Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

I don't get the Love for San Andreas

272 replies to this topic
iIiIiI00080
  • iIiIiI00080

    Rock On

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2013
  • None

#31

Posted 11 October 2013 - 01:15 PM

Its like playing half Life now and ssy it's bad because it's outdated.....

No it's not. Please do not compare HL to SA..


Suppa K
  • Suppa K

    PC or die'

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013
  • None

#32

Posted 11 October 2013 - 01:23 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!

That's fine and dandy, they can go talk about it in the SA forums then instead of intentially stirring up sh*t by comparing a 2004 game to a 2013 one.
  • erbalist likes this

Grand Cannon
  • Grand Cannon

    Everywhere and Nowhere

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2010

#33

Posted 11 October 2013 - 01:30 PM

Hardly resembles LA, lol. Funny.


gta5drivingsucks
  • gta5drivingsucks

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013

#34

Posted 11 October 2013 - 01:42 PM

Its like playing half Life now and ssy it's bad because it's outdated.....

 

Whichever half life you're referring to you're wrong, half life is and always will be awesome to play


Ewok626
  • Ewok626

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2013

#35

Posted 11 October 2013 - 01:52 PM

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...

I'm guessing you haven't got that far in the game. There is a lot more than just "gangster" characters.

Wylight
  • Wylight

    GTA4Life!

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2013
  • None

#36

Posted 11 October 2013 - 01:58 PM

GTA SA has some content that GTA V doesn't have and in 2004 it felt amazing, GTA SA is the kind of game you have to play till the end to realize how much it has to offer. Once you get in the game you won't see anything special compared to the other games at the first look but the more you advance the more you discover. And you can't review a game that came out 10 years ago and complain about things that weren't possible on PS2


Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#37

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:14 PM Edited by Official General, 11 October 2013 - 03:46 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.


You could not have given the idiotic OP a much better response. Just another SA hater strangely obssessed with the fact so many people love San Andreas. And I really cannot understand why the fool wants review a game that was made back in 2004 and on the f**king PS2 to add to that.


@ Miami

That was SA's main letdown. The graphics were good in some areas, but for most part they were very average. Vice City did actually have better graphics, but VC had a very small map and it was a much smaller game overall, so it's graphics did not suffer. You have to take into consideration that SA was much bigger than VC in every way imaginable - SA's map just colossally huge, it contained 3 major cities, and there was tons and tons of extra things to do outside of the game's main storyline. It was inevitable that something would have to be sacrificed to successfully fit everything into SA and that just happened to graphics. 

  • latigreblue likes this

DeafMetal
  • DeafMetal

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2012

#38

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:22 PM Edited by DeafMetal, 11 October 2013 - 02:24 PM.

Most of the reasons you mentioned are due to the ps2's hardware holding back the game. SA as it was pushed the system to the brink. It was an amazing, mind-blowing game back then and one hell of a fun game now if you get used to the now-awkward controls, but I honestly think people who say it's better than V are just hipsters. San Andreas = Morrowind


Pinnkiepie
  • Pinnkiepie

    PIE

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2013
  • None

#39

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:25 PM Edited by Pinnkiepie, 11 October 2013 - 02:26 PM.

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Must be the nostalgic outdated Graphics :D

 

 

GTA-San-Andreas-50cent-skin_1.jpggta_san_andreas_3.jpg


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#40

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:27 PM

Why is it so hard for people to understand the concept of "relative to its time?"  That makes no sense to me.

  • Official General and jptawok like this

DeafMetal
  • DeafMetal

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2012

#41

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:30 PM

Must be the nostalgic outdated Graphics :D

 

 

GTA-San-Andreas-50cent-skin_1.jpggta_san_andreas_3.jpg

 

lol I know EXACTLY where those locations are. Kinda sad really, played that game waayyy too much. I honestly must have over 1000 hours logged into it. The second picture in particular is like seeing an old friend I haven't talked to in a long time.


Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#42

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:31 PM

Why is it so hard for people to understand the concept of "relative to its time?"  That makes no sense to me.


Exactly this

The OP is clearly too stupid and incomptetent to understand this concept.
  • bish0p2004 likes this

bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#43

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:35 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)  

I guarantee you if people compare the graphics of V to games like Uncharted, the same people complaining about SA's graphics will say, "but but look at how big V is to Uncharted!"

SA is much bigger than VC and has much more content.

NothingPersonal
  • NothingPersonal

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013

#44

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:40 PM

It was awesome at the time, but open-worlds are common now and far less exciting to play as we've been numbed to the experience. Vice City remains a classic, nevertheless, for the atmosphere.


John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#45

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:41 PM Edited by niko bellic half brother, 11 October 2013 - 02:42 PM.

@bish0p2004

 

And V is much bigger than SA and has more content.


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#46

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:45 PM

@bish0p2004

 

And V is much bigger than SA and has more content.

 

And the quality of that content that is based on subjective experience.  This means that you probably enjoyed the activities in V more, whereas I enjoyed the content in SA more.  So again, it comes down to opinions.  

 

But hey, if you like V more, more power to you.  I had more fun with SA at the time than I did with V and so did other people.  Now, what's the problem?


jptawok
  • jptawok

    Lester the Molestor

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013

#47

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:48 PM Edited by jptawok, 11 October 2013 - 02:49 PM.

@bish0p2004

 

And V is much bigger than SA and has more content.

Don't forget, this guy is the person who wished "San Andreas didnt exist", and was exposed for being a blind hater of SA multiple times in his hate thread.  Take what he says with no bearing.

 

Everybody has a revelation later in life where they realize what somebody else likes/does has no affect on them at all. 

 

 

 

Why is it so hard for people to understand the concept of "relative to its time?"  That makes no sense to me.

 

OT: This ^


Johnny_Leyenda
  • Johnny_Leyenda

    The Crimson Knight

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Sep 2013

#48

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:50 PM

I think San Andreas still holds up really well in terms of gameplay (at least on Pc), graphically it was outdated even when it came out and yes, it looks pretty bad today. Does it make it less enjoyable? Not at all.
The thing is, just like with a lot of "classics," much of the praise they're getting today comes from nostalgia. Games like Ocarina of Time, GTA III and Vice City, and others, are difficult to get into nowadays, because they are precursors of a gameplay style that is well settled now. At least in my opinion. San Andreas doesn't have this, and I noticed when I was replaying GTA games during this year waiting for V. I couldn't replay Vice City because it felt too simple, however San Andreas felt just right. Besides, if you take into account how revolutionary and how much content SA added after VC you could understand why it got so much praise.

But in the end, there's no right or wrong. I still enjoy older GTA games to an extent in terms of gameplay, but each game's story is just as amazing as the first time playing. Regarding characters, I think CJ is very likeable.

  • latigreblue likes this

jptawok
  • jptawok

    Lester the Molestor

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013

#49

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:55 PM

It's what half the GTA fanbase sees as the pinnacle of GTA.  VC improved on III tenfold, and SA continued the trend.  Half of us believe R* has yet to continue said trend, while the other half think the trend has continued.  The fire will rage on for eternity, until they find Jesus and he shows them how to make the GTA that pleases all fanboys.

  • latigreblue likes this

bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#50

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:56 PM Edited by bish0p2004, 11 October 2013 - 02:57 PM.

I think San Andreas still holds up really well in terms of gameplay (at least on Pc), graphically it was outdated even when it came out and yes, it looks pretty bad today. Does it make it less enjoyable? Not at all.
The thing is, just like with a lot of "classics," much of the praise they're getting today comes from nostalgia. Games like Ocarina of Time, GTA III and Vice City, and others, are difficult to get into nowadays, because they are precursors of a gameplay style that is well settled now. At least in my opinion. San Andreas doesn't have this, and I noticed when I was replaying GTA games during this year waiting for V. I couldn't replay Vice City because it felt too simple, however San Andreas felt just right. Besides, if you take into account how revolutionary and how much content SA added after VC you could understand why it got so much praise.

