GTA4 Hype Get (Trailer inc 3/29)

[Vorph]

SA fanbois... heh. I finished the game with about 90% complete, still didn't like it much. The Las Venturas missions were mostly cool and the only part of the game I thought lived up to the GTA name, especially James Woods' series as the CIA guy. The stuff with the rapper who just got out of prison was about the only non-radio part I remember as being particularly funny.

So yes, it is indeed possible to have played the whole game and still think it was a complete letdown compared to Vice City.

[Jait]

I played them both on my PC. Finished SA two different times a year apart. Played Vice City for about 5 hours and uninstalled it.

Apparantly I'm in the minority, but VC really sucked ass imo for the PC. Graphics were bad, gameplay was clunky, and the cars really did not handle well at all. You play the game in a linear fashion, and that's all. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

SA gives you something to do *everywhere* from taking over neighborhoods, or finding a half-pipe or playground to compete in. Shooting Ranges, Gang wars, boxing, haircuts, weightlifting, dancing, lowrider challenges, etc..etc..etc...

All that said, SA didn't feel like GTA much, whereas VC did. /shrug

[Braen]

If SA had the mafia/godfather setting instead of the Gangsta/rap setting... man it would have been bad ass... Just change the themes over and keep all the extras that SA had and you got a winner.

I like SA but I couldn't get into the hardcore rapper lifestyle... But when I was a kid and up to now I love mafia movies...

[Tuco]

Originally Posted by BB

San Andreas hardly has any more "fluff" than VC.

If we define fluff as gameplay that is not the core of the game (driving cars) then SA has more fluff than any other game I can think of.

They took the base model of GTA3, which had like, 60-80% vehicle driving, 19-39% by foot, and 1% in a boat, and expanded it into GTA:VC that had some 40% vehicle driving, in SA the content for vehicle driving was driven down even lower. If you're not in a taco-stand or a gym, you're in a flight school or riding a jetpack.

I hope in GTA4 they return back to the 60-80% of the game is driving.

[Vorph]

Originally Posted by Jait

I played them both on my PC. Finished SA two different times a year apart. Played Vice City for about 5 hours and uninstalled it.

Apparantly I'm in the minority, but VC really sucked ass imo for the PC. Graphics were bad, gameplay was clunky, and the cars really did not handle well at all. You play the game in a linear fashion, and that's all. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

I like linear. Not like totally-on-rails linear, but enough that the game is always giving you a clear idea of what you should be doing next. How you accomplish what you're supposed to do next is where I think the variance should be.

SA gives you something to do *everywhere* from taking over neighborhoods, or finding a half-pipe or playground to compete in. Shooting Ranges, Gang wars, boxing, haircuts, weightlifting, dancing, lowrider challenges, etc..etc..etc...

That's the fluff I'm talking about. I imagine that people who enjoy sandbox type games like SA a lot. I hate that sort of thing, so all of that stuff to do was completely worthless to me. Plus most of that was half-assed to begin with, especially the fighting and the dating minigame (which was like something ripped out of one of those godawful Japanese dating sim Flash games).



I'm still looking forward to GTA4 though, even if it ends up having a vast amount of shit in it that I will never even glance at twice. If they only make one change from the previous games, let it be a flight model which doesn't make me want to murder the developers responsible for the game. I don't think I've ever played anything as infuriatingly frustrating as those fucking missions with the RC airplane, and the real planes were hardly better.

Originally Posted by Tuco

I hope in GTA4 they return back to the 60-80% of the game is driving.

I agree 100% there, and hopefully it's on the high end of that range. Although if the handling of the other vehicles were vastly improved it wouldn't bother me so much I guess.

[Tuco]

Anyone else like to fly the dodo in GTA3? It's a secret love of mine and I'm incredible at it. I wish they would return such an unnatural flight model of hang-gliding planes but instead they're trying for 'realism'.

[RiskyChris]

Originally Posted by Tuco

Anyone else like to fly the dodo in GTA3? It's a secret love of mine and I'm incredible at it. I wish they would return such an unnatural flight model of hang-gliding planes but instead they're trying for 'realism'.

Yes yes and god yes. Flying the Dodo felt like such an accomplishment, regardless of how trivial it became after you practiced.

In fact, I think I may boot up GTA3 again just to go find that damn plane. Thanks for the mammaries!

[James]

I thought GTA3 beat the shit out of both SA and VC. Especially SA, though, because I don't want to be some dumb fucking gangster shooting people because he's dissing my street cred and shit, yo. Fuck. Man that game is fucking stupid. GTA3 you kinda get pulled into the story, one small thing, one small job, and you work your way up to the head of the Mafia, a very old, very storied crew of badass fucking murderers.

Vice City was alright for the bikes, but I couldn't relate to the main character. Maybe it was that in GTA3 the only time you said something was at the very, very end. They should go back to that. Also the cars, I totally agree about the 60-80% driving.

