Would San Andreas be a let down after GTA4?

February 14, 2009

When Rockstar made GTA3 they had to start from scratch, which is why has little variety of things to do. Rockstar used Gta3's system to make Vice city, which is why its so much better than 3. By the time they made San andreas, they had A whole butt load of content that they already made, right at their finger tips. Thats why, and how, SA is so huge. Grand theft auto 4 is a completly new system, they had to make it the same way they made 3. We just need to be patient for the next Gta game... ...It will have alot more content and variety than 4.

Exactly, this is my feeling too... So much work is put in to producing a game for new machines, and it appears they get more refined as the series moves on on the same consoles. That's exactly why I am waiting for a later ps3 instalment before buying one, whenever that will be...

...as for the topic, I guess you're promoting playing SA (and the others) but also reminding us that there will hopefully be a new one soon enough, now the work with new engines is largely out the way.

You’re always entitled to your opinion, but no, we shouldn’t need to wait for another release just to catch up to San Andreas, which came out almost 5 years ago. GTA IV should have included everything now...

If it takes time and money to refine the games on new consoles, waiting for everything to be refined to perfection could theoretically leave us waiting forever. Producing a game that was due and then overdue seems sensible, and the next games becoming more refined is only natural, in my opinion. As for leaving stuff out, I see that as something quite seperate. Why they just threw stuff out is apparently down to political issues between console companies, in my eyes anyway, among other things. I agree that this sucks for us the gamers, and I hope things like this don't ruin console gaming.

Edited February 14, 2009 by kailomonkey

February 15, 2009

You’re always entitled to your opinion, but no, we shouldn’t need to wait for another release just to catch up to San Andreas, which came out almost 5 years ago. GTA IV should have included everything now, and it shouldn't be so easy that even 2-year-old could finish it; GTA IV is not challenging, it's way too easy.

Well it doesn't.

Sure GTA IV should've "included" everything now, but what would be the point in making a new GTA? I don;t know about you, but I would like to see another GTA. It's a bit like how car manufactuers improve their cars over time, instead just including everything in them right off the bat, and I see you're a fan of our XB GTs so you should know what I'm talking about.

Anyway the difference between SA, and GTA IV is SA had the luxury of being built off 2 prior games that used the same engine, and physics. GTA IV didn't. Just about everything in GTA IV was built specifically for it.

I'm no game developer, but I imagine that stuff takes time. IMO to expect that, and the amount of content in SA plus more is a very unrealistic expectation. Most of the stuff that wasn't present in GTA IV, but in older GTAs will most likely come back, and be better than it was before.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Miamivicecity

February 15, 2009

Although we don't know how many manhours go into it compared to a full game, I'm interested to see how much the DLC for IV closes the feature gap between SA and IV. Apparently the towtruck is back, so that's something. Like Vice City, DLC production builds upon what was done before. I'm sure it still takes more time to create each bit of content compared to the III generation, though, just like a painter doing a bigger painting.

February 15, 2009

Oh and for the people who asked me where I read that the next GTA game will come out holiday 2009, I read that in Game informer Magazine. I'll quote exactly what I read

" A NEW GRAND THEFT AUTO

Could we be this lucky? Loose Talk has heard that rockstar North is already workingon the next GTA title, and that this game is scheduled to come out holiday 2009. We're not talking about new DLC or a collection of previously available DLC, we're talking about a full retail game. We expect this title to follow the suit of previous GTA's and use a subtitle such as GTA: San Andreas, ect. Tokyo might be a possible setting for this game, but details are non-existent at this time." (Game Informer)

I Swear, they said this. Read the newest game informer, its there.

February 15, 2009

Oh and for the people who asked me where I read that the next GTA game will come out holiday 2009, I read that in Game informer Magazine. I'll quote exactly what I read

" A NEW GRAND THEFT AUTO

Could we be this lucky? Loose Talk has heard that rockstar North is already workingon the next GTA title, and that this game is scheduled to come out holiday 2009. We're not talking about new DLC or a collection of previously available DLC, we're talking about a full retail game. We expect this title to follow the suit of previous GTA's and use a subtitle such as GTA: San Andreas, ect. Tokyo might be a possible setting for this game, but details are non-existent at this time." (Game Informer)

I Swear, they said this. Read the newest game informer, its there.

