Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Does Anybody Else Wish GTA: San Andreas Never Existed?

139 replies to this topic
John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#31

Posted 09 October 2013 - 07:22 PM

what? GTA SA was the best GTA-III Era game ever and you say you wish it didn't exist :monocle:

 

Clearly you read the thread title and were to lazy to read the reasoning.

 

If you play V and really look at you can clearly see where that money went. The detail is just unreal.

 

:^:  :^:  :^:

 

so by stating that....

you would agree that every game that is the considered the best in its franchise by the online community should go as well

am i right ???

 

Well if the "online community" just wanted a carbon copy of that game, then yes, yes it should.


GUCCI_MANE_PIZZA_PARTY
  • GUCCI_MANE_PIZZA_PARTY

    I'm a little scared of being a slut.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2013

#32

Posted 09 October 2013 - 07:24 PM

 
As for your point regarding V not feeling like a five year developed game; GTA V cost $180 million to make. Do you think they just pissed that money down the drain? I think your expections were a little too high man.

Try 260 million. Two out of the five years weren't in the "full development" phase. Even employees have said that R* is unorganized and they have a piss poor schedule. They were probably jerking it and playing pong for about 30% of the development time. I say that maybe 10 months before the first trailer was when they fully dedicated their staff and manpower to GTA V.

John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#33

Posted 09 October 2013 - 07:39 PM

Nah, I just wish the haters against it didn't exist.  You guys are an enigma, you played the sh*t out of it, loved it back then, but because something "bigger" and "better" is out, it's not ok to miss it.  Sorry, just because you don't like people comparing the two doesnt mean it shouldnt have existed in the first place.

 

Maybe Rockstar should've realized that their misleadings lead us to believe that this game would at least be on par with SA, unfortunately, it's not.  I should've expect 4.1, great story with little substance.  Back to SA and RDR.

 

You claim that R* "misled us to believe that this game would at least be on par with SA".

 

Not only is V on par with SA, it has battered, raped, murdered, and sprayed diarrhoea all over it.

 

I respect your opinion, but please, explain why you don't believe V is "on par" with SA.


spamtackey
  • spamtackey

    Business Socks

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#34

Posted 09 October 2013 - 07:42 PM

 

 

'Experiment' was probably the wrong word to use, nonetheless, they weren't as familiar with the current gen systems when creating IV as they were with the previous gen systems when creating SA, which is why I believe they were unable to match SA in terms of size and content.

 

As for your point regarding V not feeling like a five year developed game; GTA V cost $180 million to make. Do you think they just pissed that money down the drain? I think your expections were a little too high man.

 

 

I disagree. GTA:V cost $180 million to make because it had a huge world, three characters, and a ton of little details. Do not forget they also used that $180 million to make GTA: Online as well.

 

For me, the reason why V feels like it didn't take five years to develop is because it feels woefully unbalanced and I ran into many glitches that I should not have. Including: the game freezing on me, the cutscenes not loading and characters being stuck in a pose while I can walk around the world and the mission never starts, the formatting issue that was fixed, cars disappearing, falling off my bike for no reason, getting stuck in a ragdoll on a place I should be able to stand, and other small issues. Glitches are to be expected, but I generally run into small ones and not a large amount of them, so GTA V feels buggier to me than most GTA games. 

 

The gameplay itself feels unbalanced with too little health, too little health regeneration, and too aggressive police. I have been one-shotted several times when I had full health and no armor, which is unacceptable to me in any game. We're not playing I Wanna Be The Guy here, so a balance of difficulty is to be expected. When Rockstar got it so right with Red Dead it's weird they'd get the balance so wrong here. 

 

Properties feel thrown in at the last minute, most of them being introduced by simple texts and having missions that don't feel like they took that long to throw together. I suspect some of the things that were properties might have just been introduced by Strangers and Freaks or something until people wanted properties and Rockstar gave them to us.

 

Hanging on ledges has been removed for no reason that I can think of, instead we just ragdoll. Several main story missions are preparation for heists that shouldn't count as a full mission (although I am pleased with the overall number of missions when you include strangers and freaks). Hunting is another feature that is deathly dumbed down from Red Dead that I don't understand the reason for.

