Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

I don't get the Love for San Andreas

272 replies to this topic
woggleman
  • woggleman

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012

#181

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:47 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

 

They love it but it is still a great game. It is an undeniable classic but judge other GTAs on their own merits instead of always comparing it to SA. 


redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#182

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:49 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.

 

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.

 

I think you must be blind. I said in today's standards that Vice City is a DLC and its true. VC didn't improve nothing but added a city, new characters, and new story. 

 

Story is opinion

Characters is opinion

Theme is opinion

Missions? SA blows it away

 

I see that you're a blind VC fanboy if you don't see how SA improve on it and why many love it. I see SA haters only hating on the game cause of the character CJ or the theme. 

 

Well guess what a GTA game doesn't have to have the mafia style and a white protagonist to be good. SA proves it. 


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#183

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:51 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

 

 

You still haven't shaved that neckbeard yet?


Ivorbiggun
  • Ivorbiggun

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2013

#184

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:53 PM

There's been about a 20 threads of people criticising V and comparing it to SA.

Now when I guy comes along and says V is better than SA he gets hammered?

I have to say I thought SA was a great game. I had more enjoyment out of Vice City though.

The graphics in all the GTA games have been very good compared to the competition and realising the scale of the games is also important as they aren't detailing corridors here. Every game has broken new ground.

V is perhaps the least groundbreaking. Personally it's my favourite but I accept its perhaps not as 'wow!' as the others.

I prefer the series getting more serious and realistic too.

The whole 'in da hood' stuff gets on my nerves so I hope they don't ever go back down that route quite like that. I like it that each character has felt different so far. Franklin gets compared to CJ a lot but they are very different really.

Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I see nothing but good things for you my boy.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#185

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:55 PM Edited by AceKingston, 12 October 2013 - 06:01 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.

 

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.

 

I think you must be blind. I said in today's standards that Vice City is a DLC and its true. VC didn't improve nothing but added a city, new characters, and new story. 

 

Story is opinion

Characters is opinion

Theme is opinion

Missions? SA blows it away

 

I see that you're a blind VC fanboy if you don't see how SA improve on it and why many love it. I see SA haters only hating on the game cause of the character CJ or the theme. 

 

Well guess what a GTA game doesn't have to have the mafia style and a white protagonist to be good. SA proves it. 

 

 

Ha ha no,

 

I am not a blind Vice City fanboy. I appreciate the fact that SA is a classic and a game of it's own. But I was only countering your rather moronic piece of criticisim, 'Vice City is a DLC by today standards' hell no it isn't. It was a game of it's own. I'd rather consider VCS and LCS as DLC's. Vice City improved a lot, it feels more feel than 3.


woggleman
  • woggleman

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012

#186

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:56 PM

There's been about a 20 threads of people criticising V and comparing it to SA.

Now when I guy comes along and says V is better than SA he gets hammered?

I have to say I thought SA was a great game. I had more enjoyment out of Vice City though.

The graphics in all the GTA games have been very good compared to the competition and realising the scale of the games is also important as they aren't detailing corridors here. Every game has broken new ground.

V is perhaps the least groundbreaking. Personally it's my favourite but I accept its perhaps not as 'wow!' as the others.

I prefer the series getting more serious and realistic too.

The whole 'in da hood' stuff gets on my nerves so I hope they don't ever go back down that route quite like that. I like it that each character has felt different so far. Franklin gets compared to CJ a lot but they are very different really.

Exactly. Franklin was not meant to be CJ part 2 just because he is black. They are two very different people. I wouldn't want to help Lamar if I were him either. If it weren't Trevor he would have bought a brick of drywall. 

 

This why I think the next GTA need to be set in a completely new place so there is no comparing it to old ones. If they do Vice City next people will complain as well if it is not like VC on PS2.


Omar Little
  • Omar Little

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2013

#187

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:57 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

 

 

You still haven't shaved that neckbeard yet?

 

What is wrong with you? Why are you attacking me?.. Maybe you should get help. I think you're the neckbeard (I don't judge, just think) because you actually know what it is. I don't even care to look it up. I don't have any kind of beard at the moment btw


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#188

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:57 PM

There's been about a 20 threads of people criticising V and comparing it to SA.

Now when I guy comes along and says V is better than SA he gets hammered?

I have to say I thought SA was a great game. I had more enjoyment out of Vice City though.

