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

[OmeXr]

Well, sometimes it's good to not knowing the future with Gta storylines. i mean it worked pretty good with III VC and SA.

 

For example, we didn't know what has happened to Tommy until 2 years later with Gta Sa's release. Then we saw Ken, that he was trying to contact godfather tommy. It was so cool.

 

[MyDog]

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.

 

I get what you mean now. Also, I might add that it seems weird that after becoming one of VC's top gangsters they just leave town.

[Ash_735]

@ MyDog (that was weird to type): The main complaint comes from the fact that LCS was also a different map, but it had less changes, but it had a better impact and was heavily story related to things from GTA3. In VCS, a lot of things were changed and no real reason was given. In LCS and GTA3 things still remained between that 3 year gap, such as the destroyed Fort Staunton, Toni's Apartment, etc, yet in VCS, apparently ALL of Vic's Empire, a Huge Skyscraper, Every Mansion on Prawn and Starfish Island, Fort Baxter Air Base, a giant hotel apartment, etc, just simply vanishes within 2 years and not a single trace is left behind.

 

There are smaller things that work and had a bigger impact, such as the fairground on the abandoned land! We know that land would be bought up in two years and a construction site had only just started to appear. It was one small change but it made a lot of sense and fit in.

[OmeXr]

and i got to tell ya, it was awesome to see toni's destroyed apartment. and also the leftovers from fort staunton after 3 years. its like a time travel. it feels so different..

 

but you never feel that between vcs and vc.

[MyDog]

@ MyDog (that was weird to type)

Well I'm a man with taste, what can I say.

[Vercetti27]

you hate VCS because theres too many differences ?

 

ughh, sounds like a troll....

[OmeXr]

 

well, honestly i love vcs version of vice city. but i prefer to call it a parallel universe city. because they added so much details and remastered whole city pretty good.

 

but it's really hard to go back and play original gta vc. the vc graphics just sucks after vcs. here is an example:

 

this is the hotel from airport, they added really good details in this hotel:

 

 

but when it comes to original vc, there is nothing but a simple pool.

 

---

 

ammu-nation is looking pretty good in vcs.

 

 

but in vc, its just a sad little store without a door.

 

---

 

here is a screen with new neons in vcs:

 

 

who would really go back and play vc after seeing this?

 

---

 

the hotel that has gone in original vc map.

 

 

---

 

can you tell me you dont like perennial after seeing this?

 

 

---

 

okay this is it. i bet if i told you "i took this picture from a sa mod" you would believe me!

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

@Vercetti27: read the whole topic dumbass.

[Narcis_speed6]

Rockstar will always go higher, doesn't matter if the game takes place in the same world or a different year, take IV for example

huge difference from III, still the same city.

[Ash_735]

What are your emulation settings? Mine looks like this:

 

 

[Ash_735]

Rockstar will always go higher, doesn't matter if the game takes place in the same world or a different year, take IV for example

huge difference from III, still the same city.

Yeah, we KNOW the technical reason, this time around Rockstar could use the engine to render a lot more, which is why Neon has been splashed onto nearly all major buildings.

 

But from a timeline stand point, it doesn't make sense, basically, LCS feels more researched into the events of the city and what happens, VCS was just showing off.

[OmeXr]

my emulator settings are not the greatest with the rendering part but i never play a game under 60 fps.

[Vercetti27]

I've read the whole topic and concluded that you don't like VCS because theres too many differences . Its just a f*cking game . Judge it on the storyline and gameplay features, not the differences.

 

And don't go insulting people just because they don't understand your pointless , infantile thread : \

[OmeXr]

dont worry you are the only one who worth to insult for.

 

and you clearly miss the point i'm trying to make here. read it again and again. or ask someone. it seems everybody get the idea except you.

[Carbonox]

As a reply for the original post, LCS's manual explains that there was a group of people who wanted to get rid of motorcycles, and they would eventually succeed in their operation within 3 years.

 

I don't care if VC's Vice City was so much less fancy than the same city two years ago, both games are so awesome that the difference doesn't matter at all.

[Vercetti27]

you didn't like the city. thats all you've said. although your grammar and wording is pretty poor? is english your first language?

[OmeXr]

you didn't like the city. thats all you've said. although your grammar and wording is pretty poor? is english your first language?

no i'm turkish, turkish is my native language. english is my second language.

[Ash_735]

you didn't like the city. thats all you've said. although your grammar and wording is pretty poor? is english your first language?

No, he's saying the city has changed too much in two years without enough storyline or event reason given.

 

And the reason he's brought that up is because previously, LCS, they DID explain a lot of the changes through news events and the storyline and there's even still remains from buildings in LCS in GTA III (of course in GTA III we did not know what they were) which shos that the LCS team looked very closely at GTA III and based the changes in LCS around that, something that hasn't happened in VCS.

[OmeXr]

thank you for explaining that Ash_735. some people just see what they want to see.

