Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

I don't get the Love for San Andreas

272 replies to this topic
DatDudeDB
  • DatDudeDB

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013

#1

Posted 11 October 2013 - 07:53 AM

Just started playing it now after my friend (who hasn't played it since he was in the 5th grade..he's graduating this year from college by the way) highly recommending it to me....

 

 An, I honestly don't get this Tidal Wave of Love that this forum has for San Andreas.

 

1. The cities aren't detailed what so ever. Las Santos hardly resembles actual LA (I live in LA) besides the few landmark buildings like the Hollywood (VineWood) sign. Same goes for the other 2 cities. 

 

2. Most of the buildings are copy/paste. Unlike GTA's this gen we have today where each building is unique, here you can see the blatant copy and pasting with few unique buildings in between. 

 

3. It's all about the draw distance. The whole map isn't that big. It's probably the same size as Liberty City if not a tad smaller. What makes everything feel huge is that crappy draw distance they had to use with the ps2 tech. 

 

4. The cities feel dead. Ghost towns at times, and the pedestrians are few variations and are brain dead. 

 

5. CJ is very unlikeable IMO. It's NIGGA this, NIGGA that, and all of this gang stuff that makes everything feel to much like a "wanna be" than something that feels natural and realistic. 

 

 The only good things I can say about San Andreas is that it has alot of variety when it comes to side missions and side activities..but I can't help but feel it's more of a, "jack of all trades, master of none." and becomes quite a bit repetitive after a while of playing. 

 

 Also, having Nitros for cars is cool. Not sure why they excluded this from today's gta games...and the jet pack is cool to f*ck around in.

 

 Other than that, I will say that San Andreas is AMBITIOUS with the amount of things to do....but in that same ambition all I see are 3 cities set in a cramped world, that looked highly undetailed, with cities that resemble more of ghosts town, than actual live and bustling cities.

 

 I can't help but feel if Rockstar focused on simply 1 city, rather than 3 they could've created a more focused world. 

 

 Again this is playing with 2013 eyes..so they are admittedly a bit jaded to what we have today.

 

 But I simply can't help but think many of these claimes of "San Andreas being the best gta to ever be made" simply stems from the fact that alot of you are reminiscing on your youth, when things were less complicated, and less stressful..and those memories of just kicking it back with your friends and enjoying san andreas on your summer break..and just looking at all the things to do..and how cool it was to have 3 cities..and I just feel alot of you are looking with Nostalgic Glasses..

 

Again my opinion. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • shadyslady, lol232 and Doland J. Trump like this

yonatan755
  • yonatan755

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2012

#2

Posted 11 October 2013 - 08:10 AM

Its like playing half Life now and ssy it's bad because it's outdated.....

Suppa K
  • Suppa K

    PC or die'

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013
  • None

#3

Posted 11 October 2013 - 08:13 AM

Ok first off, these are the GTA V forums, not the San Andreas ones. I'm not sure if you are confused or did this on purpose because you know no one would probably read it in the SA sub forum.

 

Second, no one cares about your review of a game from 2004. San Andreas was amazing for it's time, and I have no idea why in Gods name you are comparing it to current gen GTA's? Are you f*cking mentally retarded? Wow the buildings in a 2004 game aren't all unique and varied as a game made in 2008-13. The map is small? Wow no f*cking sh*t it was made in 2004, what the f*ck am I reading. You are one kind of special retard that's for sure.

  • Official General, SilverRST and k0NG3ěRN like this

OGCFB
  • OGCFB

    Emperor Eye

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2010

#4

Posted 11 October 2013 - 08:16 AM

Like you said, you are playing it with 2013 eyes. The leap between VC and SA was huge and some people say the leap between IV and V was not nearly as notable. It's all about how people feel and people felt amazed when they played SA but with V it seems like a slightly upgraded IV set in a different location. Sure you like the game, but it could never capture the feeling of the massive leap from VC>SA.


Marty892
  • Marty892

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2013
  • Unknown

#5

Posted 11 October 2013 - 08:17 AM

Ok first off, these are the GTA V forums, not the San Andreas ones. I'm not sure if you are confused or did this on purpose because you know no one would probably read it in the SA sub forum.

 

Second, no one cares about your review of a game from 2004. San Andreas was amazing for it's time, and I have no idea why in Gods name you are comparing it to current gen GTA's? Are you f*cking mentally retarded? Wow the buildings in a 2004 game aren't all unique and varied as a game made in 2008-13. The map is small? Wow no f*cking sh*t it was made in 2004, what the f*ck am I reading. You are one kind of special retard that's for sure.

Because a lot of people keep saying here that SA was better than V in every way. I don't get that too!


jonkoroken420
  • jonkoroken420

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2013

#6

Posted 11 October 2013 - 08:17 AM Edited by jonkoroken420, 11 October 2013 - 08:18 AM.

Ofcourse when you play San Andreas compared to the games they have Now it doesn't seem like much.

Would you have started playing it when it first released, It would've probably been your favorite game as it was mine.

You compare too much, You're watching San Andreas from a view where a whole bunch of improved games are already released.

