Gaming Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

[James]

[color=#707875]The thing I'm noticing about all of these San Andreas revelations is that many of them are window dressing. Some have a fundamental purpose -- like the ability to swim.

But what I really want to know, is if the controls have been tightened up...if they've reworked the aiming/movement system and if they've refined drive-by shootings and stuff. I think that stuff would be more welcome for me personally, because I'd rather see the core elements tightened up and improved (although the increased size of the maps and so on is also a great addition -- it's one thing that makes GTA feel like a "virtual sandbox").[/color]

[BlueYoshi]

[color=teal]I'd prefer it if that sort of stuff was left alone. The controls are flawless for the new generation of GTA games, honestly, and really suit the needs of the player in any type of situation.

The Getaway served to show how badly negative controls can effect the overall calibre of a game. I thought the idea for it was somewhat original and to the bone, especially that it was set in London and all, but when I came round to playing it, my experience turned to be more a misery than anything because of the poorly developed navigation and freedom.

No, it was [i]too[/i] realistic for my liking. After playing one demo, I immediately tuned out... which was a shame because I was really looking forward to experiencing the open-world it had compared to GTA, but was just completely put off. Hopefully it will minister as a path that Rockstar won't want to follow.[/color]

[James]

[color=#707875]Flawless? Are you serious? ~_^

Most of the reviews of the "modern" GTA games cite poor/clunky controls as being a problem.

Mind you, I don't think that the controls are [i]bad[/i]. But they do need to be tightened up and improved.

In terms of the modern series, I have always thought that in the overall sense, it was a fun game. If you view it as one big sandbox, that's cool.

But on a micro level...when you get down to the nitty gritty of controls and missions, there are several serious problems. This is why I think a lot of critics have kind of looked down on GTA, as being a game that represents the stagnation of the industry.

So, from my personal point of view, I am quite comfortable with GTA's controls. But I have to recognize that they could be a lot tighter and more refined than they are now. I'm not talking about outright changing them -- I'm just talking about removing some of the bugs and sloppy coding from the game, and investing more time in finessing it, or something along those lines. [/color]

[BlueYoshi]

[color=teal]What do you find that needs tightening up, then? In all fairness I can't complain; it got me through the whole game, which is a big step because I rarely finish games that aren't overly-hyped unless I genuinely like them.

Even if critics acclaim there to be technical difficulties with the mechanisms, I don't see a problem at all, and that's all that really matters when you think about it. The drive-by's may look crummy (like a lot of other things), but they're simple to pull off, and manage to avoid frustration amidst playing. I just don't want Rockstar to take any unnecessary risks -- there's no point of latently spoiling a game to make it better when in the eyes of some, it can't really be improved a great deal anyway.[/color]

[James]

[color=#707875]Character movement, the aiming system, and the drive-by system all need tweaking.

Bear in mind, I am not talking about making them more realistic. I'm talking about making them more intuitive, and developing a better connection between controller inputs and what goes on in the game itself.

So nobody's suggesting that the game be spoiled -- far from it. I'm suggesting that they simply tighten up the code in various places to produce a smoother and more playable experience for everyone, including hardcore GTA fans.

The same could also be said for the other bugs found in the game (like the frequent problem in GTAIII, where the road sometimes disappears). These problems are either a result of them being rushed too much, or being careless/sloppy. And that doesn't make the game the best it can be.

So, while I think that the inclusion of swimming/biking/bigger levels is all fine and good...at the end of the day, I'd rather see a more playable, more enjoyable core gaming experience. I think that's key, even if you enjoy the way the game plays at the moment (and I do -- I'm not knocking it, just saying it's sloppy in some areas).[/color]

[BlueYoshi]

[quote name='James][color=#707875']Bear in mind, I am not talking about making them more realistic. I'm talking about making them more intuitive, and developing a better connection between controller inputs and what goes on in the game itself.[/color][/quote]

[color=teal]'Course not. If Rockstar concentrated on making the GTA games more realistic then we'd merely be getting a repeat of The Getaway. Sometimes it's best to keep things as much from real life as possible, because the options there are only so limited that it wouldn't be feasible to create a fundamental gaming experience.

When you speak of character movement, I can vaguely translate what I think you mean. I'll accept that when stealing a car, you may encounter a little fault in the sense that you're stuck by the bonnet whilst actually still running, but only on a few occasions has that happened to me, and tentatively speaking, it never really interrupted me at all.

