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

[Vercetti27]

ok. I get it, he thinks theres too many unexplained changes, therefore the game is a failure , ignoring its accomplishments as a handheld game which sold millions and won the awards it did. And he also thinks GTA 4 wasn't a real gta?

 

this guy is confused. Ash I don't know why your trying to explain everything for him. I saw his point but don't see why to have such a hissy fit about it. The two games were 2 years apart, sh*t changes. I don't get how creating a brighter atmosphere for vice city makes it a failure.

 

Agreed VCS is rushed but why judge a game on such delicate issues? People saw the differences back in 2007 when it was new, why point this out 4 years later? VCS wasn't a disaster, I think it was very scrappy and a bit rushed but it was originally for psp so what do you expect?

[OmeXr]

i can answer for myself here.

 

gta4 was something different. it wasn't like the changes between gta2 and gta3. they just deleted all the fun things on purpose. and except for graphics and gameplay, gta4 wasn't that good. it was unfunny, wasn't interesting. even for a big gta fan like me. i completed the storyline for twice, then never ever played it again. what gta4 is missing, a little fun. they made a really realistic, appealing game, i agree. but back in the time when i finished the storyline, i was like "so, what now? i mean what's there to do beside missions?"

 

also missions were basic and simple. just kill a guy, follow that car etc..

[Ash_735]

Ash I don't know why your trying to explain everything for him. I saw his point but don't see why to have such a hissy fit about it. The two games were 2 years apart, sh*t changes. I don't get how creating a brighter atmosphere for vice city makes it a failure.

 

Agreed VCS is rushed but why judge a game on such delicate issues? People saw the differences back in 2007 when it was new, why point this out 4 years later? VCS wasn't a disaster, I think it was very scrappy and a bit rushed but it was originally for psp so what do you expect?

The reason I'm explaining it, is because I felt the same way about VCS, first time I've seen someone else mention the obscure timeline changes! If I'm honest, LCS made a bigger impact because it was more polished. Also, storyline wise, a lot of people liked LCS better. So VCS is sort of this nice looking GTA game that shows off the PSP's power, but with an average storyline (which itself is rushed), and thanks to the glitches, bugs, etc, Radio Problems on the original release, etc, it just looks like a GTA game without any proper polish or testing.

 

Which is a shame, because it's like the budget was spent on the soundtrack, which is brilliant, the soundtrack for VCS is one of the best GTA soundtracks I've heard! They also got the original voice actors back, which cost more money, so it's like the budget for the game went on the cast and music compared to LCS, so the gameplay, testing, etc, was rushed.

[OmeXr]

also i think the empire was fitting very in second island (except downtown). because second island was full of this dirty textured, old houses, so empire buildings were looking fine. (and also vcs really did a good job with cleaning LH.)

 

but when it comes to the first island, it's just not working. seeing a dark, gray colored building near a colorful hotel or malibu club.. oh, it was just not right.

 

vcs always reminding me of gta sa. atmosphere, characters, animations and of course the cars.. i think this is the biggest problem. it's not like 80's anymore, it feels san andreas's 90s theme.

 

also, i would love to see sa stories for psp2.

[Mince]

 

ok. I get it, he thinks theres too many unexplained changes, therefore the game is a failure , ignoring its accomplishments as a handheld game which sold millions and won the awards it did. And he also thinks GTA 4 wasn't a real gta?

 

this guy is confused. Ash I don't know why your trying to explain everything for  him. I saw his point but don't see why to have such a hissy fit about it. The two games were 2 years apart, sh*t changes. I don't get how creating a brighter atmosphere for vice city makes it a failure.

 

Agreed VCS is rushed but why judge a game on such delicate issues? People saw the differences back in 2007 when it was new, why point this out 4 years later? VCS wasn't a disaster, I think it was very scrappy and a bit rushed but it was originally for psp so what do you expect?

I don't see how he's having a hissy fit about it? He is providing some examples to support his opinion, so have me and Ash. Look at my post on the first page. Yeah it was a good handheld game, but I don't see how you can deny the glitches that were in it, along with strange differences they didn't bother to explain.

 

There's a difference between making it fun and making it feel rushed and crammed with neon signs and dirty buildings that disappear in two years. I guess there was a forklift ban in 1986 too? And in 1984 the FBI used special color-changing cars to catch criminals? And tons of ramps, roads and stores randomly disappeared? We could easily make a list here. Do these glitches and changes outweigh those featured in other GTAs? Again, we'd have to a detailed list, without making it too subjective.

 

It's your opinion that this game was an amazing award winning game. We too like this game (at least I think OmeXr does, based on his posts, and Ash as well), but we think there's not as much effort put into it as there was in LCS. Like someone said on the first page, while LCS felt like a legitimate attempt to provide new gameplay and history in Liberty City, VCS was more like testing random stuff from SA out in Vice City, and while they were at it, they decided to "recreate" the city to how they thought the players would enjoy. In doing so they created lots of holes in the cannon and random changes and glitches.

