Why San Andreas felt "wrong", to me

[Bi0ha2ard_q8]

So the topic is a bit touchy (and over discussed), yes, but hear me out.

 

GTA III made a good go at portraying a heartless Hitman for hire with a personal vendetta.

 

Vice City had a street smart mafioso start a criminal empire in a new city. Forming new connections and developing businesses.

 

GTA IV (my favourite) was GTA III reincarnated in a "realistic" HD world.

 

---------San Andreas Spoilers!!!----------

 

San Andreas though...you never know what's up, first CJ is a gangster then a business owner (while working for the triads) then a secret super agent and before going back to being an über gangster he turns into Danny Ocean while f***ing with the mafia.

 

CJ's character and personality never convinced me of this infinite ability to be whatever needs to be. He's easily the dumbest of all the protagonists and has a hypocritical holier than though morality. Reluctant on being a cold hearted hitman but being fine with killing for his friends/gang.

 

All in all San Andreas is a great game, the universe is amazing, it's just CJ.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Bi0ha2ard_q8

[Andreas]

I know what you are talking about and I agree. In fact, that's one of the main points as to why I do critize San Andreas, that's one of the biggest flaws if not even the biggest one of that game. It was good and all up to the point Sweet got arrested. Then the story got lost and contradicted itself a number of times. San Andreas is the GTA game with the biggest map, the biggest amount of vehicles, weapons, features and all that had to be incorporated in the storyline somehow. Considering the amount of missions the game has, it is not a surprise that not everything seems to be on track the whole time. Not only that, but depending on what the story is about, it might be hard to focus on the same thing all the time. CJ for example, didn't only focus on getting his brother out of the jail, he eliminated the Loco syndicate, bought properties in order to extend his [or better said the family's] business and a lot of other things as well.

 

GTA III did pretty well when it comes to the storyline, and so did GTA IV, in my opinion. In both titles, you have an actual target, and you know what you want to do from the start of the game to the end. But you don't only do jobs for random people in order to reach your destination. The first thing you have to do is getting yourself known around the city and work your way up to the top. When you have finally arrived the top, then you do what you wanted to do since the start. I do like these kinds of story-lines and usually, there isn't much that can go wrong with it.

 

I was a bit worried about GTAV's storyline until around a month ago because thinking about the possibility that it suffers the same fate as San Andreas, didn't sound good all that good. But the fact, that there are multiple protagonists and that each of them has a number of individual missions and problems that have to be solved, makes me much more optimistic.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian

[Fisha695]

CJ was essentially the amalgamation of several 1990s "hood movie" main characters.

[MyDog]

His intelligence is very inconsistent. Sometimes he's portrayed as dumb, but the casino heist is planned completely by him, while a smart crime boss such as Woozie throws dumb suggestions at him.

[thatstupidbug]

two reasons:

 

1) this cut-scene

 

 

 

Just watching CJ crying and begging for his life was terrible. I know maybe it's a realistic reaction, but I don't remember another protagonist begging and almost crying in any other GTA. That's the point when, for me, CJ "jumped the shark", and showed the lazy writing. It was such a badass character in Los santos.

 

2) the cameos. Catalina...ok, I can live with this. Then Claude. Then Rosemberg. Then Maria and Salvatore, and Kent paul, and Liberty city...stop!!!

 

I mean...Ok, a cameo or two are fine. but when 2/3rd of the game is packed with old protagonists, and half of them has nothing new to say (or, worst of all, the cameo change his/her backstory drastically), that's just lazy writing. And some of them do not looks like the original desing, they were similar to an odd skin mod.

 

SA is still a great game for the gameplay, just feels "wrong" with his story

[DarrinPA]

 

2) the cameos. Catalina...ok, I can live with this. Then Claude. Then Rosemberg. Then Maria and Salvatore, and Kent paul, and Liberty city...stop!!!

This was all part of a series of events that included VC and III, not just simply "cameos". It's a story arch that spans three, no actually five games.

 

 

Just watching CJ crying and begging for his life was terrible. I know maybe it's a realistic reaction, but I don't remember another protagonist begging and almost crying in any other GTA. That's the point when, for me, CJ "jumped the shark", and showed the lazy writing. It was such a badass character in Los santos.

