Does Anybody Else Wish GTA: San Andreas Never Existed?

[Smith John]

I loved San Andreas; three cities, the introduction of countryside/desert, loads of cool new features and side activities etc etc.

 

But part of me now wishes the game never released, nor even existed.

 

Why, you ask?

 

Well because ever since SA released back in 2004, it seems to have created a vast array of fan(boy)s who just can't seem to let go and move on.

 

First, GTA IV released, and the amount of bitching and whining that followed was phenomenal. Yes, IV had many features cut from it, but what the whiners could never understand, was that it was R*'s first full game on the current gen systems, and they were in the early stages of experimenting with RAGE.

 

I still thought IV was an excellent game. The upgrade in graphics was great, and the new euphoria physics were extremely fun, not to mention the great story and interesting characters. But the SA fanboys looked over all of that, and were angry because they couldn't get haircuts or tattoos....

 

Now V has released.

 

R* were now more familiar with the hardware of the current gen systems so could do alot more with their games. They heard the complaining surrounding IV and did something about it in regards to bringing back features like car customisation, tattoos, haircuts, a huge choice of clothes, planes etc, as well as adding a huge amount of features and activities, not to mention a MASSIVE map.

 

But no, this wasn't enough to satisfy the stubborn SA fanboys...

 

And this is why I sometimes wish San Andreas never existed. Like I've said a hundred times on here, every GTA just gets better and better for me personally, and I genuinely feel sorry for anybody who feels otherwise.

 

tl;dr

 

If it wasn't for San Andreas, there'd be nowhere near this level of bitching and whining.

Edited October 9, 2013 by niko bellic half brother

[woggleman]

People now complain that GTA V isn't more like IV. They need to make up their minds.

[Fuzzknuckles]

I'm really glad it did exist. The wait between VC and IV would have been unbearable.

 

You've just set yourself quite unrealistically high expectations. R* are at the top of the game, no doubt, but they're not miracle workers. A lot of people expected WAY more than was actually possible and don't seem to understand that, while they may have been able to do SOME of what was left out, they couldn't do all.

 

I think a lot of that was due to not wanting to repeat themselves. What's the point of just making an HD remake - and by that I just mean putting the exact same features in a better engine.

 

Personally, I would have found that utterly disappointing - I love the fact that they constantly innovate and refine.

[bish0p2004]

Well it does exist, so now what?

[BarelyLegal]

I preferred San Andreas. Not because I'm a fanboy, but because I genuinely thought it was a better game.

 

Admittedly I was a lot younger, but I much preferred the story, the soundtrack, the environment, the characters, almost everything.

 

If San Andreas had better graphics and Euphoria physics, the game would be unbeatable. I mean, it's taken 9 years for Rockstar to re-implement swimming underwater.

 

Having three main characters, none of which I particularly like, isn't 'groundbreaking'. I'd rate it a 6/10, and that's being kind.

[tranceking26]

All GTA games compete with each other - has anybody else noticed that. So it doesn't matter because no other series comes close, no matter which one is the best

[Smith John]

I'm really glad it did exist. The wait between VC and IV would have been unbearable.

 

You've just set yourself quite unrealistically high expectations. R* are at the top of the game, no doubt, but they're not miracle workers. A lot of people expected WAY more than was actually possible and don't seem to understand that, while they may have been able to do SOME of what was left out, they couldn't do all.

 

I think a lot of that was due to not wanting to repeat themselves. What's the point of just making an HD remake - and by that I just mean putting the exact same features in a better engine.

 

Personally, I would have found that utterly disappointing - I love the fact that they constantly innovate and refine.

 

Er, I don't think you read my post properly chief

[BullworthAcademy]

If San Andreas never existed then there would be no best game on PS2.

[Smith John]

I preferred San Andreas. Not because I'm a fanboy, but because I genuinely thought it was a better game.

 

Admittedly I was a lot younger, but I much preferred the story, the soundtrack, the environment, the characters, almost everything.

 

If San Andreas had better graphics and Euphoria physics, the game would be unbeatable. I mean, it's taken 9 years for Rockstar to re-implement swimming underwater.

 

Having three main characters, none of which I particularly like, isn't 'groundbreaking'. I'd rate it a 6/10, and that's being kind.

 

This is exactly the problem with you guys. You just want a 2,0 game. Where the hell is the fun of just playing the same product all over again? Unlike some developers (Activision), Rockstar actually have ambition and innovation.

[robp77]

I wish GTA 4 and 5 never existed.

[GUCCI_MANE_PIZZA_PARTY]

No. It's their fault for spoiling us, and then expecting that we'll be fully happy with only a fraction of what they initially offered.

[woggleman]

 

I preferred San Andreas. Not because I'm a fanboy, but because I genuinely thought it was a better game.

