chngdman Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I think III does suck for more reasons than that But I didn't. When III was all there was, man we smoked a lot a pot on rampages... those were the days, it was so amazing (I didn't even PC game back then, that was after Duke 3D/win 98, hello PS2, so to me the graphics were, at the time, stunning and SO REALISTIC! lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvr2fst Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I have to agree with the truck and trailer. The first truck I saw when I started this game, I tried to hook up a trailer and hoped it would work....it didnt. I got stuck under it too. The possibilities would be awesome. Gain a lot of speed and jacknife the trailer into traffic or peds! Just hit the E-brake and turn a little. Of course I played with the forklift too and was dissapointed that it wasnt working. Out of the two I would want the truck and trailer though. Any modders out there that could do this and do it proper I would gladly pay for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villin Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 qwerty, you are missing the point. I miss all these completely random "useless" features too. You are right, though, that GTA is about evolution. I bought the original GTA when it first came out.. I loved every second of it and dreamed of the day I could play it in 3d (like Duke3D my other favourite game of the time). That day came with gta 3 and it has been EVOLVING ever since. GTA IV has taken two pretty large steps forward (graphics and physics).. but about a thousand tiny steps backwards. The point of GTA is to "do things your own way" That point was severely handicapped in this release. It started from a blank slate. Happy? It's like saying that III sucks because you can't jump out of cars or shoot through windshields. you couldnt jump out of a car or shoot through the windshield in any of the original 2d "top-down" gtas... so whast your point? GTA III progressed from the others. (unless you could do those in gta 2 - i didnt spend MUCH time on gta 2) the point is that this "game" is nothing more then them getting a paycheck for developing the platform for future GTA games. they threw together a half assed "story" and "features" and sold it so they could finance future games. sure its not a BAD game... but its by no stretch of the imagination BETTER than vice city or san andreas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) qwerty, you are missing the point. I miss all these completely random "useless" features too. You are right, though, that GTA is about evolution. I bought the original GTA when it first came out.. I loved every second of it and dreamed of the day I could play it in 3d (like Duke3D my other favourite game of the time). That day came with gta 3 and it has been EVOLVING ever since. GTA IV has taken two pretty large steps forward (graphics and physics).. but about a thousand tiny steps backwards. The point of GTA is to "do things your own way" That point was severely handicapped in this release. It started from a blank slate. Happy? It's like saying that III sucks because you can't jump out of cars or shoot through windshields. you couldnt jump out of a car or shoot through the windshield in any of the original 2d "top-down" gtas... so whast your point? GTA III progressed from the others. (unless you could do those in gta 2 - i didnt spend MUCH time on gta 2) the point is that this "game" is nothing more then them getting a paycheck for developing the platform for future GTA games. they threw together a half assed "story" and "features" and sold it so they could finance future games. sure its not a BAD game... but its by no stretch of the imagination BETTER than vice city or san andreas. Bullsh*t. You're wrong. Point blank. The bullsh*t rockstar gets said about them is by people who completely lack vision or miss the point. This game is better than GTA III you cannot argue that because it is everything GTA III was and then some. Sure, there are no rampages, but let's talk core gameplay. The game outdoes the last Liberty City, that's all it has to do. Niko is a useless killer, just like Claude was. This is all on purpose. Anything that was "left out" this time just wasn't improved yet and you should be glad they didn't put some funky fake handling airplanes in there with these new "realistic" handling cars. Think about it deeper, give the benefit of doubt and you start to see this is a wise move, better than last generation, and you will gain hope for the next title. See you in vice city I agree it is the tech demo for the next games - JUST like GTA III was too - and you couldnt pierce windsheilds with bullets in that game either - but no way is Vice City anywhere NEAR as good as this game. San Andreas was only better because of all the features. But that's San Andreas. Vice City was a rushed job. It was a masterpiece for - and only for - the ambience. Everything else - the art, the gameplay, was rushed and NOT on par with GTA III... It