He's playing her. He's a bit of a chameleon, he knows what people want from him so he plays the part. Her father always controlled everything, all she wants is to think she has the upper hand, and CJ realizes that. Just like when he works with the mob he acts differently.

 

You should read the book The 48 Laws of Power. "21) Play a sucker to catch a sucker: play dumber than your mark" is what I believe he does in many situations, especially with Jizzy.

[BullyIstheBestRockstarGame]

Yep San Andreas is overrated Mediocre storyline and full of unnecessary features tbh still a classic game of course but compare it to a mega beast like IV or even Vc for that matter it falls short IMO. but i disagree about cj he was not a bad character at all he always tried his best to help his family tbh an asshole like sweet is who i couldn't stand all he ever did was put Cj down even when he got him out of prison and took over casinos and had mansions etc he still did nothing but moan at Cj and you think cj is dumb? compare him to his caveman like brother.

Edited June 9, 2013 by BullyIstheBestRockstarGame

[Flesh-n-Bone]

That's why I love the game. It's so varied, like the perfect fantasy life rolled into one.

[Algonquin Assassin]

I just found CJ unconvincing most of the time. Tommy had a certain edge about him that he came across as truly ruthless and knew exactly what he wanted.

 

Similar thing with Niko. His goal was to find Darko and let nothing stand in his way. CJ on the other hand?

 

IMO the whole "rags to riches" element felt so shoe horned. He's trying to avenge the death of his mother yet finds time to mess around with the mob and get a stake in a casino?

 

I wouldn't call CJ the worst written character ever, but I've always found him to be hit and miss. A bit like the entire SA storyline. The best part is the start when they're trying to pull the families together.

 

Everything else after CJ gets thrown into Angel Pine by Tenpenny and Pulaski feels tacked on.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Miamivicecity

[lucid121]

Because his black, same thing people say about Franklin.

[Piggsy pls]

The only thing I hate about San Andreas is how much praise it gets. It was a step up from the previous games IMO, but I though IV beat it by a long shot. What's so special about San Andreas, so that it's generally considered by most as the best in the franchise? I understand people have opinions, but most peoples reasons for loving SA are only about it's features, and many of them are useless or boring. I, personally loved the friend/girlfriend system in GTA 4, I like to listen to their conversations with Niko.

 

Most people who brag on about San Andreas come across as very immature, too, like they're only playing GTA to cause mayhem and never listen to the story, that's what the first game was about, but the series has evolved since then.

 

Maybe I'm just butthurt that GTA IV gets alot of undeserved sh*t. But I loved the storyline, characters, and game mechanics far more than any other in the series. It's a far better game than San Andreas in almost every aspect as far as I'm concerned, and I'm glad GTA V seems to be focusing alot on the story, while also keeping the fun of exploring the map and doing what you want (though, that is what GTA IV already did as well, but most people just don't recognize that).

 

/end rant.

[G D]

The only thing I hate about San Andreas is how much praise it gets. It was a step up from the previous games IMO, but I though IV beat it by a long shot. What's so special about San Andreas, so that it's generally considered by most as the best in the franchise? I understand people have opinions, but most peoples reasons for loving SA are only about it's features, and many of them are useless or boring. I, personally loved the friend/girlfriend system in GTA 4, I like to listen to their conversations with Niko.

 

Most people who brag on about San Andreas come across as very immature, too, like they're only playing GTA to cause mayhem and never listen to the story, that's what the first game was about, but the series has evolved since then.

 

Maybe I'm just butthurt that GTA IV gets alot of undeserved sh*t. But I loved the storyline, characters, and game mechanics far more than any other in the series. It's a far better game than San Andreas in almost every aspect as far as I'm concerned, and I'm glad GTA V seems to be focusing alot on the story, while also keeping the fun of exploring the map and doing what you want (though, that is what GTA IV already did as well, but most people just don't recognize that).

 

/end rant.

I f*cking agree with this sh*t!

 

 

 

Most of the time on youtube (+ others) people get highest thumbs up for saying SA > All in story! some people even say it's better in every aspects than IV! The retardation makes me want to kill someone...

