RomanCohort
CAGiversary!
I did like chatterbox on GTA 3.
I dont like GTA
- Thread starter RomanCohort
- Start date
BrandonMills
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Heh. The only reason I find this post appropriate is because PSP is hoping a GTA saves its sorry ass.
I wouldn't hold my breath. I mean, I'm sure people who already bought the hardware are going to retaliate with just how much the PSP rocks over the DS, but it seems PSP really messed up with a high-priced, March release date. Nintendo seems to have nearly abandoned the Cube, with just one Zelda title coming for it, but all their dev power is now in the DS, which means PSP needs some surefire hits in order to win against it.
The funny thing about this is that none of this ever had to happen for the PSP. Imagine if they had launched with, say, a port for FFVII. Here is an interesting idea - launch during Xmas, and not the middle of Spring, when everyone is recovering from their Xmas bills.
Now Xbox 360 will be the next 'big thing' this Xmas, and PSP has lost its opportunity. I have to say, I'd be feeling pretty POed if I had bought a PSP about now.
( Not that I'm really too impressed with the Xbox 360, but thats for another post. )
I wouldn't hold my breath. I mean, I'm sure people who already bought the hardware are going to retaliate with just how much the PSP rocks over the DS, but it seems PSP really messed up with a high-priced, March release date. Nintendo seems to have nearly abandoned the Cube, with just one Zelda title coming for it, but all their dev power is now in the DS, which means PSP needs some surefire hits in order to win against it.
The funny thing about this is that none of this ever had to happen for the PSP. Imagine if they had launched with, say, a port for FFVII. Here is an interesting idea - launch during Xmas, and not the middle of Spring, when everyone is recovering from their Xmas bills.
Now Xbox 360 will be the next 'big thing' this Xmas, and PSP has lost its opportunity. I have to say, I'd be feeling pretty POed if I had bought a PSP about now.
( Not that I'm really too impressed with the Xbox 360, but thats for another post. )
supadupacheap
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 19 (100%)
[quote name='PenguinMaster'] But I can't understand the people who still really like GTAIII, but not the other two.[/QUOTE]
If they dont cite gameplay I can easily see why GTA3 is > Vice to some people. I liked the more generic feel of the main guy in GTA3 and the city was grittier. Vice was ok but Tommy was developed and left less to the imagination plus the 80s stuff was crammed down your throat non stop.
If they dont cite gameplay I can easily see why GTA3 is > Vice to some people. I liked the more generic feel of the main guy in GTA3 and the city was grittier. Vice was ok but Tommy was developed and left less to the imagination plus the 80s stuff was crammed down your throat non stop.
Chris in Cali
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 13 (88%)
[quote name='The VGM']So basically you don't like GTA because it doesn't have awesome graphics and you don't get to see your character and a hooker having sex.
Want a cookie?[/QUOTE]
The guy is a douche bag. The whole thread he's saying stupid shit, and never giving any valid reasons about anything. I honestly don't see what the point of this thread was. I guess he just had to let us know he wants deeper sex simulation games with better graphics to masturbate to in his basement.
Want a cookie?[/QUOTE]
The guy is a douche bag. The whole thread he's saying stupid shit, and never giving any valid reasons about anything. I honestly don't see what the point of this thread was. I guess he just had to let us know he wants deeper sex simulation games with better graphics to masturbate to in his basement.
The VGM
Banned
[quote name='Chris in Cali']The guy is a douche bag. The whole thread he's saying stupid shit, and never giving any valid reasons about anything. I honestly don't see what the point of this thread was. I guess he just had to let us know he wants deeper sex simulation games with better graphics to masturbate to in his basement.[/QUOTE]
lol
I agree, as I do with almost all your posts.
lol
I agree, as I do with almost all your posts.
let me preface by saying that i dont think GTA is the greatest game or series of all time, though i have enjoyed playing them. i just want to counter your arguments thats all.
