Why I love SR2

[RimsLookLikeCocaCola]

And why would I expect a realistc game without flamethrowers? Based on previous GTAs?

 

Um...

 

Why would you expect a game set in the '80's when the previous game was present day? Why would you expect to be driving around countryside when the previous games were city based? Things change, man. They want to try something new and different. You can't blame them because you expected things to stay the same...

 

Hell, the whole tagline was "Things will be different."

Different meaning boring.

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

@StanMarsh, your view must have been obscured by all the pigeon hunting gangsters in your way, lol

 

No but seriously, what i'm saying is that these things exist in real life, so why is it unrealistic for them

to exist in the game. The reason gangsters don't tend to use them is because they choose not to,

not because they can't

[.Ryan.]

And why would I expect a realistc game without flamethrowers? Based on previous GTAs?

 

Um...

 

Why would you expect a game set in the '80's when the previous game was present day? Why would you expect to be driving around countryside when the previous games were city based? Things change, man. They want to try something new and different. You can't blame them because you expected things to stay the same...

 

Hell, the whole tagline was "Things will be different."

Different meaning boring.

Well not to me, and other people it isn't.

[StanMarsh]

 

@StanMarsh, your view must have been obscured by all the pigeon hunting gangsters in your way, lol

 

No but seriously, what i'm saying is that these things exist in real life, so why is it unrealistic for them

to exist in the game. The reason gangsters don't tend to use them is because they choose not to,

not because they can't

A B-2 bomber exists in real life- want to hijack one of those? We could go on all day if we wanted to say, "If it exists in real life, we should be able to use it!".

 

No- it should be if you could visualize a movie gangster using it, then it is golden. Sniper rifles, assault rifles, shotguns, handguns, baseball bats- I imagine these. About the only two weapons we could have a good debate about would be the RPG and grenades.

 

And something tells me if a gangster could find a way to purchase a minigun, acquire the ammunition for, and find a way to fire without getting f*cked then he would.

 

BTW, piegons are tasty.

[Rich Rosas]

 

Oh, you mean the waste of a story that was san Andreas or the Scarface knockoff that was Vice?

Sorry, but I never said STORY and I'm not talking about the STORY. Please lets not talk about the STORY. I'm talking about single player gameplay options / features available. Active single player gameplay options. GTA IV fails on this behalf and that was the main reason I played GTA games.

Edited June 6, 2008 by Rich Rosas

[RimsLookLikeCocaCola]

Because you got caught up in the hype which is Rockstar's job to create in order to sell the game!

In my case, I based my purchase on my previous experience with past GTA games. Now I'll base my future purchase on my previous experience with the last GTA game. That's all I'm saying. No hype.

 

Me too, and I wasn't disappointed. Of course, it's not faultless and there are things I'd like to see implemented, but I can say that of all the other GTA games I have owned.

The thing is that didn't see a lot of things from the other gtas I owned. I'm dissapointed.

 

--- @StanMarsh

Is quite unfair also to justify all shortcomings of GTA IV on single player campaign with the implementation of multiplayer. Have being done in this forum since the conflict between "haters" and "lovers" began. Have a cookie.

Rich, you managed to completely miss the point of my post.

 

GTAIV's singleplayer > Halo 3s or COD4s.

Halo 3s/COD4s Multiplayer > GTAIV Multiplayer, but not by as big a gap as the singplayer category.

 

So, saying that the fact that Halo 3 and COD4 are being played more says something about the entire package of GTAIV and not just the multiplayer is wrong.

 

Hence, my point is the exact opposite of the point you said I was trying to make.

 

Don't worry, you still get a cookie!

I didn't miss your point. I just ignored it and took a tangent.

 

I see your point, but the fact is (IMO - ) that GTA IV single player campaign is subpar to atleast the last 2 gta installments. Smart move from R*, lets call this GTA, GTA IV so if anyone asks why it lacks so much we just answer: "Doh, because you should only compare it to GTA III".

 

GTA IV was said to be as revolutioning and mindblowing as GTA III was, and thats why it was called IV and not GTA LC or w/e. Not pleased here.

Oh, you mean the waste of a story that was san Andreas or the Scarface knockoff that was Vice?

