Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

I don't get the Love for San Andreas

272 replies to this topic
redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#151

Posted 12 October 2013 - 03:16 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.

 

Are you kidding me? SA blows VC a way in almost everything a open world game should. 

You must only like Vice City for its theme and city. 

 

I think you're blinded if you think in today's standards that Vice City would be a full game. Its just a DLC. 


Travís.
  • Travís.

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2013
  • Australia

#152

Posted 12 October 2013 - 03:24 AM

everyones aloud an opinion.

But I so believe you're one of those people who finish the story line and never do anything else on it. Try free roaming and doing unique sh*t.


redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#153

Posted 12 October 2013 - 03:43 AM

everyones aloud an opinion.

But I so believe you're one of those people who finish the story line and never do anything else on it. Try free roaming and doing unique sh*t.

90% done with GTA V. Online is keeping the game alive for me.

 

GTA III: 100%

GTA VC: 100% 

 

So I know what I'm talking about when it comes to III and VC. 


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#154

Posted 12 October 2013 - 04:39 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?

Oh I'm sorry...I missed the part where you said "SA wasn't all that." and "most people only like quantity over quality."

Now you did say VC is better in your opinion, but that seemed to be the only opinion you were posting. Everything else was written with a matter of fact tone.

Death2Drugs
  • Death2Drugs

    Wanna milky?

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2011
  • Mexico

#155

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:03 AM

People just feel nostalgic for San Andreas. It's the same reason you have people still digging old TV and music.


NYdreamz
  • NYdreamz

    Born Sinner

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2013

#156

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:24 AM Edited by NYdreamz, 12 October 2013 - 05:32 AM.

People just feel nostalgic for San Andreas. It's the same reason you have people still digging old TV and music.


this post right here is the perfect example of why anybody that brings up the word nostalgic should have no say in this thread ....


woggleman
  • woggleman

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012

#157

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:34 AM

Back in the day I would have hands down said SA was better but I must admit when I am in the mood for some PS2 GTA action I go to Vice City.


SkyReaper2014
  • SkyReaper2014

    Paleto Bay Resident

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2012
  • United-States

#158

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:19 AM

 

People just feel nostalgic for San Andreas. It's the same reason you have people still digging old TV and music.


this post right here is the perfect example of why anybody that brings up the word nostalgic should have no say in this thread ....

 

Let me get this straight. People who have love for san andreas should have no say in a thread titled i dont get the love for san andreas 

 

That is some great logic there.


DeafMetal
  • DeafMetal

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2012

#159

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:48 AM

People who are arguing that "SA is better than GTA V because it was better for its time" seriously need to gtfo and stfu. You gotta enjoy things as they come and stop holding on to the past. Just imagine if you used that logic for everything. "Oh, my wife sucks cause I remember my first girlfriend when I was 12 being way better for her age." Oh, this Lamborghini is so much worse than my 1970 mini-van because the latter was so much better for its time.

 

There is an obvious amount of dramatic change in perception between playing a game when you were 10 than when you're 20. I used to love  the Army Men games for the ps1 ffs. Now that I went back to them, I can see how flawed they are and were at the time. Only fanboys can't see the faults in their favorite games, which seems to be the case with most people defending SA in this thread. GTA V has topped my list for my favorite game of all time but I can see very clearly that it has flaws; yoga being stupid and useless for example, Chop being treated as an after-thought, the lack of Vigilante missions, etc. etc. But just because it has its flaws doesn't make my love for it any less valid nor does it make it sh*ttier than X or Y game.

 

Likewise, just because I prefer one game over another doesn't mean that the one I didn't prefer sucks and is a disgrace. I prefer Skyrim over Dark Souls but Dark Souls remains one of my favorite RPGs of all time. It's not that f*ckin' difficult to do. I prefer GTA V but I absolutely adore San Andreas, which I consider to be the greatest ps2 game of all time as well as my second favorite core GTA game in the entire series behind only V -- and not that much of a difference at that.