 

Vigilante is completely gone when they had it pretty much perfect in GTA IV. A number of people to find and kill (could easily turn those into bounty hunting targets) and the ability to find random criminals and stop them. Why is that gone? It was in IV, so this is something they actually removed. 

 

I had realistic expectations for the game, I wasn't expecting San Andreas 2.0. However, GTA IV was such a polished game in most of its gameplay and aspects and it was followed by Red Dead which had the same quality over quantity mentality, so I expected that Rockstar would go for a "Quality over Quantity" kind of development for GTA V. 

 

I don't know if it was Online that did it, I don't know if they just got wrapped up in the little details like Franklin throwing me off his bike when I tried to take it as Trevor, I don't know if they spent too much time reworking driving or car damage, and I don't know if they just started adding too much stuff to really finish it all, but to me V feels rushed. It's nowhere near as bad as the haters make it out to be and it is every bit a successful follow-up to GTA IV and the good definitely makes up for the bad, I just won't pretend the bad doesn't exist. 


gnrdeth13
  • gnrdeth13

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2012

#35

Posted 09 October 2013 - 07:43 PM

People now complain that GTA V isn't more like IV. They need to make up their minds.

I don't find it all that dissimiliar, myself, especially if you're familiar with The Ballad of Gay Tony expansion.  Not a lot of difference from my perspective other than different city of course.  A lot of ideas from IV are in V, just improved upon (or at least attempted).  Only glaring difference between the two that actually disappoints me (albeit extremely mildly) is the lack of clipping during death.  I always loved watching Niko fall down the proverbial ugly tree and hit every g*dd*mn branch.  With V, every time they die and I'm about to hit things on the way down I still eagerly watch for it, but it doesn't happen.  FML. :p


jptawok
  • jptawok

    Lester the Molestor

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013

#36

Posted 09 October 2013 - 07:49 PM Edited by jptawok, 09 October 2013 - 08:26 PM.

 

Nah, I just wish the haters against it didn't exist.  You guys are an enigma, you played the sh*t out of it, loved it back then, but because something "bigger" and "better" is out, it's not ok to miss it.  Sorry, just because you don't like people comparing the two doesnt mean it shouldnt have existed in the first place.

 

Maybe Rockstar should've realized that their misleadings lead us to believe that this game would at least be on par with SA, unfortunately, it's not.  I should've expect 4.1, great story with little substance.  Back to SA and RDR.

 

You claim that R* "misled us to believe that this game would at least be on par with SA".

 

Not only is V on par with SA, it has battered, raped, murdered, and sprayed diarrhoea all over it.

 

I respect your opinion, but please, explain why you don't believe V is "on par" with SA.

 

Before I explain why it's not on par, what makes GTA V so much better?  Good graphics?  A joke of an online mode?  Or 3 protags?  Here we go...

 

Gang Wars

House Robberies

Dojos (learn new fight moves/techniques)

Actual property with actual missions and real income potential, dont even try to pretend GTA V properties are even on par with VC properties.

Gang recruitment

Monster trucks, Combines, (Real)Attack Choppers (Eg. Apache, not some tiny Buzzard), Hydra, Jetpack

More missions

Longer Story

3 Cities

Casinos

Safe Houses

Building Muscle (or lack there of)

Girlfriends (personally Meh, but unlocked some nice goodies)

Pimping/Dance Clubs

Did I mention 3 cities?!

Edit: How the hell could I forget Vigilante, firetruck, or ambulance missions.

 

Your turn.

  • bish0p2004 likes this

GtaIvFanboy
  • GtaIvFanboy

    I Have a Foot Fetish

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2013

#37

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:02 PM

I just wish Ignorant San Andreas Fanboy did not Exist i mean i love IV and i think its far Superior than S.A but i Can at least praise S.A for what it did bring to the Series san andreas fanboys or least the Majority of them just seem to be Blinded and idiotic. 


John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#38

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:06 PM Edited by niko bellic half brother, 09 October 2013 - 08:07 PM.

@spamtackey

 

-I think you may be having issues with your copy of the game or console, as I haven't experienced a single one of those glitches you listed there.