even had less missions IIRC... IV is not a bad game, nor a bad port of a bad game. It is what it is: Successor to III and only III. And it did one hell of a job... Edited January 18, 2009 by chngdman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villin Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) qwerty, you are missing the point. I miss all these completely random "useless" features too. You are right, though, that GTA is about evolution. I bought the original GTA when it first came out.. I loved every second of it and dreamed of the day I could play it in 3d (like Duke3D my other favourite game of the time). That day came with gta 3 and it has been EVOLVING ever since. GTA IV has taken two pretty large steps forward (graphics and physics).. but about a thousand tiny steps backwards. The point of GTA is to "do things your own way" That point was severely handicapped in this release. It started from a blank slate. Happy? It's like saying that III sucks because you can't jump out of cars or shoot through windshields. you couldnt jump out of a car or shoot through the windshield in any of the original 2d "top-down" gtas... so whast your point? GTA III progressed from the others. (unless you could do those in gta 2 - i didnt spend MUCH time on gta 2) the point is that this "game" is nothing more then them getting a paycheck for developing the platform for future GTA games. they threw together a half assed "story" and "features" and sold it so they could finance future games. sure its not a BAD game... but its by no stretch of the imagination BETTER than vice city or san andreas. Bullsh*t. You're wrong. Point blank. The bullsh*t rockstar gets said about them is by people who completely lack vision or miss the point. This game is better than GTA III you cannot argue that because it is everything GTA III was and then some. Sure, there are no rampages, but let's talk core gameplay. The game outdoes the last Liberty City, that's all it has to do. Niko is a useless killer, just like Claude was. This is all on purpose. Anything that was "left out" this time just wasn't improved yet and you should be glad they didn't put some funky fake handling airplanes in there with these new "realistic" handling cars. Think about it deeper, give the benefit of doubt and you start to see this is a wise move, better than last generation, and you will gain hope for the next title. See you in vice city I agree it is the tech demo for the next games - JUST like GTA III was too - and you couldnt pierce windsheilds with bullets in that game either - but no way is Vice City anywhere NEAR as good as this game. San Andreas was only better because of all the features. But that's San Andreas. Vice City was a rushed job. It was a masterpiece for - and only for - the ambience. Everything else - the art, the gameplay, was rushed and NOT on par with GTA III... It even had less missions IIRC... IV is not a bad game, nor a bad port of a bad game. It is what it is: Successor to III and only III. And it did one hell of a job... Sorry my opinion differs from yours, but I am not wrong. I never said GTA III is on par with IV, but san andreas and vice city offer more continued fun. If you like the idea of paying for a techdemo when you were mislead originally, then have fun. I didnt spend all my time on forums or reading previews. I read an initial preview talking about how this will be "the next big GTA game" and it will blow all the others out of the water. They talked about how the gameplay would be all new with more open-ended missions. What we got is the same gameplay, less features, slightly modified (for the better i must concede) police reactions and a new engine. Whoop-de-doo. I was expecting much more. And let me tell you this: I am not a computer programmer... I don't have any beef with the "quality" of the port they did the best they can. But I can tell you right now that if I were in charge at rockstar, this game would be a hell of a lot better in terms of the gameplay and "replay value." But I bet it was publisher pressure from above, not the decision of those truly involved with making the GAME. because this is a GAME not simply an ENGINE. and I think it is really lacking as a GAME. I'm not saying I don't enjoy playing GTA IV. I'm saying i don't enjoy it as much as I did vice city or san andreas. It's like going to see a sequel to a movie that has no story at all. (this is a hypothetical situation) they wasted their entire budget developing some crazy new special effects, so they couldn't afford writers... they deicde to make some crappy movie full of ridiculous stunts but crazy special effects (Commando anyone?) and try and sell it to the consumer mass in hopes to raise money so they can go and make the REAL movie that has both a good story and good special effects. Why should the customer have to pay for the companies R&D twice? I think it's just bad practice and will drive rockstar out of the industry. Edited January 18, 2009 by villin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Do you enjoy III as much