Like it's been said on the NeXt forum, Rockstar responded to the negative on this report.

Anyway the difference between SA, and GTA IV is SA had the luxury of being built off 2 prior games that used the same engine, and physics. GTA IV didn't. Just about everything in GTA IV was built specifically for it.

Very true. It is better to compare IV to III rather than IV to SA. With SA, Rockstar's team knew what could be done with the hardware and middleware and as a result we got something massive - something that currently offers certain things that no other game in the series does.

February 17, 2009

Hell no. In my opinion SA beats IV by a long shot. IV is endless city. SA you got 3 cities, a mountain, desert, and forest. Wear clothes, tatoos, haircuts. (IV has clothing, but I no tatoos, haircuts. Plus in SA, you got stats, eating, muscle, fatness, working out. I was disappointed at rockstar making IV reality. Video games aren't meant to be reality, they're fake so why not make games fake. Movement of IV ticked me off, the reality, the majority of reality. But IV is a good game, but I don't know why Rockstar would make Liberty City into New York City. They ruined Liberty City. I like the Liberty City in GTA 3, and LCS. Ruined it ALOT!

They should make more games that has vice city, san andreas, and liberty city and never compare them to real cities. I understand that they compared the 3 cities with Las Vegas, San Fran. and Los Angelos (w/e) but they didn't make it exact like the cities like they did in fricken IV.

GTA 3

Vice City

SA

IV

LCS

VCS

Edited February 17, 2009 by DiscoverProject

February 17, 2009

Hell no. In my opinion SA beats IV by a long shot. IV is endless city. SA you got 3 cities, a mountain, desert, and forest. Wear clothes, tatoos, haircuts. (IV has clothing, but I no tatoos, haircuts. Plus in SA, you got stats, eating, muscle, fatness, working out. I was disappointed at rockstar making IV reality. Video games aren't meant to be reality, they're fake so why not make games fake. Movement of IV ticked me off, the reality, the majority of reality. But IV is a good game, but I don't know why Rockstar would make Liberty City into New York City. They ruined Liberty City. I like the Liberty City in GTA 3, and LCS. Ruined it ALOT!

They should make more games that has vice city, san andreas, and liberty city and never compare them to real cities. I understand that they compared the 3 cities with Las Vegas, San Fran. and Los Angelos (w/e) but they didn't make it exact like the cities like they did in fricken IV.

GTA 3

Vice City

SA

IV

LCS

VCS

Couldn't agree more. What you say is just so true, IV is my least favorite GTA game and the only one I hold something against, the previous five held the standard gameplay and fun very well, but with IV they got rid of all replay value a game can have with the side-missions and left us with boring man-date activities for 100%. It was such a step backwards with IV, and worst of all they got rid of the Cheetah, best car I've ever driven in a GTA game.

The limited ammo bullsh*t, all the boring rewards after spending so much time doing the annoying side-tasks like shooting all pigeons for a helicopter that suck ass and one that can be obtained beforehand.

Realism ftl. I have always had fun with III, VC, SA, LCS and VCS, but when I played IV I just couldn't stand the game.

February 17, 2009

Hell no. In my opinion SA beats IV by a long shot. IV is endless city. SA you got 3 cities, a mountain, desert, and forest. Wear clothes, tatoos, haircuts. (IV has clothing, but I no tatoos, haircuts. Plus in SA, you got stats, eating, muscle, fatness, working out. I was disappointed at rockstar making IV reality. Video games aren't meant to be reality, they're fake so why not make games fake. Movement of IV ticked me off, the reality, the majority of reality. But IV is a good game, but I don't know why Rockstar would make Liberty City into New York City. They ruined Liberty City. I like the Liberty City in GTA 3, and LCS. Ruined it ALOT!

They should make more games that has vice city, san andreas, and liberty city and never compare them to real cities. I understand that they compared the 3 cities with Las Vegas, San Fran. and Los Angelos (w/e) but they didn't make it exact like the cities like they did in fricken IV.