 

Admittedly I was a lot younger, but I much preferred the story, the soundtrack, the environment, the characters, almost everything.

 

If San Andreas had better graphics and Euphoria physics, the game would be unbeatable. I mean, it's taken 9 years for Rockstar to re-implement swimming underwater.

 

Having three main characters, none of which I particularly like, isn't 'groundbreaking'. I'd rate it a 6/10, and that's being kind.

 

This is exactly the problem with you guys. You just want a 2,0 game. Where the hell is the fun of just playing the same product all over again? Unlike some developers (Activision), Rockstar actually have ambition and innovation.

 

Exactly. That is why I bet R secretly loathe SA. You create something great and now people just want you copy it over and over again instead of making something else that might be different but still great. I am starting maybe Rockstar should just make a SA PT 2 so people will be happy then they can get back to making the games they want.

[Smith John]

I wish GTA 4 and 5 never existed.

 

Explain.

[BarelyLegal]

 

I preferred San Andreas. Not because I'm a fanboy, but because I genuinely thought it was a better game.

 

Admittedly I was a lot younger, but I much preferred the story, the soundtrack, the environment, the characters, almost everything.

 

If San Andreas had better graphics and Euphoria physics, the game would be unbeatable. I mean, it's taken 9 years for Rockstar to re-implement swimming underwater.

 

Having three main characters, none of which I particularly like, isn't 'groundbreaking'. I'd rate it a 6/10, and that's being kind.

 

This is exactly the problem with you guys. You just want a 2,0 game. Where the hell is the fun of just playing the same product all over again? Unlike some developers (Activision), Rockstar actually have ambition and innovation.

 

I haven't played San Andreas properly for years. I've absolutely exhausted that game, I don't get the same level of enjoyment out of it that I once did.

 

That said, I still prefer it.

[spamtackey]

Most gamers don't get how game design works. They weren't just experimenting with RAGE while they made GTA IV, they created the engine and the game in a 4 year period. I wish I could find it, but I remember reading an interview perhaps a year or half-a-year before IV came out and Rockstar mentioned they had the material but were now putting it all together in one open world. Even if I'm imagining that, we could see their work in each trailer.

 

Trailer 1: Very low-intensive environment shots and sped up foot-traffic. Not really gameplay. Could easily have been pre-rendered.

 

Trailer 2: First time we saw IV in action. The framerate was noticeably terrible. They had not yet gotten it even running well.

 

Trailer 3: Finally the game looks like the GTA IV we got.

 

Trailer 4: They managed to show off some of the beauty in their game with this one I think. It really showcased all of their hard work.

 

They never removed features from IV, they built IV from the ground up. Their first open-world game on their new engine, which they had only used to make a table tennis game. IV was damn impressive for their first work.

 

---

 

That's why, for me, V is much less impressive. It's a fun game but it doesn't feel like 5 years of work went into it. It's full of things that feel half-polished, the main gameplay feels unbalanced, and their focus on online makes me wonder if they spent too much time on online. Don't get me wrong, I like V (I spent 80+ hours on it already and am still playing it), I just don't pretend its perfect.

[AtomicPunk]

Wishing there were never a San Andreas is like wishing there was never an original VW Beetle that got like seriously good gas mileage and hardly ever broke down and only wanting to remember the new VW Beetle that only gets 16MPG and is a pile of cheap junk. After the original, it's hard to accept some cheap assembly line production.

[ramtastic]

That's like saying you wish the Sistine chapel was never painted so people didn't compare Michaelangelo's other works to it....

[Fuzzknuckles]

 

I'm really glad it did exist. The wait between VC and IV would have been unbearable.

 

You've just set yourself quite unrealistically high expectations. R* are at the top of the game, no doubt, but they're not miracle workers. A lot of people expected WAY more than was actually possible and don't seem to understand that, while they may have been able to do SOME of what was left out, they couldn't do all.

 

I think a lot of that was due to not wanting to repeat themselves. What's the point of just making an HD remake - and by that I just mean putting the exact same features in a better engine.

 

Personally, I would have found that utterly disappointing - I love the fact that they constantly innovate and refine.

 

Er, I don't think you read my post properly chief

 

Er, I did, I just expressed a different point of view.

 

I agree, you're right, sort of. But it's just too abstract a concept. It DID exist. Without it, we wouldn't have got to where we are now. We may not have even had IV. So we wouldn't have had V.

 

Where to next, skipper?

[bish0p2004]

 

I preferred San Andreas. Not because I'm a fanboy, but because I genuinely thought it was a better game.

 

Admittedly I was a lot younger, but I much preferred the story, the soundtrack, the environment, the characters, almost everything.

 

If San Andreas had better graphics and Euphoria physics, the game would be unbeatable. I mean, it's taken 9 years for Rockstar to re-implement swimming underwater.

