Was GTA San Andreas way ahead of its time?

[Nourchame]

When you guys played San Andreas for the first time when it came out, What was your first impression of it and was it better than most games you played before it?

[Algonquin Assassin]

No.

 

Literally my first impression was "Eww this game somehow looks worse than Vice City". Not kidding. As I've said many times before in other discussions San Andreas always left a bad taste in my mouth and it's one of the few GTA games I couldn't be bothered to finish.

 

[DOUGL4S1]

In technical and graphical terms? No, it didn't really have mind-blowingly good graphics (even for 2004), it has pop-in problems even in modern hardware and I personally prefer the weather effects from Vice City.

 

In terms of missions, features and stuff to do? Absolutelly, it's probably the GTA I took the longest to 100%, and I still haven't explored everything I could do (mostly because I don't care about the girlfriends system).

 

I remember I wasn't blown away when I first played it, mostly because I couldn't understand a dickle of english and had no idea of what to do in missions, so I would just explore around. But when I did get an understanding of how to play it, I was pretty impressed by just how much stuff there is to do.

[santosvagos]

No i don't think it's ahead of its time in 2004 , Vive city have better graphic , effect and weapon sounds but i still love GTA SA  i always love things that take inspiration from life in the hoods and Rockstar did a good job in SA even the storyline feel some kind of lost in the middle of the game  . 

[Sunglasses]

In terms of how impressive games can get, not limited to GTA, SA blew my mind, I wouldn't necessarily say it was ahead of its time but the amount of content Rockstar crammed onto a PS2 disc is amazing.

[El Penguin Bobo]

Back in 2004, hell yeah. There was so much stuff to do, so many features and stats, and a big ass map. It was everyone's game back then. No one couldn't pull any of this off in 2004.

 

But, of course, currently, you can see the outdatedness in the game. The AI, sound effects, (they were sh*tty in the first place), draw distance, stats, etc. Right now, there's better games out there.

 

Doesn't mean I'll stop playing SA though, lol.

[ChengizVlad09]

I don't want to sound being full of $hit, but that game is still ahead of the newer instalments (at least) when it comes to some things, like driving mechanics for example - which is the very core of the gameplay and one of the gameplay backbones of the franchise, whether you like the driving aspect or not.

 

Not only is driving physics far more sophisticated and offers much more in that sense, but everything after that looks like dumbed down version of driving mechanics shown in SA.

Edited July 13, 2019 by ChengizVlad09

[Lioshenka]

I am not a huge fan of new games, so yeah, when I launched GTA SA I was absolutely blown away by it.

 

The thing that impressed me the most were the bumpers that could be damaged in such a way that they stay on, but keep bouncing up and down as you drive. This was amazing.

 

Of course, things that you had to experience early in the game - cycling, countryside, spray paintingm heat rising from the pavement and pink mohawk were also impressive compared to GTA 3 and VC, Warcraft 2, Commander Keen and Dangerous Dave.

 

I have played allegedly more advanced games later, and to be fair, advanced as they are, they fail to be as impressive as SA. Mafia series are the only ones that are comparably good.

Edited July 13, 2019 by Lioshenka

[Streck]

5 hours ago, Lioshenka said:

I am not a huge fan of new games, so yeah, when I launched GTA SA I was absolutely blown away by it.

 

The thing that impressed me the most were the bumpers that could be damaged in such a way that they stay on, but keep bouncing up and down as you drive. This was amazing.

 

Of course, things that you had to experience early in the game - cycling, countryside, spray paintingm heat rising from the pavement and pink mohawk were also impressive compared to GTA 3 and VC, Warcraft 2, Commander Keen and Dangerous Dave.

 

I have played allegedly more advanced games later, and to be fair, advanced as they are, they fail to be as impressive as SA. Mafia series are the only ones that are comparably good.

I agree, the old games are where it's at. Are the new ones sweet as well? - Yes. But III, VC, and SA are where it's at. I actually stream on the weekends and working on the SA grind (360 version backwards compat on a X1). Twitch.tv/Strecktacular

[TheSantader25]

I just couldn't understand how a game could be this good and complete. It was nearly perfect. 

[Official General]

My first impression of it playing it back in 2004, I was blown away indeed. The sheer variety, size, and scale of the map had my eyes wide open to begin with. And the seemingly endless amount of new and revolutionary features and activities had my jaw-dropping. To me it was the best game of it's kind I had seen so far.

 

* The new concept of recruiting gang members and doing drive-by shootings had me wrapped in total amazement.

* The variety, beauty, and size of the map enthralled me to no end, I could not get enough of travelling between 3 cities and countryside.

* There were very few things in the game that were missing, and so much that was there.

* I could not put the game down for months on end. 

