Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

The GTA V and San Andreas feeling.

45 replies to this topic
PaulDPearl
  • PaulDPearl

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2013

#31

Posted 14 February 2014 - 08:05 PM Edited by PaulDPearl, 14 February 2014 - 08:10 PM.

 

 

@universetwisters Yes, PS2 limitations, for it's time San Andreas map was more detailed. It also had three cities and cool places used only in one or two missions. R* always put more effort in details than in size, as you can see in IV. Liberty City was greatly done with more amount of details even more than Los Santos has. And atmosphere also fits New York perfectly. Unlike Just Cause 2 that has way bigger map than V but everything is copy-paste and non used places in storyline. I prefer V's map that has medium size but much detailed than way bigger map but with nothing to see there and no detail, if we are talking about PS3.

 

 

Of course, San Andreas was good at it's time, but now, it feels cheap. I'm not sure if it's because I matured or if I've been around games with better gameplay and graphics, but going back to San Andreas kinda feels like moving back into a dingy trailer park after living in a hilltop mansion for many years. Not to mention the "cheapness" of the setting when you compare it to III and Vice City.

 

Was San Andreas good for it's time? Totally. Was it memorable? Meh. Was it rushed? That it was.

 

 

Download the HD mods for PC and get back to me... (as far as the dated/cheap feel).

 

As far as rushed... and non-memorable... I disagree - I'm not sure what, besides the music, was better about VC or III - they were GREAT GAMES but SA was better, until IV, each successive game felt like it added more to the concept. IV came along and not only RUINED controls, but also deleted SO MUCH (I mean.. there weren't even garages... though it was nice to store a helicopter ;) )  - V kept the ruined controls and didn't even allow the fake "classic" option that IV had... (allowing X and O to be used instead of the silly GT style trigger buttons).

 

The big feature SA brought to the scene was no more loading times between islands... that was nice. It also added a more robust RPGness to it...

 

The only reason I've heard for people not liking it was the fact that you're a black guy... I was at first kinda disappointed about that but after playing with it, I now appreciate what it was like growing up in the hood during the 90s (riots and all) - lol


richard1997jones
  • richard1997jones

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2012
  • None

#32

Posted 15 February 2014 - 12:32 PM

 

 

When it came to hype I would say they were equally as high but I know most would probably say GTA V had more hype than SA. The storyline in my opinion was fantastic for both games and even though San Andreas only had one playable character the storyline didn't seem to drag on. I know the maps bigger, graphics are better and there's more to do in V but I don't get that same feeling I do when I play V as I do with San Andreas does anyone else get this? 

 There's lots more to do in San Andreas.. .

 

bigasslist

 

Vigilante, 10x the cheats, race tracks, monster trucks, race cars, ... SA did better with 2 years of development than V did in 5 years hahaha :lol:

 

I agree and the best part about it was the game didn't get delayed.


Gta_V_Fan_101
  • Gta_V_Fan_101

    My posts are brought to you by Chuckola Cola Drinks.

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2013
  • Bahrain

#33

Posted 15 February 2014 - 12:42 PM

Even though GTA III (3) and GTA IV (4) Revolutionised and with the former popularising the Genre till this day,the overall 15 GTA games are Great and Unique.plus without GTA (1997) and GTA 2 (1999),GTA 3 wouldnt have been released in 2001.and those two games were the early steps up of the Genre,even though they had top down view with 2D graphics,i.e.GTA 2 had multiplayer,Police Roadblocks,Peds,day and night cycle etc.these were what laid a solid foundation for GTA III.and i am sure GTA IV and GTA V have laid a solid foundation for next-gen GTAs.

I'm sorry. I just had to make this:

 

470t4zX.png


Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#34

Posted 15 February 2014 - 12:54 PM

@universetwisters Yes, PS2 limitations, for it's time San Andreas map was more detailed. It also had three cities and cool places used only in one or two missions. R* always put more effort in details than in size, as you can see in IV. Liberty City was greatly done with more amount of details even more than Los Santos has. And atmosphere also fits New York perfectly. Unlike Just Cause 2 that has way bigger map than V but everything is copy-paste and non used places in storyline. I prefer V's map that has medium size but much detailed than way bigger map but with nothing to see there and no detail, if we are talking about PS3.

 
Of course, San Andreas was good at it's time, but now, it feels cheap. I'm not sure if it's because I matured or if I've been around games with better gameplay and graphics, but going back to San Andreas kinda feels like moving back into a dingy trailer park after living in a hilltop mansion for many years. Not to mention the "cheapness" of the setting when you compare it to III and Vice City.
 
Was San Andreas good for it's time? Totally. Was it memorable? Meh. Was it rushed? That it was.
 
Download the HD mods for PC and get back to me... (as far as the dated/cheap feel).
 
