutionary one. I was extremely disappointed VC at the time, because I hated the map. The 80's setting was nice, but the map ruined it for me.

As for the story, I've never really cared for them in video games as I prefer to get my story fix from movies and books...but that's just me. As such, I didn't care for Tommy, or CJ for that matter (although it was great to play as a non white character for once). I even remember being pissed that they decided to get an actor to voice the main character as I felt it would take the focus away from the actual gameplay (which is the most important aspect of a video game for me). Even more, I felt it would ruin the connection I had with a silent protagonist whose personality I could shape into my own because he had none.

Anyways, SA was a masterpiece for me because it was the culmination of all the games before it while adding even more in the gameplay. It basically had everything I wanted in a game at the time.

I hope I don't have to explain why GTA V doesn't feel that way.
 
 
Well know you know how I feel in regards to SA. If we all felt passionate about the same thing discussion would be kind of boring.
 
SA to be blunt doesn't do much for me at all with the exception of its soundtrack, but even then I'd say VC's was better. Subjective I know.

What the hell does this comment have to do with anything?

TheOtherRyan
  • TheOtherRyan

    The American Dream

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#335

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:49 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You do realize that there are a lot of people who prefer Vice City over San Andreas, right? And that game has much less content. Think about that for a minute.

You do realize those people only prefer the game over San Andreas is the 80's vibe it gave out with its great 80's soundtrack.
 You do know why SA was everyone favorite game right? It had a little bit of things for everyone. It had 3 cities for you to pick with 3 countrysides. 
 
Assumptions, assumptions, and some more assumptions. You can only speak for yourself and give your opinion.
 
No he's right, the praise I hear most about VC is the setting, music and Tommy Vercetti.  All 3 of those are opinion based.  SA added everything VC had and more.  Also, a lot of people didn't like playing as a black street gangbanger.
I wouldn't say that's entirely true. Actually when I look at the series as whole VC is the true sleeper of the bunch.
It introduced the first protagonist with a real personality, clothing options, proper air travel, empire building and the only GTA to have an actual airport interior. I guess you could put the shopping mall in there too.
SA's mechanics are better, but the only thing that stands out for me in SA as being a true addition is the tri city state. It expanded more than it added IMO.
That's why I've never understood the hype surrounding SA. It's not as revolutionary as it's made out to be when the majority of its features were in GTA III and VC.
In saying that I've always had a soft spot for VC and consider it to be the high point of the GTA III era anyway. I loved the approached R* used to develop VC. SA lost its soul by comparison.
See, I don't have the same feelings as you do in regards to VC. Out of all the GTA games, 3 was the revolutionary one. I was extremely disappointed VC at the time, because I hated the map. The 80's setting was nice, but the map ruined it for me.

As for the story, I've never really cared for them in video games as I prefer to get my story fix from movies and books...but that's just me. As such, I didn't care for Tommy, or CJ for that matter (although it was great to play as a non white character for once). I even remember being pissed that they decided to get an actor to voice the main character as I felt it would take the focus away from the actual gameplay (which is the most important aspect of a video game for me). Even more, I felt it would ruin the connection I had with a silent protagonist whose personality I could shape into my own because he had none.

Anyways, SA was a masterpiece for me because it was the culmination of all the games before it while adding even more in the gameplay. It basically had everything I wanted in a game at the time.

I hope I don't have to explain why GTA V doesn't feel that way.
 
 
Well know you know how I feel in regards to SA. If we all felt passionate about the same thing discussion would be kind of boring.
 
SA to be blunt doesn't do much for me at all with the exception of its soundtrack, but even then I'd say VC's was better. Subjective I know.

What the hell does this comment have to do with anything?

 

 

I thought it was obvious? You said you don't have the same feelings for VC like I do and I was saying how I don't share similar feelings for SA.


ILOVELOUDPACKS
  • ILOVELOUDPACKS

    I'm your pusher

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2012

#336

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:50 AM

you claim you're a real gta fan but the first gta you mention is san andreas lol.


ShaneHunter
  • ShaneHunter

    The Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2008

#337

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:55 AM

 

HAHAHAHAHA! GTA 4 is better then San Andreas? haha. You are one very stupid person.

IV And vice city are both better than san andreas so gta has not been on the downfall at all.

 

 

It's called having an opinion and games are subjective much like movies so it's his opinion. As your username suggests, you are a tool.


RichBlackGuy
  • RichBlackGuy

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2013

#338

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:58 AM


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#339

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:59 AM

You do realize that there are a lot of people who prefer Vice City over San Andreas, right? And that game has much less content. Think about that for a minute.

You do realize those people only prefer the game over San Andreas is the 80's vibe it gave out with its great 80's soundtrack.
 You do know why SA was everyone favorite game right? It had a little bit of things for everyone. It had 3 cities for you to pick with 3 countrysides. 
 
Assumptions, assumptions, and some more assumptions. You can only speak for yourself and give your opinion.
 