 

 

The best in EVERYTHING? biased bitch much? and Oh, this is a good one; when you say CJ sucks, they reply with "u fuding racicit" I don't want to live on this planet anymore.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also: Red Dead Redemption > Every Rockstar game IN EVERYTHING mechanic. especially SA.

 

 

 

Miamivicecity himself says Red Dead Redemption has better mechanics/gameplay than IV, but saying he LIKES IV and VC over it. do you understand what that f*cking means?

 

 

I guess not.

[lucid121]

The only thing I hate about San Andreas is how much praise it gets. It was a step up from the previous games IMO, but I though IV beat it by a long shot. What's so special about San Andreas, so that it's generally considered by most as the best in the franchise? I understand people have opinions, but most peoples reasons for loving SA are only about it's features, and many of them are useless or boring. I, personally loved the friend/girlfriend system in GTA 4, I like to listen to their conversations with Niko.

 

Most people who brag on about San Andreas come across as very immature, too, like they're only playing GTA to cause mayhem and never listen to the story, that's what the first game was about, but the series has evolved since then.

 

Maybe I'm just butthurt that GTA IV gets alot of undeserved sh*t. But I loved the storyline, characters, and game mechanics far more than any other in the series. It's a far better game than San Andreas in almost every aspect as far as I'm concerned, and I'm glad GTA V seems to be focusing alot on the story, while also keeping the fun of exploring the map and doing what you want (though, that is what GTA IV already did as well, but most people just don't recognize that).

 

/end rant.

Gta iv doesn't have tanks,miniguns and army bases. And plus, when you done with story, you done with the game. Nothing much to buy, also NO properties.

[lucid121]

The only thing I hate about San Andreas is how much praise it gets. It was a step up from the previous games IMO, but I though IV beat it by a long shot. What's so special about San Andreas, so that it's generally considered by most as the best in the franchise? I understand people have opinions, but most peoples reasons for loving SA are only about it's features, and many of them are useless or boring. I, personally loved the friend/girlfriend system in GTA 4, I like to listen to their conversations with Niko.

 

Most people who brag on about San Andreas come across as very immature, too, like they're only playing GTA to cause mayhem and never listen to the story, that's what the first game was about, but the series has evolved since then.

 

Maybe I'm just butthurt that GTA IV gets alot of undeserved sh*t. But I loved the storyline, characters, and game mechanics far more than any other in the series. It's a far better game than San Andreas in almost every aspect as far as I'm concerned, and I'm glad GTA V seems to be focusing alot on the story, while also keeping the fun of exploring the map and doing what you want (though, that is what GTA IV already did as well, but most people just don't recognize that).

 

/end rant.

I f*cking agree with this sh*t!

 

 

 

Most of the time on youtube (+ others) people get highest thumbs up for saying SA > All in story! some people even say it's better in every aspects than IV! The retardation makes me want to kill someone...

 

 

The best in EVERYTHING? biased bitch much? and Oh, this is a good one; when you say CJ sucks, they reply with "u fuding racicit" I don't want to live on this planet anymore.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also: Red Dead Redemption > Every Rockstar game IN EVERYTHING mechanic. especially SA.

 

 

 

Miamivicecity himself says Red Dead Redemption has better mechanics/gameplay than IV, but saying he LIKES IV and VC over it. do you understand what that f*cking means?

 

 

I guess not.

Now, what is the problem with liking San andreas more?

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

And plus, when you done with story, you done with the game.

Correction. When you're done with the story you're done with the game.

 

I still played GTA IV well after its story had finished the first time I played it because I didn't do everything straight away.

 

[Akaviri]

San Andreas is about CJ proving himself and becoming a true OG warrior. His journey is unpredictable but everything that transpires plays a role in his return to Los Santos. Without those insane accomplishments he wouldn't have been strong enough to take down Big Smoke and Tenpenny, let alone able to find a way to free Sweet from life in prison.

 

Off-topic - GTA IV had a detailed story, but it ultimately accomplished nothing except the most extensive obituary of characters I've ever seen. The ending is completely nihilistic and depressing, basically says that crime doesn't pay and Niko is a troubled mournful man scarred for life. The game world is beautiful and cinematic, but basically makes for a diluted game because there's little interaction with the criminal economy and no sense of ambition or motivation to keep committing crimes. Niko is reluctant to keep killing, but he's all about making money, so it's ironic that he can't invest a penny of his worthless blood money except for more weapons to keep killing people. I feel like GTAV is going to be what GTAIV should have been, rather than a revolutionary step.

