Jump to content

LCS >> GTAIII.. Okay but, then VCS >> ?


OmeXr

Recommended Posts

After completing the storyline of LCS, i installed GTAIII for see how everything went after Toni Cipriani's story. Even LCS's story was just maded up after GTA3 events, it was really different. prequel story was working great with it. I mean, GTAIII was looking so different, the game i completed like 10 times..

 

 

But, when it comes to VCS, i think the game was completely disaster. There was so much difference between VCS and VC. VCS's map and story didn't match with VC at all. For example; There is a road placed between LH and Airport in VCS, but no one is explaining what the hell happened to that road in VC.

 

 

In LCS, Fort Staunton is totally different. But Toni blows up the whole place so that's why there is no longer any buildings at that place in GTAIII. For God sake they are even telling the story of "why there is no motorcycles" in LCS. But VCS doesn't. And i guess this is why VCS is sucky and boring. Because you don't believe any of the events taking place in VCS, because it doesn't feel real. VCS is just an experiment called "How all SA stuff and graphics would look in VC".

 

 

My point is, that R* did a really good job with LCS, and its matching perfectly with GTAIII. But i can't say the same thing for VCS.

Edited by OmeXr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that VCS is one of the best game that rockstar had made and if you play GTA VC and then Gta VCS you see the diffrence.Like you will see a trailer park near Sunshine Autos and thats the point.There isnt such a thing in VC.

 

 

It all about the diffrence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that VCS is one of the best game that rockstar had made and if you play GTA VC and then Gta VCS you see the diffrence.Like you will see a trailer park near Sunshine Autos and thats the point.There isnt such a thing in VC.

 

 

It all about the diffrence.

So do i. I only liked LCS for the mafia style and VCS for the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mokrie Dela

fyi spoiler tags are like this:

 


TEXT HERE

 

TEXT HERE

The button's right there too.

 

Both games had differences to their "parent" games, VCS did a good job as the city was prety much the same, apart from one road - which could have been torn up to make way for something, then the project canceled so grass was placed,

Or perhaps the construction of a building got in the way....

 

Personally i found LCS to be massively boring. It was fun until i complete it. VCS i COULD play over and over. I personally don't understand why you're saying what you are. I found it more fun too....

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.


087rqaU.pngVw81Z2a.pngxWvxZoT.png1fb6cYB.png


Click here to view my Poetry


Link to comment
Share on other sites

it seems like nobody gets the point i'm trying to make here.

 

 

@Public Liberty Radio

 

thanks einstein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Narcis_speed6

There are some years between Stories and actual games, rockstar tried to make some noticeable differences, adding new zones and features so we don't get the same dull experience.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it Omer smile.gif There's no explain about that road connecting Sunshine Autos and airport but in 'Burning Bridges' the place was destroyed so it was rebuilded including the road was canceled. And about other changes (bridges etc.), i like them, with them traveling's just easier for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You hate VCS because it doesn't match with VC? Well it goddamn shouldn't match with it! It's a completely different story. Both LCS and III are based on the Leones, whereas VCS and VC ARE NOT based on one same thing so that's why VCS doesn't match with VC. Anyway, you hate the game because of one road?! Then f*cking don't drive on it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what OP is saying. To be realistic, anything that's different in VCS in 1984 has to be able to change in two years to match VC in 1986. On the other hand, look at GTA IV. The DLC/EFLC take place at the same time as GTA IV but couldn't stay totally consistent.

 

You just have to imagine each game is a different parallel universe, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Narcis_speed6

Plus the road is there to help you, so you don't have to go way back just to get to the airport.

 

user posted image

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an explanation why that Road is gone, in one of the later missions, Armando has his goons trap Vic and Lance at the Gas Tank Yard that's opposite (Vice City 86) Sunshine Auto's. In this missions, Lance blows one of the gaskets and there's fire everywhere, by the time both Vic and Lance escape, the Tanker Yard blows.

 

Now, look at the Yard in Vice City 86, it's larger and has been built over the path where that Road is. So really, when they rebuilt that yard, they made it bigger in 86 and added the security fence around it.

 

I do get your point though, VCS felt rushed, and a lot of the map changes felt like changes for no reason. But I believe for the big ones, there are subtle hints about why they are different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

guys, don't get me wrong here. i really like the differences has been made with vcs, but the thing that's bugging me with vcs is, there is just too much difference for just 2 years.

 

- almost every building and store has neon on it (none of them appears in vc)

- victor's empire is totally gone (its impossible to destroy all the empire buildings and replace them with new buildings in 2 years)

- there is a vip terminal at airport (and there is nothing in vc at the same place)

- all of the stores in the whole city is different. (and there is no sign of them in vc at all, it would be cool to see some old places left over from vcs in vc, dont you think?)