I like that R1 is the button to aim, and how easy it is to perform. I don't know whether or not you're saying you want it [i]changed[/i], but I assume you mean to make it more 'bouncy'. More or less, I'd imagine that to fit in with the significant bugs you mentioned, but yes, it does effect the in-game quality. There have been times when I aimed and fired at a character from a distance, only to miss him because of a few glitches that could've easily been avoided. Mind you, when/if they are fixed, I still wouldn't feel solitary about it because that problem never occurred frequently in the first place.

So you see, there are mixed thoughts on this agenda. Obviously you aren't bashing GTA, but you want to see it at its peak. On the other hand you have me, a guy who only wants to play a decent game, and I feel that the current GTA games are decent enough. What's the saying... "Quit while you're still ahead." ^_^[/color]

[James]

[color=#707875]Well that's the thing really; GTA is a great concept and it works very well in 3D. But in some cases, it's just too buggy. GTA fans are settling for second best, I think.

Maybe games like Mario and Zelda have spoiled me. But these games really demonstrate some truly sublime and bug-free in-game controls.

I don't mean to suggest that GTA should adopt those controls in terms of button mapping or anything. That's got nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm talking specifically about controller response, A.I. bugs and other coding flaws.

So in terms of quitting while you're ahead...that's the thing; GTA isn't ahead. I mean, Vice City had a few peripheral enhancements, but nothing truly fundamental. Many of the same problems still occurred. So far, I'm hearing about these nice enhancements like riding a bike...but that doesn't actually go back and repair some of the fundamentals that were problematic from the very start.

So I'd say, if San Andreas is to Vice City what Vice City is to GTA III...I would be inclined to complain about that. But if we do see something that's a significant upgrade in every respect, I'll be pleased that the developers aren't simply resting on their laurels and throwing in more features, without repairing some of the early structural faults.

If those flaws are repaired in San Andreas, we'll have a game that has both a great concept [i]and [/i]a polished execution.[/color]

[natetron46]

thats true. i didnt even buy vice city. i played it at a friends house and realized it was the same thing as gta 3, just a different setting. what i expect when a new game comes out is evolution, not simply the same game in a different city. gta 3 changed the genre to first person instead of the 2d cut outs that were in ti before. a successful game would be one like that, that can drastically change the way people play, a simple change in scenery will not suffice, even if their are some (but veyr few) inovations.

[Charles]

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]
But what I really want to know, is if the controls have been tightened up...if they've reworked the aiming/movement system and if they've refined drive-by shootings and stuff. I think that stuff would be more welcome for me personally, because I'd rather see the core elements tightened up and improved (although the increased size of the maps and so on is also a great addition -- it's one thing that makes GTA feel like a "virtual sandbox").[/color][/QUOTE]Supposedly, the aiming/shooting system has been reworked to operate a lot like the one found in Manhunt. I've not played Manhunt enough to acquire a firearm, so whether this adjustment is good or bad, I have no idea.

Edit: Eurogamer recenty conducted an interview with Dan Houser that I think proves helpful in describing the various improvements.

[b]On swimming:[/b] ?Swimming we never had before. We just got pissed off with people saying, ?We can?t do swimming.? It works well in the game. So if you drive off a bridge you?re not going to drown. But that said, it?s not a swimming game.?

[b]On getting out of cars in water:[/b] ?If you don?t choose to exit the car, you will sink with the car, then you?ll have a certain amount of stamina under water which you can build up. There?ll be a few missions that will have swimming in them, but it?s not going to be like a PSone-era action [url="http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=56025#"]adventure game[/url] where everyone was obsessed with swimming periodically. Definitely not. It just gives it playability.?

[b]On stupid hair:[/b] ?If you?ve got a stupid haircut, people will say, ?You look stupid?.?

[b]On territories:[/b] ?You can now recruit a gang and take over territories with them, and then lose territories if you don?t look after them. So you?ve got the idea that bits of the map become personalised to you as much as your own character becomes personalised to you.?

[b]On story and mission structure:[/b] ?Yeah, you can make money out of them if you look after them. There are bits in the game that are more gang focussed and bits where you?re more of a lone operative. We?ve got this challenge in the game where we want to keep it open and we want to put a good story in ? the stories are really good for dragging you through everything.?