[quote name='RomanCohort']First they had the same graphics since the thrid one[/QUOTE]
the graphics have improved slightly for each game, but i dont know what kind of improvement youre looking for. if you expect gta to have re4 type graphics then youre going to have to wait for the next generation because the amount of detail and action going on at any given time in GTA is far more intense than re4 or doom 3 for that matter
perhaps in 3 and VC, in SA though the car rocks and you get to hear cute sounds. but thats besides the point, if you want to see people having sex with hookers im sure you can find cheaper sites on the internet than a 50 dollar video game
they might not be huge leaps, but every game has had more features, especially with real time loading and small things you may not notice like motorcycles, better airplanes controls, better AI etc ... compare the size of Vice City to San Andreas, the place is huge, 3 cities and the country side inbetween, thats a HUGE improvement
obviosly the formula works, its sellings millions, one of the best of all time. the missions might be repetative at times, but they are fun and many times they are challenging, adding to the fun. you seem to focus a lot on having sex with hookers, thats not really part of the game, maybe you should try doing other things like unlocking everything.
again, the amount of detail that is going on the environments, all being loaded realtime is very intense. its not like re4 or doom 3 where they are set environments, when you drive around the cities in GTA youre likely to see new things all the time, different cars, cop chases, people talking to you and more.
you should have prefaced that with IMO, because if you look at the ratings the game has recieved then youre dead wrong. how many games can you do all the things you can in gta, drive, swim, fly, bikes, jetpacks, sky diving, drive tanks, take on an army, drive a taxi cab, ambulance, police car missions, make lots of money by owning a strip club, have sex with hookers (threw this in for you), listen to 80 music while you shoot cubans in an ice cream truck, i could go on and on, but i wont
im not, you dont like this game, there.
well considering GTA has sold far more copies than the halo series, and is one of the best selling franchises of this generation i dont think they need to change a damn thing, just keep improving the small things that you dont seem to look at.
end
[quote name='RomanCohort']First they had the same graphics since the thrid one[/QUOTE]
the graphics have improved slightly for each game, but i dont know what kind of improvement youre looking for. if you expect gta to have re4 type graphics then youre going to have to wait for the next generation because the amount of detail and action going on at any given time in GTA is far more intense than re4 or doom 3 for that matter
perhaps in 3 and VC, in SA though the car rocks and you get to hear cute sounds. but thats besides the point, if you want to see people having sex with hookers im sure you can find cheaper sites on the internet than a 50 dollar video game
they might not be huge leaps, but every game has had more features, especially with real time loading and small things you may not notice like motorcycles, better airplanes controls, better AI etc ... compare the size of Vice City to San Andreas, the place is huge, 3 cities and the country side inbetween, thats a HUGE improvement
obviosly the formula works, its sellings millions, one of the best of all time. the missions might be repetative at times, but they are fun and many times they are challenging, adding to the fun. you seem to focus a lot on having sex with hookers, thats not really part of the game, maybe you should try doing other things like unlocking everything.
again, the amount of detail that is going on the environments, all being loaded realtime is very intense. its not like re4 or doom 3 where they are set environments, when you drive around the cities in GTA youre likely to see new things all the time, different cars, cop chases, people talking to you and more.
you should have prefaced that with IMO, because if you look at the ratings the game has recieved then youre dead wrong. how many games can you do all the things you can in gta, drive, swim, fly, bikes, jetpacks, sky diving, drive tanks, take on an army, drive a taxi cab, ambulance, police car missions, make lots of money by owning a strip club, have sex with hookers (threw this in for you), listen to 80 music while you shoot cubans in an ice cream truck, i could go on and on, but i wont
im not, you dont like this game, there.
well considering GTA has sold far more copies than the halo series, and is one of the best selling franchises of this generation i dont think they need to change a damn thing, just keep improving the small things that you dont seem to look at.
end
manofpeace20
Banned
I personally believe Grand Theft Auto is the greatest series ever made. It successfully blended all sorts of gaming genres into one vast world. It's one of the few games where you don't have to constantly "be on a mission" and you can do all sorts of cool shit. For example, you could hang out with a group of friends and see who can kill the most people before the army comes in and runs you over with a tank. There is no other game that gives you so much freedom except for possibly Morrowind on the XBOX and PC.
