Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Johnny is the most badass gta character ever

98 replies to this topic
Majestic81
  • Majestic81

    Love For Sale

  • The Lost MC
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2012
  • Unknown

#91

Posted 26 February 2015 - 08:52 PM

But there's a huuuge f*cking gap between GTA1 & 2 and the rest of them. you made better points than most. but calling people dumbasses for having a different opinion makes you lose legitimacy quickly.


Stoney0503
  • Stoney0503

    Buster, Straight Buster

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2014
  • United-Kingdom
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#92

Posted 26 February 2015 - 09:01 PM

But there's a huuuge f*cking gap between GTA1 & 2 

Irrelevent, they're still GTA games.


Donut
  • Donut

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013
  • None

#93

Posted 26 February 2015 - 09:06 PM

IV really wasn't that realistic. It's just modernized. If GTA III came out in 2008, it would be IV with a different story. Just because III suffers from age problems doesn't mean the game was intentionally unrealistic. For its time, it would have the same amount of realism as IV does.


American Viking
  • American Viking

    WKTT caller

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2014
  • United-States

#94

Posted 26 February 2015 - 09:29 PM

 

 

 

Also, his special ability is sh*t.

If it's in GTA it's terrible but if its in other games it's fine? wat.

If Johnny or Niko had the ability then most people would of loved it.

 

Wrong. GTA has always been a bit unrealistic, but GTA IV was a step in a much more realistic direction...and GTA V was a step back from that o so good realism. It is not befitting of a GTA protag to have superpowers. John Marston in RDR was okay because that game, although similar, does not have the history of GTA. 

 

GTA's "history" isn't just IV dumbass, GTA was ALWAYS unrealistic up untill IV, just look at GTA 1 and GTA2 where there were kinds of different abilities that made you speed up in cars (Franklin, anyone?), make you invincible (oh hey isn't that like Trevors?), and weapons were scattered all around the map in boxes crash bandicoot styled.

 

Then we go onto GTA III, the series was still unrealistic, you can survive huge drops, guns sounded weird, pills that slow down time (Hah, just like Micheals ability), few games later we have SA, which is probably the most unrealistic in the series, having you steal jetpacks, impossible tasks such as jump out a flying plane onto another plane perfectly and stealing a military jet for no reason.

 

"John Marston in RDR was okay because that game, although similar, does not have the history of GTA."

dumbest f*cking excuse I've ever heard when complaining about V's abilities, you're being so obviously bias that it annoys me and history is irrelevent, it's still made by R*.
 
IV was realistic because R* wanted to something fresh, many people didn't like the realism and some people found it absolutley f*cking boring (trust me I know a lot of people outside of GTAF who think this), so they went back to their roots while also offering a new experience, because people in this community don't like change at all and think the story of a game is more important than gameplay.
 
The abilties were there for missions, because the enemies and cops in this game can deal a lot of damage and have extreme accuracy unlike IV where everyone was easy to kill and didn't do any threatning damage like V.
 
I have a feeling GTA IV was your first GTA, GTA IV wasn't the first GTA, and GTA 1 and 2, as old as they are, are still GTA games and GTA2 holds up extremely well.

 

If you want me to take your comment(s) seriously, it's best not to start it with insults. I haven't insulted you so I expect the same respect. That said, I was not referring all the way back to the 2D era. Good lord, back then concepts of "realism" were preposterous. I know many people felt that GTA IV was too "realistic" and/or boring, and I equate that to mental immaturity. Not everyone, but most people just didn't have the maturity to see that Rockstar blessed us with a storytelling masterpiece. A game like none other at the time. I also find it difficult to take serious these modern day gamers (even in 08) who have all the attention span of Ron around Trevor. Call of Duty fanboys who want to spend every waking moment firing rockets into traffic. Please. Mature gamers like myself can appreciate a game for its story even if the gameplay isn't incredible, but GTA IV had both. And my first GTA was Grand Theft Auto on PS1.   


Chad Warden
  • Chad Warden

    goes by many different names

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2011
  • None

#95

Posted 27 February 2015 - 12:21 AM

 

But there's a huuuge f*cking gap between GTA1 & 2 

Irrelevent, they're still GTA games.

