R* Removed So Much Stuff

[wayninja]

 

The name of the game is GTA IV. That's GTA 4, the sequel to GTA 3, ok? It is not GTA: San Andreas 2. Maybe that'll come, ask Rockstar. If you prefer GTA:SA then go and play GTA:SA. If, however, you prefer GTA IV then I hope you enjoy it.

 

I know it's not. But let's not pretend that there isn't a bunch of stuff that was in SA that is in this game as well... According to that reasoning, they should lose the Grand theft Auto title altogether. Once again, since fanboys have reading difficulties. I like GTA IV. But there was a hint of negativity on certain elements of the game, so I expected rabid fanatics to leap all over me. No big deal.

 

 

And I apologise for my condescension earlier. You were right, it was rude. Not as offensive as 90% of your petty, inchoherent drivel, but I don't want you to think I was attacking you because I have something against you. I am attacking you because your arguments are ridiculous, badly thought-out rubbish. We clear? Good. I'm off now, feel free to continue insulting me and trolling this forum.

 

Oh, I don't mind the rude. The hypocrisy is a bit annoying though. Like the hypocracy of attacking ME because you don't like my arguments. Well thought out, though, bravo. You surely bested me there.

[itconsumesme]

 

I know it's not.  But let's not pretend that there isn't a bunch of stuff that was in SA that is in this game as well... According to that reasoning, they should lose the Grand theft Auto title altogether.  Once again, since fanboys have reading difficulties.  I like GTA IV.  But there was a hint of negativity on certain elements of the game, so I expected rabid fanatics to leap all over me.  No big deal.

Hey, come on man. They're are many features in GTA 4 that aren't in GTA SA either. It goes both ways. The game is just as deep, just implemented differently, this time through character socialization and with the extra features more focused this time around. This game doesn't have as much to do as SA right out of the box, sure, but if you progress plenty through the game, there is tons that will open up. GTA 4 is more cinematic, of course, and they're trying to keep it that way with the slower pacing in the beginning. Edited May 5, 2008 by itconsumesme

[Alick]

I'm sick of people complaining about the stuff they DIDN'T put in the game. Why can't people like wayninja just f*cking appreciate what is there? It's a great game with plenty to do. You're complaining about sh*t like car customisation? Why? It was useless anyway, you used all that money just to go flip the bloody car half way down the street.

 

As everyone else has said, if you took the time to read some preveiws and reviews like most people do then you would have realised long before the release what was and isn't included and then we wouldn't have another one of these R* SUK!!!11111 threads littering the GTAIV section every five f*cking minutes.

 

Or another pointer play the game look around it and just realise how much work and effort has gone into this game, the amount of fine detail and references to small things that usually go unoticed or the fact that the characters are very indepth and they make you feel sorry for them or extreme hatred which in my opinion is more worthwhile than creating some bullsh*t that would amuse us for the first few hours of play.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Opiteilsm

[wayninja]

I know it's not.  But let's not pretend that there isn't a bunch of stuff that was in SA that is in this game as well... According to that reasoning, they should lose the Grand theft Auto title altogether.  Once again, since fanboys have reading difficulties.  I like GTA IV.  But there was a hint of negativity on certain elements of the game, so I expected rabid fanatics to leap all over me.  No big deal.

Hey, come on man. They're are many features in GTA 4 that aren't in GTA SA either. It goes both ways. The game is just as deep, just implemented differently, this time through character socialization.

Oh, I get that, I'm not trying to take away from the stuff they did implement, just making a point about how 3<4 is not really an argument.

[Jaykee]

I really cannot beleive how many people are getting so worked up about this thread!

 

Too be quite honest i am happy with GTA : IV, i think its brilliant and this is by far the greatest GTA that has been made (yet) and i take my hat off to rockstar for the amount of time and effort that has been put into this game for ALL of your gaming pleasure.

 

It just comes to show how ungrateful some people are, We all cant have everything you know.

You really do not know what rockstar has in stall for us later on in the years, imagine how they can progress from GTA IV?

In a few years i think it will be quite amazin and an unbeatable game.

 

I know everyone is entitled to their opinion but i cannot stand these 'Hardcore Gamers' who pick up on the smallest mistakes.

 

Enjoy the game while you can, thats all i can say.