With that said I can see why some may not like the game. Here is why:
1) Graphics aren't on par with other games, even though that is one shallow reason to dislike a game
2) Mature themes turn off the more conservative crowd
3) Storyline is rather generic
4) Some missions make you want to rip your hair out and throw your PS2 out the window.
5) Getting 100% completion is too daunting for gamers that MUST complete everything.
With that said I can see why some may not like the game. Here is why:
1) Graphics aren't on par with other games, even though that is one shallow reason to dislike a game
2) Mature themes turn off the more conservative crowd
3) Storyline is rather generic
4) Some missions make you want to rip your hair out and throw your PS2 out the window.
5) Getting 100% completion is too daunting for gamers that MUST complete everything.
Nirvanaguy777
CAGiversary!
I loved vice city because it was my first GTA games that was really so free roaming, beat that game totally (as in too the end of the story and most missions, not 100%). Then I got San Andreas and well I got bored, it became too expansive with too much that was too widespread. Basically it wasnt fun anymore and I probably wont buy the next one because it really is just more of the same for me.
Nirvanaguy777
CAGiversary!
[quote name='redgopher']Yes, the graphics are shit. I agree that they need an update.
But if all you managed to do when you played is just
a bunch of hookers, you're really missing the point.[/QUOTE]
Cant we all agree that graphics really dont make the game, some of the best games around have shitty graphics such as most PSone games.
But if all you managed to do when you played is just
a bunch of hookers, you're really missing the point.[/QUOTE]Cant we all agree that graphics really dont make the game, some of the best games around have shitty graphics such as most PSone games.
ChubbyChase
CAG Veteran
I'm another one that doesn't like GTA. It's just senseless destruction. With so much freedom it can get boring after awhile.
praystation
CAGiversary!
I dont like Mario.
Starwishi
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Nirvanaguy777']Cant we all agree that graphics really dont make the game, some of the best games around have shitty graphics such as most PSone games.[/QUOTE]
Its true that good graphics don't automatically make a game good, but its kinda hard to look pass the glitches in GTA, such as people disappearing through fences while ur trying to fight them and running into invisible objects. I mean, what the is that about?!
Its true that good graphics don't automatically make a game good, but its kinda hard to look pass the glitches in GTA, such as people disappearing through fences while ur trying to fight them and running into invisible objects. I mean, what the
is that about?!
bluesyncopate
CAGiversary!
gta are teh suck!!!!!!
Seriously, folks -- GTA3's concept was too far ahead of itself when the development team left the starting gate. It's amazing they managed what they did, considering the hardware and dev tools. Think about it. They didn't have the processing power to put all this s*** on the screen at once. To have the enrivonment so complex and full of crazy minutiae and to make the engine so well-oiled that it would be fun whether you were on a mission or just walking down the street staring at the polygon newspapers blowing across the road.
So what did they do? They seriously pared down the graphics. The textures were grainy and blurry. The character models were glorified stick-figures. The targeting system (at least on the PS2 version) was woefully crude. But for a lot of people, it was fun, and as graphics go, considering the scope of the enterprise, it wasn't that bad. For gamers like me, who like to explore giant 3D 'real-world' environments -- or for the people who just want to kick the hell out of innocent bystanders or steal a great-looking car without leaving the comfort of their first-amendment-protected home -- it was videogame heaven.
Some people don't like this sort of thing. Maybe they find it in poor taste (and don't appreciate the dark vein of humor running all through the series). Maybe they demand more structure. Maybe they demand better graphics (and don't feel one way or the other about the amazing environmental complexity). The game structure of GTA itself isn't broken; people just have different tastes. So what. There are things (bands, games, TV shows, movies) I hate that are extremely popular, but that's life: hating what other people love and vice versa and trying your best to be OK with it.