 

What's worst is that one of the dudes defending SA like it's their deathbed mother said that he hasn't played San Andreas for some time and doesn't plan to. Seriously? That's the goddamn definition of nostalgia.

 

TL;DR:

hipsters-hipsters-everywhere.jpg

San Andreas = Morrowind


TensaZangetsu
  • TensaZangetsu

    White Shinigami

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

#160

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:55 AM

 

everyones aloud an opinion.

But I so believe you're one of those people who finish the story line and never do anything else on it. Try free roaming and doing unique sh*t.

90% done with GTA V. Online is keeping the game alive for me.

 

GTA III: 100%

GTA VC: 100% 

 

So I know what I'm talking about when it comes to III and VC. 

 

Never completed a GTA to 100%

 

Just never had the patience. But i'll make an exception with V as it's too easy to get 100% on.


kasa
  • kasa

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2007

#161

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:04 AM

San Andreas is the best game ever, at the time there was no discussion about it;

with GTA IV/GTA V there is lot of complaining about both games, I think even the biggest fanboy can't deny this, with GTA San Andreas this was absolutely not the case


Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    Generic GTA Username™

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India

#162

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:13 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.

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.

 

Are you kidding me? SA blows VC a way in almost everything a open world game should. 

You must only like Vice City for its theme and city. 

 

I think you're blinded if you think in today's standards that Vice City would be a full game. Its just a DLC. 

 

 

I'm really growing tired of your horrible posts.

 

1) You do understand the  meaning of IMO right? Also you just justified my statement, you are blinded. The way your statement read, I can easily say that.

 

2) No, I like it because it's fun, great story, great characters, great theme, great missions, and pretty much everything about.

 

3) Where did I say that? No game is a full open-world game not even SA. Oh and if you still think that Vice was just a DLC you are blinded even further.


Zonegamer
  • Zonegamer

    Front Yard Balla

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2013

#163

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:47 AM

I honestly don't get the point of this thread. Yeah it's your opinion, we get you don't have love for one of the best gta games in the franchise, but why share a negative and pessimistic post with others who have fond memories of it?

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

Good for you but maybe that's the sole reason you don't like SA, full stop.

Also you have to take into account SA was released back in 2004 and to think it had more accessible interiors and a variety of things to do than V which was the most hyped up gta in history.  I did enjoy five a great deal but it was missing that magic touch which made San Andreas special.

For one it didn't feel like a return to South Los Santos because there was hardly any storyline for the gangs which was disappointing. The characters were fine but not as likeable or crazy as SA.  Imo GTA V doesn't live up to the legacy of San Andreas but that doesn't make it a bad game.

 


The Gardener
  • The Gardener

    jebeno isti

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • None

#164

Posted 12 October 2013 - 08:45 AM Edited by SomeManForGTA, 12 October 2013 - 08:52 AM.

San Andreas was far better in 2004 than GTA 5 is in 2013. This is a fair point, despite what some morons have said.

CJ is more likeable than Franklin for me.

Half the things you listed were graphical/tech issues, which isn't fair when comparing it to a game 9 years more advanced.

San Andreas also had a vastly superior soundtrack. Don't even get me started.

San Andreas had a better cast of characters. I feel like in GTA 5 they re-used so many GTA 4 characters because they knew themselves GTA 5 didn't have the best cast. I don't think any GTA 5 character will ever be as iconic as CJ, Tenpenny, Big Smoke or OG LOC.

And don't get me started on side-missions and minigames. Is there any game in the world that betters San Andreas for that?

I love both games, but San Andreas was better IMO.

SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Tainted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Antarctica

#165

Posted 12 October 2013 - 09:49 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. 

 

 

Why do you follow me around like a bad smell? I've noticed you've been doing it a lot lately especially when I mention VC and SA in the same sentence and you keep harping on with that "VC is DLC" crap.

 

Regardless I found VC fun enough to actually finish. Something I have never done with SA and probably never will as I only finish GTAs that I consider worthy of finishing. That is GTA III, VC, GTA IV and now GTA V.


thugzmansion
  • thugzmansion

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Apr 2013

#166

Posted 12 October 2013 - 09:52 AM

gta san andreas single player sucks but the multiplayer is the best thing ever!!!!!! 1000 players....


