San Andreas is shit

Post by **deject** » June 24th, 2005, 22:55

Why? because they managed to make a fucking ugly game somehow chug. I have to run it at 800x600 & half view distance on my rig that never got close to a hiccup in Vice City at 1280x800 & full view distance. How is that possible? It's not like it looks any better. In fact, I think it looks worse.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » June 24th, 2005, 22:57

they're using a what? 5 year old engine? that looks about 5 years old now.

total ripoff.

Post by **TezzRexx** » June 24th, 2005, 23:14

I wouldn't even buy SA to play online, and I dont play it on the ps2. As it is shit.

Vice City 100 times better in everyway.

F1sH g0 m0o · Post by **F1sH g0 m0o** » June 25th, 2005, 19:02

gta3 all the way

cashy · Post by **cashy** » June 25th, 2005, 19:05

well i liked it. mainly because i tend to never drive cars, only bikes planes and choppers, and there was pleanty of that to do. also samuelelelel jackson got stoned. which was interesting

shot2bits · Post by **shot2bits** » June 25th, 2005, 19:14

i liked it cos u could jump off buildings with parachutes

Gunslinger42 · Post by **Gunslinger42** » June 25th, 2005, 19:39

Vice City >>> San Andreas.

Post by **deject** » June 25th, 2005, 19:40

don't get me wrong, I like the gameplay but if the game is going to be fucking ugly, at least it could run well.

Post by **TezzRexx** » June 25th, 2005, 19:44

Gunslinger42 wrote:Vice City >>> San Andreas.

WE HAVE A WINNER. here is your jaffa cake, and a copy of S.A. XD

killslay · Post by **killslay** » June 25th, 2005, 22:29

i liked san andreas, just for the sheer volume of things you can do on it. but it does look turd, theres hardly any textures or decent shading on the ps2 version, it looks like the very 1st VR games all square and blocky
<img src="http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_ ... broll2.jpg">
<img src="http://www.gtaarena.com/fanart/1.jpg">

Post by **deject** » June 25th, 2005, 23:46

also, the new camera sucks balls. while it's nice to look around in the car, I'd like to see where I'm going...

Post by **TezzRexx** » June 25th, 2005, 23:48

yeah, that bastard camera fucks up my game play, im used to the one used in the original games! not rotating crap, with the anolog stick.

mrbobbins · Post by **mrbobbins** » June 30th, 2005, 14:08

On the subject of Grand Theft Auto I have just 'aquired' the double pack my my Xbox, I never got anywhere on GTA3 for my PS2 as it was nicked 2 weeks after I bought the game (shakes fist) had Vice city on my PC but got about 2/3rds through, got stuck on one mission and never picked it up again.

Sooooo I are recently been playing GTA3 A LOT and I love it, not quite as much as I enjoyed Vice City though, so I'm going through 3 then I'll do VC, then think about getting SA.

I'm looking forward to a few months of GTA goodness (which will mostly be all new to me :D )

Stoat · Post by **Stoat** » June 30th, 2005, 14:18

Bah, the first one was best.

mrbobbins · Post by **mrbobbins** » June 30th, 2005, 14:29

Stoat wrote:Bah, the first one was best.

Yeah, I got suckered into buying GTA london, which was rubbish.

*unfolds tiny map and squints*

Post by **TezzRexx** » June 30th, 2005, 17:05

mrbobbins wrote:
Stoat wrote:Bah, the first one was best.
Yeah, I got suckered into buying GTA london, which was rubbish.

*unfolds tiny map and squints*

Same here... what did you think of GTA 2?

Stoat · Post by **Stoat** » June 30th, 2005, 18:04

It looked a bit nicer, but I found it a hell of a lot less fun.

killslay · Post by **killslay** » June 30th, 2005, 18:47

san andreas ruled for soundtrack though. i think i nearly creamed when i heard plush by stone temple pilots play on the radio

Post by **FatherJack** » June 30th, 2005, 21:34

I was going to say I liked SA the best, but after thinking about it for a while while it is the most polished(1) and mini-game packed, the core of what makes it playable was present throughout the entire series, especially the open-endedness and the humour.

If there was some celestial XFire which measured all-platform all-time play, they'd probably stack up like this:

1. GTA - 200 hours just causing mayhem and destruction in Liberty City - yes, I never actually got to San Andreas. I would find it rather frustrating to play now, though I could listen to the radio stations for real. Ran at a decent resolution on the PC, the PS1 version looks like dog shit.
2. GTA3 - 150 hours, more destruction, in 3D - held me spellbound when I first saw it, and it was a long wait until it came out on PC. Only just opened up the second island when PC (at the time) started to creak a bit - have been back since, but find myself wishing you could shoot tyres on some missions. Lots of great try-it-to-see-what-happens moments, like getting kicked in by an old lady I decided to punch, random occurances and comments from passers-by left me with jaw on floor at times.
3. Vice City - 2x50 hours (had PS2 by this time) nice extras, like the tyre-shooting, motorbikes and rude location names(2) but all over rather quickly. Did it all again on PC, but seemed a bit cramped. Soundtrack probably the highlight.
4. San Andreas - 50 hours on PS2 so far, might get PC version if only to do some missions which frustrated me without mouse-precision, although from a PS2-only perspective the controls are improved. While I would say it's the one to go for if you've never played any of them, the amount I've actually played it speaks for itself. Highlights: setting, soundtrack, attitude, and lots to do. Rude horse names.
5. GTA: London - 10 hours probably, more a skin for GTA than a new game, but better swearing in the cut-scenes.
6. GTA2 - 20 minutes, if that, most of that being the demo on the PC. Later got the PS1 3-pack, but only to complete the collection. Seemed to overcomplicate a simple, great game and graphical enhancements made it less playable, although it's the only PS1 GTA-game that I don't wince at.

BTW, Mafia (which came between GTA3 and VC, and has similar gameplay) probably sneaks in at 120-odd hours.

(1) From what people have said in this thread, it sounds as if the PC version of SA is sluggish, yet no better graphically than the PS2 version. While it's true that GTA and VC tended to need higher-spec machines than better-looking games around at the time, at least their requirements were roughly equivalent to each other. For SA PC to need better hardware, while it runs on exactly the same PS2 hardware as it's predecessors is at best ridiculous and may prompt some to say not to fucking bother doing PC conversions if you're going to cack it up that much. However, I haven't seen it yet, plus I don't really know anything about the differences in performing conversions, so I won't say anything.

(2) Having to explain to my mate's sister about why I found "The Hyman Hotel" so amusing was a bit tricky, though.

Post by **TezzRexx** » June 30th, 2005, 23:42

FatherJack wrote: 3. Vice City - 2x50 hours (had PS2 by this time) nice extras, like the tyre-shooting, motorbikes and rude location names(2) but all over rather quickly. Did it all again on PC, but seemed a bit cramped. Soundtrack probably the highlight.

Soundtrack is win. I'm looking to buy it if i ever get money..

I seemed to literally spend around 2 years playing VC cause it was so much fun. I used to play it for about at least an hour each day. I did the same with GTA 3 but only for a year untill VC came out.