 

i hope this time, you guys will understand what i'm telling you. it's just too much for 2 years. lcs matching with everything there is in gta3. and i was expecting to see same thing with vcs.

Edited by OmeXr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No of course I get what you mean, I said it in the VCS PC project, that realisticly, there's a lot of things on the map that are there for no reason, take Benny Restaurant or the Docking Bay in Downtown, what reason would there be for both of those things to be destroyed 2 years later??

 

Vic's empire was too big, reducing it down to 26 instead of 30 could have left the more unique buildings in Vice City (such as Alex Shrubs Condo apartment or the nice small house just south of Vice* Point Mall (again, a pointless change as it's called North Point Mall in VC).

 

Where as in LCS, there were less changes, but it had a bigger impact, Things like Toni's apartment and Fort Staunton are still recovering three years later and it even linked in with GTA3 such as the Porter Tunnel Project starting in LCS, and when we play GTA3, we're told that the project has fallen behind again, etc, the changes felt more realistic and believable and a lot of things were explained.

 

Of course LCS did make a few goofs, such as killing Miguel and such, but compared to VCS, it was a lot more researched for the changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No of course I get what you mean, I said it in the VCS PC project, that realisticly, there's a lot of things on the map that are there for no reason, take Benny Restaurant or the Docking Bay in Downtown, what reason would there be for both of those things to be destroyed 2 years later??

 

Vic's empire was too big, reducing it down to 26 instead of 30 could have left the more unique buildings in Vice City (such as Alex Shrubs Condo apartment or the nice small house just south of Vice* Point Mall (again, a pointless change as it's called North Point Mall in VC).

 

Where as in LCS, there were less changes, but it had a bigger impact, Things like Toni's apartment and Fort Staunton are still recovering three years later and it even linked in with GTA3 such as the Porter Tunnel Project starting in LCS, and when we play GTA3, we're told that the project has fallen behind again, etc, the changes felt more realistic and believable and a lot of things were explained.

 

Of course LCS did make a few goofs, such as killing Miguel and such, but compared to VCS, it was a lot more researched for the changes.

i totally agree with you man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely agree with what has been said in this topic. I enjoyed LCS and VCS for their additions to the series, and their expansions to the story and history of both cities. There's not as many changes in LCS, but they seem to make more sense in that game.

 

Certain things were explained in game, like the expansion of Sunshine Autos (and the eventual deconstruction of the trailer park), the building in construction near the biker club Downtown, etc. And the airport road there was most definitely put there for player convenience, it was one of the few places I felt R* did a crap job designing the map (along with trying to get to the farm Whetstone safehouse in San Andreas tounge.gif).

 

But then there are some other changes that seem useless. Going through and changing every storefront and brand. That doesn't seem realistic to me. Going through and removing a bunch of famous VC landmarks like the fancy penthouse north of the Malibu (and heck, the Malibu itself being degraded), the surf sign/billboard across from the main airport terminal, the freakin' mall across from the hospital in Ocean Beach. All of Vic's empire buildings randomly being torn down within two years?

 

It seems like they just wanted to cram things in for the sake of cramming them in. For example, the supposed "amazing boat physics" that they hyped about before the game was released? Sure, the water looked nice, and the Jetski, Jetmax and Squallo were cool, but for the most part, the other boats sucked. They basically messed up most/all of the boats. They tried to implement a new combat system, and while it was okay for fist fighting, it ruined all the melee weapons (especially our beloved chainsaw). Many features from the past GTAs were gone, such as adrenaline pick-ups, eating at food joints, even explosive red barrels? They were a simple yet fun thing to see and shoot at. They only appear at the import hangar at Vice Port. Forklifts pretty much sucked, they went faster backwards than they did forwards. The Sandking could barely drive on the sand anymore. Quads were OK, but no stunts were possible on them. Cars randomly appeared under bridges. Garages ate things all the time.

 

They did try to fix some of this in the PS2 version. A few new side missions and pickups were added in. The chainsaw got slightly improved sounds and gore, but the bad physics were still the same. It was still pretty much the same though. The graphics were even worse, and the trails were the worst out of any console port so far (especially when looking at a sunset).

 

In short? I'm not just badgering this game completely. I really enjoyed it, and I did find it more fun than LCS. But looking back, LCS seemed to be more cleverly crafted. The story was better. Graphics weren't too good or too bad, they were average. Most of the changes like the ferries were explained through several missions.

 

There are a few things VCS did nicely too. The radio stations and soundtrack were simply amazing. The voice acting was a little better, and more of the original characters and cast returned. It did have a nice 80s vibe, possibly better than the original VC. The graphics were great on the PSP. I think it was a cool element of the plot with Vic being in the military and getting kicked out (I'm certain everyone reading this topic has played VCS by now), but I'll split that into a new paragraph.

