Support NeoGAF

[MattKeil]

Exactly..

All the criticisms thrown at GTA in here are applicable to SOTC, even more so in most cases:

- framerate is way worse
- awkward controls on foot and on 'vehicle'
- much smaller world, with zero atmosphere and nothing to do
- clunky combat
- uninspired character design

Yet, even with all that, SOTC is a great game.

- Granted
- At first, perhaps. By the end of SotC I could land any jump and command that horse with no problems. GTA:SA is similar, IMO. Clunky at first, smooth once you get it. And really, anyone who denies that the gun combat in SA isn't greatly improved from the other two is willfully ignorant.
- Smaller, yes. Zero atmosphere? What the **** is wrong with you? I have never felt more lonely in a game than in SotC, and that was clearly intentional. The entire world is beautifully designed, especially the way the terrain flows between different environment types.
- I think GTA wins the medal on this one. There isn't really any "combat" in SotC. There's platforming and stabbing.
- Already covered in the thread, but wow. Just wow.

How did this even become a comparison between SA and SotC? What a ridiculous matchup. The day Rockstar makes anything approaching the genius of SotC...um...I dunno, I can't even imagine that day. I love the GTA series, but it's not even playing the same damn sport as SotC.

 

[MattKeil]

You guys are sort of making me want to try San Andreas. The problem is that I didn't really dig Vice City (the only one I've played). I have three questions:

1. Are the controls improved?
2. Does SA still have motorcycles?
3. Xbox or PS2?

Yes, yes, Xbox.

 

[bjork]

Beside driving you don't actually "learn" to shoot or fight, it's a thing that you can learn to do at your best after a couple of hours. So as the game progresses you can't actually learn to play much better, and it becomes "unfairly" difficult for this reason (from my point of view). Obviously this doesn't affect every single western game (God of War, Metroid Prime) but most of them suffers for this thing that I consider a big flaw.

You do know that in GTA SA, you can upgrade your skills, learn new moves, have improved shooting (dual wielding) and all of that, right?

 

[Nameless]

You guys are sort of making me want to try San Andreas. The problem is that I didn't really dig Vice City (the only one I've played). I have three questions:

1. Are the controls improved?
2. Does SA still have motorcycles?
3. Xbox or PS2?

GTA:SA is a lot better than VC. Better A.I., a much much much larger and more diverse game world, better story, more variety in the missions--a full upgrade.

1.Yes. The Left analog stick is now used exclusively for moment, where as the right allows you to fully control the camera. With combat you can still auto-aim holding R1, or manual aim by holding R1 and using the right analog stick to aim.

2.Motorcycles, fighter jets, you name it.

3.I'll say Xbox. Better frame rate, overall more polished look and the replay feature is pretty cool.

 

[anotheriori]

You see, the modern GTA games can't be restricted to "sandbox titles". Hulk, Spiderman etc.. are sandbox games. By definitition, a sand box is useless without the person manipulating it. GTA is different. In GTA there is a loose set of underlying rules in which both the player and A.I. adhere to. You can literally just stand there and see all sorts of shenanigans happen, as the A.I. interacts with each other and the world in a non-scripted fashion. The Halo series is similar to a lesser extent.

You have to admit, though, that around here cynicism is at it's peak when a mainstream game/ popular game is being discussed, where as obscure titles with quirky art-direction, and a tedious take on old gameplay concepts get a free pass.

If anything spiderman is very much like GTA, you freeroam and do random tasks/missions this is my idea of sandbox like game because there are very few truly sandbox games like Spore for example. AI? well the only one i've played GTA3 where pedestrians were walking around if you just stood still.

I don't think that being mainstream/popular neccessarily states that a game is good, why should I accept that it must be good? If I don't for music and movies why games? GTA's gameplay is not new (GTA3 is the one that finally went mainstream). btw I think GTA's popularity is the same thing that made Mortal Kombat famous; people like seeing violence and shocking material. I feel as though the freeroaming aspect was more a side effect then the main goal of the game design, which is often the critically acclaimed portion of it.