 

-I agree about the police, although it's not necessarily the aggressiveness that bothers me, but rather the tedious amount of time it takes for the flashing stars to stop once you get away from the pigs. Believe me, I'm not saying V is perfect. I too have my little grievances.

 

-The unability to hang from ledges is a game breaker for you? As for the hunting being "dumbed down" from RDR; hunting was a much larger feature of RDR and that world than V, just as Michaels bullet-time is nowhere near the level of Max Payne 3's bullet-time. 

 

-I just don't understand how you can't see this game as having more quality over IV/RDR. Opinions, I know, I know....and yes, I too was a little pissed that V's campaign was much shorter than IV/RDR, but as an overall game, it's going to give me much more hours of replay value than IV/RDR, and I loved those games.

 

As for online; couldn't care less about that.


dredg XIX
  • dredg XIX

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2013

#39

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:13 PM

"If it wasn't for San Andreas, there'd be nowhere near this level of bitching and whining."

 

I don't think San Andreas has anything to do with the fact that most people in the world these days are self-entitled twats. They would bitch and moan regardless of SA ever existing. Especially when it comes to the internet, it's mostly a forum for bitching, not for positivity.

 

People are much quicker to voice their displeasure with something than voicing praise.


spamtackey
  • spamtackey

    Business Socks

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#40

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:18 PM

@spamtackey

 

-I think you may be having issues with your copy of the game or console, as I haven't experienced a single one of those glitches you listed there.

 

-I agree about the police, although it's not necessarily the aggressiveness that bothers me, but rather the tedious amount of time it takes for the flashing stars to stop once you get away from the pigs. Believe me, I'm not saying V is perfect. I too have my little grievances.

 

-The unability to hang from ledges is a game breaker for you? As for the hunting being "dumbed down" from RDR; hunting was a much larger feature of RDR and that world than V, just as Michaels bullet-time is nowhere near the level of Max Payne 3's bullet-time. 

 

-I just don't understand how you can't see this game as having more quality over IV/RDR. Opinions, I know, I know....and yes, I too was a little pissed that V's campaign was much shorter than IV/RDR, but as an overall game, it's going to give me much more hours of replay value than IV/RDR, and I loved those games.

 

As for online; couldn't care less about that.

 

I'm usually the person thinking that about bugs myself. I never encountered a single major bug in any other GTA game. 

 

Climbing isn't a game breaker, however it does make exploring more annoying because I can't find creative ways up places anymore. I used climbing a lot in GTA IV. :p Hunting is another little thing that doesn't break the game. They already had a nice hunting system in RDR that didn't require going anywhere specific and it could have easily worked in V, heck the whole inventory could have worked in V. I'm not saying I want Hunting Simulator 9,000, but it seems like a step backward to me. *shrug*

 

It's not that the overall game has less quality. Overall I'd say they're evenly matched, but in GTA IV all of the gameplay that was included, the races, the vigilante side missions, and finding the cars for Brucie, all felt like they were polished and done to the best of their abilities at the time. GTA V includes a lot of features that feel like they could have done better with, especially now that they had an engine to work with and 5 years of development time. Quantity over quality in their features basically. If properties were in IV I would expect more than what they did with V because everything else felt like so much work was put into it. 

 

Overall I think they're matched up pretty evenly for me. GTA IV feels like quality over quantity while GTA V feels like quantity over quality. The stories are both excellent, and the world detail is amazing in both, so it boils down to the overall feel of the gameplay, which is where I think IV excels and V could have done better. 

 

I don't care for online either myself, I do wonder if it did get in the way of single player development though. :p


Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#41

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:25 PM

Did I mention 3 cities?!

 

 

 

Your turn.

 

 

2 cities would be more fair. San Fierro felt empty and unfinished to me. 

 

OP: I knew where you were coming from, sorry if that didn't come across in my slightly disjointed, mildly disconnected ramble. It's been a long day.


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#42

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:27 PM

Did I mention 3 cities?!
 
 
 
Your turn.

 
2 cities would be more fair. San Fierro felt empty and unfinished to me.

It doesn't matter how it felt to you, there were still 3 cities

Zroovy
  • Zroovy

    Sharp and heartless

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Sep 2012

#43

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:31 PM

San Andreas is a masterpiece, the best videogame before hd era, that's made my years.