The graphics in all the GTA games have been very good compared to the competition and realising the scale of the games is also important as they aren't detailing corridors here. Every game has broken new ground.

V is perhaps the least groundbreaking. Personally it's my favourite but I accept its perhaps not as 'wow!' as the others.

I prefer the series getting more serious and realistic too.

The whole 'in da hood' stuff gets on my nerves so I hope they don't ever go back down that route quite like that. I like it that each character has felt different so far. Franklin gets compared to CJ a lot but they are very different really.

 

Pretty good post ruined by the "da hood" comment.  Do you get tired of the "fuggedaboutit" stuff done in just about every GTA game?


woggleman
  • woggleman

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012

#189

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:57 PM

VC was the first GTA to introduce motorcycles and flyable helicopters so it was from just a DLC.


gnrdeth13
  • gnrdeth13

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2012

#190

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:58 PM

SA was my least favorite GTA.  I do enjoy seeing all the mods people have done for the PC version of the game though, especially the Friday the 13th ones.


lol232
  • lol232

    The Harwood Butcher

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2010
  • Serbia

#191

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:01 PM

I agree with everything the OP said...

I like GTA SA but it's tad overrated, I'm no graphics whore but the graphics are horrible for 2004... Even Vice City was way better, hell maybe even GTA III (the XBOX version of GTA III definitely has better graphics than SA, even better than XBOX version of SA).


Ivorbiggun
  • Ivorbiggun

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2013

#192

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:07 PM


There's been about a 20 threads of people criticising V and comparing it to SA.

Now when I guy comes along and says V is better than SA he gets hammered?

I have to say I thought SA was a great game. I had more enjoyment out of Vice City though.

The graphics in all the GTA games have been very good compared to the competition and realising the scale of the games is also important as they aren't detailing corridors here. Every game has broken new ground.

V is perhaps the least groundbreaking. Personally it's my favourite but I accept its perhaps not as 'wow!' as the others.

I prefer the series getting more serious and realistic too.

The whole 'in da hood' stuff gets on my nerves so I hope they don't ever go back down that route quite like that. I like it that each character has felt different so far. Franklin gets compared to CJ a lot but they are very different really.

 
Pretty good post ruined by the "da hood" comment.  Do you get tired of the "fuggedaboutit" stuff done in just about every GTA game?

No mate this was my personal preference. I understand why SA changed the theme. I played it right through and I enjoyed it. I personally could play the mobster in every GTA but they need the variation. If Franklin had a few more ghetto missions then I'd play them. I'd just think "haven't I done all this before". I bet you would if you had to be a mobster every game?

That bit was honestly just my personal preference. SA was a good game. I just don't think I'd want a remake or them to revisit that theme. If they did I think I'd miss that GTA out.

Different strokes for different blokes

redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#193

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:17 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.

 

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.

 

I think you must be blind. I said in today's standards that Vice City is a DLC and its true. VC didn't improve nothing but added a city, new characters, and new story. 

 

Story is opinion

Characters is opinion

Theme is opinion

Missions? SA blows it away

 

I see that you're a blind VC fanboy if you don't see how SA improve on it and why many love it. I see SA haters only hating on the game cause of the character CJ or the theme. 

 

Well guess what a GTA game doesn't have to have the mafia style and a white protagonist to be good. SA proves it. 

 

 

Ha ha no,

 

I am not a blind Vice City fanboy. I appreciate the fact that SA is a classic and a game of it's own. But I was only countering your rather moronic piece of criticisim, 'Vice City is a DLC by today standards' hell no it isn't. It was a game of it's own. I'd rather consider VCS and LCS as DLC's. Vice City improved a lot, it feels more feel than 3.

 

How did VC improve on III?

Don't talk about theme or story.

 

Gameplay: Feels the same as III

Driving: Feels the same as III

Shooting: Feels the same as III but now you can't auto aim the AK47

 

Sure they added more sh*t just like a DLC would. Its either a DLC or a rush/half finish game. 

 

So tell me how VC improved on III? 


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#194

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:18 PM Edited by bish0p2004, 12 October 2013 - 06:19 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

 

 

You still haven't shaved that neckbeard yet?

 

What is wrong with you? Why are you attacking me?.. Maybe you should get help. I think you're the neckbeard (I don't judge, just think) because you actually know what it is. I don't even care to look it up. I don't have any kind of beard at the moment btw

 

 

You don't judge and yet you called anyone who enjoyed SA "wiggers?"  Ok, man.