GTA 3

Vice City

SA

IV

LCS

VCS

Couldn't agree more. What you say is just so true, IV is my least favorite GTA game and the only one I hold something against, the previous five held the standard gameplay and fun very well, but with IV they got rid of all replay value a game can have with the side-missions and left us with boring man-date activities for 100%. It was such a step backwards with IV, and worst of all they got rid of the Cheetah, best car I've ever driven in a GTA game.

The limited ammo bullsh*t, all the boring rewards after spending so much time doing the annoying side-tasks like shooting all pigeons for a helicopter that suck ass and one that can be obtained beforehand.

Realism ftl. I have always had fun with III, VC, SA, LCS and VCS, but when I played IV I just couldn't stand the game.

I love you. Your one of the twenty of people I spoken to about that. I mean if LCS and VCS did come out starting at $50 I would seriously buy it. Seriously. IV has not challenge whats so ever. 100% is easily obtained and I got 100% in within a day in a half ($60 rip off). The rest of the GTA games progress was actually fun and challenging. We gotta write a letter to Rockstar saying make more vice city, liberty city (GTA 3 style) and SA. When IV was coming out, i was expecting the return of Claude (didn't know his name until I beat SA) I was actually excited by IV coming out. Saw the previews and was VERY DISAPPOINTED and I was like WTF IS THIS.

February 17, 2009

Yep, when I watched the gameplay videos as the game was newly released I thought the driving was annoying and slow as hell, the realism looked boring and it just changed so much from the previous GTA games by style and look. I am still wondering how some people are so impressed by the game, I was bored of it the moment I did the last mission.

Once I got to play the game myself (on ps3), I thought the graphics are just amazing and the water looked wicked, but that was not what I was looking for, plus the new police system is annoying.

February 17, 2009

Yep, when I watched the gameplay videos as the game was newly released I thought the driving was annoying and slow as hell, the realism looked boring and it just changed so much from the previous GTA games by style and look. I am still wondering how some people are so impressed by the game, I was bored of it the moment I did the last mission.

I just noticed the games that we are now getting from the new generation systems, ps3, and xbox 360. The games are mostly realism, and graphics. I could careless about those two main points. All that matters to me is purly fun. I started to dislike ps3 and 360 because of this realism bullcrap. It's like there are taking the fun out of games. Vigilante. I love doing these. I play IV, there is no vigilante, no levels, no extra money, BS! Same with firetruck, taxi, and everything else.

I understand why people are actually buying this crap, realism and graphics. Game devolpers now a days are taking the purely fun out of games now, except Call of Duty 4, etc etc. But since we have our eyes purly on GTA IV. Rockstar took out the #1 thing out of IV. Fun and challenging.

February 21, 2009

You’re always entitled to your opinion, but no, we shouldn’t need to wait for another release just to catch up to San Andreas, which came out almost 5 years ago. GTA IV should have included everything now...

If it takes time and money to refine the games on new consoles, waiting for everything to be refined to perfection could theoretically leave us waiting forever. Producing a game that was due and then overdue seems sensible, and the next games becoming more refined is only natural, in my opinion. As for leaving stuff out, I see that as something quite seperate. Why they just threw stuff out is apparently down to political issues between console companies, in my eyes anyway, among other things. I agree that this sucks for us the gamers, and I hope things like this don't ruin console gaming.

Come on, that's BS and you know it (no offense)... filler between cut-scenes is no way a game should be made; GTA IV is designed so that it's easy to pass, there's no challenge to it, the player is babied through the entire game.

Games shouldn't be designed for outdated consoles anyway; they should be desiged for the PC... that's my opinion; I don't own a console.

You’re always entitled to your opinion, but no, we shouldn’t need to wait for another release just to catch up to San Andreas, which came out almost 5 years ago. GTA IV should have included everything now, and it shouldn't be so easy that even 2-year-old could finish it; GTA IV is not challenging, it's way too easy.

Well it doesn't.

