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

#211

Posted 13 October 2013 - 07:50 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?

I was wrong thinking about the graphics. They didn't improve the graphics but just add color. 

Just like TBOGT with IV. 

 

I never played Vice City yet I always say I have III and VC 100%. I could make up something saying your not a true fan of that GTA if you don't have 100%. 

 

III was something gaming needed. SA was something GTA needed. Once again what was so good about GTA VC? 

Also just cause its hard to fly doesn't make it not a plane. Look up youtube videos on how to fly the plane. You seem more of a VC fanboy then you  make me out to be a SA fanboy. 


Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    Generic GTA Username™

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India

#212

Posted 13 October 2013 - 08:23 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?

I was wrong thinking about the graphics. They didn't improve the graphics but just add color. 

Just like TBOGT with IV. 

 

I never played Vice City yet I always say I have III and VC 100%. I could make up something saying your not a true fan of that GTA if you don't have 100%. 

 

III was something gaming needed. SA was something GTA needed. Once again what was so good about GTA VC? 

Also just cause its hard to fly doesn't make it not a plane. Look up youtube videos on how to fly the plane. You seem more of a VC fanboy then you  make me out to be a SA fanboy. 

 

 

Now now don't fly off the handle too much fanboy. 'They only added color' wow.

 

And that's a pointless question 'What was so good about VC?' I can ask you 'What was so good about SA?'.

 

And of course I am a Vice City fanboy. But I am not a fanboy who is blinded like you are and can appreciate other games. Like I said I liked SA despite my complaints. I appreciate all GTA games one way or the other but you are just so blinded you can't appreciate things in other games. Because SA fanboys like you are never pleased, you really think you're defending your favorite GTA right now? No, you're actually making it's image worse and worse day-by-day. Just sit back and forget about SA. It was over with 2004. I loved Vice but I learned to move on, I hold GTA IV on par with Vice.  I don't go making threads like 'This game should have been Vice City with better graphics' because I know every game is unique. If you want to play a GTA like SA then go play SA.


mrbozzedup
  • mrbozzedup

    Tryna Get out this Bullsh*t

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2012

#213

Posted 13 October 2013 - 08:31 AM

I agree OP , during its time it felt like the greatest game ever but i try to go back and play and it just sucks maybe we're just spoiled with games today mainly V cause to me V is the best all around GTA yet


Ben73
  • Ben73

    Homeboy

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2012
  • Australia

#214

Posted 13 October 2013 - 08:45 AM

Firstly V is great and my favorite GTA game.

But San Andreas was a great game for 2004.

You could say it's a jack of all trades, master of none.

 

Comparing it to V is just stupid.

 

In 10 years, you will be on a GTA IIX forum saying how much you liked GTA V and some smart assed, know it all 14 year old kid will be like "OMG V is so sh*t, like look how crap those graphics are. POS PS3 sucks so much, How sh*t was that map, no detail at all. 3 characters bahah what a sh*t story"

 

But for now you are that know it all 14 year old.

  • StarFyer likes this

HugoMoreira
  • HugoMoreira

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2012

#215

Posted 13 October 2013 - 08:56 AM

You don't get why i love SA AKA The best game?Ok i don't get how you like V's too :D 


woggleman
  • woggleman

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012

#216

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:18 AM

There are a number of things that are actually great but the fans have turned me off of them. SA is becoming one of those things and IV is starting to as well with all the people complaining because cars don't handle like boats anymore.


SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Tainted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia

#217

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:21 AM

 

 

III was something gaming needed. SA was something GTA needed. Once again what was so good about GTA VC? 

 

 

Ace has already tried explaining the things he feels that make VC good. It's clear you don't want to listen to him, but honestly it's something you tend to do an awful lot. :/


AnDReJ98
  • AnDReJ98

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2011
  • Serbia

#218

Posted 13 October 2013 - 06:49 PM Edited by AnDReJ98, 13 October 2013 - 07:00 PM.

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.

I'm not a fanboy. I'm just saying the truth. Diffrence between 'favorite' and 'better' game is very big. Vice City is my favorite GTA, and it really brings up good old memories. It has cool story and my favorite character is Tommy. But i agree that San Andreas is better, when it really is better. When i say 'better', i mean quality and quantity, where San Andreas is dominating in every way against Vice City. Same as V, it's way much better than San Andreas, as San Andreas is better than Vice City. Tell me i'm wrong. But this is the fact.