 

30 empires disappearing? It's feasible that Vic and Lance decided to move their empire elsewhere and re-locate their business from Vice City. It's hard to believe that all of their locations were gone with no explanations. Yes, I understand R* hadn't exactly planned out all of the features of VCS in 2002, but the changes made in LCS were more believable and explained. True, they can't go back and update the original VC. But they should have not put 30 empires around Vice City that didn't have any other good explanation for not having any traces in 1986.

 

I'm sorry if I'm endlessly ranting here. That's not what I'm trying to do, I'm just trying to show that I was displeased with some of the changes they made in VCS, along with some other people here. I understand the changes were made to better improve our gameplay experience, but a lot of the changes were not well researched, and some of them make the game less enjoyable (mainly the glitches and ugly empire buildings).

[OmeXr]

you said it mincemate003, thanks for explaining it to other guys here. because it seems that this people just need to hear this real facts from somebody else beside me, to believe them truly.

 

also, i totally agree with you and ash from the start.

[Mince]

Sorry for the bump, but I'd just like to say, my opinion hasn't really changed. I played some GTA LCS on the PSP today. It's been months/years, but one thing I recognized was that most of the old landmarks and stuff from GTA III were still there. Joey's garage, the old safehouses, the car dealership in Harwood, the old train tunnel, etc. Unlike in VCS, where lots of things (like the big penthouse north of the Malibu, or the old signs on buildings being removed) were changed.

 

I still like both games, but LCS just feels more like a homage to GTA III, while still providing some new fun. I think I'll have to play through the story in both games to really make a true opinion.

[norva]

I don't really understand why it's much of an issue.

First of all everyone talks about how horribly glitched it is, I have the PS2 version so maybe that is why, but I never had any issues. I had one or two happen but no more than in any other gta game I've ever played.

The changes didn't really bother me, so a bunch of business came and went in a two year span, I get the empire thing to, but really it's just a game and doesn't bother me much, it isn't like a major glaring contradictions in it or anything.

In what missions were their static cutscenes? I don't remember any.

All in all I loved VCS and thought it was a great addition to the GTA3 canon. i thought the storyline was good, maybe not the strongest of that era but I enjoyed it. I could care less that we were playing as a character who would die in the next game, it didn't effect what happened in this game one bit. I also kind of liked it in the sense that I had a more personal connection to the introduction in Vice City and I emphasized a lot more with Lance after having seen him two years prior and having lost Vic. I thought what happened in VCS set up the story for VC pretty well.

And I did get some nostalgic feelings from VC after playing VCS, like seeing Lance's apartment in Ocean Beach, Vic's first two safehouses were both in VC as well, the compound safehouse became Phil's Place.

And complaining about the neon seems like nitpicking at it's best (or worse), they were trying to add to the atmosphere I don't see why it's such a big deal.

Anyways the changes did not bother me at all, it wasnt like there was a whole new island that vanished between 1984 and '86 or something, they could have screwed up far worse. Any issues in this game are pretty minor imo. Also I loved the empire building feature, I had fun with it!

That's just my opinion, when playing it, it really didnt feel all that rushed to me. I mean I knew it was PSP port but still it felt solid and very enjoyable to me.

[Mince]

edit- this post ended up too long, and I need to to work on it some more. So just ignore this for now.

Edited April 11, 2011 by mincemate003

[--Vega--]

I don't care about the minor flaws like "a road was by the airport in VCS that wasn't there in VC". VCS itself has almost more side-missions and stuff to do than any other GTA. It was a great game with tons of afterplay value, the story was somewhat dumb though.

[OmeXr]

if it had a name other than "vice city stories" i would easily say, that this is not a prequel game for vc. so its okay. because its in a different gta universe. but if you tell me that this vcs supposed to be a prequel, than no sir. thats unacceptable. there is so many historical errors..

[vertical limit]

Unique features in VCS:

• Swimming
• Quadbiking
• Unique cars
• Empire building
• A protagonist with a good history
• Bribing to get weapons back after death or arrest
• A military helicopter

 

[OmeXr]

 

Unique features in VCS:

 

Swimming

 

Quadbiking

 

Unique cars

 

A protagonist with a good history

 

 

those are completely wrong. vic vance's story is the most boring and pointless story in gta series. also there is swimming in sa & 4. quadbikes used in the missions of sa too.

[vertical limit]

First off, why is my text red.

Any ways I was comparing it to LCS.

 

 

[OmeXr]

you should have said that in your message.

 

 

[vertical limit]

Yeah my bad, I forgot.

[perroGtA97]

I guess there was a forklift ban in 1986 too?