[lucid121]

And plus, when you done with story, you done with the game.

Correction. When you're done with the story you're done with the game.

 

I still played GTA IV well after its story had finished the first time I played it because I didn't do everything straight away.

Ok, I may have exaggerated a bit. But you do have to admit, Gta iv has took out alot and sacrafised that for realism. Just because a feature is ''pointless'', does not mean that other people don't enjoy it. Gta iv took alot of fun elements in the game and I didn't like that. If you find Gta iv fun after its storyline, good for you, but that does not mean everybody thought the same.

Sorry for my grammer, I am using my phone.

[Algonquin Assassin]

And plus, when you done with story, you done with the game.

Correction. When you're done with the story you're done with the game.

 

I still played GTA IV well after its story had finished the first time I played it because I didn't do everything straight away.

Ok, I may have exaggerated a bit. But you do have to admit, Gta iv has took out alot and sacrafised that for realism. Just because a feature is ''pointless'', does not mean that other people don't enjoy it. Gta iv took alot of fun elements in the game and I didn't like that. If you find Gta iv fun after its storyline, good for you, but that does not mean everybody thought the same.

Sorry for my grammer, I am using my phone.

I know not everyone not feels like that. I just get tired of the same old "there's nothing to do" argument when it's player depedent.

[guib]

 

And plus, when you done with story, you done with the game.

Correction. When you're done with the story you're done with the game.

 

I still played GTA IV well after its story had finished the first time I played it because I didn't do everything straight away.

Ok, I may have exaggerated a bit. But you do have to admit, Gta iv has took out alot and sacrafised that for realism. Just because a feature is ''pointless'', does not mean that other people don't enjoy it. Gta iv took alot of fun elements in the game and I didn't like that. If you find Gta iv fun after its storyline, good for you, but that does not mean everybody thought the same.

Sorry for my grammer, I am using my phone.

I know not everyone not feels like that. I just get tired of the same old "there's nothing to do" argument when it's player depedent.

But it is true, I have played free style alot after I completed the storyline in SA, III and VC. Even after I got the 100% I still play VC once in a while. While with IV I don't really have anything else to do after I completed storyline.

 

But about the storyline, SA is indeed the most random, CJ goes from a hoodperson to a hippie to a mafiose gangster and then back to the hood. I enjoyed the IV, III and VC storyline all better than that of SA. To be honest I thought the storyline was to drawn out in SA near the end, At the beginning you had a thousand missions about the hood and after Las Venturas you have another thousand missions about the hood.

 

Besides, I hate the graphics in SA, honestly, I really think that the cars look better in VC. The gunsounds are better too in both III and VC than in SA.

[BullyIstheBestRockstarGame]

The only thing I hate about San Andreas is how much praise it gets. It was a step up from the previous games IMO, but I though IV beat it by a long shot. What's so special about San Andreas, so that it's generally considered by most as the best in the franchise? I understand people have opinions, but most peoples reasons for loving SA are only about it's features, and many of them are useless or boring. I, personally loved the friend/girlfriend system in GTA 4, I like to listen to their conversations with Niko.

 

Most people who brag on about San Andreas come across as very immature, too, like they're only playing GTA to cause mayhem and never listen to the story, that's what the first game was about, but the series has evolved since then.

 

Maybe I'm just butthurt that GTA IV gets alot of undeserved sh*t. But I loved the storyline, characters, and game mechanics far more than any other in the series. It's a far better game than San Andreas in almost every aspect as far as I'm concerned, and I'm glad GTA V seems to be focusing alot on the story, while also keeping the fun of exploring the map and doing what you want (though, that is what GTA IV already did as well, but most people just don't recognize that).

 

/end rant.

Gta iv doesn't have tanks,miniguns and army bases. And plus, when you done with story, you done with the game. Nothing much to buy, also NO properties.

but gta iv Does have a far superior storyline better cast of characters a much better and far more detailed atmospheric city (san andreas felt like a dead wasteland) better driving and shooting and there's plenty to do its just that people lack imagination. gta iv is quite simply far superior.