 

@Miamivicecity Yes, you're right. I didn't attacked you, i just said it's an option and that everybody has their own option, and it doesn't mean to be fact. Nothing more.


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#219

Posted 13 October 2013 - 06:56 PM Edited by Official General, 13 October 2013 - 06:58 PM.

 

 

 

III was something gaming needed. SA was something GTA needed. Once again what was so good about GTA VC? 

 

 

Ace has already tried explaining the things he feels that make VC good. It's clear you don't want to listen to him, but honestly it's something you tend to do an awful lot. :/

 

 

@ redx165

 

You're being silly now bro. Vice City was a completely separate game on it's own, it certainly was not a DLC, there was no such thing as DLC when it first came out anyway. And VC was a GREAT game for it's time in almost every way, it was revolutionary and groundbreaking, most GTA fans will agree with that. I'm not even gonna explain how or why, if you don't know this, then it's pointless discussing it.You personally may think that VC is anything and that's fine, but it's just a losing battle to argue that VC was nothing special.

 

VC is still my favorite GTA of the series personally, but I can still acknowledge that overall, San Andreas was the better game from a technical point of view. 

  • AnDReJ98 likes this

GTAover9000
  • GTAover9000

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2012

#220

Posted 13 October 2013 - 06:58 PM

GTA 5 is better than SA IMO.

 

However, when San Andreas came out, it seemed like everyone was playing it. We'd all get together and spend hours upon hours playing. In school we'd talk about the stunts, kills, missions, etc.

 

SA was a big deal when it came out. Like Michael Jackson big. In America.

  • DeafMetal likes this

AnDReJ98
  • AnDReJ98

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2011
  • Serbia

#221

Posted 13 October 2013 - 07:05 PM

@ redx165

 

You're being silly now bro. Vice City was a completely separate game on it's own, it certainly was not a DLC, there was no such thing as DLC when it first came out anyway. And VC was a GREAT game for it's time in almost every way, it was revolutionary and groundbreaking, most GTA fans will agree with that. I'm not even gonna explain how or why, if you don't know this, then it's pointless discussing it.You personally may think that VC is anything and that's fine, but it's just a losing battle to argue that VC was nothing special.

 

VC is still my favorite GTA of the series personally, but I can still acknowledge that overall, San Andreas was the better game from a technical point of view. 

That's what i'm saying. I'm trying to make some balance and diffrence between some things here. I agree with you.


ZZCOOL
  • ZZCOOL

    http://www.youtube.com/user/taltigolt

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2009
  • Sweden

#222

Posted 13 October 2013 - 07:22 PM

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

theres a mod that does that

 

for free


UnfaIrADVAN7AGE
  • UnfaIrADVAN7AGE

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Oct 2013

#223

Posted 13 October 2013 - 07:39 PM

The only things that San Andreas could have done better with the ps2 tech available in 2004 was the shooting mechanics. I consider V to be the best in the series, but SA did nearly everything amazingly. Although a thing that let you replay missions would have been cool and I'm guessing they could have done that in 04.


DeafMetal
  • DeafMetal

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2012

#224

Posted 13 October 2013 - 07:40 PM

 

 

 

III was something gaming needed. SA was something GTA needed. Once again what was so good about GTA VC? 

 

 

Ace has already tried explaining the things he feels that make VC good. It's clear you don't want to listen to him, but honestly it's something you tend to do an awful lot. :/

 

Why do you bother egging redx on? Come on, man, you're smarter than that. The dude is obviously either a troll or incredibly stupid.


ChillerVapes
  • ChillerVapes

    Wondering aimlessly in a cloud, look up high n I'll be found

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2013
  • None

#225

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:06 PM

I just want to step away from the argument and just have my say.

I have played every single GTA on PC and also dabbled with some of the add ons / hand held GTA titles. For me, I don't get the same love for GTA V as I do with either SA or VC. I love both of them for there own reasons. I know that on comparison, SA is tiny compared to V however, they made it feel much bigger or at least thats how I remember it.