[b]On game personalisation and more on mission structure:[/b] ?If we?d both been playing for a while, your game would begin to feel very different from my game. We might be at the same point in the mission structure, but your character might look great, you know, have all these great attributes, have a lot of money coming in, but if I?m just focussed on the missions I might look like a piece of ****. It?s about giving people that freedom of choice. It?s still very much an action game, but there?s a whole world out there to explore if you want to. At points in the GTA existence we?ve gone very, very non-linear, like GTA2 was very, very non-linear. And we?ve tried to get the best of that (in GTA:SA) which comes down to giving people the freedom of choice at any moment. You also get the advantage of a story which relies on emotion and characters. So the story opens up, it feels very non-linear, then it closes for a bit, then it opens up again: it works quite well, I think.?

[b]On the open countryside:[/b] ?We love, from a technical point of view, the driving in the open spaces on Smuggler?s Run. It?s awesome. Now you?ll be able to do that in GTA, with all of the GTA gameplay. We?ve now got a sick number of vehicles, and some that you can?t really put in the town but you can put in the countryside, like a quad bike. You can really race across this countryside ? it feels really quick out there. We?ve done a lot of work on the driving physics. It?s still very much a chasing game, not a car racing game, but once you get into the countryside it feels super-quick now. It?s also put through the [url="http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=56025#"]Grand Theft Auto[/url] filter, so it?s not the friendliest environment. Like when towny goes to the country, it?s scary and full of inbreds and what-not. Your missions reflect it ? you?re meeting degenerates and going off to do local bank heists. It works really well from a story perspective. We?ve gone to a lot of trouble to make sure the more outlandish missions still make sense within the world and where you are in the story. The countryside is chunks and chunks and chunks and there are bits to do everywhere. The map looks super-organic, so it looks real. We?ve done a lot of work so it doesn?t look toy-towny; a lot of work rounding up corners so it doesn?t look square. Also, whichever way you want to cross it ? be it on a car or a bike or be it on foot shooting ? there?s really good gameplay built naturally into the environment. We?ve thought about the world from lots of different perspectives to make sure the missions show off all the best assets of the map.?

[b]On NPCs and bringing cities to life:[/b] ?We?re really trying to give the cities more life. Every pedestrian now has a brain. They?ve got much more refined AI. They?ve got a lot more unique animations depending on what the pedestrian type is and what activities they do. So not only will you see a lot more pedestrians, but they?ll do a lot more ****. So the guys you see in the ghetto and the guys you see in the countryside are going to both act and look different. It gives it more life than it ever used to have. We?ve done much more research on the characters, like we now go and do fashion shoots to make sure all the period costumes are right. The characters now have more bones, so we get proper facial animations and stuff.?

[b]On graphics, time-of-day action and shadowing:[/b] ?We?ve done a lot of work on the graphics from a technical standpoint. We?ve completely rewritten the render pipeline. The detail and the scope you now see, we couldn?t get before. Like, in the desert, there?s tumble weeds and so forth, really organic stuff. There are tons of unique interiors, a much more densely populated map. There were bits in the Vice City map that we felt were a little under populated. And even in the countryside, it feels like there?s more possibility for action. We?ve got real-time reflections in mirrors, we?ve done a huge amount of work on the lighting system. We were pioneers in the day-to-night clock system. But now it?s a lot better. There?s a totally separate model for anything in the day-time and anything in the night-time. So you get a much better feeling of night and day, a much better contrast. There are shadows, which give us a gameplay thing we never had previously, because you can hide in them. Now you can sneak in a GTA game for the first time. You can have a mission where you can play it balls out with a machine gun, running and trying to blast everyone, or you could sneak around and pick them off one by one. It gives a lot of choice.?

[b]On nicking bits from other games:[/b] ?Well, it?s just kind of picking out the good elements from everywhere. There is a certain magpie element on everything. Just trying to hone this enormous beast. We?ve honed the physics on both the player and the vehicle driving, so again it feels a lot more like an action movie. We?ve done a lot of work with the cars and the camera so it feels a lot more action oriented, while still giving you good control.?