AJayG
  • AJayG

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2008

#44

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:34 PM

I preferred San Andreas. Not because I'm a fanboy, but because I genuinely thought it was a better game.

 

Admittedly I was a lot younger, but I much preferred the story, the soundtrack, the environment, the characters, almost everything.

 

If San Andreas had better graphics and Euphoria physics, the game would be unbeatable. I mean, it's taken 9 years for Rockstar to re-implement swimming underwater.

 

Having three main characters, none of which I particularly like, isn't 'groundbreaking'. I'd rate it a 6/10, and that's being kind. 

I agree if SA had gta5 graphics and such it would be unbeatable. gta5 is still a great game it just feels half full the amount of potential was sky high the final product doesn't match up anywhere near.


jamieleng
  • jamieleng

    Chafing the Chimp is totally natural behaviour!

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2008
  • England

#45

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:35 PM Edited by jamieleng, 09 October 2013 - 08:54 PM.

 

 

To tell you the truth, I think Rockstar have taken too much notice of so called fans. I don't want to play a fan's version of what a GTA game should be, I want to play Rockstar's vision of a GTA game.

DING DING DING, we have a winner. 
 
Absolutely this. I think we got most of that, with a few dashesquote name="jamieleng" post="1063676357" timestamp="1381345122"]
To tell you the truth, I think Rockstar have taken too much notice of so called fans. I don't want to play a fan's version of what a GTA game should be, I want to play Rockstar's vision of a GTA game. 
 
I loved San Andreas & I loved IV. So what does that make me? Now V is an incredible game & a technical marvel, but it seems like it tries a little too hard to please the people who whined about IV. I would've preferred it if some aspects (like all vehicle handling) were closer to IV, than they are to V. They oversimplified the car & bike handling, then complicated the aerial vehicles. The bicycles seem pretty much the same as SA (if memory serves correctly). The gunplay is the biggest improvement & the character switching is the best addition, in my eyes.
 
You say that they listen to the fans too much, but then list only one change that people complained about.

I disagree with them listening to fans for the most part as we probably would have truly gotten SA 2.0 if that were the case.

Instead, they decided to go with a more realistic vision in IV and then follow along those same lines in V by keeping certain activities out of the game that don't fit the characters narrative.

Not saying I want SA 2.0, just stating that R* does follow their own vision.

 

Yes, ok, they are still pretty much a law unto themselves. I'll tell to you one thing they've heard loud & clear, Online is lucrative. Unfortunately, that seems to be one area where they're behind the curve. Their games have traditionally been single player focused & in my opinion, that's where their strength lies. Same goes for Naughty Dog. 

 

There's just something about V that makes it seem like they were trying to cast their net out too far, too early. I believe a V that had no Online, would've been a far superior SP experience. I don't believe a V game that was only Online, would've been much better than what we have. Maybe next-gen, they'll be able to realize both properly.

 

@spamtackey

 

There's a lot of truth in what you say, especially regarding some of the more shallow 'thrown together' feel of some of the features. You can just tell the stock market was always a part of the game, which you can't say the same about property purchasing. I'm not saying this hasn't been a feature of previous GTA's, especially with SA & to a lesser extent VC. It's just that everything else in the game has improved dramatically, that a less fleshed out feature, really stands out. Property purchasing i's most definitely one of those fan pleasing last minute additions, made possible by the delay for polishing (which I really believe was true now). 


John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#46

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:44 PM Edited by niko bellic half brother, 09 October 2013 - 08:49 PM.

@jptawok

 

I'm going to quote you here, and post my comments in red:

 

Gang Wars

 

The gang stuff was more prevalent in SA as it was the primary focus of the game

 

House Robberies

 

Why is this even missed? I barely even did it in SA. But for you guys, you have depository vans to rob (which is more entertaining than creeping around somebodys house...)

 

Dojos (learn new fight moves/techniques)

 

Again, such a petty thing to whine over. The moves you learned weren't exactly ground breaking Bruce Lee sh*t.

 

Actual property with actual missions and real income potential, dont even try to pretend GTA V properties are even on par with VC properties.

 

The property revenue is not on par with VC's property because gaining money is more of a focus in V, thus making it more difficult and challenging to build up your bank account.