 

RimsLookLikeCocaCola: Considering the only place I've heard complaints is from forumers and not from anyone I know, my friends know, and anyone I can remember THEIR friends knowing, I'd say that the "dissapointments" have been magnified in your eyes and in the eyes of others due to your chosen venue of venting. I could fill a stadium full of people that want their state to break away from the union, doesn't mean that is a realistic possibility. In this case, just because people on the internet post their frustrations does not mean that said frustrations are as widespread as one might believe.

 

And honestly, I think Rockstar has enough integrity to reach higher than they have reached before. Going back to the fantasy/stupidity at times of San Andreas would be a titanic leap backwards.

Ill take that back they wont lose theyre fanbase but a majority of them because the internet is like a place where many people can kick it but (Not talking bout everybody in the world) but if a majority on the GTA Forums feel cheated then maybe, 9 times out of 10, a majority of the whole GTA community feel like that. But this is just a theory of mine.

 

BTW I like the way the is a reasonable convo instead of the fanboys cursing each other out

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

@StanMarsh, your view must have been obscured by all the pigeon hunting gangsters in your way, lol

 

No but seriously, what i'm saying is that these things exist in real life, so why is it unrealistic for them

to exist in the game. The reason gangsters don't tend to use them is because they choose not to,

not because they can't

A B-2 bomber exists in real life- want to hijack one of those? We could go on all day if we wanted to say, "If it exists in real life, we should be able to use it!".

 

No- it should be if you could visualize a movie gangster using it, then it is golden. Sniper rifles, assault rifles, shotguns, handguns, baseball bats- I imagine these. About the only two weapons we could have a good debate about would be the RPG and grenades.

 

And something tells me if a gangster could find a way to purchase a minigun, acquire the ammunition for, and find a way to fire without getting f*cked then he would.

 

BTW, piegons are tasty.

Again i could not visualize a gangster shooting pigeons, doing unique stunts, jacking

attack helicopters, participating in street races etc

Gangsters don't do these things, but they are included for the sake of gameplay.

forget flamethrowers i wanna be able to do robberies, kidnappings, burglaries, drug

dealing, smuggling, ambushing mobsters making a deal, extorting businesses, owning

businesses,

all of these are activities which gangsters partake in

 

[Narratorjuan]

And why would I expect a realistc game without flamethrowers? Based on previous GTAs?

 

Um...

 

Why would you expect a game set in the '80's when the previous game was present day? Why would you expect to be driving around countryside when the previous games were city based? Things change, man. They want to try something new and different. You can't blame them because you expected things to stay the same...

 

Hell, the whole tagline was "Things will be different."

Different meaning boring.

 

That's your opinion and I'm fine with it. I'm just saying you can't be pissed at Rockstar for your own expectations.

[Rich Rosas]

@StanMarsh, your view must have been obscured by all the pigeon hunting gangsters in your way, lol

 

No but seriously, what i'm saying is that these things exist in real life, so why is it unrealistic for them

to exist in the game. The reason gangsters don't tend to use them is because they choose not to,

not because they can't

A B-2 bomber exists in real life- want to hijack one of those? We could go on all day if we wanted to say, "If it exists in real life, we should be able to use it!".

 

No- it should be if you could visualize a movie gangster using it, then it is golden. Sniper rifles, assault rifles, shotguns, handguns, baseball bats- I imagine these. About the only two weapons we could have a good debate about would be the RPG and grenades.

 

And something tells me if a gangster could find a way to purchase a minigun, acquire the ammunition for, and find a way to fire without getting f*cked then he would.

 

BTW, piegons are tasty.

Again i could not visualize a gangster shooting pigeons, doing unique stunts, jacking

attack helicopters, participating in street races etc

Gangsters don't do these things, but they are included for the sake of gameplay.

forget flamethrowers i wanna be able to do robberies, kidnappings, burglaries, drug

dealing, smuggling, ambushing mobsters making a deal, extorting businesses, owning

businesses,

all of these are activities which gangsters partake in

Niko does what player says, not the other way around. Sadly R* didn't gave us that option.

[RimsLookLikeCocaCola]

And why would I expect a realistc game without flamethrowers? Based on previous GTAs?

 

Um...

 

Why would you expect a game set in the '80's when the previous game was present day? Why would you expect to be driving around countryside when the previous games were city based? Things change, man. They want to try something new and different. You can't blame them because you expected things to stay the same...

 

Hell, the whole tagline was "Things will be different."