[b]On fighting upgrades:[/b] ?There are tons more animations, so you?ve got a variety of fighting stances and a variety of attacks. You can now target while you?re fist-fighting, as well as while you?re gun fighting. We?ve totally overhauled the gun-fighting targeting system. Targeting is always a challenge in any third-person game, even in a built-from-the-ground-up third-person shooter, because you?re looking at this guy and he?s got to look over there ? the physics of it make it difficult. But I think now we?ve got a really elegant solution that gives you a lot of control.?

[b]On targeting:[/b] ?If you?re in a situation where there are innocent people and enemies, it will naturally focus on the enemies. You will have more control this time, but it will also do a very good auto-target. You can still flick around through targets, but it?ll make much better first choices than it has ever done in the past. It?s something that?s currently being refined.?

[b]On characters and satire:[/b] ?We?ve developed our characters a bit more and to that extent it?s more serious. But it?s still very much trying to be funny at all points. The satire? I suppose it?s levelled at the broader weirdness of America and American consumerism and American action movies as well.?

[b]On humour[/b]: ?Well, it?s because we?ve got six people working on it. Me and another friend of mine do a lot of the radio stuff and we have to compete with the stuff the other guys are doing on the signage (shop logos, company names). They?re coming out with all these ridiculous sick jokes all the time ? it?s about having funny guys with a very dry British sense of humour working on stuff and the fact that everyone wants to push stuff. So that?s just completely grown organically. It was even there in GTA1 to some extent, that stuff. Some of the pager messages. GTA2 didn?t have it so much ? we were trying to do that slightly futuristic thing. And then, from GTA3 onwards it really managed to come alive.?

[b]More on humour:[/b] ?The guys that do the signage can push it really far. They love the scatological stuff, but they?re always so on the money. The puns they come up with are so awesome. It?s like, ?Ow, it?s a bit much, but it?s really funny,? so they slip it in there. And a lot of the stuff people don?t even notice. Some people might not even like the GTA humour at all, but it becomes an action game at that point.?

[b]On ?getting the feel right?:[/b] ?We are very conscious of that being the potential problem. And so, styling-wise, everything has to feel as though it matches perfectly. The controls have to feel like they?re from the same game, the animations have to feel like they?re from the same game, the art direction has to feel like it?s from the same game. Even the story ? which might be outlandish, even though you thought you were in a game about being in a gang running drugs or whatever ? needs to make sense at that point. We do want to stretch stuff, because we do want to give people a broad experience. Here it always feels like you?re in the same game. Now I?m having my hair cut, now I?m running around in a car? It all feels like the same world. Plus, of course, you have the freedom to do it or not to do it. We do some sections where you go first-person, but they make sense as well of where you are in a mission. It?s the third part of a loosely bound trilogy, the first of which was set in 2001, the second in mid-80s and this was in the early 90s. And there are some loose connections in there for the hardcore fan. We felt that the east coast was a good starting point, Miami in the 80s was great, LA was the coolest part of the world at that time. We?ve done a huge amount of research on the voices, making sure they sound like LA, not New York. It needs to feel Californian, but still presented in that GTA way.?

[b]On filling up DVDs:[/b] ?One area that I?m really involved in is creating the audio assets ? I think we?ll have well over 400 speaking parts, which is insanity. The amount of studio time we?re having to get through and the amount of writing that?s involved, we?re more worried about getting it on the disc. That?s our initial challenge. We?re having to go to dual layer DVD because we?ve already filled up a full DVD.

[b]On unbridled ambition:[/b] ?This is the thing about having a very ambitious team. Everyone, every section pushes every other section, nobody wants to be the guy that isn?t pushing as hard as possible. Everyone wants there bit to be the bit that people remember from the game. There?s a lot of internal competition and pressure to do the best that they can do. You know, ?How can we tie that in together?? And suddenly you?re like, ?Oh ****, it needs another 10,000 extra audio samples or another 50 pedestrian models. Oh well, it?s worth it; don?t let the side down?? There?s a really good energy like that. The danger is currently the storage medium (DVD), and one we thing we?re all praying for in the next round of hardware is that they don?t just go, ?It?s DVD again?. We?ve done some clever stuff with compressing it, but we were virtually full on the disc with Vice City ? this time we?re overfilling the disc to the max.?

[b]On California radio:[/b] ?California has got the best radio of anywhere in America. There?s going to be a big, big range of [url="http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=56025#"]music[/url] in this one.?