It sounds also like you are more cynical to innovative games or games that don't fit the traditional thug/macho dude killing people genres. I'll admit i'm jaded but after being an enthusiast at something you eventually build a standard which you compare games to.

 

[GitarooMan]

I don't think that being mainstream/popular neccessarily states that a game is good, why should I accept that it must be good?

I'll say this again, GTA is not considered good because it's popular it's amongst the most critically acclaimed game series of this gen. You certainly don't have to like it, but you keep saying the only reason it is considered good is because it's popular.

 

[coldvein]

btw I think GTA's popularity is the same thing that made Mortal Kombat famous; people like seeing violence and shocking material.

I'll admit that that was a big part of why I got into the series in the first place. Eight years ago being able to run over cops or light civilians on fire in a videogame was so ****ing cool. That type of appeal is completely gone now. I miss the joy I used to get from just rampaging around slaughtering the populace..Maybe I'm more desensitized to violence now, that kind of stuff just isn't entertaining on it's own anymore.

 

[Nameless]

If anything spiderman is very much like GTA, you freeroam and do random tasks/missions this is my idea of sandbox like game because there are very few truly sandbox games like Spore for example. AI? well the only one i've played GTA3 where pedestrians were walking around if you just stood still.

I don't think that being mainstream/popular neccessarily states that a game is good, why should I accept that it must be good? If I don't for music and movies why games? GTA's gameplay is not new (GTA3 is the one that finally went mainstream). btw I think GTA's popularity is the same thing that made Mortal Kombat famous; people like seeing violence and shocking material. I feel as though the freeroaming aspect was more a side effect then the main goal of the game design, which is often the critically acclaimed portion of it.

It sounds also like you are more cynical to innovative games or games that don't fit the traditional thug/macho dude killing people genres. I'll admit i'm jaded but after being an enthusiast at something you eventually build a standard which you compare games to.

Spiderman was very different.. scripted events happened at random, NPCs weren't free to interact or react to the world as in GTA. I agree fully about a game being popular and mainstream doesn't automatically make it a good game, I never said that it does. One thing about GTA, though, is that the basic gameplay isn't anything groundbreaking, but the freedom and the authentic feel of the game world are. A game like True Crime sucks, because its ALOT less liberating and unpredictable than GTA is.

True, many people graviated towards GTA for the shock value, but that doesn't mean that the game is nothing more than that. I get A LOT more out of GTA than someone who thinks its cool to just "Go around and have teh sex with teh ho's and kill them1111". Thats like saying because 13 year old girls went to go see the LOTR films because of Orlando Bloom in tights, that the film is nothing more than that.

I think I'm least jaded than most gamers. I love your GTAs, Maddens, Final Fantasies etc.. But I also love games like Morrowind, SMT/DDS, Ico, Nippon Ichi's titles etc.. Its more so games like Super Monkey Ball, Viewtiful Joe, Guitar Hero, SSB etc... that I just don't "get".

 

[Ranger X]

People should use the term "freeroaming game" for GTA. I mean, theorically GTA is no sandbbox game at all, the term really is misused.
GTA is game will alot of familliar gameplay. The only real difference is that the player create the pace by trigering the events himself and everything takes place in a freeroaming world. That's all really.

 

[Oblivion]

Admittedly I only played like about 10 minutes of a current gen GTA my whole life, so I have to ask since I've been wondering, what makes GTA's "free roaming" so special that hasn't been done before?

Note: This is not a troll. I'm genuinely curious.

 

[MrPing1000]

It is one of the greatest gaming tragedies that GTA is no longer a PC based franchise. Imagine the possibility if it hadn't of been shackled by the technical limitations placed upon it by the ps2.

Still, PC version for life yo

 

[anotheriori]

Spiderman was very different.. scripted events happened at random, NPCs weren't free to interact or react to the world as in GTA. I agree fully about a game being popular and mainstream doesn't automatically make it a good game, I never said that it does. One thing about GTA, though, is that the basic gameplay isn't anything groundbreaking, but the freedom and the authentic feel of the game world are. A game like True Crime sucks, because its ALOT less liberating and unpredictable than GTA is.