 

; I still think San Andreas is in some ways better than V is.

But Gta V is much more detailed, And its 9 years later.


TVL257
  • TVL257

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2013

#7

Posted 11 October 2013 - 08:21 AM

Ask R* to remake GTA SA with today graphic with addition of small details                                                   . 


The Odyssey
  • The Odyssey

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012
  • Australia

#8

Posted 11 October 2013 - 08:26 AM Edited by thegtaman531, 11 October 2013 - 08:27 AM.

Ask R* to remake GTA SA with today graphic with addition of small details                                                   .

I would lose all respect in R* if they did this.
Not because San Andreas is a bad game, but because they would remake a game with only new graphics just for money.

jonkoroken420
  • jonkoroken420

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2013

#9

Posted 11 October 2013 - 08:26 AM

There's actually a mod which makes San Andreas run in the same engine as in IV, Same vehicle handling, physics etc.


hierbamala
  • hierbamala

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2013

#10

Posted 11 October 2013 - 08:34 AM

You are comparing a 2004 game to a 2013

vivalavendredi
  • vivalavendredi

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2012

#11

Posted 11 October 2013 - 08:36 AM

I agree with everything the OP said.


BURNFIREFLY
  • BURNFIREFLY

    Mentlegen

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2013

#12

Posted 11 October 2013 - 08:52 AM

you moronic idiot it's a 2004 game.

 

in 2004 the map was HUGE because there was no other, graphics were great! cause there was no better for open world game. textures were amazing, eveything as incredible.

 

and you're playing 9 years later and complaining. are you retarded?


Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#13

Posted 11 October 2013 - 08:55 AM

IT was a great game, but some people just can't let go. They're afraid of change and innovation, yet built up the highest expectations when V was pre-launch. 

 

It's really dumb, and utterly pathetic to see them flip out about it. 

 

I WANT NEW GAME BUT NEW GAME MUST BE OLD GAME OR I'M SETTING YOUR HOUSE ON FIRE.

  • WorldWideFM and TakinThyBacon like this

Uhwoahnohuh
  • Uhwoahnohuh

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2013

#14

Posted 11 October 2013 - 09:07 AM

Our love for San Andreas was never about how alive the city was, It was about the nostalgia, characters, story, and layout of the city. Fine by me to go back once in a while to check it out


Syrlis
  • Syrlis

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2013

#15

Posted 11 October 2013 - 09:07 AM

You said it yourself. You had to be there for the shift from Vice City to San Andreas. Since you weren't you will NEVER understand why it is the best GTA and because of that this post is pointless.

GTA:5 comes close, but still falls a little short. For me San Andreas was the first (and only) game I have ever bought a stradegy guide for. Not for the missions, but so I could find my way through the overwhelming ammount of content the game provided.

Also, I do believe San Andreas was the first PS2 game to use a duel layer dvd (I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it). Comparatively GTA:4&5 haven't even come close to using all of a single layer blu-ray disc (let alone a duel layered one).

GTA:V is impressive on a techincal & detailed level, but it still feels like their could have been more content in this beautiful enviroment.
  • Itzreality likes this

caseclosedjk
  • caseclosedjk

    Forum Bastard

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2013

#16

Posted 11 October 2013 - 09:08 AM

I don't get the love for you.


DatDudeDB
  • DatDudeDB

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013

#17

Posted 11 October 2013 - 09:17 AM

Our love for San Andreas was never about how alive the city was, It was about the nostalgia, characters, story, and layout of the city. Fine by me to go back once in a while to check it out

 

characters and story?

 

why are they so special? it's typical generic gangster characters...


jamieleng
  • jamieleng

    Chafing the Chimp is totally natural behaviour!

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2008
  • England

#18

Posted 11 October 2013 - 09:18 AM Edited by jamieleng, 11 October 2013 - 09:24 AM.

you moronic idiot it's a 2004 game.

 

in 2004 the map was HUGE because there was no other, graphics were great! cause there was no better for open world game. textures were amazing, eveything as incredible.

 

and you're playing 9 years later and complaining. are you retarded?

Well that's not entirely true. Driv3r had better textures & graphics than all 3D GTA's. It also had driving physics closer to HD GTA'S. However, it didn't have any aerial vehicles, nowhere near the amount of content. Most importantly, it didn't have the social commentary, humour or that Rockstar magic.

  • Fuzzknuckles likes this

Ryder_from_the_grave
  • Ryder_from_the_grave

    Land of the Heartless

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2013

#19

Posted 11 October 2013 - 09:18 AM

you just had to play it at the time it was launched.GTA IV and V shouldnt even be in the same topic if you're comparing.it has to be compared to Vice City and III.


Lil ski
  • Lil ski

    Hawai'i 5-O

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2012

#20

Posted 11 October 2013 - 09:21 AM

Man thats like playing Mario Bros for the first time and saying the graphics suck


woggleman
  • woggleman

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012
  • None

#21

Posted 11 October 2013 - 09:25 AM

It was incredible for it's time and still is a great game. I just wish people would stop expecting R to recreate it and let other games stand on their own and be judged on their own merits.


