Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

I don't get the Love for San Andreas

272 replies to this topic
woggleman
  • woggleman

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012

#121

Posted 11 October 2013 - 10:53 PM

I have no issue with the urban gang thing because it is an aspect of crime and that is another reason why I like V. The three characters give us a chance to experience three very different aspects of crime.

 

Franklin comes from the urban gang culture and still has one foot in that life but wants to get out.

 

Michael is very much a professional criminal who used crime to buy him a life of luxury and success though he has a lot of family and personal issues

 

Trevor is a desperado who is a criminal because he has no desire whatsoever to be a part of polite mainstream society.

 

There is even some white collar crime with Lester's assassination missions.

 

Seeing these three very different people come together to pull off some major scores and how they clash is a reason why I like the story.

  • IveGotNoValues and davetopper like this

woggleman
  • woggleman

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012

#122

Posted 11 October 2013 - 11:09 PM

It seems like in order to make a great gta game that pleases the "fans", you simply have to include everything but the kitchen sink in terms of side activities and items.

 

 Sad really. 

Next GTA they should just include every single that was ever in a previous GTA no matter how mundane it might seem. People will still find something to nit pick though.


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#123

Posted 11 October 2013 - 11:22 PM Edited by bish0p2004, 11 October 2013 - 11:22 PM.

 

 

Niko Bellic's half brother is right. A lot of you fools just wanted SA 2.0.

 

i dont think u idiots understand so let me break it down to you.... we dont want SA 2.0... we just want the sh*t that made SA fun in future games.... meaning none of that useless yoga sh*t instead how bout drivable trains, vigilante missions, jetpacks etc.. meaning it doesnt have to be in SA nor feature CJ ... just bring the sh*t fun back so after beating the story .. i have sh*t to do... instead of driving around in a big ass city with nothing to do .... get it ???

 

 

See, this is my problem right here, you guys are never happy.

 

You complained about IV cutting back on so much (without even understanding why), so now that R* were more familiar with the hardware, they were able to re-implement lots of the features that you guys whined about with IV:

 

-planes

-car customisation

-a much more varied choice of clothes

-haircuts

-tattoos

-whatever else I've forgotton

 

While you say you dont want a SA 2.0, you certainly want a carbon copy of it's features. R* already reintroduced most of the more important features to try and please you guys, but they wanted to create new things for us too. Innovation huh, how stupid of them...

 

Yes yoga is f*cking pointless, and a waste of development time, but I don't understand how it can be a game breaker for people. What about 'strangers + freaks'? Depositry vans to rob? Fully fleshed out sports games to play? (you complained about bowling), just to name a few.

 

 

Tell me something, if you had to choose, you would honestly tell me you wouldn't want things like improved drug wars/gang wars (nevermind the narrative, because it could work in V) that are repeatable, gambling, improved drug dealing, another club besides the strip club, that perhaps include dancing as an option, an improved ability to recruit members/followers, etc, over things like yoga, triathlons, watching tv in game, or reading the internet in game?

 

I don't personally mind the new stuff like yoga or triathlons, etc...just not at the expense of other fun activities.

 

It seems like in order to make a great gta game that pleases the "fans", you simply have to include everything but the kitchen sink in terms of side activities and items.

 

 Sad really. 

 

Also, in order to please the other "fans," Rockstar simply has to take dump, put it in a case, and label it Grand Theft Auto and you guys will buy it.

 

Not saying V is crap, but you guys are satisfied with anything as long as it has the GTA logo on it.

  • latigreblue likes this

woggleman
  • woggleman

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012

#124

Posted 11 October 2013 - 11:25 PM

If V was crap I would no issue calling it like it is but I think it's great. Honestly gang wars in SA sometimes got a bit repetitive and it was pain having to all the way back if the ballas were trying to take back a turf. Not saying that a better version of it wouldn't have been good but it doesn't ruin the game in any way for me.


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#125

Posted 11 October 2013 - 11:31 PM

If V was crap I would no issue calling it like it is but I think it's great. Honestly gang wars in SA sometimes got a bit repetitive and it was pain having to all the way back if the ballas were trying to take back a turf. Not saying that a better version of it wouldn't have been good but it doesn't ruin the game in any way for me.

 

Of course V is not crap...I would never call it crap personally.  I still got more enjoyment out of it than IV and a few other games I've played in the past.  Still, because of SA and RDR, I know that Rockstar is capable of so much more.  I place the blame solely on their focus on online as it does include a few of the replayable features from past games.