Different meaning boring.

 

That's your opinion and I'm fine with it. I'm just saying you can't be pissed at Rockstar for your own expectations.

Im not pissed I just find nothing to do other than the storyline except start a rampage

[StanMarsh]

GTA IV was said to be as revolutioning and mindblowing as GTA III was, and thats why it was called IV and not GTA LC or w/e. Not pleased here.

Oh, you mean the waste of a story that was san Andreas or the Scarface knockoff that was Vice?

Sorry, but I never said STORY and I'm not talking about the STORY. Please lets not talk about the STORY. I'm talking about single player gameplay options / features available. Active single player gameplay options. GTA IV fails on this behalf and that was the main reason I played GTA games.

I loved the gameplay in this one more than I did in previous games. Two weeks ago I popped in SA and tried to play- and I stopped after about an hour. So we could debate about the merits of the actual gameplay, which would be fun.

 

Or we could debate features, in which neither side can win. Why? Because I didn't care for ONE feature that was cut. Not one, and some of them I was happy to not see.

 

@Rims- The only problem with your theory is that people who come to this forum are big GTA fans- and fanboys. And if you look at any big release, who complains the loudest? The fans who overhyped it/expected something different-not better, different/are hyper critical and unfair/pessimists/not accepting of change/etc.

And those are the people who will bark the loudest. Now, before anyone takes offense, to each their own- we'll have fun debating it.

[StanMarsh]

 

@StanMarsh, your view must have been obscured by all the pigeon hunting gangsters in your way, lol

 

No but seriously, what i'm saying is that these things exist in real life, so why is it unrealistic for them

to exist in the game. The reason gangsters don't tend to use them is because they choose not to,

not because they can't

A B-2 bomber exists in real life- want to hijack one of those? We could go on all day if we wanted to say, "If it exists in real life, we should be able to use it!".

 

No- it should be if you could visualize a movie gangster using it, then it is golden. Sniper rifles, assault rifles, shotguns, handguns, baseball bats- I imagine these. About the only two weapons we could have a good debate about would be the RPG and grenades.

 

And something tells me if a gangster could find a way to purchase a minigun, acquire the ammunition for, and find a way to fire without getting f*cked then he would.

 

BTW, piegons are tasty.

Again i could not visualize a gangster shooting pigeons, doing unique stunts, jacking

attack helicopters, participating in street races etc

Gangsters don't do these things, but they are included for the sake of gameplay.

forget flamethrowers i wanna be able to do robberies, kidnappings, burglaries, drug

dealing, smuggling, ambushing mobsters making a deal, extorting businesses, owning

businesses,

all of these are activities which gangsters partake in

Niko does what player says, not the other way around. Sadly R* didn't gave us that option.

1- With you on the pigeon hunting.

2- With you on the unique stunts.

3- With you on the attack helicopter.

4- Illegal street racing is a criminal activity- and since the game is called Grand Theft Auto, it is natural. Plus, illegal street races ARE areas where one is more likely to find criminals.

5- Robberies- indifferent but would like to see.

6- Kidnappings- good to see.

7- Burglaries- Well, Niko doesn't seem the type.

8- You did do drug dealing for Little Jacob.

9- You did smuggling in the game- but maybe not in the way you are referring to.

10- That would be good, and I believe that a multiplayer mode exists for that. Regardless, that is good- and if I remember, you do do that.

11- You do extort a business early on.

12- Owning businesses doesn't seem like Niko.

 

Of course, you failed to talk about the minigun or flamethrower.

 

But, on another note- what if I wanted Niko to take his clothes off and f*ck a garbage can? Should Rockstar include that, and should we be saddended they didn't include that? When can we expect garbage can f*cking abilities?

[RimsLookLikeCocaCola]

 

GTA IV was said to be as revolutioning and mindblowing as GTA III was, and thats why it was called IV and not GTA LC or w/e. Not pleased here.

Oh, you mean the waste of a story that was san Andreas or the Scarface knockoff that was Vice?

Sorry, but I never said STORY and I'm not talking about the STORY. Please lets not talk about the STORY. I'm talking about single player gameplay options / features available. Active single player gameplay options. GTA IV fails on this behalf and that was the main reason I played GTA games.