 

[Vercetti27]

actually I just think thats a pathetic reason not to like the game . Maybe he should pay more attention to VC next time eh? This really didn't warrant a thread...

[OmeXr]

come on man! just cut it out. i love vcs, but i don't like unnecessary and meaningless changes. there is a chronological order in gta3 era. vcs has broke that "changing" line.

[Ash_735]

actually I just think thats a pathetic reason not to like the game . Maybe he should pay more attention to VC next time eh? This really didn't warrant a thread...

Isn't that the problem? He's paid TOO much attention to Vice City to notice the changes

 

And for all it's worth, why shouldn't it be a thread, if you look in the GTA V section there's like 50 clone threads about Music and where the game should be based so a thread actually discusiing the timeline changes between two GTA games actually holds more ground, stop hating dude.

[MyDog]

come on man! just cut it out. i love vcs, but i don't like unnecessary and meaningless changes. there is a chronological order in gta3 era. vcs has broke that "changing" line.

I still don't understand you. Earlier you said how the game sucks and it's a disaster and you hate it and all, and I know you say you love it.

[OmeXr]

i already wrote my thoughts in this topic, there is no need for one more time.

[Vercetti27]

i already wrote my thoughts in this topic, there is no need for one more time.

you said the game was a disaster and now you love it? you've obviously realised what I was saying and agree with me.

[OmeXr]

f*ck! i said the game is disaster because of the rockstar have failed in this one. i do love vcs but as an another game. not as a prequel to vc. there is just too many mistakes with map and the storyline. did you get it now? i dont like mistakes, i like the rest! oh god..

[Hitman843]

Why dont you consider GTA IV a disaster ? LC looks nothing like the one from GTA3

[Vercetti27]

f*ck! i said the game is disaster because of the rockstar have failed in this one. i do love vcs but as an another game. not as a prequel to vc. there is just too many mistakes with map and the storyline. did you get it now? i dont like mistakes, i like the rest! oh god..

Rockstar failed because they didn't explain the differences ? what a strange attitude . play the storyline and stop moaning about the differences . Rockstar were hired to make a portable prequel to Vice City.

They did that and it sold 2million copies as well as winning portable game of the year in 2007, so they actually succeeded . period.

[OmeXr]

gta4 was not a gta game for me. it was a next gen game called gta.

 

vercetti, cut it out. its obvious you are trying to make me angry. i dont buy it.

[Ash_735]

Why dont you consider GTA IV a disaster ? LC looks nothing like the one from GTA3

Right, some people are really not getting his point here.

 

Is VCS a different cannon to the rest of the GTA3-era?

 

GTA IV is a different era, different universe of sorts, just like GTA1, GTA2, etc, all have their own cannon, characters, events, etc. VCS is apart of the GTA3-era.

 

In LCS, it was the same Liberty City as GTA3, but with a few changes around, which were all explained in the storyline or news events.

 

In VCS, it was the same Vice City as Vice City, but with a LOT of changes to the map, some small ones were explained but there were no news events or major explanations for the huge amount of other changes.

 

Technically, by VCS, Rockstar Leeds could add a lot more to the City, which they did, but unlike LCS, they didn't back it up with events or an explanation, which, they have done to cover certain things since GTA3.

 

Now, VCS does have that rushed feeling, so maybe the explanations were one of the last things to be thrown in? After all, what reasons is there for Benny's Restaurant to be there in 1984, be detailed, but not get used at all, only as a bonus PCJ mission on the PS2 version of the game. And why is it gone in 1986? Why is the Malibu and Strip Clubs closed? How the hell was it possible to rip down all 30 Buildings that Vic owns and replace them in Vice City with no trace at all? Why is there a store under the green skyscraper on the road to downtown in 1984 when in 1986 it's a blank wall? And many many more.

 

Now, VCS was rushed, how do we know this? Well, main glaring point, there a few in game cutscenes that arn't even animated! Such as the Gonzalez meetings and talks, the camera pulls away because really, it's just two static character models nodding at each other with the cutscene audio played over it. And then we have all those bugs, glitches, etc, overall the game just kinda felt rushed out, considering they had to start the promo stuff for GTA IV soon after, it's no surprise, but it left VCS with this sort of half finished and unexplained look in the timeline.

[OmeXr]

 

Ash_735, are you reading my mind man?

 

it was really weird to that skyscraper to have a store under it. also, i can explain you why there is no access to "original vice city" buildings in vcs.

 

you see, rockstar just done too much alterations, additions and changes. which made the game slightly better than the original vc. they had to balance the things between 2 games. so there is no access to ocean view hotel, malibu, pole position, apartment 3c etc. etc.

 

also did you noticed this? there is like a hundreds neon lights all over the city but not on pay'n spray shops? and in original vc there is no neon light in second island except pay'n spray? so they are balanced this things.

 

its like, if you want to see some neons, go vcs. if you want to access malibu, pole position etc. go vc. they made it simple.