gta : san andreas LOOKS HORRID on my HDTV

coolieman2001

coolieman2001

CAGiversary!
San An has the worst graphics i have ever seen for seen for a ps2 game. Okay maybe not the worst .. but there pretty bad. I tested it out on a HDTV and a non-HDTV and it looks alot better on the non HDTV . IS this because of it not being in Progressive Scan ? Thats the only thing i can think of.
 
[quote name='Cracka']WELL i guess that SUCKS FOR you.

p.s. NICE USE of caps in THE title.[/quote]

I edited it just for you crackahead
 
[quote name='coolieman2001'][quote name='Cracka']WELL i guess that SUCKS FOR you.

p.s. NICE USE of caps in THE title.[/quote]

I edited it just for you crackahead[/quote]

just messin with you
 
it does really suck for you. i think i just found a HUGE secret are in the game(it has to do with underwater HINT HINT) but if you want to find out where it is. drop me a PM or aim- milkmanowondr
 
MGS3 is just the bomb-diggidy game.

It would look beautiful on a 1970 built tv in technicolor.

HDTV is a lil taste of heaven. =D
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']this is the limitations of the PS2 hardware, my friend[/quote]

No, it is the limitation of crappy programmers. The lack of loading is impressive, but a lot of games can do no loading and still look decent.

I have put enough hours and watched my roommate put far too many hours into this game. When will people realize that it is subpar in every way except in the sheer number of immature sex and gay jokes (I'm sorry but not every number in the game needs to be 69) and map size (which they use far too much to lengthen missions).
 
MGS 3 looks great....not like the most beautiful game but what they did works and never looks unatractive
 
[quote name='Tromack'][quote name='ElwoodCuse']this is the limitations of the PS2 hardware, my friend[/quote]

No, it is the limitation of crappy programmers. The lack of loading is impressive, but a lot of games can do no loading and still look decent.

I have put enough hours and watched my roommate put far too many hours into this game. When will people realize that it is subpar in every way except in the sheer number of immature sex and gay jokes (I'm sorry but not every number in the game needs to be 69) and map size (which they use far too much to lengthen missions).[/quote]

Probably about the time the next GTA comes out. :D
 
[quote name='Tromack']
No, it is the limitation of crappy programmers. The lack of loading is impressive, but a lot of games can do no loading and still look decent.

I have put enough hours and watched my roommate put far too many hours into this game. When will people realize that it is subpar in every way except in the sheer number of immature sex and gay jokes (I'm sorry but not every number in the game needs to be 69) and map size (which they use far too much to lengthen missions).[/quote]

:applause:

i played this game for about 7 hours, then it just got old...
rockstar needs to evolve the series, not just add a new vehicle each game.

look at games like jak and daxter...that game came out 2 years ago, has no load times and really beautiful graphics.
 
[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='Tromack']
No, it is the limitation of crappy programmers. The lack of loading is impressive, but a lot of games can do no loading and still look decent.

I have put enough hours and watched my roommate put far too many hours into this game. When will people realize that it is subpar in every way except in the sheer number of immature sex and gay jokes (I'm sorry but not every number in the game needs to be 69) and map size (which they use far too much to lengthen missions).[/quote]

:applause:

i played this game for about 7 hours, then it just got old...
rockstar needs to evolve the series, not just add a new vehicle each game.

look at games like jak and daxter...that game came out 2 years ago, has no load times and really beautiful graphics.[/quote]

I agree that the graphics are sub par and the game chugs on older PS2s, but it is still fun to play. Comparing the load times in Jak and Daxter to San Andreas is apples to oranges. San Andreas is massive. J&D's environments are tiny compared to GTA:SA.

The only other game I would compare to GTA:SA's massive, no loading environments would be Spider-Man 2 - and that game looks worse than San Andreas.

You've admitted that you only played SA for 7 hours (barely scratched the surface) yet you say that all Rockstar added was "a new vehicle." I don't think you are in a position to say what they've added since you were probably still in Los Santos when you quit.

The GTA series, like it or not, has ushered in the trend of "free roam" gameplay to many genres of games from Jak and Daxter (see Jak2), SSX 3, not to mention the countless GTA-themed ripoffs.

While you might not feel that Rockstar is evolving their series very much from title to title, they are causing others to change the way they make games.

The GTA series is a "love it or hate it" collection of games. The people who love it look past its many faults (and I admit there are many) because the gameplay is so open and varied. The people who hate it can't ignore it's many flaws and seem to get bored with the open-ended gameplay.
 