Excuse me but your argument is invalid if you want to prove that vcs is worser than lcs or any other gta. why gta3 that is 2001 didnt had bikes when lcs had? doesnt that mean that in 1998 bikes were allowed and in 2001 banned? or thats just another chronological error which is useless to remind at all. you just try too hard and fail, vcs has very good storyline (at least much better than san andreas one)

[drscot]

Okay and...?

Haha I like this guy...

 

I c your point, but did it need its own topic? IMO no... Sorry

[OmeXr]

just read 4 pages before you say anything will you? and yea, as its turned out, it did needed its own topic. as you see, many people agrees with me in the earlier pages..

 

its childish too pass 4 pages and judge the topic by some stupid message.

[Mince]

 

I guess there was a forklift ban in 1986 too?

Excuse me but your argument is invalid if you want to prove that vcs is worser than lcs or any other gta. why gta3 that is 2001 didnt had bikes when lcs had? doesnt that mean that in 1998 bikes were allowed and in 2001 banned? or thats just another chronological error which is useless to remind at all. you just try too hard and fail, vcs has very good storyline (at least much better than san andreas one)

Lol, there was a ban on motorcycles in 2001. It's either mentioned in the manual or on some webpage (can anyone back me up on this?). It's obvious that it was only introduced to make up for the fact that R* either didn't have the idea for motorcycles in 2001 (which wouldn't make sense anyways since they were in earlier GTAs), or that there were originally technical limitations/problems with making them into 3D games. It's no big deal, but it's just a small reason. I was just explaining (mainly in a joking/over-exaggerating way) that one way in which VCS seems less thought out than LCS is in the way of vehicles being removed, and in some way being explained as part of the history of the town (the point being that Forklifts were just "there" in VCS, and disappeared in VC's time).

 

I am not saying VCS isn't good. TBH I still sometimes think it's my favorite GTA. I tend to overlook these things. But I am trying to make this guy look less of a whiner and more of a fan with legitimate concerns about the game. It's not like we are insulting any of you, or saying "what's the big deal?" or something like that, or posting really long and rude essays. It's a forum, you are allowed to post your opinion. Care to explain if we are getting out of hand or something?

 

I love VCS. I really enjoy the soundtrack, the atmosphere, the characters, the many side missions, etc. My last post here in this topic from April that I edited out was explaining more in detail that I was going a bit overboard with these posts, but they were still legitimate discussion.

Edited May 6, 2011 by mincemate003

[Ash_735]

Lol, there was a ban on motorcycles in 2001. It's either mentioned in the manual or on some webpage (can anyone back me up on this?).

Certainly! It was from a Liberty Tree News Article in the games manual, here's what it says:

 

 

A new protest group is pushing hard to have all forms of two-wheeled transport banned from out city streets. Following the successful banning of bicycles from Liberty City a few years ago, American Road Safety for Everybody (A.R.S.E.) has been pushing hard in recent weeks to get motorcycles banned from the city. They quote some chilling statistics to support their case, although some believe they may have made these up. An A.R.S.E. spokesman told the Liberty Tree, "Motorcycles cause more deaths per year than old age. They are the number one killer in our city and must be banned."

 

He continued, "If the city doesn't take action, then we the people are going to have to start. People on motorcycles are trying to kill all of us, so we at A.R.S.E. say it's time to fight back. All bikers will be treated as fair game going forward and every civic-minded citizen is encouraged to knock these killers off their motorcycles." A.R.S.E. was founded thanks to a generous donation from the Maibatsu Corporation of America. The car giant yesterday unveiled plans for its next generation of cars and trucks, including the Monstrosity, an SUV that promises, "It will revolutionize the suburbs" and is expected to hit the streets sometime in 2001.

"People on motorcycles are trying to kill all of us, so we at A.R.S.E. say it's time to fight back."

 

There were some technical issues at the demonstration as the prototype had to be filled using a gasoline tanker and was running partially on jet fuel. A minor fire broke out but only a couple of people were hurt, only one of which is likely to be permanently disfigured. A.R.S.E. continues its fight.

 

With the article dated October 1998 as the campaign going into full force, that gave these people three years to get Motorcycles banned in Liberty City in time for GTA III in 2001.

[Flesh-n-Bone]

ROFL @ "A.R.S.E."

 

Anyways, I do think there's a lot of details put into Vice City Stories that goes unexplained in Vice City but I personally think they were just doing their best with giving you the best possible experience for a PSP game and hey, it worked! I don't try to pay too much attention towards unnecessary details about a pool having more stuff around it in 84 but is left empty two years later. My best explanation for all the empire buildings would be that Vic abandoned all his businesses during this time and the buildings were raided by cops or simply abandoned which led to reconstruction of all the unexplained buildings during these two years and games.

[OmeXr]

hahhahah, "A.R.S.E"

 

but seriously,

 

"A.R.S.E"

 

hahahahah.

[ThePowerGuy.]

I think the "... Stories" games were just crap. They just re-used stuff from other games and sold it with a new name.