[Mario Speedwagon]

Vorph, your criticism of the so called "fluff" in SA is just retarded. You do realize that you don't have to do ANY of those activities right? Not a single fucking one that isn't a story mission. None are required. You can be as linear and one track as you want to be(which I don't know why you'd be playing a GTA game if you want linear gameplay but that's besides the point) or as open as you want to be to all the features. Does that not satisfy both of our wants? I don't get how you can be so critical of game elements you can completely ignore and have the game be basically the exact same as VC by ignoring them. I just don't get how non required gameplay can make you dislike the core of the game so much.

And honestly, being the middle class whiteboy I am, I can still identify better with the setting of SA. Anyone can start selling drugs on the corner and become a gangbanger or thug. I could go and do that right now if I felt like it. But being in the mafia? You pretty much have to be born into it and is really a situation unrelatable to those not in it. Plus when's the last time you heard anything about the mafia? Gangbangers and thugs is the new face of organized crime these days. I think its an extremely appropriate setting.

All that being said, I love every GTA game and will buy and play them as long as they make them. Something about this genre just lets it never get old for me. Some new characters, a new setting, and I'm golden. Hell if they keep the core gameplay I would be satisfied with any possible setting they could imagine.

Edit: Be more racist James.

[Tuco]

Maybe it was that in GTA3 the only time you said something was at the very, very end.

I don't remember him saying anything. Which part was this? AFAIK the game ends with the girl you rescue talking about their future, the screen fades the black and then a gunshot is heard and you don't hear the girl talking anymore.

You do realize that you don't have to do ANY of those activities right? Not a single fucking one that isn't a story mission. None

you do if you want to do the missions in the game!! To do the casino ones you need to have sex with the girl several times, to do the James Woods quests you need to fly a plane and a helicopter. Unless you want to be out of breath all the time you need to go to the gym. unless you want to starve you need to eat!

And it isn't about identifying or being close to the characters as much as it is liking 'being' that character. Most of the people on this board would rather be a corrupt Sicilian drug lord in Miami than a good natured black hoodlum in Los Angeles.

[Vorph]

Originally Posted by Mario Speedwagon

Vorph, your criticism of the so called "fluff" in SA is just retarded. You do realize that you don't have to do ANY of those activities right? Not a single fucking one that isn't a story mission. None are required. You can be as linear and one track as you want to be(which I don't know why you'd be playing a GTA game if you want linear gameplay but that's besides the point) or as open as you want to be to all the features. Does that not satisfy both of our wants? I don't get how you can be so critical of game elements you can completely ignore and have the game be basically the exact same as VC by ignoring them. I just don't get how non required gameplay can make you dislike the core of the game so much.

Well, like Tuco pointed out, SA has a hell of a lot more non-driving missions than VC did. And I mentioned the fluff mainly because that's what most people seem to use as a reason why SA is better than VC, while I would have preferred if they'd just worked more on improving core game elements. It's not like GTA3 or VC were perfect games that couldn't stand a bit of polishing.

Edit: Be more racist James.

Er, all he did was summarize the plot of the early missions. Calling that racist is quite a stretch, especially compared to the way Rockstar themselves have portrayed the 'gangstas' in SA.

[Quineloe]

Originally Posted by Mario Speedwagon

I am baffled by all the San Andreas hate i see on this site whenever GTA is brought up. Everyone says vice city was soooo much better when they are basically the same game but SA has more features and is more fleshed out. I just do not get it.

Same here, I enjoyed SA much more than VC because it was the same thing but better. Perhaps they couldn't stand playing a "nigger" and won't admit it? I have no idea.

Originally Posted by RiskyChris

You play as a black man in SA.

I preferred the immersion of VC vs SA.

Ah, here we are...

[Tuco]

It isn't really about being racist so much as it is not liking the culture. If it were an Enimem playing CJ the end result would be the same. Like I said before, most people here liked Scarface, Casino and Ozzy osbourne than their 90's thug equivalents.

Personally, I enjoyed SA more because of the fluff =P

It was only better than Vice City after my best buddy racer_s came out with San Andreas Camera Hack 1.1 - Planet GTA

[James]

Originally Posted by Tuco

I don't remember him saying anything. Which part was this? AFAIK the game ends with the girl you rescue talking about their future, the screen fades the black and then a gunshot is heard and you don't hear the girl talking anymore.

Yeah I guess you're right. It's been awhile. I thought he said something.

[Mario Speedwagon]

Originally Posted by Vorph

Er, all he did was summarize the plot of the early missions. Calling that racist is quite a stretch, especially compared to the way Rockstar themselves have portrayed the 'gangstas' in SA.

You're right I misread the post.

I guess I just can't understand what you haters find so abhorrent about playing as a thug. I mean I could have fun with pretty much any character they give me to play. Even if you don't like the culture how can you see no fun in fucking around in it? It's a perfect culture for a game like this and works so well with the atmosphere. I just do not get it.