 

Gang recruitment

 

Again, the gang stuff was more prevalent in SA because it was the primary focus of the game. (all that gangbanger sh*t is getting old anyway...)

 

Monster trucks, Combines, (Real)Attack Choppers (Eg. Apache, not some tiny Buzzard), Hydra, Jetpack

 

You miss being able to drive a combine harvester? Jesus, are you looking for the dumbest sh*t to complain about. Jets have returned. As for the jetpack; yes it was fun, but it belongs to the 'cartoony' III-era.

 

More missions

 

I agree, and is one of my few complaints regarding the game. However, there is so much more activities/side missions than SA to make up for it.

 

Longer Story

 

*same as above

 

3 Cities

 

Yes, SA had more cities, but looking back, they were so bland and boring. I'd much rather have 1 very detailed and breathing city than 3 dead, cardboard-box looking cities.

 

Casinos

 

Bawsaq. I'm sorry if this is a more complicated gambling system for you than slot machines.

 

Safe Houses

 

Like your multiple city argument, the safehouses all looked boring and the same. V's safehouses are much more detailed and interactive.

 

Building Muscle (or lack there of)

 

I'm not even going to waste my time with this one...

 

Girlfriends (personally Meh, but unlocked some nice goodies)

 

*as above

 

Pimping/Dance Clubs

 

I'm beginning to get the impression you're some wigga kid whose actual reason for not liking V is because it doesn't have enough "yo yo yo lets pop a cap in your ass dawg" sh*t for you.

 

Did I mention 3 cities?!

 

Yes, yes you did. And I took that argument apart by the knees.


Sordidjaws
  • Sordidjaws

    Heist Planner

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2010
  • Canada

#47

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:48 PM

I agree, SA fanboys can be annoying and don't realize that Rockstar couldn't add all the features back...They even explained why you couldn't lose/gain weight. Stop living in the past and move on already.


Tonesta
  • Tonesta

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2013

#48

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:49 PM

Rockstar seriously couldn't win in making GTA5 - because there are two distinct sets of fanboys who seem to want diammetrically opposite things from a GTA game.

 

People who loved San Andreas more than anything else seem to want content, content, content - to the exclusion of all else. If the world looks a bit blocky, and the controls are a bit clunky - doesn't matter because there's a million things to do and a crazy variety of sights and experiences.

 

People who loved IV more than anything else seem to want realism - an exquisitely put together and beautiful looking city, with accurate, real life motion physics. And if the difference between missions and activities is somewhat subtle and grounded, no problem.

 

Rockstar seem to have tried their hardest to satisfy both camps - but that probably isn't possible at all, and definitely not possible on this gen of technology.

 

So in the end, they seem to have disappointed both the San Andreas variety addicts and the IV realism nuts, for completely different reasons. And the only people who seem to be really enjoying this game are those coming at it with an opening mind, and appreciating it on its own merit for everything that it is, rather than everything that it's not.......

  • John Smith likes this

bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#49

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:53 PM

To tell you the truth, I think Rockstar have taken too much notice of so called fans. I don't want to play a fan's version of what a GTA game should be, I want to play Rockstar's vision of a GTA game.

DING DING DING, we have a winner. 
 
Absolutely this. I think we got most of that, with a few dashesquote name="jamieleng" post="1063676357" timestamp="1381345122"]
To tell you the truth, I think Rockstar have taken too much notice of so called fans. I don't want to play a fan's version of what a GTA game should be, I want to play Rockstar's vision of a GTA game. 
 
I loved San Andreas & I loved IV. So what does that make me? Now V is an incredible game & a technical marvel, but it seems like it tries a little too hard to please the people who whined about IV. I would've preferred it if some aspects (like all vehicle handling) were closer to IV, than they are to V. They oversimplified the car & bike handling, then complicated the aerial vehicles. The bicycles seem pretty much the same as SA (if memory serves correctly). The gunplay is the biggest improvement & the character switching is the best addition, in my eyes.
You say that they listen to the fans too much, but then list only one change that people complained about.
I disagree with them listening to fans for the most part as we probably would have truly gotten SA 2.0 if that were the case.
Instead, they decided to go with a more realistic vision in IV and then follow along those same lines in V by keeping certain activities out of the game that don't fit the characters narrative.
Not saying I want SA 2.0, just stating that R* does follow their own vision.
Yes, ok, they are still pretty much a law unto themselves. I'll tell to you one thing they've heard loud & clear, Online is lucrative. Unfortunately, that seems to be one area where they're behind the curve. Their games have traditionally been single player focused & in my opinion, that's where their strength lies. Same goes for Naughty Dog. 
 