[cj2000]

And plus, when you done with story, you done with the game.

Correction. When you're done with the story you're done with the game.

 

I still played GTA IV well after its story had finished the first time I played it because I didn't do everything straight away.

Ok, I may have exaggerated a bit. But you do have to admit, Gta iv has took out alot and sacrafised that for realism. Just because a feature is ''pointless'', does not mean that other people don't enjoy it. Gta iv took alot of fun elements in the game and I didn't like that. If you find Gta iv fun after its storyline, good for you, but that does not mean everybody thought the same.

Sorry for my grammer, I am using my phone.

I know not everyone not feels like that. I just get tired of the same old "there's nothing to do" argument when it's player depedent.

But it is true, I have played free style alot after I completed the storyline in SA, III and VC. Even after I got the 100% I still play VC once in a while. While with IV I don't really have anything else to do after I completed storyline.

 

But about the storyline, SA is indeed the most random, CJ goes from a hoodperson to a hippie to a mafiose gangster and then back to the hood. I enjoyed the IV, III and VC storyline all better than that of SA. To be honest I thought the storyline was to drawn out in SA near the end, At the beginning you had a thousand missions about the hood and after Las Venturas you have another thousand missions about the hood.

 

Besides, I hate the graphics in SA, honestly, I really think that the cars look better in VC. The gunsounds are better too in both III and VC than in SA.

I can understand people saing that SA strory is bed, even if I have the oposite opinion, but saing that VC has beter graphiks and VC cars looks more realistik than SA ones is complete nonsence.

[Andreas]

 

I can understand people saing that SA strory is bed, even if I have the oposite opinion, but saing that VC has beter graphiks and VC cars looks more realistik than SA ones is complete nonsence.

It's not really nonsense, it's entirely dependent on the opinion. You are entitled to have your own opinion but that doesn't make the one of other people nonsense. It's not easy for me to decide which games' vehicles looks better but one thing I like about Vice City is the sun reflection, which wasn't included in San Andreas, for whatever reasons. Overall, I prefer the graphics of VC over the one of its successor. In my opinion, San Andreas looked worse for its time than Vice City and GTA III did, each for their times. The graphics don't really matter in a game like Grand Theft Auto, especially if we are talking about the older titles. Rockstar started with GTA IV to give the graphics are somewhat bigger priority.

[Patrizio]

I just found CJ unconvincing most of the time. Tommy had a certain edge about him that he came across as truly ruthless and knew exactly what he wanted.

 

Similar thing with Niko. His goal was to find Darko and let nothing stand in his way. CJ on the other hand?

 

IMO the whole "rags to riches" element felt so shoe horned. He's trying to avenge the death of his mother yet finds time to mess around with the mob and get a stake in a casino?

 

I wouldn't call CJ the worst written character ever, but I've always found him to be hit and miss. A bit like the entire SA storyline. The best part is the start when they're trying to pull the families together.

 

Everything else after CJ gets thrown into Angel Pine by Tenpenny and Pulaski feels tacked on.

The same could be said about Niko. One second he's Mr. Morals - not wishing to kill anyone. The next he'll commit genocide "if it pays". I think this is often glossed over.

 

What I will admit with SA is that it was at times "too" silly - Woozie and Ran Fa Li (sp?) were meant to be ruthless Triad Snakeheads and yet came across as some kind of joke. In this sense I am glad IV was more serious.

 

I don't think time is kind to SA and thus more start to dislike it. That said, I do, genuinely feel some members of here wear an "anti-SA" badge of honour to appear more sophisticated (not you Miami). But thats just me.

 

And to whoever said IV was III reincarted? Just no.

[lucid121]

The only thing I hate about San Andreas is how much praise it gets. It was a step up from the previous games IMO, but I though IV beat it by a long shot. What's so special about San Andreas, so that it's generally considered by most as the best in the franchise? I understand people have opinions, but most peoples reasons for loving SA are only about it's features, and many of them are useless or boring. I, personally loved the friend/girlfriend system in GTA 4, I like to listen to their conversations with Niko.

 

Most people who brag on about San Andreas come across as very immature, too, like they're only playing GTA to cause mayhem and never listen to the story, that's what the first game was about, but the series has evolved since then.