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#167

Posted 12 October 2013 - 10:20 AM

@ Miami

That's quite poor coming from you as a GTA fan. You really should have finished San Andreas. The last quarter of the game was incredible. You really should put your bias against it to one side and just play it out. I'm not big on biker gangs, but I still played TLAD and enjoyed it. Come on man.

SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Tainted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Antarctica

#168

Posted 12 October 2013 - 10:40 AM

@ Miami

That's quite poor coming from you as a GTA fan. You really should have finished San Andreas. The last quarter of the game was incredible. You really should put your bias against it to one side and just play it out. I'm not big on biker gangs, but I still played TLAD and enjoyed it. Come on man.

 

Nope. Not while it has those retarded gang territories that need a certain % to take over, but really the story is so stupid and the characters annoy the sh*t the out of me I just don't have the motivation to play through.

 

Believe me I've tried many times and it just doesn't suck me in like VC, GTA IV, GTA III etc.

  • Sting4S likes this

bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#169

Posted 12 October 2013 - 11:43 AM Edited by bish0p2004, 12 October 2013 - 05:55 PM.

People who are arguing that "SA is better than GTA V because it was better for its time" seriously need to gtfo and stfu. You gotta enjoy things as they come and stop holding on to the past. Just imagine if you used that logic for everything. "Oh, my wife sucks cause I remember my first girlfriend when I was 12 being way better for her age." Oh, this Lamborghini is so much worse than my 1970 mini-van because the latter was so much better for its time.

 

It's more like comparing remakes of movies and the impact they had at the time.  Sure, some remakes can be better than the original like True Grit for instance, but even though some movies have better special effects now and are less cheesy like the latest A Nightmare on Elm Street, doesn't mean it is better than the original or had the same impact as the original did.

 

There is an obvious amount of dramatic change in perception between playing a game when you were 10 than when you're 20. I used to love  the Army Men games for the ps1 ffs. Now that I went back to them, I can see how flawed they are and were at the time. Only fanboys can't see the faults in their favorite games, which seems to be the case with most people defending SA in this thread. GTA V has topped my list for my favorite game of all time but I can see very clearly that it has flaws; yoga being stupid and useless for example, Chop being treated as an after-thought, the lack of Vigilante missions, etc. etc. But just because it has its flaws doesn't make my love for it any less valid nor does it make it sh*ttier than X or Y game.

 

Not everyone was a kid when they played these games.  Furthermore, SA is far from perfect...I recognized that it had flaws when I first played it and developed some criticisms for that game as well.

 

Likewise, just because I prefer one game over another doesn't mean that the one I didn't prefer sucks and is a disgrace. I prefer Skyrim over Dark Souls but Dark Souls remains one of my favorite RPGs of all time. It's not that f*ckin' difficult to do. I prefer GTA V but I absolutely adore San Andreas, which I consider to be the greatest ps2 game of all time as well as my second favorite core GTA game in the entire series behind only V -- and not that much of a difference at that.

 

I still love V and had a lot of fun with it.  Still, I had more fun with SA than I did with V.  But, I also had more fun with SA than I did 3.  Where does your nostalgia argument fit there?

 

I also had more fun with SA than I did any game I played previously which is why it is still my favorite game after 25 years of gaming.   Again, where is your nostalgia argument for that?

 

I prefer the Assassin's Creed (a new series) games to most other games I've played throughout my life.  Where does the nostalgia argument fit here?

 

What's worst is that one of the dudes defending SA like it's their deathbed mother said that he hasn't played San Andreas for some time and doesn't plan to. Seriously? That's the goddamn definition of nostalgia.

 

That would be me.  However, you are confused, I'm not defending SA itself...I'm defending the idea that people accuse my preference for it over IV and V as simply being nostalgic.  But go ahead and keep misquoting people by not fully understanding what is being said and by whom.
 