 

Peace out,

 

Jaykee

[ryuclan]

 

The name of the game is GTA IV. That's GTA 4, the sequel to GTA 3, ok? It is not GTA: San Andreas 2. Maybe that'll come, ask Rockstar. If you prefer GTA:SA then go and play GTA:SA. If, however, you prefer GTA IV then I hope you enjoy it.

 

lol It's not a sequel. Anyway I like it, I actually paid attention to the info and knew exactly what was out....if other people didn't have expectations so damn high then maybe they wouldn't be so dissappointed.

[itconsumesme]

I know it's not.  But let's not pretend that there isn't a bunch of stuff that was in SA that is in this game as well... According to that reasoning, they should lose the Grand theft Auto title altogether.  Once again, since fanboys have reading difficulties.  I like GTA IV.  But there was a hint of negativity on certain elements of the game, so I expected rabid fanatics to leap all over me.  No big deal.

Hey, come on man. They're are many features in GTA 4 that aren't in GTA SA either. It goes both ways. The game is just as deep, just implemented differently, this time through character socialization.

Oh, I get that, I'm not trying to take away from the stuff they did implement, just making a point about how 3<4 is not really an argument.

But hey, I mean, if they added more things that weren't in the previous GTA games, that logically means there isn't much of a difference in the amount of content.

 

GTA 4 has some features that SA doesn't have.

 

SA has some features that GTA 4 doesn't have.

 

Neither really have any advantage, because both are lacking in some areas and amassing content in others.

 

Of course 3>4 isn't a valid argument, but 3+1 = 5-1 right?

[wayninja]

I'm sick of people complaining about the stuff they DIDN'T put in the game. Why can't people like wayninja just f*cking appreciate what is there? It's a great game with plenty to do. You're complaining about sh*t like car customisation? Why? It was useless anyway, you used all that money just to go flip the bloody car half way down the street.

 

As everyone else has said, if you took the time to read some preveiws and reviews like most people do then you would have realised long before the release what was and isn't included and then we wouldn't have another one of these R* SUK!!!11111 threads littering the GTAIV section every five f*cking minutes.

Oooh, I got an idea... you tell me what I did with customization and why and I'll tell what you did with your grandma's picture and why!

 

You go first.

 

I knew what was in the game, what does that have to do with liking it? Also, I'm not starting any threads on the subject, but I don't think you people really exist anyway. Your a bot that locks onto key words and then responds with some canned script.

[Alick]

You have some very funny insults my friend, somehow I wish I had your sense of humour.

 

Somehow I also wish I was a bot so I didn't have to read your pointless bullsh*t anymore.

 

Also, if you knew what was in the game why on earth are you complaining about what isn't in it!?

 

 

I'm getting sick of all you fanboys leaping over logic in order to defend your precious.

 

I love this line. What did you expect mate? Your on a GTA forum.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Opiteilsm

[wayninja]

I know it's not.  But let's not pretend that there isn't a bunch of stuff that was in SA that is in this game as well... According to that reasoning, they should lose the Grand theft Auto title altogether.  Once again, since fanboys have reading difficulties.  I like GTA IV.  But there was a hint of negativity on certain elements of the game, so I expected rabid fanatics to leap all over me.  No big deal.

Hey, come on man. They're are many features in GTA 4 that aren't in GTA SA either. It goes both ways. The game is just as deep, just implemented differently, this time through character socialization.

Oh, I get that, I'm not trying to take away from the stuff they did implement, just making a point about how 3<4 is not really an argument.

But hey, I mean, if they added more things that weren't in the previous GTA games, that logically means there isn't much of a difference in the amount of content.

 

GTA 4 has some features that SA doesn't have.

 

SA has some features that GTA 4 doesn't have.

 

Neither really have any advantage, because both are lacking in some areas and amassing content in others.

 

Of course 3>4 isn't a valid argument, but 3+1 = 5-1 right?

No, not really. I'm not comparing lengths or sizes... I'm comparing quality of content. I didn't say 3>4 isn't a VALID argument. I said it wasn't an argument at all. It's just a fact.

 

Saying "Hey this isn't GTA3 you stoopid nEwb!" doesn't mean anything. I am fully aware that they didn't re-release SA. That doesn't mean the decision to cut or add certain elements was a good one.

 

For example, they added the web to this. It's a great idea and some of the stuff is really funny. But the word 'fluff' keeps coming up when talking about extra stuff in SA, and I gotta say most of the web is fluff on crack.