But in the end, there's no right or wrong. I still enjoy older GTA games to an extent in terms of gameplay, but each game's story is just as amazing as the first time playing. Regarding characters, I think CJ is very likeable.

 

I'll be the first to admit that as much as I love SA, I would never play it again because it's dated.  However, it's the same with any classics; from Ocarina of Time, Metal Gear Solid on PS 1,  Tekken 3, any of the PS 1 Final Fantasy games, etc....no matter how much I enjoyed them, I will never play them again.

 

BUT, it doesn't take away from the experience I had with these games at the time.  I loved them all.


John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#51

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:00 PM

 

@bish0p2004

 

And V is much bigger than SA and has more content.

 

And the quality of that content that is based on subjective experience.  This means that you probably enjoyed the activities in V more, whereas I enjoyed the content in SA more.  So again, it comes down to opinions.  

 

But hey, if you like V more, more power to you.  I had more fun with SA at the time than I did with V and so did other people.  Now, what's the problem?

 

 

I don't have a problem with anybodys opinion. I have a problem with entitled brats coming on this forum to kick and scream because they didn't get a 2.0 remake of a game that released 9 years ago.

 

 

@bish0p2004

 

And V is much bigger than SA and has more content.

Don't forget, this guy is the person who wished "San Andreas didnt exist", and was exposed for being a blind hater of SA multiple times in his hate thread.  Take what he says with no bearing.

 

Everybody has a revelation later in life where they realize what somebody else likes/does has no affect on them at all. 

 

 

picard-facepalm.jpg

 

Care to explain how I was "exposed as a SA hater"?......


jptawok
  • jptawok

    Lester the Molestor

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013

#52

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:06 PM

 

 

@bish0p2004

 

And V is much bigger than SA and has more content.

 

And the quality of that content that is based on subjective experience.  This means that you probably enjoyed the activities in V more, whereas I enjoyed the content in SA more.  So again, it comes down to opinions.  

 

But hey, if you like V more, more power to you.  I had more fun with SA at the time than I did with V and so did other people.  Now, what's the problem?

 

 

I don't have a problem with anybodys opinion. I have a problem with entitled brats coming on this forum to kick and scream because they didn't get a 2.0 remake of a game that released 9 years ago.

 

 

@bish0p2004

 

And V is much bigger than SA and has more content.

Don't forget, this guy is the person who wished "San Andreas didnt exist", and was exposed for being a blind hater of SA multiple times in his hate thread.  Take what he says with no bearing.

 

Everybody has a revelation later in life where they realize what somebody else likes/does has no affect on them at all. 

 

 

picard-facepalm.jpg

 

Care to explain how I was "exposed as a SA hater"?......

 

 

I have a problem with entitled brats coming on this forum to kick and scream because they didn't get a 2.0 remake of a game that released 9 years ago.

 

This illustrates that point nicely.  However, for people who want more proof of your blind, childish hate: http://gtaforums.com...-never-existed/

 

By page 3, it's pretty damn clear that you harbor an uncalled for, unhealthy hate for a game based on how many people like it.  Sorry, but if you don't like people wanting remakes, you should probably get out of gaming now and head for the hills.  My sincerest apologies that you feel people are not allowed to formulate their own opinions and wants.

 

Just tuck your tail and run away, just like the last time you tried burning SA.  We all know you'll just resort to facepalm pictures, and will cry when people start calling out your logical fallacies. 

 

Dearest forum leader: I'm willing to write a regular expression that will not allow people to post threads in this forum containing the words "san andreas", for free.  Because, just as sick as people are of hearing about people who liked SA, the rest of us are just as sick of the blind, angry hate it doesnt deserve.  Hit me up. (jk I know you wont but it illustrates my point :) )

  • latigreblue likes this

WitchHunter Neo
  • WitchHunter Neo

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2013

#53

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:10 PM

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really enjoyed SA.....but man that was years ago. I think a big part of it is nostalgia because back then SA was a big deal, and a great game. And I was going through some okay times in my life.