 

 

 

There's been about a 20 threads of people criticising V and comparing it to SA.

Now when I guy comes along and says V is better than SA he gets hammered?

I have to say I thought SA was a great game. I had more enjoyment out of Vice City though.

The graphics in all the GTA games have been very good compared to the competition and realising the scale of the games is also important as they aren't detailing corridors here. Every game has broken new ground.

V is perhaps the least groundbreaking. Personally it's my favourite but I accept its perhaps not as 'wow!' as the others.

I prefer the series getting more serious and realistic too.

The whole 'in da hood' stuff gets on my nerves so I hope they don't ever go back down that route quite like that. I like it that each character has felt different so far. Franklin gets compared to CJ a lot but they are very different really.

 
Pretty good post ruined by the "da hood" comment.  Do you get tired of the "fuggedaboutit" stuff done in just about every GTA game?

No mate this was my personal preference. I understand why SA changed the theme. I played it right through and I enjoyed it. I personally could play the mobster in every GTA but they need the variation. If Franklin had a few more ghetto missions then I'd play them. I'd just think "haven't I done all this before". I bet you would if you had to be a mobster every game?

That bit was honestly just my personal preference. SA was a good game. I just don't think I'd want a remake or them to revisit that theme. If they did I think I'd miss that GTA out.

Different strokes for different blokes

 

 

Nothing wrong with you not liking SA, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  Personally, I hope we never go down the mafia route again as that is definitely overdone in my opinion.


ryuclan
  • ryuclan

    Maybe I'll Stay awhile

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2007

#195

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:25 PM

OP kind of missed GTASA. Its like one of those jokes that you don't understand if you weren't there when it started.

 

For it's time it was amazing, but it had a lot of flaws of course. Aiming was ASS, Graphics were horrible and a lot of people don't like the hood sh*t. I highly enjoyed it as I did VC and III. I don't know why it always has to be a question of whats better then what. I guess it's because I enjoy both the mafia feel and the gangster atmosphere.


Jimmy Darmody
  • Jimmy Darmody

    Don

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2013

#196

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:30 PM Edited by Jimmy Darmody, 12 October 2013 - 06:31 PM.

It was a preety cool game back in the day. Ofcourse that it is sh*t to anyone used to game graphics/gameplay and overall immersion of the 2010's...

The game has major awful faults that makes it my less favorite GTA. Highly overrated for God knows why, but it's a matter of taste and taste are not supposed to be discussed, so i respect people who think it's the best gta.


Lucchese
  • Lucchese

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#197

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:57 PM

I'm in no way attacking anybodys personal opinion or taste. I'm old enough to understand  that we're not all sheep.

 

No, the people I have a problem with are those who want R* to make carbon copies of their games, and it's evidently the SA fanboys who are the loudest and most prominent - as evidenced with the bombardment of whining when IV released, and now the same is happening with V.

 

R* could make the biggest and best GTA ever, with thousands of features and activities, multiple cities, the lot. And the SA guys will still complain that it doesn't have certain features of their precious game.

 

R* are one of the few developers left in the industry who refuse to churn out rehashed replicas of their games, and actually have innovation, passion, and ambition for their products.

 

So this is why it angers me that some people want to change R*'s policy, not because I don't respect their opinions of the games.


woggleman
  • woggleman

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012

#198

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:03 PM

I'm in no way attacking anybodys personal opinion or taste. I'm old enough to understand  that we're not all sheep.

 

No, the people I have a problem with are those who want R* to make carbon copies of their games, and it's evidently the SA fanboys who are the loudest and most prominent - as evidenced with the bombardment of whining when IV released, and now the same is happening with V.

 

R* could make the biggest and best GTA ever, with thousands of features and activities, multiple cities, the lot. And the SA guys will still complain that it doesn't have certain features of their precious game.

 

R* are one of the few developers left in the industry who refuse to churn out rehashed replicas of their games, and actually have innovation, passion, and ambition for their products.

 

So this is why it angers me that some people want to change R*'s policy, not because I don't respect their opinions of the games.

Exactly. It would be like people demanding the Beatles put out a Hard Day's Night over and over again and hating Revolver because it doesn't sound like it.