I loved the gameplay in this one more than I did in previous games. Two weeks ago I popped in SA and tried to play- and I stopped after about an hour. So we could debate about the merits of the actual gameplay, which would be fun.

 

Or we could debate features, in which neither side can win. Why? Because I didn't care for ONE feature that was cut. Not one, and some of them I was happy to not see.

 

@Rims- The only problem with your theory is that people who come to this forum are big GTA fans- and fanboys. And if you look at any big release, who complains the loudest? The fans who overhyped it/expected something different-not better, different/are hyper critical and unfair/pessimists/not accepting of change/etc.

And those are the people who will bark the loudest. Now, before anyone takes offense, to each their own- we'll have fun debating it.

 

Yeah I agree.

 

R* tried to pull the wool over people eyes but what the fans (me as 4-29-08[no longer is]) seen in the 4 trailers they expected it to be just like that which it is cause to me R* made GTA IV look like a big tour and (I hate to say it) The Sims(after you played it). On the other SR2 came out with the word on that trailer like 'You dont like the limited things you can do in this one then come and check mine out.' SR 2 showed gameplay and little features you can do and on top of that sh*tted on the GTA IV next gen series.

Edited June 6, 2008 by RimsLookLikeCocaCola

[Rich Rosas]

I loved the gameplay in this one more than I did in previous games. Two weeks ago I popped in SA and tried to play- and I stopped after about an hour. So we could debate about the merits of the actual gameplay, which would be fun.

 

Or we could debate features, in which neither side can win. Why? Because I didn't care for ONE feature that was cut. Not one, and some of them I was happy to not see.

 

@Rims- The only problem with your theory is that people who come to this forum are big GTA fans- and fanboys. And if you look at any big release, who complains the loudest? The fans who overhyped it/expected something different-not better, different/are hyper critical and unfair/pessimists/not accepting of change/etc.

And those are the people who will bark the loudest. Now, before anyone takes offense, to each their own- we'll have fun debating it.

You are right. If you didn't miss any of the cut out features, then you are a different kind of GTA fan. No point of discussing gameplay any further.

 

Should I bark in english or spanish?

[Narratorjuan]

@StanMarsh, your view must have been obscured by all the pigeon hunting gangsters in your way, lol

 

No but seriously, what i'm saying is that these things exist in real life, so why is it unrealistic for them

to exist in the game. The reason gangsters don't tend to use them is because they choose not to,

not because they can't

A B-2 bomber exists in real life- want to hijack one of those? We could go on all day if we wanted to say, "If it exists in real life, we should be able to use it!".

 

No- it should be if you could visualize a movie gangster using it, then it is golden. Sniper rifles, assault rifles, shotguns, handguns, baseball bats- I imagine these. About the only two weapons we could have a good debate about would be the RPG and grenades.

 

And something tells me if a gangster could find a way to purchase a minigun, acquire the ammunition for, and find a way to fire without getting f*cked then he would.

 

BTW, piegons are tasty.

Again i could not visualize a gangster shooting pigeons, doing unique stunts, jacking

attack helicopters, participating in street races etc

Gangsters don't do these things, but they are included for the sake of gameplay.

forget flamethrowers i wanna be able to do robberies, kidnappings, burglaries, drug

dealing, smuggling, ambushing mobsters making a deal, extorting businesses, owning

businesses,

all of these are activities which gangsters partake in

Niko does what player says, not the other way around. Sadly R* didn't gave us that option.

1- With you on the pigeon hunting.

2- With you on the unique stunts.

3- With you on the attack helicopter.

4- Illegal street racing is a criminal activity- and since the game is called Grand Theft Auto, it is natural. Plus, illegal street races ARE areas where one is more likely to find criminals.

5- Robberies- indifferent but would like to see.

6- Kidnappings- good to see.

7- Burglaries- Well, Niko doesn't seem the type.

8- You did do drug dealing for Little Jacob.

9- You did smuggling in the game- but maybe not in the way you are referring to.

10- That would be good, and I believe that a multiplayer mode exists for that. Regardless, that is good- and if I remember, you do do that.

11- You do extort a business early on.

12- Owning businesses doesn't seem like Niko.

 

Of course, you failed to talk about the minigun or flamethrower.

 

But, on another note- what if I wanted Niko to take his clothes off and f*ck a garbage can? Should Rockstar include that, and should we be saddended they didn't include that? When can we expect garbage can f*cking abilities?