 

Again, it's a great idea and I'm glad they tried something new. How about something new to spend my cash on? Barring that, how about old stuff to spend my cash on?

 

Unless every LIKES having lots of money with the only thing to do with it is imagine the great interest rate you could get if only you could just deposit it...

[wayninja]

The name of the game is GTA IV. That's GTA 4, the sequel to GTA 3, ok? It is not GTA: San Andreas 2. Maybe that'll come, ask Rockstar. If you prefer GTA:SA then go and play GTA:SA. If, however, you prefer GTA IV then I hope you enjoy it.

 

lol It's not a sequel. Anyway I like it, I actually paid attention to the info and knew exactly what was out....if other people didn't have expectations so damn high then maybe they wouldn't be so dissappointed.

It's not a sequel? So... spiderman 2 was not a sequel to spiderman?

 

Wonder what that big IV means after GTA then... I thought it was 4. Must be some pagan symbol or something.

 

I like that argument. The key to satisfaction is lower standards. I need to copyright that or something.

[wictro]

I cannot understand the argument "you have to lick R* arse, because they put so much effort in this game. And by disliking ANY new feature, you should be burned, for the lack of respect for R*"

 

seriously, WTF? they have made 200-400 million profit this far, thats enough appreciation for them. don't you think ?

 

more features = more immersive, interesting, broader, replayable and alive game world is. How can that be bad ? the features are optional. Rush the plot, or deliver pizza if you like. Your choice. That's the beauty of more features.

 

It's hard to believe, that adding pizza delivery (or similar) would really have affected the cost of game developement in serious manner.

 

i paid 69.90 € / 110$ for this game. i have all the right to point out what i like / miss in it. I you don't agree with me, no biggy. But talk about "not understanding GTA" or "GTFO of this forum, you f*ck" really makes you look like moron.

 

conversation > bashing. understanding > pointing fingers.

 

I'd give the game 9.4-9.9 score. Depending of my mood. 10.00 score should be something to aim at, but never to be reachable.

 

-wictro

 

 

[itconsumesme]

 

I know it's not.  But let's not pretend that there isn't a bunch of stuff that was in SA that is in this game as well... According to that reasoning, they should lose the Grand theft Auto title altogether.  Once again, since fanboys have reading difficulties.  I like GTA IV.  But there was a hint of negativity on certain elements of the game, so I expected rabid fanatics to leap all over me.  No big deal.

Hey, come on man. They're are many features in GTA 4 that aren't in GTA SA either. It goes both ways. The game is just as deep, just implemented differently, this time through character socialization.

Oh, I get that, I'm not trying to take away from the stuff they did implement, just making a point about how 3<4 is not really an argument.

But hey, I mean, if they added more things that weren't in the previous GTA games, that logically means there isn't much of a difference in the amount of content.

 

GTA 4 has some features that SA doesn't have.

 

SA has some features that GTA 4 doesn't have.

 

Neither really have any advantage, because both are lacking in some areas and amassing content in others.

 

Of course 3>4 isn't a valid argument, but 3+1 = 5-1 right?

No, not really. I'm not comparing lengths or sizes... I'm comparing quality of content. I didn't say 3>4 isn't a VALID argument. I said it wasn't an argument at all. It's just a fact.

 

Saying "Hey this isn't GTA3 you stoopid nEwb!" doesn't mean anything. I am fully aware that they didn't re-release SA. That doesn't mean the decision to cut or add certain elements was a good one.

 

For example, they added the web to this. It's a great idea and some of the stuff is really funny. But the word 'fluff' keeps coming up when talking about extra stuff in SA, and I gotta say most of the web is fluff on crack.

 

Again, it's a great idea and I'm glad they tried something new. How about something new to spend my cash on? Barring that, how about old stuff to spend my cash on?

 

Unless every LIKES having lots of money with the only thing to do with it is imagine the great interest rate you could get if only you could just deposit it...

Well, the internet isn't the only thing new, and it also features quite a lot of excellent content, including the dating which allows for the girlfriends to send supplies (like health if you're dating a nurse), and you can also get many missions via email.

 

And if you liked the 'fluff' in GTA SA, then what's wrong with this? Especially since the internet also provides quite a bit of substance to go along with it.