There's just something about V that makes it seem like they were trying to cast their net out too far, too early. I believe a V that had no Online, would've been a far superior SP experience. I don't believe a V game that was only Online, would've been much better than what we have. Maybe next-gen, they'll be able to realize both properly.

I agree wholeheartedly with this post based on the online aspect and catering to casual fans in that aspect.

I was playing some of the online missions and for the life of me can't understand why they wouldn't include some of the online only features into single player. Sure I could just play online, but my major problem with online is that you have to f*cking be online, and I hate having to be online with games.

Case in point, I had just about finished a mission and my connection gets lost. That sh*t is annoying.

But I digress. I truly think this would have been a masterpiece if they would have focused solely on sp and keep mp for things like racing, death matches, rampages, etc instead of trying to make it it's own game.

I really thought this game was going to dethrone SA as my favorite. Still, I'm here waiting for any hints that a dlc might be released for sp that would include some fun side activities that were in past games.
  • jamieleng likes this

igottapi4
  • igottapi4

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2013

#50

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:54 PM

I preferred San Andreas. Not because I'm a fanboy, but because I genuinely thought it was a better game.

 

Admittedly I was a lot younger, but I much preferred the story, the soundtrack, the environment, the characters, almost everything.

 

If San Andreas had better graphics and Euphoria physics, the game would be unbeatable. I mean, it's taken 9 years for Rockstar to re-implement swimming underwater.

 

Having three main characters, none of which I particularly like, isn't 'groundbreaking'. I'd rate it a 6/10, and that's being kind. 

This^ x100

 

Why cant people just get that to some people graphics < everything else. I cant speak for GTA IV since I hate Liberty City and Niko just wasnt interesting enough for me to play more the a few of the first missions but GTA V is not that awesome. It sold well yes but thats not cause of the game. NO ONE knew if the game was gonna be great or not at pre order. It sold as it did cause of hype, past games, and GTA fanboys/girls.

 

Personally GTA V had bad storyline, so so missions and great graphics, while GTA SA had great storyline, great missions and so so graphics compare to now. I really hate how much focus graphics are getting right now. It seems like as long as the game looks beautiful missions and storyline can skate by.

 

Whats funny is that everytime someone is defending V vs SA they go straight to graphics and that says a lot.


Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#51

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:55 PM

Cutting whole game from existence is a bit too harsh in my opinion. SA was great, I spent many hours on it, but it's time to move on in my opinion. World move forward, technology went forward and people also should follow, but some stubborn types are still putting SA on the throne, when in fact it should never sit there. 

 

I wouldn't like people who like SA dissapear, but if I would have any power I would like them to simply see the greatness of IV and V. 

 

One quote from Fallout: NV would fit here perfectly after some changes: "Loving it, it's not the hard part, it's letting go".


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#52

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:07 PM Edited by bish0p2004, 09 October 2013 - 09:08 PM.

I'm going to quote you here, and post my comments in red:

 

Gang Wars

 

The gang stuff was more prevalent in SA as it was the primary focus of the game

 

Gang Wars and Drug wars still could have fit.  Even more, Drug wars weren't primary focus of TBoGT, but they were still added.

 

House Robberies

 

Why is this even missed? I barely even did it in SA. But for you guys, you have depository vans to rob (which is more entertaining than creeping around somebodys house...)

 

Agree here.  Nevertheless, this still could have been an option.

 

Dojos (learn new fight moves/techniques)

 

Again, such a petty thing to whine over. The moves you learned weren't exactly ground breaking Bruce Lee sh*t.

 

Agreed.  But some people did like it.

 

 

Actual property with actual missions and real income potential, dont even try to pretend GTA V properties are even on par with VC properties.