[b]On voice acting:[/b] ?From a production point of view we?re doing all the stuff now, so it?s not all put to bed. And we probably won?t even mention it until after the game comes out. But time spent in a voice booth doesn?t help with the quality of interaction. We use voices because they?ve got a strong voice for a cut-scene, no other reason. We like top do it because it adds to the experience, but we?d hate to think people buy the game because so-and-so is voicing it.?

[Brasil]

Am I the only one getting a The Sims/Animal Crossing vibe from what the Devs are looking to do with San Andreas?

We're hearing about haircuts, fitness centers, a dynamic body that gets fatter with lack of exercise and donut consumption...has Will Wright had a hand in this game?

And should we expect a real-time clock, to be kept in time with the PS2 internal clock, so--for added realism (and to borrow a page from Animal Crossing)--the world of San Andreas still goes on, even when you're not there, requiring you to "log-in" every hour to make sure there are no vile weeds growing around your house! "Weeds" as in plants. I'm sure there will be other types of weeds. ~_^

With what they're developing, why not just forego the entire singleplayer PS2 version and create a MMORPG? It makes the most sense, given the details of San Andreas.

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Well I have to admit that I'm looking forward to this game with the same froth-at-the-mouth excitement as I did for Vice City when we first discussed it way back when. I have to admit though that I myself found Vice City to be a hell of a more enjoyable game than GTA III, there was something about III that felt really sterile about the way you play the game, it seemed to lack heart and depth.

I played the game a few weeks back after beating Vice City and I found the difference in the two games to me anyway to be immense. I found that GTA III feels quite restricted about the plotline, you do this, this, this and this, and then you go on and work for another criminal kingpin with no real sense of achievement. However I found that when I went back and played Vice City I enjoyed that game to a far greater sense of enjoyment, the characters feel more real and there seems to be a lot more depth and atmosphere to the game. I mean the main character in GTA III doesn't talk, doesn't have a name and we know nothing about his past, in the case of Mr. Vercetti though we find out a lot about himself, his past, his motives and his ideas for the future.

Though in turn, I agree with James when he there needs to be improvements in the smaller but important aspects of the game as well as the controls. Sticking the same Vice City engine and problems on a larger map to satisfy the masses is neither a fair nor a realistic problem solver. Little thing like more responsive controls and a better control system as well as increased A.I. (I hate it in GTA III the way the cops only chase you and never anyone else) as well as increased graphics power and map size is what's needed.

However in turn that is not to say that all this extra management that we're hearing about is going to make the game any more enjoyable, the unrealistic nature about GTA is what attracts people. I don't want to have to worry about getting fat in San Andreas, or getting a bad haircut because it adds too much realism and could potentially ruin the game itself because of it putting people off. That being said though, the ability to swim and get out of a car underwater are great little improvements that will add to San Andreas array of great features. I just hope the bikes have the little bells you can ring, that would be so kick ***...[/SIZE]

[Guest braves81]

Some people are seriously stupid. Of all the things to criticize of GTA you complain that it's too realistic. Rockstar knows that the replay aspect of GTA is it's true value. In GTA 3 and VC you couldn't even replay the missions without replaying the entire game. So obviously the replay of GTA is what truly makes it so fun. The ability to shoot whoever you want, whenever and wherever, along with drive bys and the numerous other ways to somebody in GTA has become a true icon and has set the standards for many GTA clones. The Getaway was too realistic and more like a movie, although I thought it was overall a fun game aside from the hair tearing experience that is the driving navigation. True Crimes was too unrealistic for my taste but did have some cool features that GTA should adopt, as did Getaway. Still, GTA had something that nobody could recreate. GTA 3 shocked the world with it's new gameplay and freedom. GTA VC improved upon it by adding some new features, a larger map and more missions. It still had some dissapointing gameplay, with the AI being as sluggish as ever. The graphics were still boxy and glitchy, however it was a slight improvement from the third edition to the franchise. GTA SA is going to be so insane, the replayability is going to be so sick. It has added some sick new elements like rag doll physics and some stealth type aspect. I really enjoyed the rag doll technology Hitman : Contracts had, it's always fun to blow somebody off a balcony with a twelve gauge and watch them land akwardly on the floor. Then to see the shock and paranoyia displayed by the public. Classic. Hitman was very fun to play over again, so many ways to kill your target and such strategy and stealth involved. I love how in GTA SA you can roll with a gang with up to three people. Now when you go into a neighborhood or to rob a house you can have some backup during these intensive shootouts. I'm going to have SO much fun with that. I heard somewhere in this thread that you can gain territories and you need to protect them. That gives a whole new definition to the meaning replayablity. I heard the AI is enhanced tremendously, which means hopefully the police will be moderately conservative in a car chase, which means no running over other pedestrians or their fellow officers. Speaking of police, traffic violations should be enforced. And when enforced that means they pull you over rather than being rammed at 200 MPH. When this comes out I'm going to freak out.