RockstarFanboy
  • RockstarFanboy

    GTA #2 FANBOY / Loyal R* Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2013

#199

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:46 PM

Don't talk about theme or story.

 

Gameplay: Feels the same as III

Driving: Feels the same as III

Shooting: Feels the same as III but now you can't auto aim the AK47

 

Sure they added more sh*t just like a DLC would. Its either a DLC or a rush/half finish game. 

 

So tell me how VC improved on III? 

 

Jeez can't you just deal with his opinion? If he says that VC improved for him than why are you trying to change point of view? It's like people don't have freedom of speech anymore. A mod already warned you about this crap but you can't whining if someone thinks V is the best gta or if someone says "VC is better than SA"...


Raptomex
  • Raptomex

    Listen to Slayer

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2004
  • United-States

#200

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:54 PM

You should have played back in the day when it was the latest and greatest. With that said it introduced some new elements to the series and expanded upon previous one. Dual weilding weapons, character customization, 4 person drive bys, recruiting mechanic, crouch and walk, minor rpg elements, bicycles, stealth, vehicle customization, parachuting, and I'm sure I'm missing more but, yeah, for it's time it was incredible.
  • alfonsogomezmontoya likes this

N7 Colonel Dre
  • N7 Colonel Dre

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2013

#201

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:56 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

The story????

The story f*ckING sucked dick

So did the characters


Ivorbiggun
  • Ivorbiggun

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2013

#202

Posted 12 October 2013 - 08:28 PM

SA annoyed me with that green goo area 69 stuff. It was a bit odd. I know a lot of people who loved it though. But when you prefer the more realistic direction it was a bit out there.

For fun though it was a crazy mission.

The ending was good.
Actually the endings in GTA games haven't been all that great imo. Satisfactory, no complaints but not very memorable. V and SA are the exceptions. III, VC and IV were a bit meh. Never finished the DLC for IV. Any good? I don't know why I never finished TBOGT. I enjoyed the game and liked Luis more than Niko.

LibSity
  • LibSity

    Genetically Superior

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 May 2013

#203

Posted 12 October 2013 - 08:47 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.

 

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.

 

I don't understand why you can't claim nostalgia as a reason why you enjoy an older game more than a newer one.. Nostalgia is a strong feeling, and a very normal reason for liking something from the past more than the future. Your favorite GTA will probably never be surpassed due to nostalgia. Hell, I only started playing GTA a couple years ago with IV, and I still like that more than V because of "nostalgia" if you want to call it that since it was only a couple of years ago. I just like it because it was the first GTA that I owned and played for an extended period of time. The experiences playing IV cannot, and will not be surpassed imo, no matter how good the other game is.


RockstarFanboy
  • RockstarFanboy

    GTA #2 FANBOY / Loyal R* Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2013

#204

Posted 12 October 2013 - 08:58 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

hahah you sound so angry, i bet you never played the game but are whining to make yourself feel better :lol:


Killerdude8
  • Killerdude8

    And Remember, Respect is Everything!

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Canada

#205

Posted 12 October 2013 - 09:01 PM

How did VC improve on III?

Don't talk about theme or story.

 

 

Gameplay: Feels the same as III

Driving: Feels the same as III

Shooting: Feels the same as III but now you can't auto aim the AK47

 

Sure they added more sh*t just like a DLC would. Its either a DLC or a rush/half finish game. 

 

So tell me how VC improved on III? 

 

Planes.

Helicopters.

Bikes.

Improved physics.

Freeaim.

Graphics.

Property management

Thatès just off the top my head.

 

The jump between SA and VC was not nearly as great as III to VC.


Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I see nothing but good things for you my boy.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#206

Posted 13 October 2013 - 06:05 AM Edited by AceKingston, 13 October 2013 - 06:05 AM.


How did VC improve on III?

Don't talk about theme or story.

 

 

Gameplay: Feels the same as III

Driving: Feels the same as III

Shooting: Feels the same as III but now you can't auto aim the AK47

 

Sure they added more sh*t just like a DLC would. Its either a DLC or a rush/half finish game. 

 

So tell me how VC improved on III? 

 

 

Well let's see:

 

- New City

- better soundtrack

- bikes

- buying properties

- more clothing choices

- new side-missions

- better graphics

- better gameplay. The gameplay itself feels more fluid that III.