 

Don't argue the realism angle. You'll only lose.

[StanMarsh]

 

I loved the gameplay in this one more than I did in previous games. Two weeks ago I popped in SA and tried to play- and I stopped after about an hour. So we could debate about the merits of the actual gameplay, which would be fun.

 

Or we could debate features, in which neither side can win. Why? Because I didn't care for ONE feature that was cut. Not one, and some of them I was happy to not see.

 

@Rims- The only problem with your theory is that people who come to this forum are big GTA fans- and fanboys. And if you look at any big release, who complains the loudest? The fans who overhyped it/expected something different-not better, different/are hyper critical and unfair/pessimists/not accepting of change/etc.

And those are the people who will bark the loudest. Now, before anyone takes offense, to each their own- we'll have fun debating it. 

You are right. If you didn't miss any of the cut out features, then you are a different kind of GTA fan. No point of discussing gameplay any further.

 

Should I bark in english or spanish?

Whatever floats ye boat.

 

 

@Rims: I really doubt R* went:

"LOL GUIZ LET US FOOLZ TEH FANZ~!!!"

You know what the fans did? They saw things and they fantasized about what they saw. I don't remember thinking I was going to be able to climb onto the back of trucks, I assumed it was part of a mission and I was right. It was. I didn't see one thing in the trailers that didn't "come true" for me.

BTW, SR2 looks like a slight improvement over the first. And I do mean slight.

 

Narratorjuan: Thanks for your excellent advice, but I think I'll not take it.

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

 

@StanMarsh, your view must have been obscured by all the pigeon hunting gangsters in your way, lol

 

No but seriously, what i'm saying is that these things exist in real life, so why is it unrealistic for them

to exist in the game. The reason gangsters don't tend to use them is because they choose not to,

not because they can't

A B-2 bomber exists in real life- want to hijack one of those? We could go on all day if we wanted to say, "If it exists in real life, we should be able to use it!".

 

No- it should be if you could visualize a movie gangster using it, then it is golden. Sniper rifles, assault rifles, shotguns, handguns, baseball bats- I imagine these. About the only two weapons we could have a good debate about would be the RPG and grenades.

 

And something tells me if a gangster could find a way to purchase a minigun, acquire the ammunition for, and find a way to fire without getting f*cked then he would.

 

BTW, piegons are tasty.

Again i could not visualize a gangster shooting pigeons, doing unique stunts, jacking

attack helicopters, participating in street races etc

Gangsters don't do these things, but they are included for the sake of gameplay.

forget flamethrowers i wanna be able to do robberies, kidnappings, burglaries, drug

dealing, smuggling, ambushing mobsters making a deal, extorting businesses, owning

businesses,

all of these are activities which gangsters partake in

Niko does what player says, not the other way around. Sadly R* didn't gave us that option.

1- With you on the pigeon hunting.

2- With you on the unique stunts.

3- With you on the attack helicopter.

4- Illegal street racing is a criminal activity- and since the game is called Grand Theft Auto, it is natural. Plus, illegal street races ARE areas where one is more likely to find criminals.

5- Robberies- indifferent but would like to see.

6- Kidnappings- good to see.

7- Burglaries- Well, Niko doesn't seem the type.

8- You did do drug dealing for Little Jacob.

9- You did smuggling in the game- but maybe not in the way you are referring to.

10- That would be good, and I believe that a multiplayer mode exists for that. Regardless, that is good- and if I remember, you do do that.

11- You do extort a business early on.

12- Owning businesses doesn't seem like Niko.

 

Of course, you failed to talk about the minigun or flamethrower.

 

But, on another note- what if I wanted Niko to take his clothes off and f*ck a garbage can? Should Rockstar include that, and should we be saddended they didn't include that? When can we expect garbage can f*cking abilities?

No i said forget them. but i also addressed the point that just because it isn't realistic

doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the game, as many unrealistic things were included

for the sake of gameplay.