 

 

@ wictro, yes, I can level with you for sure. But you have to understand as well that new content was added as well. They didn't rip the clothes off GTA, they added some new ones.

 

hooray for stupid analogies!

Edited May 6, 2008 by itconsumesme

[Jaykee]

 

10.00 score should be something to aim at, but never to be reachable

 

But to be honest, what game is 10.00?

[wayninja]

And if you liked the 'fluff' in GTA SA, then what's wrong with this? Especially since the internet also provides quite a bit of substance to go along with it.

I'm glad you asked that question. Because most of the 'fluff' in SA cost $ which almost justified it's own existence.

 

This is fluff for the sake of fluff, motherfluffer.

[itconsumesme]

And if you liked the 'fluff' in GTA SA, then what's wrong with this?  Especially since the internet also provides quite a bit of substance to go along with it.

I'm glad you asked that question. Because most of the 'fluff' in SA cost $ which almost justified it's own existence.

 

This is fluff for the sake of fluff, motherfluffer.

Technically, you do have to pay for using the internet...

 

I do agree, though, that there isn't much to spend money on, but that can be easily fixed in the future and I'm not having much trouble with it as of now.

[Jaykee]

Rockstar may be saving some suprises for the Downloadable Content!

 

You ever think about that?

[wayninja]

And if you liked the 'fluff' in GTA SA, then what's wrong with this?  Especially since the internet also provides quite a bit of substance to go along with it.

I'm glad you asked that question. Because most of the 'fluff' in SA cost $ which almost justified it's own existence.

 

This is fluff for the sake of fluff, motherfluffer.

Technically, you do have to pay for using the internet...

 

I do agree, though, that there isn't much to spend money on, but that can be easily fixed in the future and I'm not having much trouble with it as of now.

I think I need to say this on each page since this thread is so long so the fanbots can't keyword my posts.

 

I like the game. I'm not having trouble either. I don't see anything wrong, however, with posting what I feel is missing and would make the game better.

 

It's a solid 9 - 9.4 game. And it could be a 9.9 with a few innovations.

[Catalinaslover]

Fan boys...s*it. Ya think R* is sending you a check for your online time (getting pissed at ppl who want a even better game)

 

A living breathing city...im sure they made it in the atmosphere..and the new in game net and all those features are cool...but its like the hype was massive, about sooo many interiors, cellphone muusic player bla bla...then the final product is heavily cut on all that including the modding and that and that..bla bla

 

A living city is fun if you have something to do in it, something to blow all ur gangsta $ on.

 

R* aint losing a $ over this thread.they r on vacation, drinking-smoking and resting up for another grey day at the office making GtaV soon so chill...

 

in 1 week il light one up, put in the disc and im sure i forgot all about internet in a haze.

 

 

 

[chitoryu12]

 

Paper bridge? Brilliant analogy, saving that gem for a while, eh? I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you why it's valid to criticize feature removed from the game. I truly don't believe you are capable of understanding anyway.... Ok, I'll give it a shot, break it down simple-like for ya.

 

Company A that makes a product that I like decides to come out with a new model with all kinds of new features.

Company A states that some of the features on the previous model will not be included in the new model.

I disagree with that decision because I like some of those features, but want the new features too.

I choose to criticize the decision to leave those features out of the new model.

 

If you don't get that, then you may as well jump off your paper bridge.

 

No, it goes like this:

 

Comapny A that makes a product that I like decides to come out with a new model with all kinds of new features.

Company A's product turns out to be almost exactly the same as the old one with some good features, but the majority of what they added seems haphazardly slapped on.

Company A states that some of the features on the previous model will not be included in the new model.

The majority of the users of the product are happy with it, but some people seemed to enjoy the features on the old model even though some were plain broken or, after a while, got useless, and eventually these people grow to dislike the fact that the new model, while somewhat more expensive, is better-looking, is easier to use, removed the broken features and instead added a few good and well-implemented ones to replace them.

 

I never claimed they lied. You claimed I only have a valid argument IF they lied. Protip: Read the words on the page, not the ones your imaginary friend tells you.

 

I apologize for that one. I misread your statement.