 

I really could not get my around the fact that a game like SA was possible to make at the time it first came out with the gaming technology of that time. I would say in some features it definitely led the way and was quite ahead.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Official General

[LordStarship]

I wouldn't say it's ahead of it's time, but for such a game it was actually very impressive. The map is quite large with lots of things and easter eggs to discover. What blew my mind back in like 2009, is that you can customize your own character. Fat, healthy, afro, using blue jeans or green jeans, different hats, it's just very impressive back at it's time. The missions are also quite impressive, even in End of The Line, they still give you useful tip, example to wear night vision google, which was not introduced. The storyline is very good, but some characters development like Ryder and T-Bone were not pretty great, mostly due to real life issues. The A.I. is pretty good at it's time, and the graphic is a little better compared to Vice City. 

 

Well, it's not way ahead, but i'd say it's ahead just a little bit. GTA SA is one succesful game, back in it's era, and even now. 

[DeftMacaroon510]

Absolutely, no gta game since has even had as much both content and freedom at the same time as this one did and it’s pretty obvious that they never will again, 5 tried to imitate it and failed miserably and half of SA’s features were missing to begin with, not to mention that the gameplay is less clunky in this than a game that released in 2013. I love every game in the series but San Andreas is just untouched and way above the others, I actually personally have more nostalgia for vice city but I feel it just doesn’t hold up like this does. The gameplay, story and map are still so brilliant that the graphics aren’t even a consideration to me.

[lil weasel]

It was advanced, concurrent with the Video Card and Memory capabilities of the Day.

Using the best specs of the equipment, many machines could not handle it.

 

It was the best mix of graphics and Play-ability at the time.

 

So of course it WAS a leading expansion to game play.

 

 

 

[Big_Smiley]

On 7/12/2019 at 9:30 PM, LCLegend said:

In terms of how impressive games can get, not limited to GTA, SA blew my mind, I wouldn't necessarily say it was ahead of its time but the amount of content Rockstar crammed onto a PS2 disc is amazing.

If wasn't for the low graphics mabye the PS2 would have blown up after so many plays, lol. It really was impressive how much they could push the PS2's limits with such a huge game like this. Just like they did with V on both the PS3 and 360. Really at the time who would have thought having three large citites including rual areas and a desert was even manageable on such a early time in gaming. Especially for the PS2 era.

[Mr Zedd]

Don't think it was, since previous games in the series in many ways introduced a number of exciting stuff we enjoyed about gta.

With san andreas, rockstar raised their ambition for open world experiences by pushing the limits as developers in giving us the best open world game they possibly could.

In the end, Rockstar was only emulating the same model of III and VC but on a bigger scale than before.

SA is an awesome game, and still my favourite of 3D era. Its much more fun and diverse than previous games but I don't find it ahead of time. 

It was definitely brilliant for a 2004 game, so much hours have gone into playing it. No other game during that time got me hooked on playing non-stop like SA did.

[LeslieFromTheShoIntimacy]

It was, except the graphics.  You don’t have to think it was the best game ever to think that it was indeed ahead of it’s time.

 

As mentioned before, the graphics weren’t exactly ground breaking for 2004.  The game had its’ issues (PS2 pop up, crappy R* car damage, etc) but it was certainly the most ambitious game of it’s time. I can’t think of any other game in 2004 or before that really had the scope and variety of gameplay as San Andreas. 

 

Now, that being said, the game hasn’t really aged too well imo... and feels quite dated when playing in 2019.

 

13 minutes ago, Mr Zedd said:

In the end, Rockstar was only emulating the same model of III and VC but on a bigger scale than before.

true; but just because the game includes elements from previous titles doesn’t mean it wasn’t ahead of it’s time.

[Official General]

21 hours ago, LeslieFromTheShoIntimacy said:

It was, except the graphics.  You don’t have to think it was the best game ever to think that it was indeed ahead of it’s time.

 

As mentioned before, the graphics weren’t exactly ground breaking for 2004.  The game had its’ issues (PS2 pop up, crappy R* car damage, etc) but it was certainly the most ambitious game of it’s time. I can’t think of any other game in 2004 or before that really had the scope and variety of gameplay as San Andreas. 

 

Now, that being said, the game hasn’t really aged too well imo... and feels quite dated when playing in 2019.

 

true; but just because the game includes elements from previous titles doesn’t mean it wasn’t ahead of it’s time.

Nah....play it on PC at 60fps with SkyGfx and Project 2Dfx, feels much fresher, more advanced and a new game. 

[Bruh21]

I just wanted to say that almost everybody in this forum is a f*cking degenerate. Like how can you even say that it's not ahead of it's time w all the sh*t u can do in it And then talk abt the graphics is bad like just stfu it's a 2004 game w highest graphic settings its 100% better than all the others gtas (othet than iv and v) Anybody that say sh*t like that 100% didnt play the whole game and wtf is all that talk abt vice city being better like huhhhhhh howwwww bruh it's just not possible. Everybody knows gta sa is one of the best gtas ever and u can check the numbers too, it's a lot of sh*t in there that u cant even do in gta v

[squ1dd13]

1 hour ago, Bruh21 said:

I just wanted to say that almost everybody in this forum is a f*cking degenerate. Like how can you even say that it's not ahead of it's time w all the sh*t u can do in it And then talk abt the graphics is bad like just stfu it's a 2004 game w highest graphic settings its 100% better than all the others gtas (othet than iv and v) Anybody that say sh*t like that 100% didnt play the whole game and wtf is all that talk abt vice city being better like huhhhhhh howwwww bruh it's just not possible. Everybody knows gta sa is one of the best gtas ever and u can check the numbers too, it's a lot of sh*t in there that u cant even do in gta v

I disagree, but I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Regarding graphics, the reason people are saying the graphics aren't great is because we're talking about it relative to other games in 2004 rather than now. There were games with graphics as good as and better than those of GTA San Andreas already available at the time (in my opinion).