 

Having three main characters, none of which I particularly like, isn't 'groundbreaking'. I'd rate it a 6/10, and that's being kind.

 

This is exactly the problem with you guys. You just want a 2,0 game. Where the hell is the fun of just playing the same product all over again? Unlike some developers (Activision), Rockstar actually have ambition and innovation.

The problem with you guys is that R* could take a dump, put it in a case, label the case GTA, sell it and you would still be satisfied with it.

 

Not saying V is crap, just that expectations have increased.

Edited October 9, 2013 by bish0p2004

[woggleman]

If Beatles fans were like SA fans they would get mad at them for not making a Hard Days Night over and over again.

[jamieleng]

To tell you the truth, I think Rockstar have taken too much notice of so called fans. I don't want to play a fan's version of what a GTA game should be, I want to play Rockstar's vision of a GTA game.

 

I loved San Andreas & I loved IV. So what does that make me? Now V is an incredible game & a technical marvel, but it seems like it tries a little too hard to please the people who whined about IV. I would've preferred it if some aspects (like all vehicle handling) were closer to IV, than they are to V. They oversimplified the car & bike handling, then complicated the aerial vehicles. The bicycles seem pretty much the same as SA (if memory serves correctly). The gunplay is the biggest improvement & the character switching is the best addition, in my eyes.

 

@AtomicPunk

 

I agree with you about the modern Beetle. I don't know if they've improved it since I last drove one, but it was one of the worst cars I've ever driven & I've driven a few in my time.

Edited October 9, 2013 by jamieleng

[Fuzzknuckles]

To tell you the truth, I think Rockstar have taken too much notice of so called fans. I don't want to play a fan's version of what a GTA game should be, I want to play Rockstar's vision of a GTA game.

DING DING DING, we have a winner.

 

Absolutely this. I think we got most of that, with a few dashes of San Andreas lumped in. It's a crowd pleaser, but it's also a big innovation. Sure, the story is short, it's been plagued with dodgy online launch issues, but it's still, IN MY OPINION, the best game R* have ever put out. By a long, long way.

 

I can only attribute all the complaints to overly high expectations and an unrealistic list of wants. And it wasn't San An 2.0.

[Smith John]

 

 

I preferred San Andreas. Not because I'm a fanboy, but because I genuinely thought it was a better game.

 

Admittedly I was a lot younger, but I much preferred the story, the soundtrack, the environment, the characters, almost everything.

 

If San Andreas had better graphics and Euphoria physics, the game would be unbeatable. I mean, it's taken 9 years for Rockstar to re-implement swimming underwater.

 

Having three main characters, none of which I particularly like, isn't 'groundbreaking'. I'd rate it a 6/10, and that's being kind.

 

This is exactly the problem with you guys. You just want a 2,0 game. Where the hell is the fun of just playing the same product all over again? Unlike some developers (Activision), Rockstar actually have ambition and innovation.

 

Exactly. That is why I bet R secretly loathe SA. You create something great and now people just want you copy it over and over again instead of making something else that might be different but still great. I am starting maybe Rockstar should just make a SA PT 2 so people will be happy then they can get back to making the games they want.

 

 

Couldn't agree more

 

I'm 100% certain that while R* are proud of what they achieved with SA, deep down they f*cking hate what it's done to a certain group of the fans.

 

Even if they were to make a San Andreas 2.0 to shut them up, they'd still complain that the next GTA..."sukz wher iz cj". Basically they'll want a 3.0/4.0/5.0........

 

Most gamers don't get how game design works. They weren't just experimenting with RAGE while they made GTA IV, they created the engine and the game in a 4 year period. I wish I could find it, but I remember reading an interview perhaps a year or half-a-year before IV came out and Rockstar mentioned they had the material but were now putting it all together in one open world. Even if I'm imagining that, we could see their work in each trailer.

 

Trailer 1: Very low-intensive environment shots and sped up foot-traffic. Not really gameplay. Could easily have been pre-rendered.

 

Trailer 2: First time we saw IV in action. The framerate was noticeably terrible. They had not yet gotten it even running well.

 

Trailer 3: Finally the game looks like the GTA IV we got.

 

Trailer 4: They managed to show off some of the beauty in their game with this one I think. It really showcased all of their hard work.

 

They never removed features from IV, they built IV from the ground up. Their first open-world game on their new engine, which they had only used to make a table tennis game. IV was damn impressive for their first work.

 

---

 

That's why, for me, V is much less impressive. It's a fun game but it doesn't feel like 5 years of work went into it. It's full of things that feel half-polished, the main gameplay feels unbalanced, and their focus on online makes me wonder if they spent too much time on online. Don't get me wrong, I like V (I spent 80+ hours on it already and am still playing it), I just don't pretend its perfect.