 

Nope, all of those things are not new. Almost every sequel of every game includes these things. Without them there's hardly a reason to make a sequel. You don't care about the mini-games, customization etc, fine. I get that. I don't care about the story! I wan't a game not a f*cking novel. Trust me, if I were going for a story, there are MUCH better games to play than ANY GTA. I've said what I want and continue to say it. I want:

 

1. Rockstar to not have taken optional elements out of the game. They are easily ignored if you don't like them. There are too many to list, but the biggest gripe I have is easily stated. There's a ton of money and not much to spend it on. If you see this as progress, then no amount of logic will change your mind.

or

2. Some new spin on this theme. I don't know exactly what, something NEW. Give me some money and I'll f*cking tell you.

 

Who says we want a novel? If we did, I would find more enjoyment in the Metal Gear series. The problem was that the story in the previous games was almost painful to follow. CJ was everyone's bitch as long as they had cash or something he wanted, Tommy Vercetti was so personally involved in his business that he would probably do every part of his business with his own bare hands if it was more efficient, and Claude had the personality of a dumpster. Seriously, the guy would probably shoot his best friend for cash. It was no fun playing the game and watching these one-dimensional characters try to interact with each other when they were so obvious that you could see the end of each game coming by the end of the first quarter.

 

If Rockstar wants to keep going with how they went with San Andreas, fine. Make it a f*cking RPG. But either way you won't be happy, because you'll either whine about the wait or whine about the broken features if they do like they did with the last three games and throw them out there to keep everyone happy with their minds on Grand Theft Auto. If you don't even know what you want Rockstar to do to please you, then how will you be happy?

 

Are you smoking crack? I don't see how buying this game is like killing a bum for a million dollars... If you are trying to make a serious point with this, please clarify, because I honestly don't get it.

 

A: It was a billion, which is worth a f*ckton more.

B: Both give you a choice to do something you don't like for a big payoff.

 

Of course, I could just pull a page from your book. If you're too stupid to understand my point, I won't try to explain it to you.

 

I did provide an argument. You went on a rant accusing me of all sorts of things I didn't do or say. I can only conclude that this is your boiler-plate argument.

 

You've provided no arguement whatsoever. You've given an opinion and simply said "You're stupid" or "You're on drugs" whenever people try to argue it.

 

 

Since f*cking when? You claimed that because I'm in high school you know more about politics than me, and tried to argue that Rockstar has to be greedy and malicious to actually be capitalist. What does reading comprehension have to do with that?

 

No, a f*cking angel told me it was ok. What do you think? Yes, if I FEEL it to be justified, I complain. I don't wait for a fatwah to be issued.

 

And what if your FEELING for it to be justified is in fact total bullsh*t whining? Are you any less of an idiot if you FEEL it is justified?

[Mcshithead]

hold up , so you cant gab hold of helicopters and climb poles , i heard bout this but haven't tried yet

[GTAfanatical]

i really dotn get why peopel have an issue about people missing certain aspects of older games

 

as the series went on more and more features were added.

 

now its taken a step back.

 

arguments ive seen include

1. stuff was broken - i dont recal ever thinking anthing was broken

2. it was pointless crap no one needed - besides the point really, all the computergames, pool,darts, girlfriends etc are just as pointless, internet. but peopel like them

3. no one liked those features - obviously peopel did or theyre wouldnt be so many threads

4. its an action game not a rpg - no its not a rpg but its a sandbox game, whats the point in a sandbox game without a ton of features that make it replayable over and over

5. gta4>SA - thats just a matter of opinion and peopel missing features arent sayign they hate gta4

 

 

 

[wayninja]

 

No, it goes like this:

 

Comapny A that makes a product that I like decides to come out with a new model with all kinds of new features.

Company A's product turns out to be almost exactly the same as the old one with some good features, but the majority of what they added seems haphazardly slapped on.

Company A states that some of the features on the previous model will not be included in the new model.

The majority of the users of the product are happy with it, but some people seemed to enjoy the features on the old model even though some were plain broken or, after a while, got useless, and eventually these people grow to dislike the fact that the new model, while somewhat more expensive, is better-looking, is easier to use, removed the broken features and instead added a few good and well-implemented ones to replace them.

 

You're wrong because the features in SA were neither useless (they have a use) nor broken. Your basing your argument on the incorrect notion that no one liked what was in SA that isn't in IV. That a plain enough argument for you?