LibSity
  • LibSity

    Genetically Superior

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 May 2013

#126

Posted 11 October 2013 - 11:35 PM

All these stupid people who don't realize that when you compare things from different eras, you compare them with the criteria of how good they were AT THE TIME. Of course SA is pretty sh*tty today if you're used to IV & V, and didn't play it back in the day, so you don't have a nostalgia factor (me). But SA in its day is probably a top 10 video game of all time.

  • xXGst0395Xx likes this

woggleman
  • woggleman

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012

#127

Posted 11 October 2013 - 11:38 PM

All these stupid people who don't realize that when you compare things from different eras, you compare them with the criteria of how good they were AT THE TIME. Of course SA is pretty sh*tty today if you're used to IV & V, and didn't play it back in the day, so you don't have a nostalgia factor (me). But SA in its day is probably a top 10 video game of all time.

I agree but at the same time nostalgia factors can also prevent people from appreciating anything modern since it doesn't remind them of their youth. 

 

As much as I loved SA 2004 was a pretty awful time for me for reasons I won't get into and in many ways it was an escape. Now I am playing V in a much much happier time in my life.


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#128

Posted 11 October 2013 - 11:46 PM Edited by bish0p2004, 11 October 2013 - 11:47 PM.

While nosltagia is strong, you also have to realize that there are those people who also enjoy SA over 3 and VC.

If nostalgia were all there was to it, people would have never gotten over 3. But they did, and there's a reason for that. Furthermore, neither you, or I know how much nostalgia factors in.

You guys simply pretend to come to conclusions based on the fact that you cannot understand why not everyone likes the same things as you.

chilleverest
  • chilleverest

    Ironborn

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2013
  • Nepal

#129

Posted 11 October 2013 - 11:49 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. 

 

 

 

 

 

3 words for your half a page of sentences, you are dumb. 


chilleverest
  • chilleverest

    Ironborn

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2013
  • Nepal

#130

Posted 11 October 2013 - 11:51 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. 

 

 

 

 

 

3 words for your half a page of sentences, you are dumb.   The value players got  THAT TIME was 10x as much as you get from todays. 

 


zerrier
  • zerrier

    Smoke weed everyday

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2006

#131

Posted 11 October 2013 - 11:55 PM

You have your opinion, others have their own. f*cking deal with it!


erbalist
  • erbalist

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2013

#132

Posted 11 October 2013 - 11:58 PM

This is a ludicrous thread, the thing that makes games stand out during your life is the impact they have on you at that moment. Great leaps forward which completely change your perception of what a video game can be, completely alter the way you play games and the experience you get from them.

 

Anyone who was lucky enough to be gaming when GTA3 was released will know what I am talking about it was a complete revolution, you go back and play it now you will not be experiencing 5% of what I experienced at the time.

 

Every single numbered GTA release will be technically superior to it's predecessors, that's basic progress, but to compare two products from different eras you have to look at the impact it made at the time and look at the competition that was around


The Clansman
  • The Clansman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2013

#133

Posted 12 October 2013 - 12:06 AM

If you have played this game in 2004 right after his release, you would understand all the love.

By today's standards it's a complete crap, no doubt. But back in 2004, it was mind blowing.


Sting4S
  • Sting4S

    ♢ Carrera ♢

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#134

Posted 12 October 2013 - 01:04 AM

:^: San Andreas wasn't all that. Vice City was better IMO with a better vibe. People praise San Andreas because most of the people here praise quantity over quality anyways. Some people have their nostalgia or preference reasons but most just like quantity over quality.


Lucchese
  • Lucchese

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#135

Posted 12 October 2013 - 01:08 AM Edited by niko bellic half brother, 12 October 2013 - 01:10 AM.

Will some of you people stop griping on about..."oh you don't understand because you were too young to understand the hype around SA back in 2004".

 

I bet most of you who keep repeating this argument, hadn't even played or even acknowledged the original 'top down' GTA games when the 3d games released. Being Scottish myself, I vividly remember being 12 years old at the time when GTA1 released, and my friend telling me to try out this crime game on the PS1 (of which the graphics sucked, but it was still a fun game *made just up the road in Dundee*) and falling in love with it.

 

So yeah, I've followed every GTA and it's release ever since. So don't give me that "you don't understand because you weren't there" crap.

  • chilleverest likes this

woggleman
  • woggleman

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012

#136

Posted 12 October 2013 - 01:21 AM

While nosltagia is strong, you also have to realize that there are those people who also enjoy SA over 3 and VC.

If nostalgia were all there was to it, people would have never gotten over 3. But they did, and there's a reason for that. Furthermore, neither you, or I know how much nostalgia factors in.

