I Hate Nintendo

:lol Well I guess everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but to say San Andreas and GTA3 are the same thing, well that's just plain ignorant. GTA gave you the freedom to do whatever you wanted, no game to this date has given gamers that same kind of experience. It was just a virtual world that was created so that you could go nuts, screw around, and make your own fun. Each new installment in the series has had a new style, bigger environments, updated AI, more weapons, more vehicles, character customization, better gameplay, great voice acting, interesting stories (with some very nice plot twists), and so on and so on.

If you can't have fun with a game like GTA: San Andreas, that's one thing (though I don't really see how), but to say that the series has not evolved at all this console generation is to start an arguement that you can't win.
 
creepindeth04 said:
GTA 2 to 3 was an evolution, definitely. But GTA 3 to San Andreas is more like upgrades. IMO.
Click to expand...

Exactly GTA3 - GTA SA is nothing more than an add-on pack, that if it were a PC only game, you would be upset for having to pay more than $20 for said add-on pack.
 
stealth toilet said:
but to say San Andreas and GTA3 are the same thing, well that's just plain ignorant.
Click to expand...

Of course they're not exactly the same but the core of the game is still there. You're basically a guy who has to commit crimes in order to get back to the top. The gameplay is exactly the same except the newer games have added features, i.e. swimming, riding a bike, newer weapons, etc.
 
If the GTA games are different each time just for throwing in a couple of minor changes, then so are the Zelda games. But we know that's not the case.
 
New environments, new story, new missions, more realistic AI, are all minor changes? Sure the "core gameplay" has remained the same, but from GTA 3 to San Andreas it has expanded so much that I definitely think the series has come along way. You can do so much more in San Andreas than you could in GTA3 that the overall experience is actually different. And they added more than just "bikes" as new vehicles. They've also included planes, and even trains, on top of an already robust new set of vehicles that provide a unique experience. Plus everything has a lot more polish to it, and glitches are becoming more uncommon. Draw distances have improved, physics have improved, the customization level of the game has improved (not just your main character, but cars you drive, radio stations, etc.), every new edition in the series offers a much more refined, yet bigger and broader, gameplay experience.

Everytime I play a new GTA game I'm always impressed to see that the problems I had with the previous game are for the most part alleviated. Though I still wish the aiming was as good on console as it is on PC, but until a console mouse is invented, I don't know if that will happen.
 
stealth toilet said:
New environments, new story, new missions, more realistic AI, are all minor changes? Sure the "core gameplay" has remained the same, but from GTA 3 to San Andreas it has expanded so much that I definitely think the series has come along way.
Click to expand...

Yes it has expanded and become a lot bigger. But I dont think it evolved. Those changes that you mentioned arent minor but are changes that I feel a game company should make. And for some reason I feel that GTA 3 looked a lot better. Sand Andreas seems very jaggy to me. Im playing it on s-video.
 
I understand what you are saying but what I was trying to say was that They did change zelda and people complained. Gamers wanted it to stay the same. They complained that it was different.
 
It didn't change in the way it needed to though. I mean, I liked how you weren't Link and it took place in a new time and thought that whole "Hyrule drowned" thing was a pretty good idea, but it still just boiled down to fetch quests and beating temples. Except this time you played through it as a 12 year old boy who could easily be mistaken for a girl. With his big cutesy eyes and cartoony body, you may as well have been using magical pixie dust to defeat enemies instead of a sword. And aside from the leaf and grappling hook I don't really remember there being any new items. I don't see why the sail couldn't have doubled as a parachute instead of having to use the leaf, and the grappling hook is useless because you can only use it in places where you're meant to use it, and becomes even more useless once you get the hookshot anyway.

If they wanted to "change" the Zelda series they should have changed the story (saving princesses is so 1990's), added in a whole new arsenal of items for Link to kick @$$ with, invented new antagonists and characters, and add a ton of areas to Hyrule. Unfortuneatly the only "change" they added was a change in the style of graphics, which was ridiculous, because that was one part of the game that nobody wanted to be changed.

Rockstar, on the other hand, knows what works, and knows what doesn't. The reason they "get away" with making changes to their series is because they expand on their strengths and change the game where its weak. Developers don't have to alienate their audience just to make something new, they just have to listen to what people want.
 
stealth toilet said:
It didn't change in the way it needed to though. I mean, I liked how you weren't Link and it took place in a new time and thought that whole "Hyrule drowned" thing was a pretty good idea, but it still just boiled down to fetch quests and beating temples. Except this time you played through it as a 12 year old boy who could easily be mistaken for a girl.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much what happened to GTA3-SA. New character, new story, new location and time, etc.

The reason they "get away" with making changes to their series is because they expand on their strengths and change the game where its weak.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. But this just shows that the game just got upgraded and didnt really evolve yet. I dont think that will happen until the PS3 is out.
 