 

You've played them both, correct? In GTA 1 you couldn't even save your sh*t lol. I mean come on. I don't count the original GTA as a GTA. It's more of a Race n' Chase clusterf*ck.

  • Majestic81 likes this

Majestic81
  • Majestic81

    Love For Sale

  • The Lost MC
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2012
  • Unknown

#96

Posted 27 February 2015 - 01:32 AM

 

But there's a huuuge f*cking gap between GTA1 & 2 

Irrelevent, they're still GTA games.

 

No its not irrelevant. you dont know what you're talking about dude. just because the name GTA is slapped on different products doesnt make them all the same. the content is just different due to many factors.

  • Chad Warden likes this

TheOtherRyan
  • TheOtherRyan

    The American Dream

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#97

Posted 27 February 2015 - 03:09 AM

IV really wasn't that realistic. It's just modernized. If GTA III came out in 2008, it would be IV with a different story. Just because III suffers from age problems doesn't mean the game was intentionally unrealistic. For its time, it would have the same amount of realism as IV does.

 

I remember when I first played GTA III in 2002 and thinking it was most of the most realistic game I had played at the time. Of course it doesn't appear that way now, but it certainly did coming off the back of GTA 1 and 2.

  • Majestic81 and Donut like this

Stoney0503
  • Stoney0503

    Buster, Straight Buster

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2014
  • United-Kingdom
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#98

Posted 27 February 2015 - 01:39 PM Edited by Stoney0503, 27 February 2015 - 01:40 PM.

 

 

But there's a huuuge f*cking gap between GTA1 & 2 

Irrelevent, they're still GTA games.

 

You've played them both, correct? In GTA 1 you couldn't even save your sh*t lol. I mean come on. I don't count the original GTA as a GTA. It's more of a Race n' Chase clusterf*ck.

 

Actually you could save, If you completed the chapter that would save, it's called a "challenge". Without this game we wouldn't be on this forum and we wouldn't have your beloved IV, so atleast show this game SOME respect?

 

 

But there's a huuuge f*cking gap between GTA1 & 2 

Irrelevent, they're still GTA games.

 

No its not irrelevant. you dont know what you're talking about dude. just because the name GTA is slapped on different products doesnt make them all the same. the content is just different due to many factors.

 

Hmm, well the game did have Liberty City, San andreas and Vice city, it was made by R* north (called DMA Design at the time), it had cars we see in future games such as the Stallion and the Stinger.

You my friend haven't played the masterpiece that is GTA2, by far one of the best in the series, which also has cars that returned in GTA V such as the Z-type, Furore GT and the Panto, sure it has no story like GTA 1 but thats not the selling point of the game, you also had a gun that SHOT ELECTRICITY! How cool is that? Oh wait, we can't have fun in video games, realism must come first -.-

 

They are GTA Games, they may be top down, but they are still GTA games, if you think they're not GTA games then you're not a true fan, no discussion.


Majestic81
  • Majestic81

    Love For Sale

  • The Lost MC
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2012
  • Unknown

#99

Posted 27 February 2015 - 06:56 PM Edited by Majestic81, 27 February 2015 - 08:00 PM.

:lol: Get off your high horse, will ya?

 

I never said they're not GTA games. i just said there is a difference between 1&2 and the following GTA's that you cant ignore. when those games got out the game industry was largely different. all games were like that. there was never too much focus on story telling. video games after that just changed. if you think 1&2 are the root of what GTA is, then you're dead wrong.

 

Game series changes by time. and there is no roots for GTA. its not just fun. and its not just too realistic. its none of those as Rockstar makes every game different. they never stick to a certain pattern for the sake of variety.

 

GTA V was as it is simply because they wanted to make it different than IV. not because this is how GTA supposed to be or any of that stuff. :sigh:

 

The fact that you are holding GTA 1 and GTA 2 as an established pattern that all GTA's after them must keep is laughable. those games have no impact on the series anymore. if you wanna believe it or not. Thats like saying that TES Arena is the ultimate Elder Scrolls and all games in the series after it must be the same.

 

Another thing is, some people like unrealistic random fun. and some like a more realistic approach. calling the latter dumbasses and that they dont know anything about GTA is just childish.

  • Donut likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users