 

 

Who says we want a novel? If we did, I would find more enjoyment in the Metal Gear series. The problem was that the story in the previous games was almost painful to follow. CJ was everyone's bitch as long as they had cash or something he wanted, Tommy Vercetti was so personally involved in his business that he would probably do every part of his business with his own bare hands if it was more efficient, and Claude had the personality of a dumpster. Seriously, the guy would probably shoot his best friend for cash. It was no fun playing the game and watching these one-dimensional characters try to interact with each other when they were so obvious that you could see the end of each game coming by the end of the first quarter.

 

Right, because brucie is SO dynamic. Funny how you say you don't want a novel and then go on to point out flaws in all the stories. Your logic is too all over the place to follow, like your weird and flawed bum analogy.

 

 

If Rockstar wants to keep going with how they went with San Andreas, fine. Make it a f*cking RPG. But either way you won't be happy, because you'll either whine about the wait or whine about the broken features if they do like they did with the last three games and throw them out there to keep everyone happy with their minds on Grand Theft Auto. If you don't even know what you want Rockstar to do to please you, then how will you be happy?

 

BS, R* never intended this game to become a RPG... the 'rpg lite' elements that were in SA were completely ignorable and you had to do NONE of it to complete/enjoy the game. Some of us actually liked that though, thought they were good ideas and would like to see them expanded upon or given a new twist. I'm not going to tell you again what I want. I keep stating it, each time more clearly than the last and you keep telling me that I won't tell you. Pay me like you pay R* and I'll come up with some ideas for you, cock-monkey.

 

 

A: It was a billion, which is worth a f*ckton more.

B: Both give you a choice to do something you don't like for a big payoff.

 

Of course, I could just pull a page from your book. If you're too stupid to understand my point, I won't try to explain it to you.

 

A: Who gives a sh*t if your sh*tty analogy had a million or a billion. It was a trillion times worse than any analogy I've ever heard.

B: Huh? Wha? WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I need to break this down...

 

2 choices: Killing a bum and buying GTA IV

2 'big' payoffs: 1 Billion dollars and 30-90 hours of entertainment.

 

So, I don't want to kill a bum for a billion just like I don't want to buy GTA IV for 30-90 hours of entertainment...

 

Ok, I get it. You have a brain tumor. Get that looked at.

 

 

You've provided no arguement whatsoever. You've given an opinion and simply said "You're stupid" or "You're on drugs" whenever people try to argue it.

 

No... I say your stupid on drugs or have a medical condition AND then make my point. Sometime, I'll make the point first to mix things up. See the difference you strung out brain damaged idiot?

 

 

Since f*cking when? You claimed that because I'm in high school you know more about politics than me, and tried to argue that Rockstar has to be greedy and malicious to actually be capitalist. What does reading comprehension have to do with that?

 

Actually, I claimed to know more about economics, but I admit that was a silly cheapshot to keep myself entertained. But I stand firm on my reading comprehension statement. You need to go back and look at what I wrote and what you wrote. You asked me to explain why they aren't greedy and malicious. I believe they are. Why am I wasting time fixing your mistakes... not sure.

 

 

And what if your FEELING for it to be justified is in fact total bullsh*t whining? Are you any less of an idiot if you FEEL it is justified

 

Well, unless you can invalidate my opinion through 'facts' then you end up looking like a whining idiot.

Edited May 6, 2008 by wayninja

[Catalinaslover]

...

 

Its not 1 person in this forum who wanna go back to ps2 graphics, sound, animations,ai and on and on.

 

im just fed up with reading 16 year olds pretending they would know how much xtra $ a certain feature would cost the scotish Devs to put in and that they shouldnt spend 1 week on a feature that could add up for 100 hours xtra worth of fun time for the player.

 

The reason SA still gets some spin is basically that for me, the variation. They did the pool game real good(probably took long time developing) Adding hippy shopper missions, pizza delivery cant be that time consuming...i think one story mission beats them. car mods impossible on xbox? i doubt that casino stuff? sh*t they already have the game code for it rite? i guess it wouldnt be sooo much work with a new suited interior for that and so on.

 

I like to dig into this IV world for a long time, thats where the variation comes in for me i just find it strange that they put all this time-creativity-energy into the details of the city(love that) and left out the things that been given previous Gta's such an extreme replayability. im sure they throw back the cool parts of sa in the future not because its a step back but now its a huge step forward and keep on adding new ideas,and avoid start sellig out there attitude. after all R* r almost alone succesfully pushing the envelop while holding it packed togethere tight in this form.