[James]

[QUOTE=Siren]
With what they're developing, why not just forego the entire singleplayer PS2 version and create a MMORPG? It makes the most sense, given the details of San Andreas.[/QUOTE]
[color=#707875]Well, really, nothing that you mentioned is new. Games have been using real-time clocks [i]long [/i]before Animal Crossing came along (hell, even Christmas NiGHTS on Saturn used it, as did many Saturn games). And all of the other things like tattoos and haircuts and so on, I don't know why that would necessarily be associated with The Sims.

In The Sims, most of those things are purely related to aesthetics; how you want to design your sim. But in GTA SA, you're talking about things that have functional purposes to some extent (ie: tattoos that have a particular meaning and so on). There's some indication that your physical makeup -- apart from merely affecting your fitness and abilities -- will also have an impact on the way other characters perceive you.

So I think it's probably important to distinguish between these areas and be clear about what they represent.

The buy before me (whose name I'm now forgetting) mentioned that The Getaway was too realistic...but in the same breath, implied that people shouldn't criticize GTA for being too realistic also.

I think there's a lesson in all of this; you can have realism, but you should also try to provide intuitiveness, so that many of these obstacles (clumsy controls or a bad camera or whatever) can be overcome. Afterall, games are ultimately about having fun, regardless of whether they deal with realistic or fantasy subject matter.[/color]

[Guest braves81]

There is a major difference in realism in both games. The realism people are complaining about on GTA SA is that now he has to eat, now he has to work out to stay fit, now he can get tattoos, and now he can even get a haircut. That realism is totally different than The Getaway's realism, keep in mind I am all for somewhat realistic games. However, Getaway was just like a movie, and a good plotline at that. You could not skip scenes unless you'd beaten the game, and these scenes were fairly lengthy. 5-10 minutes on most. Although I did like to watch the story unfold as if it were a novel or a movie, it lacked many things as far as gameplay was concerned. The driving was a mess, blinkers wouldn't have been so bad if the game incorporated some sort of map. Yes the game was too realistic, even for my taste. The gameplay level did not meet the realism level. For GTA SA it most definetely will. So that won't even be a factor. In fact, all this realism people have been downplaying actually makes the game twice the fun to replay and roam around, which people spend more time on that than missions.

[Purple Haze]

I don't like anything about the GTA series. They are starting to get very stale and they get boring quickly. All the games are exactly the same except for the cities, characters, cars and weapons. They add the ability to go into buildings in Vice City but there was really no use because none of them hadany real value excpet that you got missions from there. Now there adding bikes and getting haircuts.It the same recycled garbage every game. GTA3 should have been the end of the series,but they ket it going and now it is going to get so stale. I'm not dishin out $50 for basically the same game.

[S9per]

I don't like GTA.

Repetetive, boring, gameplay with some do-them-once things that people like to brag about doing.
The best part about GTA is the music and radio stuff, and playing through the story mode once is fun.
Honestly, the design for the game is there...the problem is that driving around the city is boring to watch and boring to play...at least for me.

The new one looks to add a lot of stuff to the game, so fans will of course like it...but they need to change some of the basics for me to really like the game.