True, many people graviated towards GTA for the shock value, but that doesn't mean that the game is nothing more than that. I get A LOT more out of GTA than someone who thinks its cool to just "Go around and have teh sex with teh ho's and kill them1111". Thats like saying because 13 year old girls went to go see the LOTR films because of Orlando Bloom in tights, that the film is nothing more than that.

I think I'm least jaded than most gamers. I love your GTAs, Maddens, Final Fantasies etc.. But I also love games like Morrowind, SMT/DDS, Ico, Nippon Ichi's titles etc.. Its more so games like Super Monkey Ball, Viewtiful Joe, Guitar Hero, SSB etc... that I just don't "get".

I see it must be the small differences that I didn't notice because I didn't play either of them very indepth. To me and maybe others who aren't wowed by GTA is that the after the novelty of freedom wears off you kind of wonder what you actually supposed to do and is that fun?

basic gameplay isn't anything groundbreaking

is what makes me turn of the game after 10 minutes of random killing and free roaming.

in defense of those titles you don't get:
SMB: essentially marble madness maybe with more multiplayer options.
Viewtiful Joe: action/platformer with some puzzle elements.
Guitar Hero: like all the other rhythm games except touted as having "good" music.
SSB: I can't say i'm a fan of this game, but I see that its a really accessible party fighting game, dare i say even tournament level worthy... :/

 

[Tain]

is what makes me turn of the game after 10 minutes of random killing and free roaming.

Thankfully, I don't play the GTA games to freeroam and randomly kill. I tend to see this all over the place when it comes to criticizing the GTA games, and I've never understood it. It's like saying that Mario 64 is utterly dull assuming you don't enter any of the castle's paintings.

As for the gameplay itself being groundbreaking, I really don't know. On one hand, it's a basic FPS-style action game. Then you throw in the driving and see how the two elements connect. Then you throw in the map size and NPC behaviour and see how that connects. Then you wrap it all up in missions and see how the missions guide the player.

I can't think of anything quite like it, so maybe it is groundbreaking. I don't really go about touting games as 'innovative' or 'groundbreaking' in the first place, though, as I think it's pretty empty praise.

 

[anotheriori]

Thankfully, I don't play the GTA games to freeroam and randomly kill. I tend to see this all over the place when it comes to criticizing the GTA games, and I've never understood it. It's like saying that Mario 64 is utterly dull assuming you don't enter any of the castle's paintings.

As for the gameplay itself being groundbreaking, I really don't know. On one hand, it's a basic FPS-style action game. Then you throw in the driving and see how the two elements connect. Then you throw in the map size and NPC behaviour and see how that connects. Then you wrap it all up in missions and see how the missions guide the player.

I can't think of anything quite like it, so maybe it is groundbreaking. I don't really go about touting games as 'innovative' or 'groundbreaking' in the first place, though, as I think it's pretty empty praise.

That example doesn't sound right because in mario 64 it is primarily a platformer where you explore and look for stars/coins. GTAs real appeal is the ability to freeroam and 'do whatever you want', but not really. Since the core gameplay is the missions which is a bunch of miscellanous tasks; one for example is going from point A to point B.. So the only real freedom you have is the route you want to take; that sounds kinda like Driver.. etc.

So then does the sum of the parts of GTA make it great? What if I took a mediocre fighting engine put in freeroaming added skateboarding and tricks and some rpg elements.. I don't see how some people can praise GTA then slam something like JPRGs which essentially do the same thing.

 

[Attack You]

It is one of the greatest gaming tragedies that GTA is no longer a PC based franchise. Imagine the possibility if it hadn't of been shackled by the technical limitations placed upon it by the ps2.

Still, PC version for life yo

I do agree that the PC version is the one to own (if you have that option). I'm not entirely convinced GTA would've blown up like it did if it stayed PC-centric, though. It just didn't seem like the type of game the PC crowd wanted anymore, console manufacturers like to make a lot of noise, and I don't think it would've had the same social impact on the PC platform.

On the third iteration, I'm not so forgiving of how 3D GTA controls anymore. I still dream of a GTA that plays like a fusion of Crazy Taxi and Max Payne.