 

The property revenue is not on par with VC's property because gaining money is more of a focus in V, thus making it more difficult and challenging to build up your bank account.

 

Regardless, buying property is still a feature of V.  However, it's still not that great considering how limited it is.

 

Gang recruitment

 

Again, the gang stuff was more prevalent in SA because it was the primary focus of the game. (all that gangbanger sh*t is getting old anyway...)

 

I'm pretty sure you like mobster sh*t...which has been done to death as well.  Either way, you could recruit men in VC as well.


3 Cities

 

Yes, SA had more cities, but looking back, they were so bland and boring. I'd much rather have 1 very detailed and breathing city than 3 dead, cardboard-box looking cities.

 

At the time they were fun.

 

Casinos

 

Bawsaq. I'm sorry if this is a more complicated gambling system for you than slot machines.

 

Tell me you're joking.  You can't be this dense.

 

Safe Houses

 

Like your multiple city argument, the safehouses all looked boring and the same. V's safehouses are much more detailed and interactive.

 

So, with V, we could potentially had more safehouses, with more interactivity.  How is that a bad thing?

 

Building Muscle (or lack there of)

 

I'm not even going to waste my time with this one...

I didn't care about muscle building in SA, but it was still an extra feature...like yoga and triathlons in V.  But, you have no problems with this I gather because it's new and fresh.

 


Pimping/Dance Clubs

 

I'm beginning to get the impression you're some wigga kid whose actual reason for not liking V is because it doesn't have enough "yo yo yo lets pop a cap in your ass dawg" sh*t for you.

 

He probably should have wrote "Epic and like totally awesome and rad dance clubs dude.  You're such a noob. Fail, dude like yeah, my brosef."

 

 

He gave you what you asked for, and you still answer with stupid comments without going into any of the activities that V offered..  Just because you didn't enjoy the things listed, doesn't mean that no one else did and they couldn't have been improved upon.

  • jptawok likes this

Il_Tifossi
  • Il_Tifossi

    bad motherf*cker

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2013

#53

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:12 PM

all this thread is tl:dr. please everybody write shorter posts, as i barely give a f*ck about this and malkf i give up


Scampi
  • Scampi

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2011

#54

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:13 PM

I think it's interesting what someone mentioned earlier about R* regretting SA. I wish I had saved it when I came across it, but shortly after the first trailer for V came out there was an interview with Dan Houser asking why V will only have Los Santos in it. He said overall he was disappointed in SA because it felt empty to him, that it lacked the detail and quality the team had originally envisioned. He said in retrospect it should have focused on just one or two more detailed cities instead of three that ended up not accurately representing what they were based on. Overall it was trying to do too much at once and the product suffered. If anyone knows what interview this was please post it or PM me, because I want to find it again.

I think R* has learned from SA's release and taken a different approach with the newer games. SA was their last big game on the PS2 so they went all out and threw a lot of stuff at the wall. Now they've seen what stuck and what didn't and decided to not bring back features that didn't really turn out so well. Each new GTA gets rid of some features and tries to implement new ones - it's a constant process of refining. I don't think there will ever be a GTA that takes everything from SA and re-incorporates it because that's not R*'s goal.  Like someone said earlier, they add/remove things to make each new game distinct, not to fully copy a previous one and release a 2.0 version.


Lelouch vi Britannia
  • Lelouch vi Britannia

    Zero

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2011
  • United-States

#55

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:14 PM

Anybody wish the OP never existed?

  • jptawok likes this

caseclosedjk
  • caseclosedjk

    Forum Bastard

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2013

#56

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:16 PM

Anyone who wishes it did not exist needs help.

  • bish0p2004 likes this

jptawok
  • jptawok

    Lester the Molestor

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013

#57

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:17 PM Edited by jptawok, 09 October 2013 - 09:21 PM.

You could've illustrated your point with 1/10th of the venom.  Since we're being assholes for the sake of being assholes, I'll jump in.

 

The gang stuff was more prevalent in SA as it was the primary focus of the game

 

This could've easily been implemented, playing off of Franklin and Lamars involvement with the hood ( since everything needs a foundation in lore to please you )

 

Why is this even missed? I barely even did it in SA. But for you guys, you have depository vans to rob (which is more entertaining than creeping around somebodys house...)