[Guest braves81]

[quote name='Alastor']I don't like anything about the GTA series. They are starting to get very stale and they get boring quickly. All the games are exactly the same except for the cities, characters, cars and weapons. They add the ability to go into buildings in Vice City but there was really no use because none of them hadany real value excpet that you got missions from there. Now there adding bikes and getting haircuts.It the same recycled garbage every game. GTA3 should have been the end of the series,but they ket it going and now it is going to get so stale. I'm not dishin out $50 for basically the same game.[/quote]

Spoken like a true moron, if I say so myself. There has only been one sequel to the PS2 GTA which was Vice City, so how can you say the GTA series has been the same old stuff year after year? And if you've read anything about San Andreas then you'll see that it's going to be a whole new game practically. The graphics aren't going to be all polygon, they rewired an entire new graphics system. If anything, you're just mad because you don't have the money to get the new GTA.

[James]

[quote name='braves81']Spoken like a true moron, if I say so myself. There has only been one sequel to the PS2 GTA which was Vice City, so how can you say the GTA series has been the same old stuff year after year? And if you've read anything about San Andreas then you'll see that it's going to be a whole new game practically. The graphics aren't going to be all polygon, they rewired an entire new graphics system. If anything, you're just mad because you don't have the money to get the new GTA.[/quote][color=#707875][/color]
[color=#707875]First and foremost, watch the insults. That kind of thing isn't at all welcomed here. We're all gamers; let's have mature and open-minded discussions.

I think that Vice City was very similar to GTAIII, but that's because they only spent a year developing it. I mean, it was almost like a big expansion pack.

But San Andreas will not be like that for various reasons. I'm not sure if you've read the latest IGN update, but they basically cover several new key points (including vehicle modifications, "towing" missions and others). I really feel that San Andreas is going to completely blow the previous two games out of the water.

The more I read about it, the more I feel it has the potential to become the single biggest hit of the year on PS2 (it'll probably outsell other top games on other consoles as well). Obviously GTA has a certain weight behind its name, but I feel that San Andreas will definitely be something on another level, beyond a mere paint upgrade or something (in comparison to prior games in the series).[/color]

[Burori]

I for one will be in the stores when it comes out: October 27th or somewhere close to that. I as told by the most reliable company: EB Games ^_^..

as for the bike. I will laugh my *** off if the cops chase you if your speeding on it. Then you can just try and not get hit by them while trying to escape.

[50 cent]

Really I do think that this game will have some similarities, but what I have heard it will be nothing like the others. I mean the best part will be when your being chased by the cops and the ground forces dive at you and hang on to the bumper of your car. Now that will be the bomb. Also i like that they make it so that you have to work out to run fast and be stronger and stuff it adds more reality to the game instead of take one thousand bullets and never die. Well thats my opinion. 50 out

[Teufelmann]

OMG!!! nobody seems to like the gta games here. they are my fav.

umm i noticed that a couple of u guys say that the gta series are too repetetive. well what about the Final fantasy, same gameplay different characters, differents story, just like gta. and if GTA is so popular then why change it? just update the **** out of it, to make it look, feel, and play betta.

[TheShinje]

Well, as far as the new features. story mode and abilities. Plus the added ebnefit of exploring three whole cities (plus the countryside in between) are concerned, SanAndreas is not a mere repitition of the past GTA's, but neither was Vice City, in that respect.

I'm only hoping SanAndreas doesn't fail in replay value where the others have. And from what I've seen, that's unlikely. In GTA3 and Vice City, what did you have when completeing the game? You either had to repeat the missions or just run around causign senseless violence. In SanAndreas, however, that seems set to change.

>It looks like there will be a continual gang war between the OGF (CJ's gang) and their rivals, the Ballas, over control of Los Santos.

>There are vehicle shops where you can cutsomise your cars, "Pimp my Ride" style.

> You can gamble at casino's, maybe even run one (unconfirmed)

gta-sanandreas.com have some great pics of the new features, the best being the pics of the pimped-out rides on page 4.

Apparently there will also be a driving school to learn new moves.


[quote=Siren]
We're hearing about haircuts, fitness centers, a dynamic body that gets fatter with lack of exercise and donut consumption...has Will Wright had a hand in this game?[/quote]

Most probably, :p Not all of SanAndreas' new features are good ideas, and the added feature of needing to eat... all seems a little ridiculous.

[Teufelmann]

yeah i know thats the only thing that i dont like:

- the days in the game go on even if the console is turned off (that means that events that may only happen on one day of the month and your console is turned off then you miss that event)

otha then that tha game is looking fairly good :P

[Brasil]

James, I realize that Animal Crossing was hardly the first game to utilize the real-time clock; it was simply the first game comparison that came to mind.