Edited May 6, 2008 by Catalinaslover

[Alick]

The game has been created on a new engine just like GTA3 was all those years ago. The stuff you want will probably be added as they move forward with the new engine. Vice City progressed into SA has the years went on and more stuff was added, this will be the same so stop complaining and go play the bloody game.

[krio]

I cannot understand all the whining about this game.

 

Quite frankly, this is the best game I have ever played.

 

Things I love:

 

- Driving - once you get the hang of it, it is so much more satisfying - love it

- Dialogue - Rockstar have once again just blown away the standard for in game dialogue. Just the depth and breadth of conversations in the game are fantastic.

- Cover system - awesome, simply awesome.

- Missions - I've just finished a certain mission that reminded me of the Heat movie, and I wish I'd failed it so I could do it again. The missions all over are great.

- The city - this blows me away - details, details, details and details. The sunrises, rain, lightning storms, early mornings, driving across the broker bridge, the booth tunnel, star junction, just the whole place is bloody incredible.

- Helicopters - great fun, as are the powerboats

 

I don't miss the overblown sim-sh*t included in SA. Pointless.

 

Rockstar - you guys are great - keep it up.

 

[DoubleOGJohnson]

All you have said is useless..

Wrong, None of what he said was useless. Every day I come to these forums I find out another feature that was cut from GTA4. It's amazing that Rockstar removed that many features, even San andreas had way more features. I was greatly disappointed that they removed the ability to listen to the radio using your cellphone. Remember it the little things that count and if all the fun features are removed from the game it just becomes dull and boring.What happened to the ability to open trunks? or how about taking photos and sending them to your friends? You can't tell me that the storyline is the only thing that makes the game great. Other then the better graphics which have been destroyed by the blur in the background the game just gets boring. I mean how many times are you going to play bowling with Roman? After you beat the storyline there's not much else to do, it feels boring which kills the replay value of the game.

To be fair, after I completed the storyline for SA I got bored. Getting bored is in the eye of the beholder I guess, and just dickinga round in casinos didn't excite me.

Well if you save the game at a certain point you can go back. Yall dudes just overrite, save the game at different points to go back. Thats why San Andreas never got old to me. And how the hell can you get bored in a 3 city game? That hitman sh*t in IV is only gonna last so long and Im pissed off that there are hardly anymore interiors than anyother GTA game. Its like Im driving in a city that I cant even do sh*t on. Algonquin is so big yet all it has is a comedy club, a pay n spray, and a gun shop? Man please.

[Hove_Beach]

 

Algonquin is so big yet all it has is a comedy club, a pay n spray, and a gun shop? Man please.

 

ROCKSTAR GOT LAZY -

[Catalinaslover]

 

Hove_Beach Posted on May 6 2008, 12:41

 

ROCKSTAR GOT LAZY

 

If only...I believe they listend to the moaning about SA at the time.Congrats then you got one big Gta3 hi res updated game. maybe they r lazy perfectionist, they felt all the Sa xtra stuff was too untight and decided to do it really tight or dont do it at all...

 

So whats different betwen True street crimes of la or what name it have....

On the surface thats a huge town, you can drive around doing missions etc?

 

To me R* always have the touch to give a game magic life...and that takes creativity!

 

I dont see another Sa clone, i can only imagine if they did keep some of the features from it it being reinvented and upgraded as the base of IV is it would be even more a long time time killer.

 

Maybe 95% here think the casino sucked...im real curious...well that was real tightly done in all, environment design, code, ped talk around the tables, maybe its not action hitman bloody shooting enough for ya but to me it was a laid back nice contrast. a tight "mini game" like that cant be compared to cheesy easy rpg tricks..FFx for xample- same random monster encounters, repeat repeat,voila 1 level upgrade..thank you i just lost another hour off my life.

 

Sa had great fun time/money wasting options that could been redeveloped and improved.

 

This rant mode probably is like a delayed backlash of the trashing SA got back then...pls ignore it as much as ya can and enjoy the new game.

 

 

 

 

[Catalinaslover]

 

Yall dudes just overrite, save the game at different points to go back. Thats why San Andreas never got old to me

 

Yez I like my save be4 r u going to san fierro mission...That camper ride conversation isnt bad story writing