Edited September 26, 2020 by Squ1dd13

[Funktipus]

On 7/15/2019 at 7:01 PM, DeftMacaroon510 said:

Absolutely, no gta game since has even had as much both content and freedom at the same time as this one did and it’s pretty obvious that they never will again, 5 tried to imitate it and failed miserably and half of SA’s features were missing to begin with, not to mention that the gameplay is less clunky in this than a game that released in 2013. I love every game in the series but San Andreas is just untouched and way above the others, I actually personally have more nostalgia for vice city but I feel it just doesn’t hold up like this does. The gameplay, story and map are still so brilliant that the graphics aren’t even a consideration to me.

My feelings exactly. To this day, I still play SA more than any other GTA game.

[Dr Busta]

Yes 

[GTA-Biker]

Honestly,while at the time I was quite impressed by GTA SA,I didn't realize just how good it was,but in hindsight I think it's mind blowing to see how much content that mid 2000s game had,seeing as it took R* years of DLCs to bring only some of the content GTA SA had from the start to a 9 years newer GTA Online (lowriders, nightclubs, gambling, Hydra, Hunter, APC/SWAT tank, Nokota/Rustler, homing rocket launcher, Tec 9, etc.),much of its content is still not available in GTA Online (multiple cities, gang recruitment, gang wars, burglary, protagonist's fat and muscle customization, dual wielding, flamethrower, SPAS 12 shotgun, katana, etc.),and very few stuff from SA is also available in GTA 5 singleplayer (vehicle customization, street racing, swimming, tattoos and haircuts, etc.).

[watersgta3]

The storyline still needs improvements, but other than that, I have to say yeah, it really was ahead of its time. I know there are some people who complain about the wasted space in the map, but I disagree. I thought the whole atmosphere was amazing and a realistic portrayal of the West Coast environment of the 1990s. The gameplay was also amazing and fun to do. I also like the included features as well (such as the ability to work out, eat, play arcade games, pool, etc.). The characters for the most part were also memorable, with some of them cohesive to the game's theme. While I do respect those who at least have legitimate reasons to not like the game (shout-out to Algonquin Assassin), I think that this game is still great and the best overall of the 3rd era. All it needs is better graphics, a more cohesive 90s vibe, and improvements of the storyline and it would be perfect and a bonafide GTA classic.

[Official General]

1 hour ago, watersgta3 said:

All it needs is better graphics, a more cohesive 90s vibe, and improvements of the storyline and it would be perfect and a bonafide GTA classic.

Mods do all of that bro, ready and waiting. 

[TimMiller]

It definitely blew my mind back then. The graphics were okay for 2004. Nothing too impressive, but not too bad neither, even tho i kinda disliked the hand models and lack of polygons in many parts lol

But it definitively didn't look worse than Vicecity, saying that is just BS. The Game had some beautiful skybox, amazing effects, like heat waves and great lightening. It looked good for the most part.

 

But when it comes to Gameplay, GTA SanAndreas definitely revolutionized open world gaming. The Map felt huge, all the vastness and variety it had, all the different vehicles, aircrafts and the fact that you could actually build muscles, get tats and much more. The Voice Acting was also very impressive, even random peds were voiced so well, giving them all unique personalities. Good Voice Acting in Videogames was not really the norm back then. 

 

Sure Games like Half Life 2 and Far cry looked way better, but SanAndreas was a Game in which you could do literally everything. From driving a Low Rider through the Ghettos of Los Santos to base jumping from a huge mountain, or beating up prostitutes with a purple Dildo while wearing hearts underwear and joke glasses. 

 

So yeah overall it was ahead of its time in many ways.

Edited October 17, 2020 by TheDamnTrainCJ

[Daniel L]

Phew. When I was 4 years old, (I'm 14 now btw). I got a PS2 with some memory in it. I got broing games to it, but I had the GTA San Andreas disc to it.

Damn, when I played it first, I fell in love with it. PS2 had that colorful timecyc, you could feel like you're really in California.

We can say I "grew up" with GTA series, but still I'm happier with this, and I'm glad that I didn't grow up with Fortnite

 

I played it almost every day, every time, and I remember that nobody was interested in doing missions, I was the only one. I loved to explore the whole world of San Andreas, and listen to those good tunes in the radio.

It was a really good childhood for me jeez.

[5YearsOnEastCoast]

I remember playing this game for the first time in 2009/2010. It was my first sandbox game. And I was blown away by it. Like all the details put into it (designs, missions etc). It had a lot of stuff, especially compared to other mid 2000s games (more specifically other sandbox games).

[Guest]

Yeah.