 

Maybe I'm just butthurt that GTA IV gets alot of undeserved sh*t. But I loved the storyline, characters, and game mechanics far more than any other in the series. It's a far better game than San Andreas in almost every aspect as far as I'm concerned, and I'm glad GTA V seems to be focusing alot on the story, while also keeping the fun of exploring the map and doing what you want (though, that is what GTA IV already did as well, but most people just don't recognize that).

 

/end rant.

Gta iv doesn't have tanks,miniguns and army bases. And plus, when you done with story, you done with the game. Nothing much to buy, also NO properties.

but gta iv Does have a far superior storyline better cast of characters a much better and far more detailed atmospheric city (san andreas felt like a dead wasteland) better driving and shooting and there's plenty to do its just that people lack imagination. gta iv is quite simply far superior.

I don't want to imagine driving a tank, I want to actually do it!

[Patrizio]

The only thing I hate about San Andreas is how much praise it gets. It was a step up from the previous games IMO, but I though IV beat it by a long shot. What's so special about San Andreas, so that it's generally considered by most as the best in the franchise? I understand people have opinions, but most peoples reasons for loving SA are only about it's features, and many of them are useless or boring. I, personally loved the friend/girlfriend system in GTA 4, I like to listen to their conversations with Niko.

 

Most people who brag on about San Andreas come across as very immature, too, like they're only playing GTA to cause mayhem and never listen to the story, that's what the first game was about, but the series has evolved since then.

 

Maybe I'm just butthurt that GTA IV gets alot of undeserved sh*t. But I loved the storyline, characters, and game mechanics far more than any other in the series. It's a far better game than San Andreas in almost every aspect as far as I'm concerned, and I'm glad GTA V seems to be focusing alot on the story, while also keeping the fun of exploring the map and doing what you want (though, that is what GTA IV already did as well, but most people just don't recognize that).

 

/end rant.

Gta iv doesn't have tanks,miniguns and army bases. And plus, when you done with story, you done with the game. Nothing much to buy, also NO properties.

but gta iv Does have a far superior storyline better cast of characters a much better and far more detailed atmospheric city (san andreas felt like a dead wasteland) better driving and shooting and there's plenty to do its just that people lack imagination. gta iv is quite simply far superior.

I don't want to imagine driving a tank, I want to actually do it!

Precisely. The tank was in every GTA prior to IV. It not being in IV just felt "un-GTA".

[Algonquin Assassin]

I don't think time is kind to SA and thus more start to dislike it. That said, I do, genuinely feel some members of here wear an "anti-SA" badge of honour to appear more sophisticated (not you Miami). But thats just me.

 

 

The "anti-GTA IV" crowd is no better Pads.

[GTAKing3197]

The same could be said about Niko. One second he's Mr. Morals - not wishing to kill anyone. The next he'll commit genocide "if it pays". I think this is often glossed over.

Don't forget Victor Vance. He talks about how he doesn't want to sell drugs and how it just causes trouble yet he still does it anyway.

[Algonquin Assassin]

The same could be said about Niko. One second he's Mr. Morals - not wishing to kill anyone. The next he'll commit genocide "if it pays". I think this is often glossed over.

Don't forget Victor Vance. He talks about how he doesn't want to sell drugs and how it just causes trouble yet he still does it anyway.

Agreed. Vic was/is far more conflicting than Niko.

[HOW'S ANNIE?]

The same could be said about Niko. One second he's Mr. Morals - not wishing to kill anyone. The next he'll commit genocide "if it pays". I think this is often glossed over.

Don't forget Victor Vance. He talks about how he doesn't want to sell drugs and how it just causes trouble yet he still does it anyway.

Agreed. Vic was/is far more conflicting than Niko.

Even though Vic wasn't the most poorly written protagonist in the series (Luis was imo) they could have put a lot more thought into his character. Although it was good to see that at least one protagonist in the 3D era had an evident third dimension to them.

[guib]

Although it was good to see that at least one protagonist in the 3D era had an evident third dimension to them.

I agree, but for GTA I kinda like more to be someone as Claude, a character who would do anything for money. That and I just liked the idea that the main character was suppose to represent you.