You guys simply pretend to come to conclusions based on the fact that you cannot understand why not everyone likes the same things as you.

3 and SA were 3 years apart. We are almost a decade away from SA so people have grown up and their youth is in the past. My prime is just starting in my book even though I am older so maybe that is why I love V.

  • Lucchese likes this

Bongwatre
  • Bongwatre

    PSN: Bongwater1992

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2013

#137

Posted 12 October 2013 - 01:29 AM Edited by Bongwatre, 12 October 2013 - 01:30 AM.

OP is a f*ggot for posting his own opinion

How dare you  :die:


Bongwatre
  • Bongwatre

    PSN: Bongwater1992

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2013

#138

Posted 12 October 2013 - 01:33 AM

Will some of you people stop griping on about..."oh you don't understand because you were too young to understand the hype around SA back in 2004".

 

I bet most of you who keep repeating this argument, hadn't even played or even acknowledged the original 'top down' GTA games when the 3d games released. Being Scottish myself, I vividly remember being 12 years old at the time when GTA1 released, and my friend telling me to try out this crime game on the PS1 (of which the graphics sucked, but it was still a fun game *made just up the road in Dundee*) and falling in love with it.

 

So yeah, I've followed every GTA and it's release ever since. So don't give me that "you don't understand because you weren't there" crap.

What are you even talking about 


Lucchese
  • Lucchese

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#139

Posted 12 October 2013 - 01:37 AM

 

While nosltagia is strong, you also have to realize that there are those people who also enjoy SA over 3 and VC.

If nostalgia were all there was to it, people would have never gotten over 3. But they did, and there's a reason for that. Furthermore, neither you, or I know how much nostalgia factors in.

You guys simply pretend to come to conclusions based on the fact that you cannot understand why not everyone likes the same things as you.

3 and SA were 3 years apart. We are almost a decade away from SA so people have grown up and their youth is in the past. My prime is just starting in my book even though I am older so maybe that is why I love V.

 

 

This is precisely why I believe most of these complainers's first experience with a GTA title was SA. 

 

Yes, San Andreas was a great game, but why can't these whining fanboys understand that R* is not a developer who want to choose the easy path, and rehash their games?


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#140

Posted 12 October 2013 - 01:38 AM Edited by bish0p2004, 12 October 2013 - 02:00 AM.

:^: San Andreas wasn't all that. Vice City was better IMO with a better vibe. People praise San Andreas because most of the people here praise quantity over quality anyways. Some people have their nostalgia or preference reasons but most just like quantity over quality.

 

Oh please...as far as gameplay is concerned, SA did everything better.  The only thing that VC had over it was perhaps a better story and better lead character (which were still crappy in my opinion)....all which boils down to opinion, making your post pointless and trollish.

 

See, I can sh*t on games too.

 

Will some of you people stop griping on about..."oh you don't understand because you were too young to understand the hype around SA back in 2004".

 

Only if you guys stop claiming nostalgia as the reason why some people prefer the older games to the newer ones.

 

 

While nosltagia is strong, you also have to realize that there are those people who also enjoy SA over 3 and VC.

If nostalgia were all there was to it, people would have never gotten over 3. But they did, and there's a reason for that. Furthermore, neither you, or I know how much nostalgia factors in.

You guys simply pretend to come to conclusions based on the fact that you cannot understand why not everyone likes the same things as you.

3 and SA were 3 years apart. We are almost a decade away from SA so people have grown up and their youth is in the past. My prime is just starting in my book even though I am older so maybe that is why I love V.

 

 

I was an adult when I played GTA 1.  I didn't grow up with any of the GTA games.

 

Also, what would you say to people who enjoyed SA more than they enjoyed IV?  I mean, it was only a 4 year difference there.


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#141

Posted 12 October 2013 - 01:39 AM

 

 

While nosltagia is strong, you also have to realize that there are those people who also enjoy SA over 3 and VC.

If nostalgia were all there was to it, people would have never gotten over 3. But they did, and there's a reason for that. Furthermore, neither you, or I know how much nostalgia factors in.

You guys simply pretend to come to conclusions based on the fact that you cannot understand why not everyone likes the same things as you.

3 and SA were 3 years apart. We are almost a decade away from SA so people have grown up and their youth is in the past. My prime is just starting in my book even though I am older so maybe that is why I love V.

 

 

This is precisely why I believe most of these complainers's first experience with a GTA title was SA. 

 

Yes, San Andreas was a great game, but why can't these whining fanboys understand that R* is not a developer who want to choose the easy path, and rehash their games?

 

 

I'm starting to believe your experience with the GTA series started with IV.