 

It seems they were putting a lot of emphasis on Vic being in the military, or so I heard. It's been years, but in '06 when I was still a forum lurker and a dumb kid who didn't know much about story, good games or gameplay, I remember hearing a lot about how cool it was for your character to be in the military. For pete's sake, I HATE how they used that as a main selling point of the game in some instances, when there were only three missions regarding Vic being in the military in the first place. There was NO interaction with Fort Baxter. It arguably was not as interesting and well-designed of an interior as it was in the original Vice City. The only use of Fort Baxter after you leave is the Rhino (which, did I mention, is also worse in VCS? But I won't go into detail about that), the Mesa Grande, and the Barracks truck.

 

I enjoyed it when it came out, but looking back on it, it wasn't just as good as it could have been. I am assuming R* was too busy focusing all their attention on getting IV ready for previews and trailers... but still, was there any playtesting done at all for this game?

 

Sorry for my long rant, and yes, some of this is my opinion. I'd appreciate if you guys could provide some feedback on my post, see what you agree and disagree with. I loved VCS, but it simply wasn't as glitch-free and enjoyable as VC, SA and LCS.

 

TLDR:

- Many of our favorite features and concepts from VC were ruined or glitched in VCS

- VCS felt rushed when compared to LCS

- Many story/landscape changes don't sense in VCS

- R* tried to improve upon the PS2 version, but ended up creating two different, messy versions requiring different help and guides for some parts.

 

Looking back on it, all those times we (including me) wished for a San Andreas Stories... what if the trend had continued? Who's to say R* couldn't have developed another glitchy game, possibly worse? It could have had issues with using multiple UMDs, or areas being removed. The story most likely would have been even more rushed if it was to cover the entire map AND be done while GTA IV was also being developed. I'm glad R* decided to just stop with the III era and make IV the best it could be.

 

Please don't write my post off as being "too long", I want some feedback tounge.gif .

Edited by mincemate003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Narcis_speed6

 

- almost every building and store has neon on it (none of them appears in vc)

- victor's empire is totally gone (its impossible to destroy all the empire buildings and replace them with new buildings in 2 years)

- there is a vip terminal at airport (and there is nothing in vc at the same place)

- all of the stores in the whole city is different. (and there is no sign of them in vc at all, it would be cool to see some old places left over from vcs in vc, dont you think?)

All these things brought together for you for a new experience, different from the one in vc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SindaccoFamily

look there is a market opposite my house and it wasnt there two years ago.

 

 

And youre wrong because many places are the same.

 

 

And there is enought diffrence too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- almost every building and store has neon on it (none of them appears in vc)

- victor's empire is totally gone (its impossible to destroy all the empire buildings and replace them with new buildings in 2 years)

- there is a vip terminal at airport (and there is nothing in vc at the same place)

- all of the stores in the whole city is different. (and there is no sign of them in vc at all, it would be cool to see some old places left over from vcs in vc, dont you think?)

All these things brought together for you for a new experience, different from the one in vc.

That is right. No one wants to play in one same location with no differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SindaccoFamily: i didnt say it's impossible to change buildings in 2 years, i said, there was too much buildings that could change in just 2 years. there is a difference.

 

@MyDog & Narcis_speed6: I agree but rockstar did a little more than just changing some buildings or adding detail. they ruined original vc with vcs map.

 

@mincemate003:

it was really nice to have that penthouse, surf sign and mall. i totally agree with you on that. but i think what rockstar is done wrong with changing the buildings was textures. i mean vic's empire buildings were like just came from lcs. they were dark, gray and wasn't fitting vc atmosphere. seeing a dark grey building next to malibu club was just didn't made any sense. they could use vice city's original bright and colorful textures with empire buildings. and they wouldn't suck that much.

 

i liked early military concept. i would really like to see some military action in a gta game. (i know it wouldnt fit that good, but vigilante missions are still there isn't it?) also, you are right about that interior with barracks and base. they worked in them very well and spend a good plot with just a couple missions.

 

vcs story was wrong from the start. playing a character who has just 2 years to live? i mean come on. what's the point then? we know all the empire is will going down in 2 years, we know he will going to die, then what's the point of all this?

 

in lcs, there was something different. we knew toni cipriani will be a made man, and will have a good position in leone family. also he was reminding me of Tommy Vercetti. there were great additions such as bikes, helicopters, and a couple of new streets in fort staunton. and those changes and additions was making sense. they've explained why there was no bikes in gta3, or the thing with fort staunton. it was a simply operation to convert gta3 in to vice city engine and have fun with it.

 

but there was nothing to add vice that's not already there. of course interiors, new places was good to have, they were fresh, never seen before etc. but honestly, when i play vcs, i never go in to these interiors. because they are all same, dead interiors. they were just too little for hang around, or do something. barely vic can walk in those interiors.