AnDReJ98
  • AnDReJ98

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2011
  • Serbia

#22

Posted 11 October 2013 - 09:28 AM

 

Ask R* to remake GTA SA with today graphic with addition of small details                                                   .

I would lose all respect in R* if they did this.
Not because San Andreas is a bad game, but because they would remake a game with only new graphics just for money.

 

You're right. I don't agree with remaking SA. They could make game 'based' on their previous game like they did III = IV, SA = V. No more than that.


jonkoroken420
  • jonkoroken420

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2013

#23

Posted 11 October 2013 - 09:38 AM Edited by jonkoroken420, 11 October 2013 - 09:39 AM.

Oh man, Compared to GTA-V the GTA-1 map is Soooo small, Nearly no details and the vehicles are so crappy!

Gta V is so much better, I don't get how people like Gta 1 !!!!

 

 

If you think this is serious, You're an ass.

  • KING2dor likes this

TrustNo1
  • TrustNo1

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013

#24

Posted 11 October 2013 - 12:16 PM

SA was the worst GTA.


Thisnamehasnotbeentaken
  • Thisnamehasnotbeentaken

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2013

#25

Posted 11 October 2013 - 12:22 PM

Another day another SA/GTA V flame war.

 

Only in gtaforums.com.


ArcherTheGreat
  • ArcherTheGreat

    Master Chief's Backseat Driver

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2013

#26

Posted 11 October 2013 - 12:48 PM Edited by ArcherTheGreat, 11 October 2013 - 12:49 PM.

You know what I don't get? Why people are assuming that when we say San Andreas felt better than V, we dont actually mean that V is a bad game at all.


gmgo
  • gmgo

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2005

#27

Posted 11 October 2013 - 12:53 PM Edited by gmgo, 11 October 2013 - 12:53 PM.

 

Ok first off, these are the GTA V forums, not the San Andreas ones. I'm not sure if you are confused or did this on purpose because you know no one would probably read it in the SA sub forum.

 

Second, no one cares about your review of a game from 2004. San Andreas was amazing for it's time, and I have no idea why in Gods name you are comparing it to current gen GTA's? Are you f*cking mentally retarded? Wow the buildings in a 2004 game aren't all unique and varied as a game made in 2008-13. The map is small? Wow no f*cking sh*t it was made in 2004, what the f*ck am I reading. You are one kind of special retard that's for sure.

Because a lot of people keep saying here that SA was better than V in every way. I don't get that too!

 

 

 

Try to look at it as how good SA was in 2004 compared to how good GTAV is in 2013, and then you'll understand why SA's goodness is (arguably) better than V's


TheOtherRyan
  • TheOtherRyan

    Soviet Connection

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

#28

Posted 11 October 2013 - 01:00 PM

Ok first off, these are the GTA V forums, not the San Andreas ones. I'm not sure if you are confused or did this on purpose because you know no one would probably read it in the SA sub forum.
 
Second, no one cares about your review of a game from 2004. San Andreas was amazing for it's time, and I have no idea why in Gods name you are comparing it to current gen GTA's? Are you f*cking mentally retarded? Wow the buildings in a 2004 game aren't all unique and varied as a game made in 2008-13. The map is small? Wow no f*cking sh*t it was made in 2004, what the f*ck am I reading. You are one kind of special retard that's for sure.

Because a lot of people keep saying here that SA was better than V in every way. I don't get that too!
 
Try to look at it as how good SA was in 2004 compared to how good GTAV is in 2013, and then you'll understand why SA's goodness is (arguably) better than V's

I remember when SA was new and the first thing I thought when I played it? "This game looks worse than VC".

No joke that was my first impression.

topdownshooter
  • topdownshooter

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2013

#29

Posted 11 October 2013 - 01:13 PM

San Andreas was good for its time but when put side to side with GTA V it is no contest, GTA V is the superior game.

/thread

vivalavendredi
  • vivalavendredi

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2012

#30

Posted 11 October 2013 - 01:14 PM

 

 

 

Ok first off, these are the GTA V forums, not the San Andreas ones. I'm not sure if you are confused or did this on purpose because you know no one would probably read it in the SA sub forum.
 
Second, no one cares about your review of a game from 2004. San Andreas was amazing for it's time, and I have no idea why in Gods name you are comparing it to current gen GTA's? Are you f*cking mentally retarded? Wow the buildings in a 2004 game aren't all unique and varied as a game made in 2008-13. The map is small? Wow no f*cking sh*t it was made in 2004, what the f*ck am I reading. You are one kind of special retard that's for sure.

Because a lot of people keep saying here that SA was better than V in every way. I don't get that too!
 
Try to look at it as how good SA was in 2004 compared to how good GTAV is in 2013, and then you'll understand why SA's goodness is (arguably) better than V's

I remember when SA was new and the first thing I thought when I played it? "This game looks worse than VC".

No joke that was my first impression.

 

Mine too!

Something felt wrong in SA (imho)  





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users