I think the only reason V is not doing it for me is because it's simply not as fun. Ok, so they have added a few things but, look how many things we have seen in the past which are missing and it's these little things which add the fun.

I have always loved GTA for the free roam right from the beginning then, it was because they were the game which had it all now it seems with all of the missing stuff, it's a step backwards in game freedom.

I still think a nice update and plenty of DLC could make V the best in the series, I simply think it's all down to the limitations of the xbox 360's DVD format for games rather than bluray. I also wish that if that is the reason for V's lack of things to do, then they should have simply made a dumbed down version for xbox and had a fuller version for ps3 and pc.
Heck, the PC version has always had the upper hand anyway so it wouldn't have been so bad.

Andreas
  • Andreas

    GTAV Forum Leader

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 27 May 2012
  • Austria

#226

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:13 PM Edited by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian, 13 October 2013 - 09:14 PM.

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.

Well, you can not compare a game from the previous console generation with a current-gen one. It has been nine years since San Andreas was released, of course it has a lot of shortcomings if you compare it directly to a recent game. But it was a great game for its time for a lot of people, and it brought some improvements to the franchise, even if not everything about it was absolutely amazing.

Many parts of the map are just copies and pasted over and over again due the hardware limitations. This issue did not go away with the PS3 and X360, but it's just far less common nowadays. That's a good thing obviously since it can be immersion breaking, in my opinion. I do agree that the map isn't as big as it might feel like. The draw distance, plus the unrealistic acceleration of vehicles are two major points as to why the game feels so huge. It's not smaller than Liberty City, though. In fact, it's twice as big but far less detailed and, like you said, the buildings and various of other objects are copied over and over again.

The fact that cities and other areas are feeling dead is just another result of hardware limitations. There certainly would be more peds on screen if the PS2 was capable of it, which it clearly wasn't. And that is also the explanation why there only seems to be a few variations of peds. One thing I totally agree with is that they are feeling brain dead. The AI is pretty weak, I always thought so, even back in 2004/2005 when I played San Andreas for the first time. It is one of the biggest flaws this game has. It was acceptable in III and VC, given the time these games were coming out. But SA didn't really improve at all, in fact the AI felt even slightly worse, which was diappointing. I remember that I often bitched about how stupid NPCs acted.

As for your last point, this is what I'm agreeing with the most. CJ was not really a likeable character. He was just the typical gangsta stereotype and not special at all. It's not only him, but many of San Andreas' characters seem to have that problem. The story is not really anything new, and Carl just seems like another "playa in da hood", or however you want to call him.
 

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. 

You just can not resist calling other people "blind" or a "fanboy" all the time for having a different opinion than you, can you? I'm not sure if it's because you're not able to comprehend that your opinion isn't necessarily the right way of thinking, or if it's because you are a troll.

Personally, I think that Vice City is the better game. The storyline is better, because it does not have a number of logical errors unlike San Andreas. It's not only that, but I think it was more interesting to follow. When I completed a mission, I started the next one because I wanted to know how things develop. I can not say about SA, because every time I finished a mission, I was either messing around in the middle of nowhere, or did some of the side activities that I growed tired of pretty fast since they were repetitve. The story lasted for a long time for sure, but it was just kind of boring. There were lots of missions that just didn't make sense in the grand scheme of things, they didn't add anything to the story as a whole and just derailed it in the end. At least that is how it felt like for me. It sometimes got interesting in-between, but it didn't take a long time until I realized again how flawed the missions and the storyline were, or how various of things you needed to do were completely unrelated.

Talking about characters, I think they were also better in Vice City. Of course, that's subjective, exactly like the entire discussion of which GTA game is the best according to each person's opinions and preferences. All characters are well developed, and seem to fit to the story. It's not like you ventured into the large world out there to do sh*t that has absolutely nothing to do with your target. Tommy's target was it to get back the money that got stolen at the very start of the game. Everything he did had something to do with it until it became clear that he stopped caring about Sonny and his money; in the end he was aiming to take over businesses, making money, and taking over the city. It all worked well together. It was relatively easy to follow, and the amount of missions was just about right. It was enough to guarantee many hours of fun, and it was 'short' enough to avoid any derailment.