And serios gangsters don't drive in street races (Ok it's called GTA) but one could

argue that this doesn't seem very Niko.

the fact is, they can't have it both ways, is he a realistic gangster or isn't he?

well no he isn't and that's a good thing,

and yeah all that other stuff was touched on in the missions, but why don't they add

all these features as side missions which are replayable, much of it would only

require a generic mission editor, with a few random outcomes. I suspect they could have

but would rather charge us for DLC

 

 

 

edit: and the garbage can comment is just silly, nobody asked for the ability to do anything

they want, just within reason, at least in as much as Flamethrowers and tanks have been a

GTA staple and were included in all previous titles

Edited June 6, 2008 by Tony Mozzarelli 80

[RimsLookLikeCocaCola]

I loved the gameplay in this one more than I did in previous games. Two weeks ago I popped in SA and tried to play- and I stopped after about an hour. So we could debate about the merits of the actual gameplay, which would be fun.

 

Or we could debate features, in which neither side can win. Why? Because I didn't care for ONE feature that was cut. Not one, and some of them I was happy to not see.

 

@Rims- The only problem with your theory is that people who come to this forum are big GTA fans- and fanboys. And if you look at any big release, who complains the loudest? The fans who overhyped it/expected something different-not better, different/are hyper critical and unfair/pessimists/not accepting of change/etc.

And those are the people who will bark the loudest. Now, before anyone takes offense, to each their own- we'll have fun debating it. 

You are right. If you didn't miss any of the cut out features, then you are a different kind of GTA fan. No point of discussing gameplay any further.

 

Should I bark in english or spanish?

Whatever floats ye boat.

 

 

@Rims: I really doubt R* went:

"LOL GUIZ LET US FOOLZ TEH FANZ~!!!"

You know what the fans did? They saw things and they fantasized about what they saw. I don't remember thinking I was going to be able to climb onto the back of trucks, I assumed it was part of a mission and I was right. It was. I didn't see one thing in the trailers that didn't "come true" for me.

BTW, SR2 looks like a slight improvement over the first. And I do mean slight.

 

Narratorjuan: Thanks for your excellent advice, but I think I'll not take it.

Well you made me look at this at a different angle.

 

I take that back and the fans did fantasized about the features like hanging or to trucks and being able to use trunks but (another point to rumors) I really dont know if GTA4.net is a real GTA site or just rumored but most of the features we talk about come from theyre which made me think that most of them will be in GTA IV because if it has a simple GTA4.net in the web address then I would think it was legit. I read this before GTA IV was out but I probably never know if they changed it.

[RimsLookLikeCocaCola]

My bad its GTA.tv

[StanMarsh]

 

@StanMarsh, your view must have been obscured by all the pigeon hunting gangsters in your way, lol

 

No but seriously, what i'm saying is that these things exist in real life, so why is it unrealistic for them

to exist in the game. The reason gangsters don't tend to use them is because they choose not to,

not because they can't

A B-2 bomber exists in real life- want to hijack one of those? We could go on all day if we wanted to say, "If it exists in real life, we should be able to use it!".

 

No- it should be if you could visualize a movie gangster using it, then it is golden. Sniper rifles, assault rifles, shotguns, handguns, baseball bats- I imagine these. About the only two weapons we could have a good debate about would be the RPG and grenades.

 

And something tells me if a gangster could find a way to purchase a minigun, acquire the ammunition for, and find a way to fire without getting f*cked then he would.

 

BTW, piegons are tasty.

Again i could not visualize a gangster shooting pigeons, doing unique stunts, jacking

attack helicopters, participating in street races etc

Gangsters don't do these things, but they are included for the sake of gameplay.

forget flamethrowers i wanna be able to do robberies, kidnappings, burglaries, drug

dealing, smuggling, ambushing mobsters making a deal, extorting businesses, owning

businesses,

all of these are activities which gangsters partake in

Niko does what player says, not the other way around. Sadly R* didn't gave us that option.

1- With you on the pigeon hunting.

2- With you on the unique stunts.

3- With you on the attack helicopter.

4- Illegal street racing is a criminal activity- and since the game is called Grand Theft Auto, it is natural. Plus, illegal street races ARE areas where one is more likely to find criminals.

5- Robberies- indifferent but would like to see.

6- Kidnappings- good to see.

7- Burglaries- Well, Niko doesn't seem the type.

8- You did do drug dealing for Little Jacob.

9- You did smuggling in the game- but maybe not in the way you are referring to.

10- That would be good, and I believe that a multiplayer mode exists for that. Regardless, that is good- and if I remember, you do do that.

11- You do extort a business early on.

12- Owning businesses doesn't seem like Niko.

