Grand Theft Auto Grieving Thread - Yep, I've been drinkin' again...

[Snekposter]

SA has some of the best Blacks you can find in a Western video game, if not in any game in general.

One of the first things you do with your homies is beat the shit out of some local crack dealers.

 

[The Last Stand]

SA has some of the best Blacks you can find in a Western video game, if not in any game in general.

One of the first things you do with your homies is beat the shit out of some local crack dealers.

And look out for your sister to meet her boyfriend.

 

[xXx: State of the Union]

The literal first thing you do is steal a bike.

 

[DeadwastePrime]

games were finished on release

eh, debatable to some degree. never forget daikatana, driver 3, true crime new york, angel of darkness, and of course, sonic 06

 

[Snekposter]

The literal first thing you do is steal a bike.

I'd be stealing a bike too if it was that or get shot.

 

[The Last Stand]

The literal first thing you do is steal a bike.

Don't forget going to Cluckin' Bell and getting ambushed in a driveby.

 

[Friendly Primarina]

I've played Bully recently and it has insane amount of detail and content that make the world feel more alive. If San Andreas is similar in that regard, I might try it. I've been avoiding it because I'm worried the black protagonists will bring back my PTSD from GTAV's shitty writing.

Honestly I would suggest playing GTA3 and VC first - especially the original PS2 versions. Playing these two games in order you can see how 3 begat VC, and how SA feels like the culmination of what 3 and VC were trying to do.

SA felt like a step forward. 4 felt like a step sideways IMO.

 

[The Last Stand]

4 felt like a step sideways IMO.

They did try to bring SA's scope into IV, at least with map size. Technological limitations had them scale back ambition to just Liberty City. Where IV lacked in size and customization, it more than made up with storytelling, satire, gameplay advancement and multiplayer.

 

[xXx: State of the Union]

it more than made up with storytelling

Nah, this is where GTA has lost its way

 

[The Last Stand]

Nah, this is where GTA has lost its way

Disagree. IV had a great story that intertwines between the main game and its episodes. It isn't just one big plot, it's a series of smaller stories where Niko is just the observer. You'd need to pay attention to dialogue, news articles, and character development. Are there a few holes in the plots? Yes. Does the satire get preachy? Yes. The characters and city help move the story along efficiently.

 

[xXx: State of the Union]

Yeah, at the complete cost of gameplay and fun.

 

[The Last Stand]

Yeah, at the complete cost of gameplay and fun.

I enjoyed myself through my single-player and multiplayer experiences in IV. Would I replay it? Likely not; if I want a story recap, that's what YouTube is for. Plus, multiplayer is dead and prone to script kitties.

What made GTA IV unfun for you?

 

[capitalBBustard]

Yeah, at the complete cost of gameplay and fun.

Considering IV was the first game in the series to have decent gunplay and police chases, in a series about doing crime shit, your continued use of this cope just shows you're a mentally stunted fanboy stuck in 2005.

GTA3's shooting and spawing from thin air police dudes were fucking shit when it came out. There was just nothing better, arguably Mafia 1 on PC which had jank shit too, so people put up with it. But everyone just used cheats, because vanilla gameplay was dog shit.

SA did as much as it could to improve gameplay with the PS2 engine like positional hit reactions, designing levels to use crouch for cover and free aim, while also overhauling driving physics. In many ways it's way closer to 4 than 3, but it still couldn't escape the limits of the engine itself and the platform it was on.

What made GTA IV unfun for you?

His seething nostalgiafaggotry over a vague idea of "fun", that exists only in his head.

SA feels like the culmination of what 3 and VC were trying to do.

SA was the genuine sequel and technological leap to 3, VC was a mission pack for 3 that got moneyed up into a separate game.
There's the whole zeitgeist about muh Trilogy, but it's more accurate to think of VC as the TLaD/BoG of GTA3. While SA, in all honesty, should've been called GTA4. But apparently, Houser/Benzies decided that the next numbered GTA would be a next-gen (360/PS3) game already, so they kept the naming theme of VC and called it SA.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

They did try to bring SA's scope into IV, at least with map size. Technological limitations had them scale back ambition to just Liberty City. Where IV lacked in size and customization, it more than made up with storytelling, satire, gameplay advancement and multiplayer.