Lucchese
  • Lucchese

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#142

Posted 12 October 2013 - 01:47 AM

Well you have evidently believed wrongly with that perception.


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#143

Posted 12 October 2013 - 01:50 AM

Well you have evidently believed wrongly with that perception.

 

Oh, I thought we were making assumptions about people?  Anyone can do it...doesn't make them right though does it?


quechus13
  • quechus13

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2008

#144

Posted 12 October 2013 - 02:31 AM

 

 

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

 

You are naive.

A mod can't do that! Mainly because it would require the source code of the engine and that is illegal to get and no one has it but R*.

The only mods that are out there are really cheap knockoffs.

 

http://www.gtaivsa.com/

 

I wasn't talking about that mod (IT IS FOR IV NOT FOR SA PLUS I WORKED ON IT FOR A WHILE).

 

I was talking about GTA SA mods making it more like IV not making IV SA


Sting4S
  • Sting4S

    ♢ Carrera ♢

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#145

Posted 12 October 2013 - 02:33 AM

 

:^: San Andreas wasn't all that. Vice City was better IMO with a better vibe. People praise San Andreas because most of the people here praise quantity over quality anyways. Some people have their nostalgia or preference reasons but most just like quantity over quality.

 

Oh please...as far as gameplay is concerned, SA did everything better.  The only thing that VC had over it was perhaps a better story and better lead character (which were still crappy in my opinion)....all which boils down to opinion, making your post pointless and trollish.

 

See, I can sh*t on games too.

O pleas blah blah blah my opinion is right and because yours is wrong, you're a troll!

 

Grow the f*ck up. :lol:


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#146

Posted 12 October 2013 - 02:55 AM Edited by bish0p2004, 12 October 2013 - 02:57 AM.

:^: San Andreas wasn't all that. Vice City was better IMO with a better vibe. People praise San Andreas because most of the people here praise quantity over quality anyways. Some people have their nostalgia or preference reasons but most just like quantity over quality.

 
Oh please...as far as gameplay is concerned, SA did everything better.  The only thing that VC had over it was perhaps a better story and better lead character (which were still crappy in my opinion)....all which boils down to opinion, making your post pointless and trollish.
 
See, I can sh*t on games too.
O pleas blah blah blah my opinion is right and because yours is wrong, you're a troll!
 
Grow the f*ck up. :lol:
I can't tell if you're being serious or not, because you completely missed the point.

redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#147

Posted 12 October 2013 - 03:07 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!
 
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.

 

Well what do you think?

A game that has more content, bigger maps, lots of cheats would have worst graphics. Graphics don't make a GTA game its what you do in the world that makes the game fun. 

 

Vice City was just a DLC form of III with a new theme, city, Story, and characters with a bit more too do. Not by much. 


DownwardGoose
  • DownwardGoose

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 May 2013

#148

Posted 12 October 2013 - 03:09 AM

Childhood, man. Childhood.


Sting4S
  • Sting4S

    ♢ Carrera ♢

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#149

Posted 12 October 2013 - 03:10 AM

 

 

 

:^: San Andreas wasn't all that. Vice City was better IMO with a better vibe. People praise San Andreas because most of the people here praise quantity over quality anyways. Some people have their nostalgia or preference reasons but most just like quantity over quality.

 
Oh please...as far as gameplay is concerned, SA did everything better.  The only thing that VC had over it was perhaps a better story and better lead character (which were still crappy in my opinion)....all which boils down to opinion, making your post pointless and trollish.
 
See, I can sh*t on games too.
O pleas blah blah blah my opinion is right and because yours is wrong, you're a troll!
 
Grow the f*ck up. :lol:
I can't tell if you're being serious or not, because you completely missed the point.

 

I didn't miss your point. You missed mine in the first place. I said IMO in my first post, IMO! In my opinion, 'kay?


Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    Generic GTA Username™

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India

#150

Posted 12 October 2013 - 03:11 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!
 
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.

 

Well what do you think?

A game that has more content, bigger maps, lots of cheats would have worst graphics. Graphics don't make a GTA game its what you do in the world that makes the game fun. 

 

Vice City was just a DLC form of III with a new theme, city, Story, and characters with a bit more too do. Not by much. 

 

 

Content doesn't matter at all.

 

It's the amount of time you get out of the game that does matter.

 

I spent more hours on Vice, I found myself getting bored of SA after the story.

 

Vice CIty kills SA in every department IMO and to only San Andreas fanboys like you the game feels like a III DLC, only those who aren't blinded like you, can appreciate that it is a classic on it's own.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users