 

Of course, you failed to talk about the minigun or flamethrower.

 

But, on another note- what if I wanted Niko to take his clothes off and f*ck a garbage can? Should Rockstar include that, and should we be saddended they didn't include that? When can we expect garbage can f*cking abilities?

No i said forget them. but i also addressed the point that just because it isn't realistic

doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the game, as many unrealistic things were included

for the sake of gameplay.

And serios gangsters don't drive in street races (Ok it's called GTA) but one could

argue that this doesn't seem very Niko.

the fact is, they can't have it both ways, is he a realistic gangster or isn't he?

well no he isn't and that's a good thing,

and yeah all that other stuff was touched on in the missions, but why don't they add

all these features as side missions which are replayable, much of it would only

require a generic mission editor, with a few random outcomes. I suspect they could have

but would rather charge us for DLC

And, like my first three points should have told you, I agreed with those three things. But pigeon hunting could be a sign of his psychosis, the unique stunts are really nothing more than deaf-defying stunts which could be explained by Niko having a bit of the daredevil spirit, and the attack helicopter...has no excuse. The first two have super weak reasons because I don't like them- and those reasons are about as strong as reasons as you can came up with for the minigun or flamethrower.

So, why the pigeon hunting? Well, LC, being NYC and all, has many pigeons. So that becomes the best way to use them and replace hidden packages.

Why the unique stunt jumps? Sadly, a GTA staple that no matter how realistic the games get- even if they delve into the life simulation, one hit kill environment that we would all agree being the worst possible outcome of too much realism- you will have unique stunt jumps.

Why the attack helicopter? Well, I guess they figured that since it was the only way to make the higher wanted levels hard with no army, they needed it...and since it is there you can hijack it. I hate this.

 

Brucie introduced Niko to street races and he found it an easy way to make money- so it IS Niko.

 

And yes, Niko is a realistic gangster, ESPECIALLY for the cartoony GTA series of gangster.

 

And having all those things as side missions and whatnot would be grand. A few are, but all of them would be sweet. But at the same time, not having them does not detract from the realism- it just doesn't add to it. Adding a minigun or a flamethrower would detract from the realism in a much bigger way than almost anything else you could add.

 

And yes, I know you said "forget them" but the entire argument is about realism and its relevancy and effect on gameplay. Adding weapons ould affect realism and gameplay- hence it is still on the table.

 

Also, Rich said: "Niko does what player says, not the other way around. Sadly R* didn't gave us that option."

And that was just an absurd example of how Niko does not do what the player says-indeed, no game character ever has. Because, if so, where does it end? Every player could have a different concept of what the game should have. At what point do you stop saying, "What the player wants, he gets!" and do you start saying to the player, "Be the character."?

Edited June 6, 2008 by StanMarsh

[CP3NO]

Like you know, this was completely unexpected from GTAIV, because every GTA seemed to improve in features, but see R* knew they would make cash either way, so they didn't work hard to make the best game, knowing that they have a great reputation of making good games, so they could just put "GTA" on a can of coke, and make moeny out of it, point is, hype and reputation of a company makes money

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

Yes but you just conceded that the reasons for some of the features they

did include are just as weak as any reason i may come up with for including

miniguns or flamethrowers. and since they took out tanks and f/throwers

what makes you so sure they won't take out stunt jumps.

The truth is, if you have to come up with weak reasons for anything being

realistic, then the chances are it isn't.

As for Street racing

Brucie might just as easily have cut Niko in on his business, and that would

be an easy way to make money, therefore that would be Niko. so many things

detract from the realism and this is necessary to keeping the gameplay fun.

And the f/thrower and minigun are irrelevant anyway when so many things

already detract from realism

[StanMarsh]

 

Like you know, this was completely unexpected from GTAIV, because every GTA seemed to improve in features, but see R* knew they would make cash either way, so they didn't work hard to make the best game, knowing that they have a great reputation of making good games, so they could just put "GTA" on a can of coke, and make moeny out of it, point is, hype and reputation of a company makes money

Hmm, mkays, and this is where you fail:

 

1- They spent how many freakin' years developing this game? Yeah, that seems like hard work.

2- They spent $100 Million. Something tells me if they wanted to go the cash-in cheap-o route, they wouldn't spend that much.

 

It is one thing to say that you don't like the game- quite another to suggest Rockstar was being lazy because the game was not SA2.