 

[VALIS]

It is one of the greatest gaming tragedies that GTA is no longer a PC based franchise. Imagine the possibility if it hadn't of been shackled by the technical limitations placed upon it by the ps2.

Still, PC version for life yo

I recently bought San Andreas on PC (after buying it on PS2 on 10/04, and Xbox sometime last year!) because I heard so much about the cool mods for GTAs on the PC. Well, bullshit. Maybe the mod scene was a lot better for 3 and VC, but for SA I'm pretty disappointed. You can paste shitty looking user-made real world cars over the SA cars, and some of the other mods SOUND cool, but many of them don't work or otherwise glitch your game. Disappoinment total. At least it was only 15 bucks.

 

[Tain]

Holy God, you aren't the only one. I've always thought that the best way to turn the GTA games into something amazing would be if they fused it with Max Payne.

That example doesn't sound right because in mario 64 it is primarily a platformer where you explore and look for stars/coins. GTAs real appeal is the ability to freeroam and 'do whatever you want', but not really.

That might be the appeal for a ton of people, yeah, but I quickly realized that the missions set in the environment are much more important than the environment itself.

Since the core gameplay is the missions which is a bunch of miscellanous tasks; one for example is going from point A to point B.. So the only real freedom you have is the route you want to take; that sounds kinda like Driver.. etc.

Yeah, you get to chose how to get from point A to point B. That's part of it. But Driver didn't have gun combat, nor did it control like GTA, nor did the police behave like they do in GTA, and all of those things have a huge hand in how the game plays. I'm not concerned with having as much freedom as possible, though. If I wanted freedom in gameplay decisions, I'd play Nethack.

So then does the sum of the parts of GTA make it great?

Yes. Or they make it good, at least.

What if I took a mediocre fighting engine put in freeroaming added skateboarding and tricks and some rpg elements..

If each of those elements were passable, if they tied well enough into each other, and if the premise of the game allows for these things, then, hey, it could be cool.

I don't see how some people can praise GTA then slam something like JPRGs which essentially do the same thing.

How much JRPG bashing is in this thread?

I recently bought San Andreas on PC (after buying it on PS2 on 10/04, and Xbox sometime last year!) because I heard so much about the cool mods for GTAs on the PC. Well, bullshit. Maybe the mod scene was a lot better for 3 and VC, but for SA I'm pretty disappointed. You can paste shitty looking user-made real world cars over the SA cars, and some of the other mods SOUND cool, but many of them don't work or otherwise glitch your game. Disappoinment total. At least it was only 15 bucks.

I think the only really impressive thing about the mod scene for these games is that it's 100% from the ground up. Rockstar did literally nothing to aid mod developers, yet they figured everything out.

I haven't really cared about mods for the games, but I do know that 3 and Vice have complete replacement islands and campaigns.

 

[madara]

Yeah but Jrpgs dont skew to lowest common denominator either.

 

[Ranger X]

So then does the sum of the parts of GTA make it great? What if I took a mediocre fighting engine put in freeroaming added skateboarding and tricks and some rpg elements.. I don't see how some people can praise GTA then slam something like JPRGs which essentially do the same thing.

GTA is having a great "i can" list and it makes the game great + give you this feeling of freedom. Your mission is maybe to go kill a guy and that's all BUT:
You can kick is ass bare hands, you can kill him with X different weapons, you can run over him with your car, find a post and snipe him from a distance, it's all about stuff that "you can". I mean, in GTA everybody find his way, make is fun. And at his own pace. That's where GTA was groundbreaking (at least for the console world).
When you break down the gameplay into small part it look silly and unfun --- just like pretty much any game actually. Most games are greater than the sum of their parts.
Another thing that was grpundbreaking is the fact the player decide the pace of his game.
That personnally what i like the most about this type of design for a game. Wherever i am in the game i can decide what i do next. You do what you feel like doing. And that's obviously why there's TONS of stuff you can do in those games.

Your comparison with JRPGs is also way off imo. You should compare GTA to something like Oblivion. JRPGs are ALOT more linear than GTAs and the "i can" list is EXTREMELY limited, you can't do shit in JRPGs beside walking, talking and entering a battle. In Oblivion you can try differents ways in completing your missions/quests and you do whatever quest you want when you feel like it ---- now this is like GTA design.