In many ways, IV felt like a one step forward, two steps back kind of deal. Yes, all the things you pointed out were improved, along with the graphics and sound, but we also lost a lot in the transition from SA: the scope/scale, the customization, almost all of the side activities (and what few remained were scaled down or didn't advance at all), and a lot of the sheer craziness.

If anything, GTA V felt more like a lateral move. It brought back things IV dropped and the map was larger and closer to what SA tried to accomplish, but it was still limited (its downright small compared to video game maps that came before and since), a lot of side activities were still missing or limited (you can buy businesses but they are money sinks/bad investments, and some don't even make money unless you do something like destroy a bunch of cars, and business management is nonexistent), and the game itself was abandoned by Rockstar in favor of its online component, and never got a major single player expansion.

While SA, in all honesty, should've been called GTA4. But apparently, Houser/Benzies decided that the next numbered GTA would be a next-gen (360/PS3) game already, so they kept the naming theme of VC and called it SA.

It works thematically because both VC and SA are prequels to GTA III. GTA IV feels like more of an evolution (though it isn't quite a sequel since it takes place in a different universe).

 

[The Last Stand]

SA was the genuine sequel and technological leap to 3, VC was a mission pack for 3 that got moneyed up into a separate game.
There's the whole zeitgeist about muh Trilogy, but it's more accurate to think of VC as the TLaD/BoG of GTA3.

True, GTA: VC was originally conceived as an expansion pack. I feel it's unfair to just dismiss Vice City as a mere expansion pack given the final product. New city, new protagonist, new mechanics, new story, expanded lore, new, LICENSED soundtrack. VC refined what III brought to the table.

 

[whatever I feel like]

What made GTA IV unfun for you?

The absolute dogshit PC port with mandatory GFWL. Never played Episodes either, so I didn't even get the complete story.

Also driving controls being amplified due to said laggy-ass port. And the fucking toll booths. And the obnoxious phone calls. What made it more fun than other GTAs for you?

 

[The Last Stand]

What made it more fun than other GTAs for you?

I never said it was "more fun than other GTAs." I meant it was enjoyable in its own right. Advancing through the story, using the cover/shoot mechanic, fooling around with the ragdoll physics, Vigilante having options for the player, Cops n' Crooks, the '08 era soundtrack.

but we also lost a lot in the transition from SA: the scope/scale,

The map in SA into the countryside was mainly dead space. IV had more interiors.

the customization

It arguably fit the tone with Niko with having a lack of customization. Why on Earth would Niko splurge on cars like Brucie? I do wish there was more to spend in IV than just guns and clothes. Although, I remember talking about the value of money in IV.

 

[xXx: State of the Union]

What made GTA IV unfun for you?

Repetitive missions, mostly.

The lack of fun vehicles and meaningful side content didn't help though.

His seething nostalgiafaggotry over a vague idea of "fun", that exists only in his head.

look at this mad zigger lol

 

[TVB]

What made GTA IV unfun for you?

For me, I just don't like it as much as III, VC, SA or LCS

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

The map in SA into the countryside was mainly dead space. IV had more interiors.

The lack of interiors was a major let down for me. You didn't really interact with most businesses really, which was a real letdown.

It arguably fit the tone with Niko with having a lack of customization. Why on Earth would Niko splurge on cars like Brucie? I do wish there was more to spend in IV than just guns and clothes. Although, I remember talking about the value of money in IV.

Even GTA V's customization was something of a let down. This probably had to do with the fact that they had to split the customization between three different characters. I mean, each character only had like six haircuts! Its amazing to me that, even like 15 to 20 years later, no game has yet to surpass the shear level of customization that Saints Row 2 had. Hell, you could do a lot of shit in Saints Row that you still can't do in GTA games, like go through restaurant drive-thru's. Hell, GTA V removed restaurants entirely from the game. Saints Row 2 had a fully modeled shopping mall. There hasn't been one of those in GTA since Vice City, and you blew that mall up. The Beverly Center has a look-a-like completely modeled inside GTA V and you can't even go inside it.