- better story

- new gangs

- improved shooting

- more weapons

- the protagonist can talk, improved cutscenes (In III it just felt but Vice improved that greatly)

- better missions

- better characters

- flyable plans (The Dodo wasn't mean't to be flyable in III)

- Better physics

- more vehicles

 

I agree the jump between III and VC wasn't good as the one from VC to SA, of course it's a general fact. But calling Vice City a DLC to III is an absolutely moronic piece of criticisim. Vice City improved a lot from III. The gameplay. physics everything was improved from III. Trying playing III after Vice, it has lesser freedom, III was just the base, Vice City was the middle part, SA was the top. And by that i mean; III set the base for Vice, Vice set the base for SA, SA set the base for IV and IV set the base for V.


redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#207

Posted 13 October 2013 - 06:28 AM

 

How did VC improve on III?

Don't talk about theme or story.

 

 

Gameplay: Feels the same as III

Driving: Feels the same as III

Shooting: Feels the same as III but now you can't auto aim the AK47

 

Sure they added more sh*t just like a DLC would. Its either a DLC or a rush/half finish game. 

 

So tell me how VC improved on III? 

 

Planes.

Helicopters.

Bikes.

Improved physics.

Freeaim.

Graphics.

Property management

Thatès just off the top my head.

 

The jump between SA and VC was not nearly as great as III to VC.

 

III had planes try again

Helicopters was new

Bikes were new

Improved physics? Really? It was the same. Felt the same and moved the same. SA improved the physics so you can't take fall damage from a 1 foot drop. 

Graphics don't make a game. Why do you see all the hate for IV? 

Free aiming was in III as well

Property Management was the only thing but was only for a few missions. 

 

SA bought something that we use in every GTA game since. 360 camera angle and swimming. Fighting was way better, shooting was way better, a huge map and not a city smaller then Liberty City ( III ). Yes VC is smaller then Liberty City. Take away the beach and you'll see. 

 

The Dodo was suppose to be flyable but due to 911 yes I said 911 they did cut back some content. 


Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I see nothing but good things for you my boy.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#208

Posted 13 October 2013 - 06:50 AM Edited by AceKingston, 13 October 2013 - 06:52 AM.

Well, redx you sure are showing your San Andreas fanboyism to the fullest extent well done.

 

See? You are blinded, every true GTA fan knows that Vice was a step-up from III, you fail to see that because you are a San Andreas fanboy.

 

 

 

III had planes try again

 

Was the plane easy to fly in III? Did III have helicopters? I think not.

 

 

 

Improved physics? Really? It was the same. Felt the same and moved the same. SA improved the physics so you can't take fall damage from a 1 foot drop. 

 

San Andreas fanboyism. I'd bet a fair amount that you have never played Vice City.

 

 

 

Graphics don't make a game. Why do you see all the hate for IV? 

 

You asked us to state an improvement and we did, and now you're saying that graphics don't make a game, pathetic.

 

 

 

Property Management was the only thing but was only for a few missions.

 

What the hell are you talking about? You have clearly never played Vice City and continue to show your pathetic San Andreas fanboyism. You could buy properties in Vice City any time.

 

 

 

SA bought something that we use in every GTA game since. 360 camera angle and swimming. Fighting was way better, shooting was way better, a huge map and not a city smaller then Liberty City ( III ). Yes VC is smaller then Liberty City. Take away the beach and you'll see. 

 

I'd never consider SA a revolution despite it having a lot of content, why? Because III was the stepping stone for San Andreas. III is a revolution, we use all the features in III in every GTA game, Did we use SA's RPG character development in IV? No.

 

Also again you have not played Vice City. Vice City is bigger than III's Liberty City, as you said 'take away the beach from the map' I can take Portland off the map, does that make any sense?

 

And what about the tons of other improvements I stated which you failed to counter?


SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Goodfella

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member in an Official Group 2012

#209

Posted 13 October 2013 - 07:31 AM

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.

Of course me not liking SA's story is an opinion. Where did I say or imply it was fact? Unlike some people when I express an opinion I make sure it's not conveyed as factual as I know things like story are very subjective .

rampage08
  • rampage08

    I do not fear, for you are with me...

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2012

#210

Posted 13 October 2013 - 07:37 AM Edited by rampage08, 13 October 2013 - 07:40 AM.

Yeah, even though i liked SA, i still prefer VC, i spend hours and hours and hours on that game more than SA, the atmosphere and the theme of VC is just memorable.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users