Well..since it's turned to a sorta "age demographic" debate...I'll throw in my weight with nintendo. I only bought a play station for the final fantasy series, and I only like my x-box for KotOR and Halo. Now these aren't kids games..but when I look to my nintendo systems, which I play alllllll the time, I love the franchizes like metroid, wario, mario, zelda..etc. The list goes on. The innocence and fun factor to these titles make them much more interesting than "KILL EVERYONE WITH GUNS AND GORE 6!!!" Which keeps getitng made over and over and over. The fact is, nintendo, with their old characters, makes more creative gameplay with them than any other company with theirs. You won't see the Master Chief in a mini-game deal like warioware, now will you? :)
 
stealth toilet said:
It didn't change in the way it needed to though. I mean, I liked how you weren't Link and it took place in a new time and thought that whole "Hyrule drowned" thing was a pretty good idea, but it still just boiled down to fetch quests and beating temples. Except this time you played through it as a 12 year old boy who could easily be mistaken for a girl. With his big cutesy eyes and cartoony body, you may as well have been using magical pixie dust to defeat enemies instead of a sword. And aside from the leaf and grappling hook I don't really remember there being any new items. I don't see why the sail couldn't have doubled as a parachute instead of having to use the leaf, and the grappling hook is useless because you can only use it in places where you're meant to use it, and becomes even more useless once you get the hookshot anyway.

If they wanted to "change" the Zelda series they should have changed the story (saving princesses is so 1990's), added in a whole new arsenal of items for Link to kick @$$ with, invented new antagonists and characters, and add a ton of areas to Hyrule. Unfortuneatly the only "change" they added was a change in the style of graphics, which was ridiculous, because that was one part of the game that nobody wanted to be changed.

Rockstar, on the other hand, knows what works, and knows what doesn't. The reason they "get away" with making changes to their series is because they expand on their strengths and change the game where its weak. Developers don't have to alienate their audience just to make something new, they just have to listen to what people want.
Click to expand...

This only prooves my point even more.
 
its also funny that the legend of Zelda games are soo good!
Click to expand...

Correction. Wind Waker was a dissapointment in the series. If it wasn't a "Zelda" title it wouldn't have reached half the sales numbers it did.

I agree 100%. But this just shows that the game just got upgraded and didnt really evolve yet. I dont think that will happen until the PS3 is out.
Click to expand...

Are they going to change the game to the point where its not even a GTA game anymore? Honestly, why would they change what works in the game? Why would they completely overhaul the game engine when its already fun? The reason why GTA games consistentyl sell is because people play the games, have fun, but always say "I just wish you could..." and in the next GTA game you can do all those things you wanted to before. I mean, seriously, Metroid Prime 2 was still in the first person, and still used the same gameplay mechanics. They just added in a coule new gadgets and new levels. That's what a sequel is supposed to do. Expand on what it already is. Every single game that is not completely original is guilty of this, and rightfully so.
 
Yes Stealth I agree on your points. But is that really evolving is what I'm asking. Lets take a look at the Resident Evil series. Now from RE 1- CV, 0 It was basically the same. It had the same mechanics, the stories all tied in together, just like GTA 3-SA, had more and different weapons, different locations, etc. Over the years it got better and bigger. But did it really evolve? It was practically the same game until RE4 came out. They overhauled almost everything about RE but it still feels like RE.
Are they going to change the game to the point where its not even a GTA game anymore?
Click to expand...
No they shouldn't cuz then there is no point in calling it GTA. A game can be changed without losing its "core" gameplay though. Just like when Rockstar went from GTA 2-3. It was no longer a top-down side scroller, it was now in full 3d. Even though it had a different look it still had all the elements that the first two games had. Thats why I feel that GTA hasnt evolved since 2-3, it just got upgraded.
 
Prehaps I should just start a new thread and call it "GTA vs everything else" and move all these posts there :lol

I'm amazed this topic is still going, thats cool though.
 
But is that really evolving is what I'm asking.
Click to expand...

I guess my answer to that is that is has evolved as much as a game can while still being part of that series. If you say that the GTA series hasn't evolved this generation of consoles, then I think you'd have to say that about nearly every series of games this generation.

I remember having a discussion about whether RE4 should even be called a Resident Evil game or not. There were no zombies, it wasn't the same style, everything had been overhauled, etc. At the time I argued that it still was part of the series, now I'm not so sure if I'd agree with myself, :lol. But if you really get into what Capcom changed about the game, its not so far off from what Rockstar has been doing consistently. Capcom kept what worked with the game (the creepy ambience, cinematics, etc.) and changed what didn't (clunky control scheme, bad inventory management, zombies getting a bit old). The only reason it was so different from the previous RE games was because all the previous RE games were the same. If GTA: Vice City had never come out, then San Andreas might have a looked a lot more revolutionary to you guys. I guess what I'm saying is that the reason the RE series appears to have "evolved" is because it all happened suddenly, whereas the GTA series evolved gradually.

For the record I thought that Rockstar should have held off their next GTA game until the new consoles were out. However, that was before I played San Andreas, and I realized that despite the familiar control scheme and expected update of vehicles, weapons, etc., it was very much a new experience, and in my opinion had gone through leaps and bounds since GTA3 to be what it was. I do see what you are saying though, finally, and I think I get why you guys seem to think the series hasn't come that far. Graphic wise you guys may have a point (though draw distances and character models have improved, IMO) but as far as the gameplay's concerned, I think you guys are way out to lunch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top