No he's right, the praise I hear most about VC is the setting, music and Tommy Vercetti.  All 3 of those are opinion based.  SA added everything VC had and more.  Also, a lot of people didn't like playing as a black street gangbanger.
I wouldn't say that's entirely true. Actually when I look at the series as whole VC is the true sleeper of the bunch.
It introduced the first protagonist with a real personality, clothing options, proper air travel, empire building and the only GTA to have an actual airport interior. I guess you could put the shopping mall in there too.
SA's mechanics are better, but the only thing that stands out for me in SA as being a true addition is the tri city state. It expanded more than it added IMO.
That's why I've never understood the hype surrounding SA. It's not as revolutionary as it's made out to be when the majority of its features were in GTA III and VC.
In saying that I've always had a soft spot for VC and consider it to be the high point of the GTA III era anyway. I loved the approached R* used to develop VC. SA lost its soul by comparison.
See, I don't have the same feelings as you do in regards to VC. Out of all the GTA games, 3 was the revolutionary one. I was extremely disappointed VC at the time, because I hated the map. The 80's setting was nice, but the map ruined it for me.
As for the story, I've never really cared for them in video games as I prefer to get my story fix from movies and books...but that's just me. As such, I didn't care for Tommy, or CJ for that matter (although it was great to play as a non white character for once). I even remember being pissed that they decided to get an actor to voice the main character as I felt it would take the focus away from the actual gameplay (which is the most important aspect of a video game for me). Even more, I felt it would ruin the connection I had with a silent protagonist whose personality I could shape into my own because he had none.
Anyways, SA was a masterpiece for me because it was the culmination of all the games before it while adding even more in the gameplay. It basically had everything I wanted in a game at the time.
I hope I don't have to explain why GTA V doesn't feel that way.
 
Well know you know how I feel in regards to SA. If we all felt passionate about the same thing discussion would be kind of boring.
 
SA to be blunt doesn't do much for me at all with the exception of its soundtrack, but even then I'd say VC's was better. Subjective I know.

What the hell does this comment have to do with anything?
 
I thought it was obvious? You said you don't have the same feelings for VC like I do and I was saying how I don't share similar feelings for SA.

You said you didn't understand the hype SA got and I speculated on why it did from my point of view. Before that, I speculated on why I feel people still vote VC as being better than SA.

It was obvious from the get go that we both like two different games. Why point that out now after questioning my previous post?

TheOtherRyan
  • TheOtherRyan

    The American Dream

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#340

Posted 28 September 2013 - 04:00 AM

Ah I see you mean now. Sorry. I completely overlooked the context of the quote.


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#341

Posted 28 September 2013 - 04:04 AM

Ah I see you mean now. Sorry. I completely overlooked the context of the quote.


No problem :)

RichBlackGuy
  • RichBlackGuy

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2013

#342

Posted 28 September 2013 - 04:41 AM


redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#343

Posted 28 September 2013 - 05:46 AM

Oh I don't know basically everything from GTA III?

 

I'm going to stop now because I'm still feeling a bit ill that you called VC DLC. Oh well it's still a better game than your beloved SA. Just like GTA IV and GTA V are too. ;)

How?

The movement is the same.

The gunplay is the same

The driving is the same

The graphics are the same 

 

GTA1, GTA3, GTA SA, GTA IV, and GTA V change something big with the gameplay. 

 

GTA 1 was the first GTA game. 
GTA 3 was the first 3D GTA game.

GTA SA improved Driving, Gun play, fighting, and had the MOST activities

GTA IV was the first HD GTA game

GTA V improved Gun play, fighting, and driving and has a good online ( From what I heard ) 


Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#344

Posted 28 September 2013 - 05:59 AM

SA fanboys are f*cking annoying!
Waah IV was sh*t SA was better Waah!
GTA V launches
Waah V sucks SA was better Waah!

Seriously, shut the f*ck up.

Well honestly he makes some valid points but there are good reasons why V lacks in some areas and it's not laziness, it's a mix of economics, technology and poor company management like most developers. The industry is really screwed up in general in terms of management, smaller studios are more efficient by a very very very large margin.

Personally I like V and don't mind lack of certain things, it'll be expanded on in 5 years when the next GTA comes out, my gripe is that the basic mechanics excluding driving still suck and are quite slow.

saintsrow
  • saintsrow

    Dime store angel of death

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2006
  • None
  • Best Story/Poem 2015 [The "I Love Karen Daniels" fanfic]

#345

Posted 28 September 2013 - 06:57 AM

 

SA fanboys are f*cking annoying!
Waah IV was sh*t SA was better Waah!
GTA V launches
Waah V sucks SA was better Waah!

Seriously, shut the f*ck up.

Well honestly he makes some valid points but there are good reasons why V lacks in some areas and it's not laziness, it's a mix of economics, technology and poor company management like most developers. The industry is really screwed up in general in terms of management, smaller studios are more efficient by a very very very large margin.

Personally I like V and don't mind lack of certain things, it'll be expanded on in 5 years when the next GTA comes out, my gripe is that the basic mechanics excluding driving still suck and are quite slow.

 

 

I am afraid that the way things are trending, the next GTA may be created (and worse, managed) by total amateurs.  All the good game designers may have retired or been burned out by then. 


Dutch Psycho
  • Dutch Psycho

    TETTEN! :-)

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2012
  • None

#346

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:16 AM

I admit i was more blown away with san andreas then with v but still gta v is a awesome game and better then gta IV imo.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users