There is not much to argue about when it comes to the theme of this game. GTA III was the first GTA in 3D and it revolutioned the industry with its freedom - it was something entirely new. Vice City expanded on that; it was the first game in the series that brought a proper theme and atmosphere into a game. It did a great job at representing Miami in the 1980s, and you can not deny that. The cars, the peds, the music, the colours, the atmosphere, simply everything is amazing. Maybe not for you, but that doesn't make it less of a great game. You probably didn't even play it; however, I could be wrong...

Each GTA game is some sort of revolution for the openworld genre, and perhaps even for the videogame industry as a whole. It's not any different with Vice City.

RespectIsEverything
  • RespectIsEverything

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2013

#227

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:45 PM

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

 

Woah dude, take that back.

 

There are a handful of points on Half Life that have really fun and intelligent puzzles.


GankThis110
  • GankThis110

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013

#228

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:58 PM

VC was the best GTA of all time......

IMO

the nameless
  • the nameless

    R*

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2007

#229

Posted 13 October 2013 - 11:45 PM

There are many reasons for our love of San An.  Chiefly, most people playing - it's target audience of young adults were growing up in the early to mid 90's.  It was their (our) era.  Another main reason was the cast. Sam Jackson, Chris Penn and James Woods were 3 house hold names, and they all did a top job on their characters.  I will list a few more:

 

The music - Classic Rock fans were treated massively, and so were the other end of the scale - Rap and Hip Hop.  Throw in K-Rose and that is a reason enough to love the game already.

 

The size - after 3 and Vice City, on a ps2/Xbox, for an open world sand box, to say the map was small is lunacy.  The map was huge for what it was and what was do-able.

 

The 90s movie references, Boyz In The Hood, Terminator 2 etc.

 

The characters were brilliant, even the bad guys, I didn't want to kill Tenpenny Pulaski or Smoke, they were all great characters.  Even Catalina.  Oh and they brought back Kent Paul - one of the best characters ever, and gave him a great side kick voiced by a 90's music icon.

 

The Fun - if IV was not so boring and they hadn't taken out the fun, maybe San An would have sat back and retired early.  But because IV was crap to alot of San An fans, San An automatically gained cult status which kept it alive.

 

The Length of the campaign.  It just seemed huge, much longer than V.

 

The whole hip-hop genre and culture of it was new to the series, and added legions of new fans.

 

They are some of the reasons for the love for San An.  It is why it is king (although V is up there with it).  Oh yes, I love San An.  It wasn't IV or EFLC I was playing in the long wait for V, it was San An, on my lap top, modding it to add a new little twist.

 

OFF TOPIC - Redx, I don't care when people use different colours for text, some think it's pretentious and show off, I don't, but dark green on dark blue?  I can hardly see what you're writing man - I have to highlight the text half the time.


SilverRST
  • SilverRST

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2013
  • None

#230

Posted 13 October 2013 - 11:51 PM

The OP is surely a moron or something.

@OP, you are like 9 years too late to the party. You haven't played GTA SA back in its birth year.

You know why there is a huge love for San Andreas from 2004? It is something called: nostalgia.

You don't have that, you lack of it. We who played GTA SA in its first days, we have such great memories.


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#231

Posted 13 October 2013 - 11:55 PM Edited by Official General, 14 October 2013 - 03:09 AM.

@ CJ Carl Johnson's Brother Brian

 

 

 

CJ was not really a likeable character. He was just the typical gangsta stereotype and not special at all. It's not only him, but many of San Andreas' characters seem to have that problem. The story is not really anything new, and Carl just seems like another "playa in da hood", or however you want to call him.

 

This really baffles me. When I last checked, the main theme of GTA: San Andreas was based on the 1990s gangsta culture of African-American street gangs in south-central Los Angeles. So the main protagonist is obviously going to represent that gangsta image and stereotype. Are you that dumb to understand something so clear and simple such as this ?? 

 

Ermm, just what the f**k else would be expecting from CJ and his cohorts ?? Okay Einstein, what exactly is a 'special' protagonist and stereotype ?? Mafioso-style guys in smart suits and limousines I guess ??  :sarcasm:. The bullsh*t that some people on this forum come up with no know bounds, the levels of stupidity displayed can be so spectacular at times. 

 

And just what do you mean by "a playa in the hood" ??