Sure GTA IV should've "included" everything now, but what would be the point in making a new GTA? I don;t know about you, but I would like to see another GTA. It's a bit like how car manufactuers improve their cars over time, instead just including everything in them right off the bat, and I see you're a fan of our XB GTs so you should know what I'm talking about.

Anyway the difference between SA, and GTA IV is SA had the luxury of being built off 2 prior games that used the same engine, and physics. GTA IV didn't. Just about everything in GTA IV was built specifically for it.

I'm no game developer, but I imagine that stuff takes time. IMO to expect that, and the amount of content in SA plus more is a very unrealistic expectation. Most of the stuff that wasn't present in GTA IV, but in older GTAs will most likely come back, and be better than it was before.

Huh? That makes no sense... so based on that logic, GTA IV shouldn't be the next step in the evolutionary process; it should regress? Go backwards? It should lack content and almost any attempt at being challenging?

Also, I'm not only a "fan" of the XB GT's, but I own two of them... I think that I'm the only American that does. So you're saying that GTA IV is like the Falcon XD? That's the model that followed the XB & XC; a very generic commuter car, lacking the aggressive style and appeal of the XA-XB-XC models. Actually, that does make sense, and you and I are in agreement; San Andreas is the sleek XB GT Coupe, and GTA IV is the bland XD 4-door grocery-getter that followed after that.

Edited February 21, 2009 by zmoonchild

February 21, 2009

Huh? That makes no sense... so based on that logic, GTA IV shouldn't be the next step in the evolutionary process; it should regress? Go backwards? It should lack content and almost any attempt at being challenging?

SA uses a tried and tested engine. They could push it to the limits, and they knew exactly what they could do with it.

RAGE is a new engine, and the bulk of IV's development time was spent developing the engine for use with the game. They had to start from scratch. It is evolutionary when you look at the basic mechanics of the game, which have undeniably been improved tenfold. It's not unreasonable to expect it not to be as filled with features as SA. The future games in the series will simply be a case of adding things on top. That's why SA is the game it is. Because they just piled it all on top of the existing framework.

February 22, 2009

Huh? That makes no sense... so based on that logic, GTA IV shouldn't be the next step in the evolutionary process; it should regress? Go backwards? It should lack content and almost any attempt at being challenging?

SA uses a tried and tested engine. They could push it to the limits, and they knew exactly what they could do with it.

RAGE is a new engine, and the bulk of IV's development time was spent developing the engine for use with the game. They had to start from scratch. It is evolutionary when you look at the basic mechanics of the game, which have undeniably been improved tenfold. It's not unreasonable to expect it not to be as filled with features as SA. The future games in the series will simply be a case of adding things on top. That's why SA is the game it is. Because they just piled it all on top of the existing framework.

You are 100% right. Flesh n' Bone and the other guy with my avatar had good points, but grand theft auto IV IS a whole new game. But, things like the Cheetah and taxi missions could have been kept. Rock star just chose not to keep them. And for things like flyable planes, there are reasons beyond a new system their, it is because of the New York setting, because you KNOW idiots would make 9-11 reenactments if there were planes. And then the guys in suits would sue Rock star and all hell will break loose.

February 22, 2009

the bulk of IV's development time was spent developing the engine for use with the game.

Please show me a link for that, or is that your opinion? You didn’t specify.

RAGE is a new engine, and the bulk of IV's development time was spent developing the engine for use with the game. They had to start from scratch. It is evolutionary when you look at the basic mechanics of the game, which have undeniably been improved tenfold.

In my opinion, the bulk of IV's development time wasn’t learning the new engine, the focus was creating fluff, such as television shows, comedy shows, magic shows and variety acts… I work in radio and the media, and I know it takes a lot of effort to produce those sorts of things.

Sorry, but development time can’t explain the removal of the challenging missions; missions similar to the NRG-500 Challenge (San Andreas), 4X4 Gripped (GTA III), PCJ Playground (Vice City), Arena Missions, and even the RC missions; missions that challenge the player, not simply connecting the dots to the next cut-scene as the story-missions do in GTA IV… How would the new engine restrict Rockstar from creating new missions where the player collects coronas in a specified amount of time, or other skilled missions for that matter?