TL;DR:

 

San Andreas = Morrowind

 

I was actually thinking about this comparison myself....and it's like karma because I was apart of a conversation regarding Morrowind and Skyrim and I remember defending Skyrim.  I see where the Morrowind players are coming from now as they have to deal with this new generation of CoD games like yourself.


Sergio2007
  • Sergio2007

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013

#170

Posted 12 October 2013 - 11:46 AM

I just prefer GTA SAs map. Like the countryside more (yeah graphics are bad, I know). The general map shape of SA is better in my opinion (not only because of three cities).

 

Graphics, gameplay etc from GTA V is WAY better though. Just like GTA SAs map more.


NYdreamz
  • NYdreamz

    Born Sinner

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2013

#171

Posted 12 October 2013 - 12:12 PM Edited by NYdreamz, 12 October 2013 - 12:23 PM.

 

 

People just feel nostalgic for San Andreas. It's the same reason you have people still digging old TV and music.


this post right here is the perfect example of why anybody that brings up the word nostalgic should have no say in this thread ....
 
Let me get this straight. People who have love for san andreas should have no say in a thread titled i dont get the love for san andreas 
 
That is some great logic there.                                                                                                                                                  what ???? your telling me the only reason people have love for san andreas is "nostalgia" .... the word is thrown around so much on here nowadays.. and its usually from the people who some a dislike for the game ...

Sting4S
  • Sting4S

    ♢ Corverra ♢

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

#172

Posted 12 October 2013 - 12:39 PM

 

 

 

 

 

:^: 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?

Oh I'm sorry...I missed the part where you said "SA wasn't all that." and "most people only like quantity over quality."

Now you did say VC is better in your opinion, but that seemed to be the only opinion you were posting. Everything else was written with a matter of fact tone.

 

No you just don't like my opinion and feel the need to point out flaws that don't exist in my posts. :dozing:


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#173

Posted 12 October 2013 - 12:48 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

:^: 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?

Oh I'm sorry...I missed the part where you said "SA wasn't all that." and "most people only like quantity over quality."

Now you did say VC is better in your opinion, but that seemed to be the only opinion you were posting. Everything else was written with a matter of fact tone.

 

No you just don't like my opinion and feel the need to point out flaws that don't exist in my posts. :dozing:

 

 

Ok


AnDReJ98
  • AnDReJ98

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2011
  • Serbia

#174

Posted 12 October 2013 - 01:07 PM Edited by AnDReJ98, 12 October 2013 - 01:13 PM.

Are you kidding me? SA blows VC a way in almost everything a open world game should. 

You must only like Vice City for its theme and city. 

 

 

I think you're blinded if you think in today's standards that Vice City would be a full game. Its just a DLC. 

Well, this is somehow truth. As much as i love Vice City, you have to be really crazy to say it's better than San Andreas. People can love Vice City more than San Andreas, but saying it's better than San Andreas is just trolling or showing people's lack of knowledge.

 

Nope. Not while it has those retarded gang territories that need a certain % to take over, but really the story is so stupid and the characters annoy the sh*t the out of me I just don't have the motivation to play through.

 

Believe me I've tried many times and it just doesn't suck me in like VC, GTA IV, GTA III etc.

If you don't want to complete the story, you don't have to. But the saying that the story and characters are bad and all, is just an option, not a fact. You don't like it, you don't have to like it. But story was actually unique. It's not like all same TV's series and movies that IV's sotory had, it's different. It's extensive and hard to understand, it took me longer time to see what's actually the point and what's going on. I guess that's problem, why some people say it's bad and all. One guy explained what's the point, i won't write now, there's too much to be said...

 

Good for you but maybe that's the sole reason you don't like SA, full stop.

Also you have to take into account SA was released back in 2004 and to think it had more accessible interiors and a variety of things to do than V which was the most hyped up gta in history.  I did enjoy five a great deal but it was missing that magic touch which made San Andreas special.