DoubleOGJohnson
  • DoubleOGJohnson

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2007

#232

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:05 AM

It's kind of crazy how the OP is talking about San Andreas as if he's describing a game from Sega Genesis. It makes me wonder what type of gamer he is. Because truth be told, there are some gamers who just cant stomach any video game older than 3/4 years. The premise of an old game being better than a newer game is absolutely foreign to some people. And I hate when those type of dudes try to analyze games. They're not qualified for it and need to stick to 2013 games. Some people should be banned and thrown and jailed for even speaking on "old" video games. In over their heads. 


woggleman
  • woggleman

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012

#233

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:17 AM

I was young in the 90s as well so SA will always have a special place in my heart but I don't like it when artists, developers or whoever repeat themselves. That is why I can appreciate the ones that came after SA. At the end of the day I am not one for nostalgia because we can never build a time machine and if you live in the past you will get left behind. 

 

It's similiar to how a lot of people can't let the 90s style of music move on. You have some hip hop fans who will hate any rapper that came out after 2000 and many rock fans are the same as well. Just because there are great memories does not mean that you have to be negative towards everything new or else you end up just like the older folks that hated everything you like.

 

I am most of you back in the day rolled your eyes at older who bashed everything you like and that is exactly how many of my generation are coming across towards younger players and younger people in general.


Jadokel
  • Jadokel

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013

#234

Posted 14 October 2013 - 01:21 AM

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Again my opinion. 

 

 

 

 

 

what you might be missing due to your age, possibly, is there was no other game like it when it released. Playing it now might be passé, with all the competition (style biters I should say). Name a game today that lets you do as much in one game without an online experience.


Jadokel
  • Jadokel

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013

#235

Posted 14 October 2013 - 01:32 AM

 

you moronic idiot it's a 2004 game.

 

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

 

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

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

 

driver didn't compare that's why it fell off, even though you are correct in what you said about graphics and physics.


Jadokel
  • Jadokel

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013

#236

Posted 14 October 2013 - 01:34 AM

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

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

 

 

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

gta 1 was top down view only..i think you mean 3.


bikerman3
  • bikerman3

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2013

#237

Posted 14 October 2013 - 01:45 AM

San Andreas had better songs on the radio is on of the few thing what is better or not in gta 5 


NYG 5
  • NYG 5

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Oct 2013

#238

Posted 14 October 2013 - 02:17 AM

you f*cking dipsh*ts. he was comparing it to vice city and questioning why its more often claimed to be the greatest over the other two last gen games. of course it's not going to stand up to a game that's going to be ported to next gen in a few months.


RenThePyro
  • RenThePyro

    Oh Joy?

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2013

#239

Posted 14 October 2013 - 02:21 AM

(9 years later) I don't get the love for GTA V

Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    Generic GTA Username™

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India

#240

Posted 14 October 2013 - 02:41 AM Edited by AceKingston, 14 October 2013 - 02:41 AM.

 

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.

I'm not a fanboy. I'm just saying the truth. Diffrence between 'favorite' and 'better' game is very big. Vice City is my favorite GTA, and it really brings up good old memories. It has cool story and my favorite character is Tommy. But i agree that San Andreas is better, when it really is better. When i say 'better', i mean quality and quantity, where San Andreas is dominating in every way against Vice City. Same as V, it's way much better than San Andreas, as San Andreas is better than Vice City. Tell me i'm wrong. But this is the fact.

 

@Miamivicecity Yes, you're right. I didn't attacked you, i just said it's an option and that everybody has their own option, and it doesn't mean to be fact. Nothing more.

 

 

Of course SA's better in the technical department, you should have mentioned that in your post, my bad. 

 

you f*cking dipsh*ts. he was comparing it to vice city and questioning why its more often claimed to be the greatest over the other two last gen games. of course it's not going to stand up to a game that's going to be ported to next gen in a few months.

 

Actually he was stating that VC was merely a DLC to III.

 

 

 

 

III was something gaming needed. SA was something GTA needed. Once again what was so good about GTA VC? 

 

 

Ace has already tried explaining the things he feels that make VC good. It's clear you don't want to listen to him, but honestly it's something you tend to do an awful lot. :/

 

 

He never does. I explained to him why I think that VC was not a DLC an yet he continues to ignore my post and asks the same question again. 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users