[quote name='lebowsky']I agree that the graphics are sub par and the game chugs on older PS2s, but it is still fun to play. Comparing the load times in Jak and Daxter to San Andreas is apples to oranges. San Andreas is massive. J&D's environments are tiny compared to GTA:SA.[/quote]

comparing any game to another could be called apples and oranges for many reasons. and graphics is the last thing i care about even. i prefectly content with the graphics on SA, its more the lighting that i despise.

You've admitted that you only played SA for 7 hours (barely scratched the surface) yet you say that all Rockstar added was "a new vehicle." I don't think you are in a position to say what they've added since you were probably still in Los Santos when you quit.
Click to expand...

yes, i know theres alot more to the game, but it sure didnt feel like it. in the time i played it, i did maybe 20 missions. they were varied enough i suppose, but what i really liked was going to the gym and getting new clothes (can you tell animal crossing is my fav game this gen? ^^) i loved 3 when 3 came out, but the series, to me, is just stuck in the middle of what it used to be and what it could be.

i cant wait for the next gens systems to come out, and everyone to claim the next gta game is gunna be insane (as always) and it just be more of the same, with better graphics...cant wait.


The GTA series, like it or not, has ushered in the trend of "free roam" gameplay to many genres of games from Jak and Daxter (see Jak2), SSX 3, not to mention the countless GTA-themed ripoffs.
Click to expand...

ive never played jak 2, but i have heard the comparison before...whats so free roam about it thats diffrent from the 1st game?

the free roam gameplay is good in cases where its executed properly, but in some games, it just feels gimmicky.

the gta ripoffs are just terrible. simpsons aside, they are the most uncreative, unfun games there are. true crime was horrid...do i even have to mention driver 3?

While you might not feel that Rockstar is evolving their series very much from title to title, they are causing others to change the way they make games.
Click to expand...

i disagree with that. developers saw what a huge hit gta3 was and said "how can we capitalize off this and cram it into our games?" but VC and SA havent had much an impact outside of the rip-off games.

The GTA series is a "love it or hate it" collection of games. The people who love it look past its many faults (and I admit there are many) because the gameplay is so open and varied. The people who hate it can't ignore it's many flaws and seem to get bored with the open-ended gameplay.
Click to expand...
see now i dont love it, nor hate it...its alright for what it is, i just need something to keep me motivated to keep playing a game, the gta series cant do that for me...its not very motivating playing for 7 hours and having 3% of the game complete.
 
The graphics really suffer when you hit top speed . . . blurrrrrrrrrrrrrring

Its managable on my HDTV . . . but I have a tube 32 inch non widescreen set. I tried others but I felt most regular programming looks bad. Got my set 2-years ago for $1000 . . . I'll upgrade later.

But the bigger the screen the more pronounced that poor signal or graphics are.

I agree that Xbox blows the PS2 out of the water . . . too bad the games just aren't there.

Halo 2 and Ninja Gaiden were the only big ones for me this year.

GTASA, Ratchet, Jak, Katamari, Sly2 . . . all require my PS2 to stay running.
 
[quote name='lebowsky']I agree that the graphics are sub par and the game chugs on older PS2s, but it is still fun to play. Comparing the load times in Jak and Daxter to San Andreas is apples to oranges. San Andreas is massive. J&D's environments are tiny compared to GTA:SA.[/quote]

[quote name='punqsux']comparing any game to another could be called apples and oranges for many reasons. and graphics is the last thing i care about even. i prefectly content with the graphics on SA, its more the lighting that i despise.[/quote]

[quote name='lebowsky']
You've admitted that you only played SA for 7 hours (barely scratched the surface) yet you say that all Rockstar added was "a new vehicle." I don't think you are in a position to say what they've added since you were probably still in Los Santos when you quit.[/quote]

[quote name='punqsux']yes, i know theres alot more to the game, but it sure didnt feel like it. in the time i played it, i did maybe 20 missions. they were varied enough i suppose, but what i really liked was going to the gym and getting new clothes (can you tell animal crossing is my fav game this gen? ^^) i loved 3 when 3 came out, but the series, to me, is just stuck in the middle of what it used to be and what it could be.[/quote]

Well we have something in common. Animal Crossing is one my all time favorite games as well. Animal Crossing DS is basically the only reason I want a DS right now.

[quote name='punqsux']i cant wait for the next gens systems to come out, and everyone to claim the next gta game is gunna be insane (as always) and it just be more of the same, with better graphics...cant wait.[/quote]

Which would be fine be me. Clean up the draw distance, the slowdown, and the texture pop-in and I'd be happy to play the next GTA game.

[quote name='lebowsky']The GTA series, like it or not, has ushered in the trend of "free roam" gameplay to many genres of games from Jak and Daxter (see Jak2), SSX 3, not to mention the countless GTA-themed ripoffs.[/quote]

[quote name='punqsux']ive never played jak 2, but i have heard the comparison before...whats so free roam about it thats diffrent from the 1st game?[/quote]

You basically roam around Haven City and take missions from various characters to further the plot. The city is quite large and you can "jack" vehicles and drive around.