As far as rushed... and non-memorable... I disagree - I'm not sure what, besides the music, was better about VC or III - they were GREAT GAMES but SA was better, until IV, each successive game felt like it added more to the concept. IV came along and not only RUINED controls, but also deleted SO MUCH (I mean.. there weren't even garages... though it was nice to store a helicopter ;) )  - V kept the ruined controls and didn't even allow the fake "classic" option that IV had... (allowing X and O to be used instead of the silly GT style trigger buttons).
 
The big feature SA brought to the scene was no more loading times between islands... that was nice. It also added a more robust RPGness to it...
 
The only reason I've heard for people not liking it was the fact that you're a black guy... I was at first kinda disappointed about that but after playing with it, I now appreciate what it was like growing up in the hood during the 90s (riots and all) - lol
What's wrong with GTA IV's controls? R* gave the players the option to switch between the new scheme and the old one for a reason.

Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I have moved to a new account.

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

#35

Posted 15 February 2014 - 01:34 PM

Like a few others said, I felt that VC felt really special. IMO it is the definition of quality over quantity. But I'm probably saying this since it was my first GTA. I don't think any current game can have that magic feel of the PS2/PS1 games. Don't get me wrong, games these-days are excellent but that magic feel will never be there for me IMO.

As for SA, I had a blast when I played through it the first time. I actually liked it better than Vice but after playing IV, I realized how much SA lacked in certain areas. Like the story for instance, still a great game though but in my opinion it is not near VC or IV IMO.

Haven't played V yet since I am on PC but I am looking forward to playing it. I've enjoyed every GTA thus far so it should most likely be the same for V.
  • The Odyssey likes this

Staten
  • Staten

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2011
  • None
  • Poetic Prowess [General Chat]

#36

Posted 15 February 2014 - 04:26 PM

OP, you were younger when you played SA and you hadn't played so many games.  The context has changed for you. 


AnDReJ98
  • AnDReJ98

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2011
  • Serbia

#37

Posted 15 February 2014 - 05:52 PM Edited by AnDReJ98, 15 February 2014 - 05:53 PM.

Like a few others said, I felt that VC felt really special. IMO it is the definition of quality over quantity. But I'm probably saying this since it was my first GTA. I don't think any current game can have that magic feel of the PS2/PS1 games. Don't get me wrong, games these-days are excellent but that magic feel will never be there for me IMO.

As for SA, I had a blast when I played through it the first time. I actually liked it better than Vice but after playing IV, I realized how much SA lacked in certain areas. Like the story for instance, still a great game though but in my opinion it is not near VC or IV IMO.

Haven't played V yet since I am on PC but I am looking forward to playing it. I've enjoyed every GTA thus far so it should most likely be the same for V.

For me it's different. I played VC, it became one of my favorite games. When SA came, i was like 'woah' but somehow i could not accept it as perfect. The whole time i thought something was missing there. After that, few years later, i played many new games including IV and then i realized how SA was good actually. Amount of things it had, possibilities, features, unique map, different kind of missions, long storyline. Then i replayed it and it just felt perfect. Although VC was/is still my favorite GTA, SA came to second place. Then, after years of waiting for V, when it finally came out, i completed it fast and online was somewhat 'meh' i found it not so good. It's great game, but IMO i couldn't get into it. I switched to IV and TLaD after completing V's story and little online. Now i'm playing some strategy game, and mostly studying. Vice City stayed favorite because of it's 'magic' and some kind of list formed: VC>SA>IV>V IMO. 


BabeRuth
  • BabeRuth

    Bronx Bombers Stadium

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2010

#38

Posted 16 February 2014 - 07:57 AM

I know the maps bigger, graphics are better.


I find it extremely pathetic how graphics matter to make a good game.

There's ONE thing I really like about V(5) and that is the ability to loose the cops, you don't have to get any stars, or go to a Paint-N-Spray.
  • Sting4S likes this

Th3MaN1
  • Th3MaN1

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2011
  • Romania

#39

Posted 16 February 2014 - 07:59 AM

You know what feeling I had going back to SA after I finished V? I felt like puking.

  • universetwisters likes this

Sting4S
  • Sting4S

    / / / / / AMG

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

#40

Posted 16 February 2014 - 03:42 PM Edited by StingrayX, 16 February 2014 - 03:46 PM.

I never felt like San Andreas had any charm or atmosphere. Certainly not like GTA III and VC did anyway IMO.

I disagree. The west coast 90's vibe outside of Los Santos was strong and nice. Living in an overpriced Las Venturas two story, owning a blue Sentinel that looked like an e34 5 series, and listening to songs like "Don't Be Cruel"... I don't know, it definitely had that 90's charm.

You know what feeling I had going back to SA after I finished V? I felt like puking.

You must be dependent on graphics for a good game then. When I go back and play old games, I often try and ignore the aging graphics.

cybernator_uk
  • cybernator_uk

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#41

Posted 16 February 2014 - 07:58 PM

The problem is GTA:SA was epic. However it was designed for the PS2, and pushed it to the limit. The graphics were cut back to allow it to flow as opposed to having the loading scenes in III/VC did. GTA:V however was made for a far superior console. You have to ignore the graphics (same as you do for III/VC) and you get a superb game. I didn't feel V added anything new to the franchise and, personally, I was disapointed we didn't get San Fierro/Las Venturas. Perhaps an expasion pack like Tlad? I personally got a good 90's atmsophere LA style from SA.

drr26
  • drr26

    But I'm a f*cking raspberry!