When people say they prefer GTA3 over VC or SA, they're only saying they like the story, atmosphere, and characters better. Of course the gameplay itself has been improved upon with each game (and no, the choice to have a nameless protagonist is not a technical choice, it's a storytelling decision). Of course the options and worlds have expanded greatly. But like feature films, improved graphics and CGI and mega-options cannot save a broken script or bad gameplay. GTA has neither. If you spruced up GTA's graphics to be more like Halo or Doom 3, then you'd pare back on everything people love about the series in the first place.
It's apples and oranges. Gamer X wants to be a nameless mobster in a late twentieth-century "New York". Gamer Y wants to be a (named) mobster in 1980s "Florida". Gamer Z wants to be Carl Johnson in "California" in the 1990s. If you're lucky enough to be Gamer Z, you get the best graphics, features, options, and size -- but the other gamers aren't sweating it, either.
As next-generation systems appear, gamers who are more concerned about graphics might want to give this series a chance. Or not. It honestly doesn't matter to me. What matters is people who declare the suckitude factor of a game and then display the lazy arrogance not to back up their declaration with even one sentence of explanation. In other words, "I don't need to back it up." It's boring and not fun to read and wastes everyone's time. I want your rationale, not your "teh sucks" or your "overrated". Tell me why.
Side-note: don't get me started on the first few GTA games. I know they have a hardcore following that will insist upon their absolute superiority over the 3D incarnation, but I can't see the point. The controls (especially on foot) were terrible and counter-intuitive. The radio stations reset each time you entered a car, forcing you to listen to the same 30-seconds or so over and over again. The missions were imaginative for their time, but simplistic in comparison to GTA 3D. And let's get real: the gang warfare aspects of GTA:SA are more fun and realistic than any of the much-heralded "strategize the green team against the red team!" shenanigans of GTA2.
Seriously, folks -- GTA3's concept was too far ahead of itself when the development team left the starting gate. It's amazing they managed what they did, considering the hardware and dev tools. Think about it. They didn't have the processing power to put all this s*** on the screen at once. To have the enrivonment so complex and full of crazy minutiae and to make the engine so well-oiled that it would be fun whether you were on a mission or just walking down the street staring at the polygon newspapers blowing across the road.
So what did they do? They seriously pared down the graphics. The textures were grainy and blurry. The character models were glorified stick-figures. The targeting system (at least on the PS2 version) was woefully crude. But for a lot of people, it was fun, and as graphics go, considering the scope of the enterprise, it wasn't that bad. For gamers like me, who like to explore giant 3D 'real-world' environments -- or for the people who just want to kick the hell out of innocent bystanders or steal a great-looking car without leaving the comfort of their first-amendment-protected home -- it was videogame heaven.
Some people don't like this sort of thing. Maybe they find it in poor taste (and don't appreciate the dark vein of humor running all through the series). Maybe they demand more structure. Maybe they demand better graphics (and don't feel one way or the other about the amazing environmental complexity). The game structure of GTA itself isn't broken; people just have different tastes. So what. There are things (bands, games, TV shows, movies) I hate that are extremely popular, but that's life: hating what other people love and vice versa and trying your best to be OK with it.
When people say they prefer GTA3 over VC or SA, they're only saying they like the story, atmosphere, and characters better. Of course the gameplay itself has been improved upon with each game (and no, the choice to have a nameless protagonist is not a technical choice, it's a storytelling decision). Of course the options and worlds have expanded greatly. But like feature films, improved graphics and CGI and mega-options cannot save a broken script or bad gameplay. GTA has neither. If you spruced up GTA's graphics to be more like Halo or Doom 3, then you'd pare back on everything people love about the series in the first place.
It's apples and oranges. Gamer X wants to be a nameless mobster in a late twentieth-century "New York". Gamer Y wants to be a (named) mobster in 1980s "Florida". Gamer Z wants to be Carl Johnson in "California" in the 1990s. If you're lucky enough to be Gamer Z, you get the best graphics, features, options, and size -- but the other gamers aren't sweating it, either.