[quote name='punqsux']the free roam gameplay is good in cases where its executed properly, but in some games, it just feels gimmicky.

the gta ripoffs are just terrible. simpsons aside, they are the most uncreative, unfun games there are. true crime was horrid...do i even have to mention driver 3?[/quote]

[quote name='lebowsky']While you might not feel that Rockstar is evolving their series very much from title to title, they are causing others to change the way they make games.[/quote]

[quote name='punqsux']i disagree with that. developers saw what a huge hit gta3 was and said "how can we capitalize off this and cram it into our games?" but VC and SA havent had much an impact outside of the rip-off games.[/quote]

I would say that it had a positive impact on SSX 3 since allowing you to free-ride the mountain made the game feel more organic and real than SSX or Tricky did. I haven't played it but a lot of the NFSU2 reviews have positive comments about being able to free-ride around the city while entering events when you feel like it.

[quote name='lebowsky']The GTA series is a "love it or hate it" collection of games. The people who love it look past its many faults (and I admit there are many) because the gameplay is so open and varied. The people who hate it can't ignore it's many flaws and seem to get bored with the open-ended gameplay.[/quote]

[quote name='punqsux']see now i dont love it, nor hate it...its alright for what it is, i just need something to keep me motivated to keep playing a game, the gta series cant do that for me...its not very motivating playing for 7 hours and having 3% of the game complete.[/quote]

Anyway, you made some good points and I agree that the GTA series has not evolved much since it's debut in 3d, but I love the gameplay so I guess that doesn't bother me. I actually enjoy a game that takes a long time to play. I've got about 40 hours into San Andreas and I'm at about 34%.
 
I assumed it was like that on all TV's. Haven't played it on a non-HDTV yet. It does look bad, but I don't mind it too much.

I also agree that the GTA series hasn't changed much. But what can they really change that will make it better. It DOES need a major graphical over-haul, but other than that, its hard to think of anything they could change. The only things they can change are small details. I like the way they went with GTA:SA and how you can customize your guy. I just wish it were more in depth, like fable.

[quote name='schultzed']
I agree that Xbox blows the PS2 out of the water . . . too bad the games just aren't there.
[/quote]

Sorry, had to comment on this. How does XBOX 'blow PS2 out of the water"? Sure it beats it when it comes to system specs and the multi-platform games do look best on xbox. But in no way does it BLOW it out of the water. I would say XBOX blows PSOne out of the water, but not PS2. They are pretty close. There isn't THAT much of a difference between all 4 next-gen consoles (DC included). And you are comparing one of the worst graphical games on the PS2 to xbox games. Why not try comparing MGS3, JAk 3, Gran Turismo, Killzone.
 
Probaly schultzed's comment:
I agree that Xbox blows the PS2 out of the water . . . too bad the games just aren't there.
Click to expand...
was aimed at the graphics ability of the two consoles and he would be correct.

I have all three consoles and games can look very good on the PS2 but when you put it agaist a XBox on something like my 65" WS HDTV there is no competition in the graphics dept. The jaggies are pretty bad on my HDTV with the PS2 but minimal on my interlaced tv becuase of the reduced resolution and screen size. On smaller non HDTV tv's it's harder to notice the difference.

I skipped this installment of GTA as GTA:VC bored me after 10 hours. Maybe i'm getting too old for that type of game.
 
[quote name='lebowsky']

I agree that the graphics are sub par and the game chugs on older PS2s, but it is still fun to play. [/quote]

Chugs on older ps2? no wonder! i have an older ps2 and I noticed the game is pretty choppy. I thought that it was just some kind of weird interaction with my HDTV. My cousin borrowed it and played it on his recent ps2 and non hd TV and he didnt notice any problems. So I'm double screwed on this game , old ps2 and HDTV!

Is there some place where i can read about the game getting all choppy on other people's ps2s? a forum thread or something?
 
..immature sex and gay jokes? Uhh..

The graphics really suffer when you hit top speed . . . blurrrrrrrrrrrrrring
Click to expand...

..are you serious? You realize that's supposed to be a "sense of speed", right?

GTA:SA is a pretty good example of my idea.. make a huge ass game with subpar graphics. I'd rather play a 100+hour game than an 8 hour game with pretty graphics (Like Fable, Halo, etc). HOWEVER.. San Andreas has not been able to hold my interest. It's worn off.

Though I did find out today that you can place satchel's on pedestrians, thus creating suicide bombers, which adds a bit more to the game, sadly enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top