For one it didn't feel like a return to South Los Santos because there was hardly any storyline for the gangs which was disappointing. The characters were fine but not as likeable or crazy as SA.  Imo GTA V doesn't live up to the legacy of San Andreas but that doesn't make it a bad game.

Every game. But every, has something that other games don't have. Something that makes them different and unique to each other. But i don't agree that part about V what you said. I was also disappointed with few things in game, but as you said, one thing doesn't make game bad.

  • bish0p2004 likes this

Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    Generic GTA Username™

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India

#175

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:00 PM

 

Are you kidding me? SA blows VC a way in almost everything a open world game should. 

You must only like Vice City for its theme and city. 

 

 

I think you're blinded if you think in today's standards that Vice City would be a full game. Its just a DLC. 

Well, this is somehow truth. As much as i love Vice City, you have to be really crazy to say it's better than San Andreas. People can love Vice City more than San Andreas, but saying it's better than San Andreas is just trolling or showing people's lack of knowledge.

 

Nope. Not while it has those retarded gang territories that need a certain % to take over, but really the story is so stupid and the characters annoy the sh*t the out of me I just don't have the motivation to play through.

 

Believe me I've tried many times and it just doesn't suck me in like VC, GTA IV, GTA III etc.

If you don't want to complete the story, you don't have to. But the saying that the story and characters are bad and all, is just an option, not a fact. You don't like it, you don't have to like it. But story was actually unique. It's not like all same TV's series and movies that IV's sotory had, it's different. It's extensive and hard to understand, it took me longer time to see what's actually the point and what's going on. I guess that's problem, why some people say it's bad and all. One guy explained what's the point, i won't write now, there's too much to be said...

 

Oh, the irony in this statement.

 

People like me who say Vice is better than San Andreas is an opinion itself yet you act like a stupid SA fanboy and say 'The people who say Vice is better than SA are crazy'.

 

This is why I hate San Andreas fanboys like you. You are blinded and think that saying a game which has lesser content than the other is crazy when it is an OPINION.

 

I am not blinded like you and redx, I loved Vice and of course I am a Vice City fanboy but not a blinded fanboy. I accepted that San Andreas was a good game and a classic (despite my few complaints) and then IV was great it comes on par with Vice. I don't go running around making topics like 'GTA has been a downward spiral since 2002' because I have enough sense to appreciate other games.

 

We are all fanboys to our favorite GTA's but not all are blinded fanboys.

 

I am sorry if this is rude, but this is the truth. I might even get a warning for this post but I really wanted to get this out.


GtaIvFanboy
  • GtaIvFanboy

    I Have a Foot Fetish

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2013

#176

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:24 PM

yep its horribly over praised at times  the only thing i really loved about it was the soundtrack other than that i was never that fond of it really bad Storyline 90% of the Characters were Unlikeble  IMO and the whole state just seemed a bit stale and dead but it was still a fantastic game for its time that brought some   new/good things into the Series so i respect it for that reason . but i still think its the weakest game from the 3rd Era. (not Including Advance)

 

San Andreas = 7.5/10 


Toshio_maxoS
  • Toshio_maxoS

    Heisenberg's pal™

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2012
  • Red-Cross

#177

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:27 PM

Because the game is... 9 years old? Ofc you got more detaild things in GTA V... but the world is even more living in fking San Andreas then in Dead GTA V.

It SUCSK SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS. Dammit


Omar Little
  • Omar Little

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2013

#178

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:30 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. 

 

 

 

 

 

One word: WIGGERS. That's why San Andreas is so popular. They friggin' love that game.


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#179

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:33 PM Edited by bish0p2004, 12 October 2013 - 05:34 PM.

 

One word: WIGGERS. That's why San Andreas is so popular. They friggin' love that game.
 

 

 

Lol...a neckbeard talking smack online.


Omar Little
  • Omar Little

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2013

#180

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:45 PM

 

 

One word: WIGGERS. That's why San Andreas is so popular. They friggin' love that game.
 

 

 

Lol...a neckbeard talking smack online.

 

Hmm if I only knew what that is.. But it's true, them wiggers love it. Especially those young ones





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users