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2011
  • England

#42

Posted 16 February 2014 - 09:30 PM Edited by drr26, 16 February 2014 - 09:30 PM.

V shows off gawjus graphics and great story but little else

IV portrays the American Dream image from an immigrants pov

SA + LCS gives a 90's vibe

Vice City + VCS gives a 80's vibe

III gives the epic nostalgia of having a 3D GTA

2 gave a futuristic vibe, something we won't see again in a GTA

1 + London started us off nicely but I didn't get a 'feeling' from them

 

Just my opinion..


Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#43

Posted 17 February 2014 - 01:50 AM

 

I never felt like San Andreas had any charm or atmosphere. Certainly not like GTA III and VC did anyway IMO.

I disagree. The west coast 90's vibe outside of Los Santos was strong and nice. Living in an overpriced Las Venturas two story, owning a blue Sentinel that looked like an e34 5 series, and listening to songs like "Don't Be Cruel"... I don't know, it definitely had that 90's charm

 

 

I never felt like it did. At times I forgot the game was set during the early 90s.


PaulDPearl
  • PaulDPearl

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2013

#44

Posted 17 February 2014 - 08:44 PM

 

 

 

@universetwisters Yes, PS2 limitations, for it's time San Andreas map was more detailed. It also had three cities and cool places used only in one or two missions. R* always put more effort in details than in size, as you can see in IV. Liberty City was greatly done with more amount of details even more than Los Santos has. And atmosphere also fits New York perfectly. Unlike Just Cause 2 that has way bigger map than V but everything is copy-paste and non used places in storyline. I prefer V's map that has medium size but much detailed than way bigger map but with nothing to see there and no detail, if we are talking about PS3.

 
Of course, San Andreas was good at it's time, but now, it feels cheap. I'm not sure if it's because I matured or if I've been around games with better gameplay and graphics, but going back to San Andreas kinda feels like moving back into a dingy trailer park after living in a hilltop mansion for many years. Not to mention the "cheapness" of the setting when you compare it to III and Vice City.
 
Was San Andreas good for it's time? Totally. Was it memorable? Meh. Was it rushed? That it was.
 
Download the HD mods for PC and get back to me... (as far as the dated/cheap feel).
 
As far as rushed... and non-memorable... I disagree - I'm not sure what, besides the music, was better about VC or III - they were GREAT GAMES but SA was better, until IV, each successive game felt like it added more to the concept. IV came along and not only RUINED controls, but also deleted SO MUCH (I mean.. there weren't even garages... though it was nice to store a helicopter ;) )  - V kept the ruined controls and didn't even allow the fake "classic" option that IV had... (allowing X and O to be used instead of the silly GT style trigger buttons).
 
The big feature SA brought to the scene was no more loading times between islands... that was nice. It also added a more robust RPGness to it...
 
The only reason I've heard for people not liking it was the fact that you're a black guy... I was at first kinda disappointed about that but after playing with it, I now appreciate what it was like growing up in the hood during the 90s (riots and all) - lol
What's wrong with GTA IV's controls? R* gave the players the option to switch between the new scheme and the old one for a reason.

 

the "classic" was only the gas and break and lacked the quick look options that the old games had...

 

I forget exactly what else was f*cked up but it involved the helicopter which was absolutely fine before in the older games..


richard1997jones
  • richard1997jones

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2012
  • None

#45

Posted 18 February 2014 - 08:26 PM

 

 

I never felt like San Andreas had any charm or atmosphere. Certainly not like GTA III and VC did anyway IMO.

I disagree. The west coast 90's vibe outside of Los Santos was strong and nice. Living in an overpriced Las Venturas two story, owning a blue Sentinel that looked like an e34 5 series, and listening to songs like "Don't Be Cruel"... I don't know, it definitely had that 90's charm

 

 

I never felt like it did. At times I forgot the game was set during the early 90s.

 

So the music and clothes weren't enough to show it was set in the 1990's.


Rainbow Party
  • Rainbow Party

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2013

#46

Posted 18 February 2014 - 08:30 PM Edited by Rainbow Party, 18 February 2014 - 08:30 PM.

Idk because to me, playing GTA San Andreas felt like a chore for many missions, I wasn't enjoying the story that much except for some random interesting moments like when CJ is abandoned by the cops or when you meet Mike Toreno and that nerd guy. I think I will enjoy V way more but I haven't played it and maybe I don't like it that much in the end. But considering SA already had unconfortable controls on PC for me and GTA IV was worse I guess I'm ready to stomach whatever V has to offer in PC.

But honestly, the story can't be worse than San Andreas.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users