 

and what about those unnecessary details? they've ruined normal, not much detailed, simple vice city. simple was better, simple was good.

 

i'm saying that lcs done a good job with bringing life to an old game. but vcs didnt make anything better. they just did something, but it wasnt better. (if you want vcs graphics, just download menu editor for vc, and re-activate trails option. then download vcs timecycle and there you go. it's all same.)

Edited by OmeXr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SindaccoFamily: i didnt say it's impossible to change buildings in 2 years, i said, there was too much buildings that could change in just 2 years. there is a difference.

 

@MyDog & Narcis_speed6: I agree but rockstar did a little more than just changing some buildings or adding detail. they ruined original vc with vcs map.

 

@mincemate003:

it was really nice to have that penthouse, surf sign and mall. i totally agree with you on that. but i think what rockstar is done wrong with changing the buildings was textures. i mean vic's empire buildings were like just came from lcs. they were dark, gray and wasn't fitting vc atmosphere. seeing a dark grey building next to malibu club was just didn't made any sense. they could use vice city's original bright and colorful textures with empire buildings. and they wouldn't suck that much.

 

i liked early military concept. i would really like to see some military action in a gta game. (i know it wouldnt fit that good, but vigilante missions are still there isn't it?) also, you are right about that interior with barracks and base. they worked in them very well and spend a good plot with just a couple missions.

 

vcs story was wrong from the start. playing a character who has just 2 years to live? i mean come on. what's the point then? we know all the empire is will going down in 2 years, we know he will going to die, then what's the point of all this?

 

in lcs, there was something different. we knew toni cipriani will be a made man, and will have a good position in leone family. also he was reminding me of Tommy Vercetti. there were great additions such as bikes, helicopters, and a couple of new streets in fort staunton. and those changes and additions was making sense. they've explained why there was no bikes in gta3, or the thing with fort staunton. it was a simply operation to convert gta3 in to vice city engine and have fun with it.

 

but there was nothing to add vice that's not already there. of course interiors, new places was good to have, they were fresh, never seen before etc. but honestly, when i play vcs, i never go in to these interiors. because they are all same, dead interiors. they were just too little for hang around, or do something. barely vic can walk in those interiors.

 

and what about those unnecessary details? they've ruined normal, not much detailed, simple vice city. simple was better, simple was good.

 

i'm saying that lcs done a good job with bringing life to an old game. but vcs didnt make anything better. they just did something, but it wasnt better. (if you want vcs graphics, just download menu editor for vc, and re-activate trails option. then download vcs timecycle and there you go. it's all same.)

But nobody wants to play one same map twice! How can't you understand that they didn't ruin anything, then changed the map so players don't get the feeling they're playing one thing again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did you really had to quote whole post? edit your message!

 

and learn to read, nobody saying they were bad, they are saying it wasnt necessary. and i'm guessing you are just a san andreas player who heard the gta name with sa for the first time, and think vc and 3 are crap. this site full of this sh*theads, i dont need another one in my topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did you really had to quote whole post? edit your message!

 

and learn to read, nobody saying they were bad, they are saying it wasnt necessary. and i'm guessing you are just a san andreas player who heard the gta name with sa for the first time, and think vc and 3 are crap. this site full of this sh*theads, i dont need another one in my topic.

Umm...You said the game was a complete disaster. Remember what you write in OP or at least go back and read.

 

And no, I'm not a SA fan. Лешењка is. But I haven't seen him recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah the game is a complete disaster. with all the wrong things. story, map changes. rest is fine with me. i meant unnecessary changes was disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah the game is a complete disaster. with all the wrong things. story, map changes. rest is fine with me. i meant unnecessary changes was disaster.

Why is story a disaster? I haven't played it, but to me the story is just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well then it seems you did'nt really read my message and just you are judging me with it anyway.

 

read it here:

 

 

vcs story was wrong from the start. playing a character who has just 2 years to live? i mean come on. what's the point then? we know all the empire is will going down in 2 years, we know he will going to die, then what's the point of all this?

 

in lcs, there was something different. we knew toni cipriani will be a made man, and will have a good position in leone family. also he was reminding me of Tommy Vercetti.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking back on it, it felt kinda useless building up this huge empire that would be gone in two years. Speaking of empires, empires with boring missions. Empires that caused other gangs to send a million death squads after you. Empires with crapy textures. Empires that, if you drove into them to fast, you'd get stuck. See where I'm getting with this? Not only was the story, background and protagonist half assed, but so was most of the "new" stuff they put into the game.

 

I know they changed the map so we could have a new experience, but still, to me they didn't do a good job of that. A lot of the the changes don't make sense, and it does less to improve the experience that it does to ruin it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.