 

Personal circumstance can have a big impact on how we look back at games. 

 

I actually enjoyed GTA V more....even with my nostalgia.


jptawok
  • jptawok

    Lester the Molestor

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013

#54

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:11 PM

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really enjoyed SA.....but man that was years ago. I think a big part of it is nostalgia because back then SA was a big deal, and a great game. And I was going through some okay times in my life.

 

Personal circumstance can have a big impact on how we look back at games. 

 

I actually enjoyed GTA V more....even with my nostalgia.

 

Look half bro, it's living proof you can like both games, and not be an irrational hater of either.  You should be taking notes.

  • bish0p2004 likes this

bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#55

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:12 PM Edited by bish0p2004, 11 October 2013 - 03:12 PM.

 

 

@bish0p2004

 

And V is much bigger than SA and has more content.

 

And the quality of that content that is based on subjective experience.  This means that you probably enjoyed the activities in V more, whereas I enjoyed the content in SA more.  So again, it comes down to opinions.  

 

But hey, if you like V more, more power to you.  I had more fun with SA at the time than I did with V and so did other people.  Now, what's the problem?

 

 

I don't have a problem with anybodys opinion. I have a problem with entitled brats coming on this forum to kick and scream because they didn't get a 2.0 remake of a game that released 9 years ago.

 

 

Well, welcome to the internet.  You will have to deal with brats who complain about stuff and brats who complain about brats who complain stuff.

  • jptawok likes this

NYdreamz
  • NYdreamz

    Born Sinner

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2013

#56

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:20 PM

I really don't remember the n word being used that much in SA ... I'm guessing that your a white guy that saw a black protag and automatically assumed that it's nigga this nigga that ....which is pretty common in today's world
  • jptawok likes this

John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#57

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:25 PM

@jptawok

 

You need to do some severe growing up pal, and brush up on your reading comprehension skills while you're at it.

 

And it is you sir, who needs to walk away from gaming (R* games anyway) if all you want is remake after remake. There's a certain FPS franchise that is probably more suited to your 'recycled' needs.


jptawok
  • jptawok

    Lester the Molestor

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013

#58

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:30 PM

@jptawok

 

You need to do some severe growing up pal, and brush up on your reading comprehension skills while you're at it.

 

And it is you sir, who needs to walk away from gaming (R* games anyway) if all you want is remake after remake. There's a certain FPS franchise that is probably more suited to your 'recycled' needs.

This has gotta be the best case of pot meet kettle I've ever seen.  Kudos.  Are you just going to take what I said to you in your failure of a thread and recycle it against me? 

 

PS. I still see you haven't studied your logical fallacies, nor has your proofreading gotten any better.  For shame, it's a pity some people are beyond help.

  • latigreblue likes this

Zroovy
  • Zroovy

    Sharp and heartless

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Sep 2012

#59

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:31 PM

Just because you don't have played it years ago, you can't understand what that game was before the hd era.


Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#60

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:56 PM Edited by Official General, 11 October 2013 - 04:08 PM.

@ niko bellic's half brother

 

You are definitely a San Andreas hater, you have a confirmed history of it and I've seen your previous posts. Just a moment ago you made a whole thread dedicated to wishing SA never existed, if that is not hate, then I don't know what is. 

 

And you always seem to think you are funny with unoriginal, and repetitively boring imitations of Black American urban slang talk in an attempt to mock SA fans, and anything to do with African-American popular urban cultures or rap music. It's up to you to do what the f**k you wanna do or say what you wanna say, but your obsession with hating SA like the OP and some others on here is very strange to say the least. I really don't get how a video game can ignite such hateful feelings in a person. 

  • latigreblue and jptawok like this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users