…and how about the Street Racing and Vigilante in GTA IV? They’re a joke; only idiot players lose in those.

After all of the cut-scenes, television shows, cartoon shows, info-mercials, radio shows, magic shows, cabaret shows, variety shows, comedy shows, juggling acts, etc were finally finished, they probably felt that they really didn’t need to put much effort into the actual gameplay; that all of these “extras” would carry the game, and not as much effort was put into creating the actual missions; that is my opinion.

Or here’s another scenario: Rockstar catered to the whiners of the previous GTA games, and removed all of the challenging missions, such as anything that involves skilled flying, RC missions, etc… and GTA IV became a water-down version of the previous installments, a game which is unchallenging and virtually impossible not to pass. They wanted to have a game to tide children over, rather than create something challenging for adults.

You can continue to fall back on your defense that the new engine is being worked out and still needs to “evolve”, but remember that constantly trying to defend Rockstar by creating these excuses is ridiculous in it’s own right. What’s your excuse for the repetitiveness of the missions in GTA IV? Most of the missions are same: Watch a cut-scene, Niko goes and shoots somebody, that person may live or die, then repeat.

Explain how the new engine only allows those kinds of missions and nothing else.

It's not unreasonable to expect it not to be as filled with features as SA. The future games in the series will simply be a case of adding things on top.

Okay, but that’s still only your opinion, not fact.

And for things like flyable planes, there are reasons beyond a new system their, it is because of the New York setting, because you KNOW idiots would make 9-11 reenactments if there were planes. And then the guys in suits would sue Rock star and all hell will break loose.

Oh please, I don’t buy that “9-11 reenactment” crap for a second… Please don’t make up that kind of stuff…

Unless you have proof to back that up, then it’s strictly your opinion as to why Rockstar left fixed-wing aircraft out of the game.

Besides, there are planes in GTA IV; they’re called helicopters. Any aircraft that has a wing is called a plane, and helicopters have wings, fact.

Plus, there are large un-piloted fixed-wing aircraft constantly flying over the city and taxiing on the runway at Francis International Airport.

Now to get back to the original topic: yes it would be a great idea to go back to San Andreas after playing GTA IV; you’ll find a game that actually challenges your mind, it will not let you down.

February 22, 2009

the bulk of IV's development time was spent developing the engine for use with the game.

Please show me a link for that, or is that your opinion? You didn’t specify.

It's just his opinion.

The RAGE engine was already used for Rockstar Presents Table Tennis that was released in 2006. So, R* knew very well what they were getting into when they started development of IV.

February 22, 2009

the bulk of IV's development time was spent developing the engine for use with the game.

Please show me a link for that, or is that your opinion? You didn’t specify.

It's just his opinion.

The RAGE engine was already used for Rockstar Presents Table Tennis that was released in 2006. So, R* knew very well what they were getting into when they started development of IV.

I didn't mean develop RAGE from scratch during that time, I meant they spent time optimising the engine for use with GTA. Same with Euphoria. With all the extra possibilities they had on offer because of these things, they had a large focus on utilising them in the best way possible. This is made clear in the various interviews with the developers of the game.

the bulk of IV's development time was spent developing the engine for use with the game.

Please show me a link for that, or is that your opinion? You didn’t specify.

I don't need to give a link. Just look at the development time of both GTA III and GTA IV compared to VC and SA. It's simply common sense and logic that the latter two games were a case of using the existing framework and just changing and replacing everything. Obviously with a different engine, this procedure isn't as simple and some time has to be spent on the engine to make it suitable for the game before you start chucking in the old code.

RAGE is a new engine, and the bulk of IV's development time was spent developing the engine for use with the game. They had to start from scratch. It is evolutionary when you look at the basic mechanics of the game, which have undeniably been improved tenfold.

In my opinion, the bulk of IV's development time wasn’t learning the new engine, the focus was creating fluff, such as television shows, comedy shows, magic shows and variety acts… I work in radio and the media, and I know it takes a lot of effort to produce those sorts of things.