 

Oh, I'm sorry that I enjoyed it.  I realize that having a conflicting opinion to yours renders a person a complete idiot.  FYI: Stating your subjective opinion as fact does not make it so, nor do you speak for a majority.

 

Again, such a petty thing to whine over. The moves you learned weren't exactly ground breaking Bruce Lee sh*t.

 

Again, subjective.

 

The property revenue is not on par with VC's property because gaining money is more of a focus in V, thus making it more difficult and challenging to build up your bank account.

 

Is that really your argument against property?  My 300 million on each character begs to differ with your "hard to make money" argument.

 

Again, the gang stuff was more prevalent in SA because it was the primary focus of the game. (all that gangbanger sh*t is getting old anyway...)

 

More subjectivism.  You're good at it.

 

You miss being able to drive a combine harvester? Jesus, are you looking for the dumbest sh*t to complain about. Jets have returned. As for the jetpack; yes it was fun, but it belongs to the 'cartoony' III-era.

 

Look, more subjectivism, you're on a roll.  Yes I do want to drive a combine harvester, tractor, or do semi missions.  So sorry I enjoy different things than you.

 

I agree, and is one of my few complaints regarding the game. However, there is so much more activities/side missions than SA to make up for it.

 

Wrong.  When comparing quantity, SA will curb stomp V all day.

 

Yes, SA had more cities, but looking back, they were so bland and boring. I'd much rather have 1 very detailed and breathing city than 3 dead, cardboard-box looking cities.

 

Ah, stating opinion as fact.  I'm noticing a trend here.

 

Bawsaq. I'm sorry if this is a more complicated gambling system for you than slot machines.

 

Awesome, more being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole.  Whatever was going through my mind when I thought I could get a constructive conversation out of a V dick rider.  Casinos would've been a nice addition along with stocks.  I'm sorry if other people enjoy different things than you.  Someday you'll realize what other people like doesn't affect you.

 

Like your multiple city argument, the safehouses all looked boring and the same. V's safehouses are much more detailed and interactive.

 

drumroll...... subjective!  There were some pretty awesome safe houses in SA, you must be forgetting the mansions you could get.

 

I'm not even going to waste my time with this one...

 

Because you don't have a logical, non-subjective argument.  I get it.

 

*as above

 

*as above.

 

I'm beginning to get the impression you're some wigga kid whose actual reason for not liking V is because it doesn't have enough "yo yo yo lets pop a cap in your ass dawg" sh*t for you.

 

I'm 25, married, have a degree in Computer Science, and work actively as a Programmer/Analyst.  Projecting is a terrible trait.

 

Yes, yes you did. And I took that argument apart by the knees.  Edit: What the hell is taking something apart "by the knees"?

 

Subjective.

 

Study a dictionary, and take a debate class.  I'd also study a logical fallacy table, maybe the next time you argue with someone you'll look less like a jackass and actually look like someone who knows what they're talking about.

  • bish0p2004 likes this

jamieleng
  • jamieleng

    Chafing the Chimp is totally natural behaviour!

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2008
  • England

#58

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:18 PM Edited by jamieleng, 09 October 2013 - 09:23 PM.

all this thread is tl:dr. please everybody write shorter posts, as i barely give a f*ck about this and malkf i give up.

Lightweight. It's a discussion, not a series of sound bites.

  • jptawok likes this

018361
  • 018361

    Human

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2010
  • None

#59

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:21 PM

I liked SA and I don't think it never should have existed. I am just tired of seeing R* sacrifice gameplay for graphics and physics. I'll even admit that sometimes I wish R* would have kept GTA on the renderware engine until they had enough experience with rage. I liked it's more simplistic feel. It seems as if they remove features to add them in again later with better graphics just to say something like " Oh look GTA has airplanes now " and get you to buy the game that has the same or less features than the game they made a console generation ago.   

  • jptawok likes this

Jimmy Darmody
  • Jimmy Darmody

    Don

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2013

#60

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:22 PM

Hey

I would rephrase the " I wish GTA SA didn't happen" to "I wish there weren't so many fanboys glorifying SA because it gets annoying and because they end up having more influence over the market than they should". 

  • John Smith likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users