 

'Experiment' was probably the wrong word to use, nonetheless, they weren't as familiar with the current gen systems when creating IV as they were with the previous gen systems when creating SA, which is why I believe they were unable to match SA in terms of size and content.

 

As for your point regarding V not feeling like a five year developed game; GTA V cost $180 million to make. Do you think they just pissed that money down the drain? I think your expections were a little too high man.

[ten-a-penny]

what? GTA SA was the best GTA-III Era game ever and you say you wish it didn't exist

[woggleman]

If you play V and really look at you can clearly see where that money went. The detail is just unreal.

[NYdreamz]

so by stating that....

you would agree that every game that is the considered the best in its franchise by the online community should go as well

am i right ???

Edited October 9, 2013 by NYdreamz

[Smith John]

 

To tell you the truth, I think Rockstar have taken too much notice of so called fans. I don't want to play a fan's version of what a GTA game should be, I want to play Rockstar's vision of a GTA game.

DING DING DING, we have a winner.

 

Absolutely this. I think we got most of that, with a few dashes of San Andreas lumped in. It's a crowd pleaser, but it's also a big innovation. Sure, the story is short, it's been plagued with dodgy online launch issues, but it's still, IN MY OPINION, the best game R* have ever put out. By a long, long way.

 

I can only attribute all the complaints to overly high expectations and an unrealistic list of wants. And it wasn't San An 2.0.

 

 

This is exactly what I'm trying to say, which is why I felt you didn't read my op properly.

[Marty892]

Most gamers don't get how game design works. They weren't just experimenting with RAGE while they made GTA IV, they created the engine and the game in a 4 year period. I wish I could find it, but I remember reading an interview perhaps a year or half-a-year before IV came out and Rockstar mentioned they had the material but were now putting it all together in one open world. Even if I'm imagining that, we could see their work in each trailer.

 

Trailer 1: Very low-intensive environment shots and sped up foot-traffic. Not really gameplay. Could easily have been pre-rendered.

 

Trailer 2: First time we saw IV in action. The framerate was noticeably terrible. They had not yet gotten it even running well.

 

Trailer 3: Finally the game looks like the GTA IV we got.

 

Trailer 4: They managed to show off some of the beauty in their game with this one I think. It really showcased all of their hard work.

 

They never removed features from IV, they built IV from the ground up. Their first open-world game on their new engine, which they had only used to make a table tennis game. IV was damn impressive for their first work.

YES, finally someone who understands that. Also everything needed a lot more work in IV! SA had crappy models, simple scripts, animations etc. It all changed with IV.

 

To tell you the truth, I think Rockstar have taken too much notice of so called fans. I don't want to play a fan's version of what a GTA game should be, I want to play Rockstar's vision of a GTA game.

I agree with that. Rockstar should made GTA V exactly like they wanted it to be! Maybe we could get much better game if they didn't listen to those "fans". But anyway GTA V is the best GTA, no doubt about it!

Edited October 9, 2013 by TheTruthOnly

[bish0p2004]

 

To tell you the truth, I think Rockstar have taken too much notice of so called fans. I don't want to play a fan's version of what a GTA game should be, I want to play Rockstar's vision of a GTA game.

 

DING DING DING, we have a winner.

 

Absolutely this. I think we got most of that, with a few dashesquote name="jamieleng" post="1063676357" timestamp="1381345122"]

To tell you the truth, I think Rockstar have taken too much notice of so called fans. I don't want to play a fan's version of what a GTA game should be, I want to play Rockstar's vision of a GTA game.

 

I loved San Andreas & I loved IV. So what does that make me? Now V is an incredible game & a technical marvel, but it seems like it tries a little too hard to please the people who whined about IV. I would've preferred it if some aspects (like all vehicle handling) were closer to IV, than they are to V. They oversimplified the car & bike handling, then complicated the aerial vehicles. The bicycles seem pretty much the same as SA (if memory serves correctly). The gunplay is the biggest improvement & the character switching is the best addition, in my eyes.

 

You say that they listen to the fans too much, but then list only one change that people complained about.

 

I disagree with them listening to fans for the most part as we probably would have truly gotten SA 2.0 if that were the case.

 

Instead, they decided to go with a more realistic vision in IV and then follow along those same lines in V by keeping certain activities out of the game that don't fit the characters narrative.

 

Not saying I want SA 2.0, just stating that R* does follow their own vision.

Edited October 9, 2013 by bish0p2004

[jptawok]

Nah, I just wish the haters against it didn't exist. You guys are an enigma, you played the sh*t out of it, loved it back then, but because something "bigger" and "better" is out, it's not ok to miss it. Sorry, just because you don't like people comparing the two doesnt mean it shouldnt have existed in the first place.

 

Maybe Rockstar should've realized that their misleadings lead us to believe that this game would at least be on par with SA, unfortunately, it's not. I should've expect 4.1, great story with little substance. Back to SA and RDR.