 

Tony, you're missing the point. Fact is, the reason for including the WEAKEST thing, hijacking an attack helicopter, is JUST as strong as and POSSIBLE reason you can come up with for flamethrowers/miniguns. Hence, it requires so much effort in terms of explaining how this underground black market dealer got ahold of a minigun and its ammo and why it wasn't bought by some rogue state and found its way into some little room in a building in Liberty. Hell, I could actually buy a story of a homemade blowtorch/flamethrower and that would be better than any possible explanation for a minigun.

 

Also, unique stunt jumps blend into the environment and are static. Tanks are mobile, required cheating/massive destruction, and were almost unstoppable. Hence, they had a massive effect on gameplay. Storywise, it was always stupid thinking that the National Guard was called down for one guy. It was a smart axe. The flamethrower could be bought and used anywhere, hence was capable of great destruction and therefore affect on gameplay. Considering that GTAIV was aiming for realism, if the flamethrower is included in DLC it might as well be a death sentence if a bullet hits the tank.

Edited June 6, 2008 by StanMarsh

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

that is the point, using an attack helicopter is no more realistic than using a flamethrower or mnigun,

but they included it for the sake of fun. if they were aiming for realism, the truth is, they missed.

and as you said the only way they can have true realism is the one hit kill scenario you mentioned

earlier, which neither of us want. What's the point in realism if you keep having to make excuses

for the things you're doing? as you said, why can we aquire a RPG launcher? it isn't realistic nor

should it be it is just a game in which (in my opinion) they got the balance wrong, if you want

realism you want realism, if it is Ok to include one unrealistic feature then why not add another?

They have removed a lot of unrealistic features and added nothing realistic in their stead

[StanMarsh]

that is the point, using an attack helicopter is no more realistic than using a flamethrower or mnigun,

but they included it for the sake of fun. if they were aiming for realism, the truth is, they missed.

and as you said the only way they can have true realism is the one hit kill scenario you mentioned

earlier, which neither of us want. What's the point in realism if you keep having to make excuses

for the things you're doing? as you said, why can we aquire a RPG launcher? it isn't realistic nor

should it be it is just a game in which (in my opinion) they got the balance wrong, if you want

realism you want realism, if it is Ok to include one unrealistic feature then why not add another?

They have removed a lot of unrealistic features and added nothing realistic in their stead

But since they do have the attack helicopter in the game for a reason besides LOLZ(See: Minigun and Flamethrower) it becomes much easier to justify it. Since there is no reason to have the minigun especially, it becomes much hardet to justify in any other way than just because.

And, regardless of whether they aimed for it and failed or not, realism IS what they shot for. That is why there are no miniguns or flamethrowers. If they decide to go the same route in the next game, expect no miniguns there.

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

Ok i really have to go to bed now, and as it would be rude of me to make

a further point and not stick around to back it up, i will have to say

 

To be continued.......

[CP3NO]

Ok i really have to go to bed now, and as it would be rude of me to make

a further point and not stick around to back it up, i will have to say

 

To be continued.......

Good morning to all Anyways, back to where we stopped off, realism is not the reason they didn't include miniguns and flamethrowers, I thought they'd at least have a flamethrower, they already got the flame physics for the molotiv cocktail, just do the same for a gun, reason they didn't put it in is most probably because they want to charge us for it later on

[spaceeinstein]

Why all this pessimism? Was the main reason for the lack of features being the space of the disc? I like how GTA4 makes you go "wow" instead of "yay".

Edited June 6, 2008 by spaceeinstein

[atheistsw]

Well, I just saw the commercial that takes the p*ss out of GTAIV, gotta say, clever marketing strategy, I've loved GTA games since the very beginning, but Saints Row 2 looks like the emphasis is more on highly ridiculous fun, plus, they hit the nail on the head, would you rather watch TV in the game while watching your TV or rob a liquor store as a cop? Hmm, let me see...

[Hodgey.]

i agree that they should,but they don't care,they're basically selling the title now.The media and the fans are hyping the game,all rockstar have to do is roll in the money.

if we can actually get some of these fan boys to stop sucking rockstars dick,maybe we might have a decent original game,without d/c.

Then you in completey the wrong place this is a GTA forum no a SR one. You need to leave go left and its the second door on your right for the SR forums moron.