 

[Tain]

Yeah but Jrpgs dont skew to lowest common denominator either.

yeah jrpgs are totally above pandering to large audiences.

 

[Future]

The sum of GTA's parts are fantastic, but when you break it down gameplaywise it's so great. Combat system is weak. Shooting system is weak (console version). Many of the mingamish sections are weak in gameplay (fly RC copter and drop bombs, use tractor to push objects into graves, shit like that), flight control is poor, etc. And it's tied with missions that force many of these elements on you at once.

Missions with a poor save and continue system. Yeah I know about Trip Skip in San Andreas, but if I remember right you had to at least get back and trigger the start of the mission before you could use it. Plus youre probably gonna want to get guns and ammo first anyhow, which makes your best chance of winning simply reloading your save and suffering through more loading and retracing your steps.

What makes this passable is that the core mechanic of GTA is done very well. Car Jacking is simple and easy (along with driving), which is the key part in almost every mission. The randomness of the world makes missions more interesting, and their open ended design usually allows for many ways to win. No one is going to look to GTA as a standard for mechanics. But it is the best "random" sandbox style game out there

 

[VALIS]

Yeah but Jrpgs dont skew to lowest common denominator either.

That's a joke, right?

 

[Ranger X]

The sum of GTA's parts are fantastic, but when you break it down gameplaywise it's not so great.

You're right. But no game ever should be judged "in parts". I don't know why you guys insist of doing so especially with GTA. Games are judged by the sum of their parts. All games even just remotely complex can be put down in parts and laughed at. There is no point really.

Missions with a poor save and continue system. Yeah I know about Trip Skip in San Andreas, but if I remember right you had to at least get back and trigger the start of the mission before you could use it. Plus youre probably gonna want to get guns and ammo first anyhow, which makes your best chance of winning simply reloading your save and suffering through more loading and retracing your steps.

Here again i understand your view point but as many people you don't see that it ISN'T REALLY A DESIGN FLAW. The game is made so after you succeed or fail a mission, you are free to go and do what you want. The game cannot read your mind and tell if you want to do that mission again or if you want to go and do something else. The game is full of stuff to do pretty much anywhere you are and it's the basic goal of the game to let you choose what you want to do.
The only possible improvement that i can see that would help gamers like you is that when you fail there a "retry?" question right under the "mission failed". But even without this option, the game is enjoyable ALOT. When you're mission failed somewhere, go explore that area for a change. After than take some taxi mission and when you're lurking around your previous mission, just trigger it again. This style of play is so awesome (at least to me). And the mission aren't tuff. You're not supposed to die anyway

 

[Nameless]

in defense of those titles you don't get:
SMB: essentially marble madness maybe with more multiplayer options.
Viewtiful Joe: action/platformer with some puzzle elements.
Guitar Hero: like all the other rhythm games except touted as having "good" music.
SSB: I can't say i'm a fan of this game, but I see that its a really accessible party fighting game, dare i say even tournament level worthy... :/

When I say I didn't "get" them, its not saying I literally don't get what they are about, but rather that I really don't get allure of the titles. I just find them quirky for the sake of being quirky, and very repetitive.

 

[Powerslave]

I think people who complain about SOTC's frame rate seriously are complaining just because they can. It can crawl at times but it's so rare that if you're absorbed into the game it should be no issue, and for a game that has such nice graphics as SOTC, the supposedly "awful" frame rate is something I can deal with.

You graphic whores are some of the most annoying gamers ever. "It's not 60fps at all times!1 WAHHHHHH!!"

STFU

seriously, i hate graphic whores. While a game may be absolute perfect, people will whine about the wrong reasons, like "oh but teh graphics are outdated!".
Happens a lot with FF7.

 

[anotheriori]

When I say I didn't "get" them, its not saying I literally don't get what they are about, but rather that I really don't get allure of the titles. I just find them quirky for the sake of being quirky, and very repetitive.

well it just sounds more like you aren't a fan of these genres.