As next-generation systems appear, gamers who are more concerned about graphics might want to give this series a chance. Or not. It honestly doesn't matter to me. What matters is people who declare the suckitude factor of a game and then display the lazy arrogance not to back up their declaration with even one sentence of explanation. In other words, "I don't need to back it up." It's boring and not fun to read and wastes everyone's time. I want your rationale, not your "teh sucks" or your "overrated". Tell me why.
Side-note: don't get me started on the first few GTA games. I know they have a hardcore following that will insist upon their absolute superiority over the 3D incarnation, but I can't see the point. The controls (especially on foot) were terrible and counter-intuitive. The radio stations reset each time you entered a car, forcing you to listen to the same 30-seconds or so over and over again. The missions were imaginative for their time, but simplistic in comparison to GTA 3D. And let's get real: the gang warfare aspects of GTA:SA are more fun and realistic than any of the much-heralded "strategize the green team against the red team!" shenanigans of GTA2.
My problem with GTA is that it does a lot of things, but none of them all that well. There's gunplay, there's driving, there's stealth, there's action, but none of them executed well enough to keep me hooked long-term.
Yes, with such a huge, open-ended world I don't expect gameplay like Splinter Cell or the gunplay mechanics of a Halo, but I think we've gotten past the point where the claim of a sandbox-type environment should be enough. It's lacking in focus and it shows with a game like Mercenaries.
Same principles apply of an open-world with multiple vehicles to take control and AI going by it's normal routines as you play and react as you interact with them, but it's a far more engaging experience with Mercenaries. The gunplay is fun and effective. The driving is as good as GTA. Hell, even the graphics trump GTA.
The bigger worlds are nice, but in the end, what did that really offer in GTA:SA? Just more area to drive through and yet another bullet point they can tag on the back cover: "More expansive game world!" I'd just much prefer a more focused effort. To each his own.
Yes, with such a huge, open-ended world I don't expect gameplay like Splinter Cell or the gunplay mechanics of a Halo, but I think we've gotten past the point where the claim of a sandbox-type environment should be enough. It's lacking in focus and it shows with a game like Mercenaries.
Same principles apply of an open-world with multiple vehicles to take control and AI going by it's normal routines as you play and react as you interact with them, but it's a far more engaging experience with Mercenaries. The gunplay is fun and effective. The driving is as good as GTA. Hell, even the graphics trump GTA.
The bigger worlds are nice, but in the end, what did that really offer in GTA:SA? Just more area to drive through and yet another bullet point they can tag on the back cover: "More expansive game world!" I'd just much prefer a more focused effort. To each his own.
bluesyncopate
CAGiversary!
I like finding the weird secluded cabins and road signs, restaurants and vending machines and jumping over cliffs. It's not just about blowing s*** up or advancing the plot. It's a weird mixture of the mundane and over-the-top that is missing from sober, more "focused" efforts like (the still excellent) "Mercenaries".
Besides, "Mercenaries" doesn't have that much of a story. GTA trumps nearly every game out there with its quality of story and voice-acting. And the cohesive vision that connects all the gameplay elements is extremely focused, even if the missions themselves aren't.
Besides, "Mercenaries" doesn't have that much of a story. GTA trumps nearly every game out there with its quality of story and voice-acting. And the cohesive vision that connects all the gameplay elements is extremely focused, even if the missions themselves aren't.
here's my favorites list: 1. san andreas, 2. vice city, then 3. gta 3.
Overall, the gta series are the only games i've played through more than once. I think of course, the gta series needs much better graphics (blocky models) and maybe being able to drive (in a car) and shoot iin any direction (e.g. behind, forward, etc. with a target reticle) That'd be sweet.
Overall, the gta series are the only games i've played through more than once. I think of course, the gta series needs much better graphics (blocky models) and maybe being able to drive (in a car) and shoot iin any direction (e.g. behind, forward, etc. with a target reticle) That'd be sweet.
bread's done