as Vice City or San Andreas? Seriously, do you? (I think I kinda like the actual gameplay and missions in III better than Vice myself, but I do like Vice and San more) Now, with that answered, that's the point. This successes III, not those other titles. VIce? You will like the new one more, but you'll still say SA was better Notice a pattern? Just give them the benefit of the doubt. And as for driving them out of the industry... Far from it... you might as well say Rockstar IS this industry. Do you know how many people only owned a PS2 for GTA? I was one of them. When you have EA banging down your door to buy you out at 40% more than you were worth at the time, you are doing something right. And they didn't sell. Investors must know something we don't (or that we can't rightfully offer evidence of ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villin Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Do you enjoy III as much as Vice City or San Andreas? Seriously, do you? (I think I kinda like the actual gameplay and missions in III better than Vice myself, but I do like Vice and San more) Now, with that answered, that's the point. This successes III, not those other titles. VIce? You will like the new one more, but you'll still say SA was better Notice a pattern? Just give them the benefit of the doubt. And as for driving them out of the industry... Far from it... you might as well say Rockstar IS this industry. Do you know how many people only owned a PS2 for GTA? I was one of them. When you have EA banging down your door to buy you out at 40% more than you were worth at the time, you are doing something right. And they didn't sell. Investors must know something we don't (or that we can't rightfully offer evidence of ) I think our concepts of what this series "should have been" and "is" are totally different. GTA III "should" have been sold together. as in the functionality of san andreas, the story quality of vice city and all three cities in one game for one price. Obviously they spread it out for cost cutting and profit making reasons. This is exactly the kind of blood-sucking capitalism that the investors want - and the reason they didn't sell. In that respect I consider this a sequel to san andreas more so than a sequel to simply gta II... The fact that you want to sit back and accept one product being sold to you for three times the price and with years in between is great. But that's not where I see this industry going. This industry has historically been absolutely filled to the brim with "games" that are nothing more then "techdemos" (really just engines) that have no true fun, gameplay or replay value at all. I see that this will shift. Look at the movie industry in the 50's and 60's thats where we are now in the gaming industry. Sure, there are tons of GREAT games coming out (coughfallout3) but there are also still some mounds of crap made simply to bring in money and to show off their new technology (widescreen anyone? smell-o-vision? super widescreen? 65mm? - none of these things MADE a good movie, but they were used as "pivots" for movies). The same thing is still happening in the gaming industry. I am not a computer developer. I have some background in programming but it's very limited. The golden age of gaming is still ahead of us. the day when technology and gameplay find a nice equilibrium. Rockstar seem to be contributing AGAINST this cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 If they did that, you would not have played any of it until 2004. I'm really not digging or seeing that as logical at all, I think your opinion is getting in the way of the benefit of the doubt. You are really out there with this one, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swe_seifer Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Lazy coders =( how hard can it be to copy & paste code from other GTA's so that connecting trailers would work... stupid It gets annoying cause everywhere you go there's trailers and work machines all with a hook on them asking to be hooked to your car =( none works of course And airport is full of wagons and luggage-trains too, no reason at all riding the tug Peds open up their trunks, i cannot.. how cool would it be to kill a ped and stuff its body in the trunk =) not even that They can easily add all these tiny features in a patch or why not in addons... =( But hoping in vain when coders are lazy and Take2 is moneyhungry !!! truly sad, this is not a great game... truly sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livilaNic Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Lazy coders =( how hard can it be to copy & paste code from other GTA's so that connecting trailers would work... stupid Yeah I wish it were that easy. The pool mini would be godly (SA' was actual, IV' is sh*t)! But hoping in vain when coders are lazy and Take2 is moneyhungry !!! truly sad, this is not a great game... truly sad Bioshock and Mafia kicked ass. So...I have no clue wtf your talking about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now