Sorry, but development time can’t explain the removal of the challenging missions; missions similar to the NRG-500 Challenge (San Andreas), 4X4 Gripped (GTA III), PCJ Playground (Vice City), Arena Missions, and even the RC missions; missions that challenge the player, not simply connecting the dots to the next cut-scene as the story-missions do in GTA IV… How would the new engine restrict Rockstar from creating new missions where the player collects coronas in a specified amount of time, or other skilled missions for that matter?

…and how about the Street Racing and Vigilante in GTA IV? They’re a joke; only idiot players lose in those.

After all of the cut-scenes, television shows, cartoon shows, info-mercials, radio shows, magic shows, cabaret shows, variety shows, comedy shows, juggling acts, etc were finally finished, they probably felt that they really didn’t need to put much effort into the actual gameplay; that all of these “extras” would carry the game, and not as much effort was put into creating the actual missions; that is my opinion.

Or here’s another scenario: Rockstar catered to the whiners of the previous GTA games, and removed all of the challenging missions, such as anything that involves skilled flying, RC missions, etc… and GTA IV became a water-down version of the previous installments, a game which is unchallenging and virtually impossible not to pass. They wanted to have a game to tide children over, rather than create something challenging for adults.

You can continue to fall back on your defense that the new engine is being worked out and still needs to “evolve”, but remember that constantly trying to defend Rockstar by creating these excuses is ridiculous in it’s own right. What’s your excuse for the repetitiveness of the missions in GTA IV? Most of the missions are same: Watch a cut-scene, Niko goes and shoots somebody, that person may live or die, then repeat.

Explain how the new engine only allows those kinds of missions and nothing else.

I'm not creating excuses to blindly defend Rockstar (although it can be said that you are just looking for things to blindly bash the game). I do agree that the bulk of GTA IV's missions are among the most tedious in the series. That being said, this idea that GTA IV should have been a San Andreas 2 or something is wrong because a) They were focusing on reinventing the basics (you seemed to miss this point entirely) because they were clunky and not terribly intuitive at all in the other games and b) They never intended to include these things anyway, for whatever reason, however strange or misguided. The side missions they did not include (and you only mentioned vehicle based ones incidentally) was probably because they simply did not fit into the areas they were focusing on with the game.

And for things like flyable planes, there are reasons beyond a new system their, it is because of the New York setting, because you KNOW idiots would make 9-11 reenactments if there were planes. And then the guys in suits would sue Rock star and all hell will break loose.

Oh please, I don’t buy that “9-11 reenactment” crap for a second… Please don’t make up that kind of stuff…

Unless you have proof to back that up, then it’s strictly your opinion as to why Rockstar left fixed-wing aircraft out of the game.

They left them out because there is only a single city. Their inclusion in San Andreas makes sense, because you have a whole state to fly around and a variety of airports and an airstrip to land them. In GTA IV, you'd only be able to fly most types of planes in circles around the city and land them at the airport which isn't much fun at all. They probably had other reasons as well, but this was the one they gave and it does make sense.

Now to get back to the original topic: yes it would be a great idea to go back to San Andreas after playing GTA IV; you’ll find a game that actually challenges your mind, it will not let you down.

I disagree. I've started a new game in San Andreas this week, and even though I'm trying to take my time it's an absolute breeze and far easier than GTA IV (because you cannot be killed by things such as barely mobile cars for a start).

Edit: Quote tags don't seem to work at all for some reason...

I fixed those quotes for you. - girishb

Edited February 22, 2009 by girishb

February 22, 2009

When i first started GTA adiction, i first played GTA 1. Then didnt really play more of them, since i wasnt 18. My mum was really against it. Then i heard about GTA for the PSP. I got both of them, and really liked them. Then i decided to buy GTA San Andreas for the PC. I REALLY liked this one. Possible the best GTA game ever.

Then the time for GTA IV appeared. Now i find myself buying GTA1, (It brung back so many memories) I also recently bought Vice city for PC, and GTA Double pack for Xbox (Vice city and III)

Anyways, i am hoping to learn everything about the characters and stuff.

So it is recommended to get the old games, Even if the graphics is Crap.

Who knows, GTA IV will look crap graphics in a few years.

February 22, 2009