About The Sims, it seems that GTA is trying to steer itself away from the "arcadey" type stigma, giving players a greater influence on their characters and in the game world around them, but it doesn't seem to be deepening the gameplay significantly.

Character interactions will probably have some variation with the changes in character appearance, and gameplay physics would change accordingly, as well, but it still seems like micromanaging a digital alter-ego down to every last minute detail.

That's where The Sims comparison comes in, because Will Wright's games are pretty much God-Games, on various levels (SimCity, City-wide; The Sims, Household), and that's the primary vibe I'm getting from GTA: San Andreas. There's a level of micromanagement in the Sim games, and more and more, I see the GTA series headed in that direction: where they're becoming less of a game series and more of "you get an unprecedented level of control right down to the very last detail."

I don't know. Call me crazy, but GTA never struck me as "high art," when it comes to gaming. I've always viewed them as incredibly fun and diversionary arcade games.

About the mentions of The Getaway, yes, the controls sucked, and the game engine was pretty clunky, especially the driving, but the plot was stellar, and the voice acting was top-notch. It was essentially Snatch or Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels in game-form, which is always a plus.

I didn't play The Getaway for the gameplay itself; I played it for the story, because you can't get any better than British Reservoir Dogs.

[James]

[QUOTE=Siren]About The Sims, it seems that GTA is trying to steer itself away from the "arcadey" type stigma, giving players a greater influence on their characters and in the game world around them, but it doesn't seem to be deepening the gameplay significantly.

Character interactions will probably have some variation with the changes in character appearance, and gameplay physics would change accordingly, as well, but it still seems like micromanaging a digital alter-ego down to every last minute detail.

That's where The Sims comparison comes in, because Will Wright's games are pretty much God-Games, on various levels (SimCity, City-wide; The Sims, Household), and that's the primary vibe I'm getting from GTA: San Andreas. There's a level of micromanagement in the Sim games, and more and more, I see the GTA series headed in that direction: where they're becoming less of a game series and more of "you get an unprecedented level of control right down to the very last detail."[/quote]
[color=#707875]Well, let's remember that GTA has always had similarities with Sims games. In fact, it could easily be said that Sims copied GTA elements and not the other way around (although I wouldn't make that argument, but I think it's the same argument as the reverse).

Let's not forget that the original GTA and its sequel contained many "realistic" elements that had fairly little bearing on gameplay, but which significantly heightened the immersion aspect.

The key difference between The Sims and GTA: SA is simple. In The Sims, your appearance generally has very little impact on the way others perceive you -- even in The Sims 2. In The Sims, your actions play a more important role in defining your relationship with other Sims and the environment around you.

In GTA, this is also true. However, what is GTA trying to achieve? Ultimately, it's trying to achieve the most realistic world possible. You also have to understand the context of San Andreas. The game is taking place in a very specific gang culture -- where things like tattoos and physical appearance have many important subtleties and meanings.

In that context, San Andreas isn't copying The Sims at all really -- it's actually trying to remain true to its source material, in a way that not only provides cosmetic polish, but that also has a functional impact on gameplay.

The fact that these elements affect gameplay [i]at all [/i]is quite a remarkable thing; in most games, many of these things are peripheral to the main game and they have no functional bearing on the gameplay experience.[/color]

[quote=Siren]
I don't know. Call me crazy, but GTA never struck me as "high art," when it comes to gaming. I've always viewed them as incredibly fun and diversionary arcade games.[/quote]
[color=#707875]Well, nobody's suggesting that they are "high art". I wouldn't say that there's anything particularly "high art" about GTA, in the traditional sense of the phrase.

However, I don't think anyone can deny the artistry involved in making GTA work. Nobody else is doing what Rockstar North is doing, on a technical level. And if you actually read about the various levels of detail in San Andreas, I think you'll find that this game is a pretty large substantive leap forward from Vice City.

I mean, even the smaller "sub-missions" have been made complex enough that they could be games in and of themselves. This doesn't mean that GTA is the best game out there, but it [i]does [/i]mean that the game shouldn't be dismissed as a purely diversionary arcade game. You could definitely suggest that the insanely complicated design and coding involved in the latest game in particular amounts to an art -- even if it's an art with plenty of profanity and violence. ~_^[/color]