Author Topic: How's GTA: VCS? (Read 3001 times)

ananus · « **on:** February 20, 2007, 01:59:20 PM »

Looks like it's coming out for the PS2 on march 5th and I was wondering what the PSP owners think of it. I had some fun with SA despite not beating it, but LCS was garbage. III was ok, VC was awesome.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #1 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:00:11 PM »

You've played one GTA and you've played them all.

Himu · « **Reply #2 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:03:43 PM »

Quote from: Willco on February 20, 2007, 02:00:11 PM

You've played one GTA and you've played them all.

Shut up. Stop acting like that's a bad thing when you advertise Megaman and CV.

If you have that mentality, then it shows you really haven't bothered playing any of them at length and probably just kill people casually like some 10 year old.

Himu · « **Reply #3 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:05:12 PM »

Played one Mario you've played them all.

Don't see anyone saying that.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #4 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:05:31 PM »

I beat GTA III, got bored with VC, played SA for about 20 minutes, owned VCS for a few days and haven't bothered with LCS.

Unlike Mega Man and Castlevania, the GTA formula is not good enough to hold up after all the milking. Mega Man, at its core, is still fun and has enough new wrinkles to make it fun. Same with Castlevania.

GTA is falling apart. It was a neat experience that kind of pushed the sandbox genre into a new frontier, but it doesn't hold up well.

Same goes with Mario. Don't fault games for having good formulas. Fault GTA for having a mediocre one.

Himu · « **Reply #5 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:08:23 PM »

If you've played GTASA for 20 minutes and bother spewing that rabble, then you're only an idiot.

I honestly don't even think the handheld ones count. I'm talking about the console ones.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #6 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:10:19 PM »

Yes, because San Andreas was drastically different than the other countless GTA games

GTA is a broken formula. It's stale and it wasn't that good to begin with. We were all impressed by the freedom, but now that new shiny car smell has worn off and we all realized we've been had by the videogame equivalent of a Kia.

ananus · « **Reply #7 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:11:52 PM »

The only one that made me think "Been there, done that" was LCS.

And this whole formula thing is a matter of preference really. At least the GTAs have (or rather had before LCS) new stuff added that enhanced them. On the other hand, whenever something is added to Mega Man ever since X it's bad, and Castlevania has been pretty much the same game ever since SotN.

Anyway, I just hope the other VCS owners have something else to say.

Himu · « **Reply #8 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:13:45 PM »

Quote from: Willco on February 20, 2007, 02:10:19 PM

Yes, because San Andreas was drastically different than the other countless GTA games

It's much more evolved. Much like Super Mario World is to Super Mario Bros.

If you didn't even get out of Los Santos, you have no right to judge GTASA's quality.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #9 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:14:37 PM »

So it's an evolved version of a broken formula? Wow, awesome!

Madrun Badrun · « **Reply #10 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:14:39 PM »

Quote from: Willco on February 20, 2007, 02:10:19 PM

Yes, because San Andreas was drastically different than the other countless GTA games

GTA is a broken formula. It's stale and it wasn't that good to begin with. We were all impressed by the freedom, but now that new shiny car smell has worn off and we all realized we've been had by the videogame equivalent of a Kia.

true. it has the potential to be great, its just fundamental aspects of it are broken - like aiming, lock on, controls. They have just expanded the world instead of fixing the problems the games have.

Himu · « **Reply #11 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:15:36 PM »

Quote from: ananus on February 20, 2007, 02:11:52 PM

The only one that made me think "Been there, done that" was LCS.

And this whole formula thing is a matter of preference really. At least the GTAs have (or rather had before LCS) new stuff added that enhanced them. On the other hand, whenever something is added to Mega Man ever since X it's bad, and Castlevania has been pretty much the same game ever since SotN.

Anyway, I just hope the other VCS owners have something else to say.

But LCS doesn't count because it's on a portable. GTA is the type of series that evolves through technology power.

I don't think the portable games should even count.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #12 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:16:10 PM »

... What? GTA evolves with technology power?

Himu · « **Reply #13 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:16:22 PM »

Quote from: Father_Mike on February 20, 2007, 02:14:39 PM

true. it has the potential to be great, its just fundamental aspects of it are broken - like aiming, lock on, controls. They have just expanded the world instead of fixing the problems the games have.

How are the controls bad? I think people who find the aiming in SA to be poor suck. I never had any problem with them at all.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #14 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:17:14 PM »

Controls in GTA have been pretty awful from the start. They're not very fluid or intuitive.

Himu · « **Reply #15 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:17:44 PM »

Quote from: Willco on February 20, 2007, 02:16:10 PM

... What? GTA evolves with technology power?

Bigger environments, better graphics, awesome features such as add ons, custom soundtracks are available on technologically superior hardware such as Xbox and PC. GTA is better when the technology is there to enhance it.

Tell me how gta's formula is broken.

ananus · « **Reply #16 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:18:11 PM »

father_mike, have you even seen the difference between aiming and lock on between III and SA? There is simply no comparison. It's almost as if some of you didn't even play the games. The controls are fine too; they're simple yet effective.

And I don't get this broken formula shit.

Himu · « **Reply #17 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:19:01 PM »

Whoever compares III and SA's lock on probably, as I said before, haven't even bothered playing the games at length. Hell, you don't even have to play the games at length to notice that. SA's controls are spot on.

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #18 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:22:10 PM »

I honestly cant recommend another one. Theyre all the same.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #19 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:22:54 PM »

Quote from: MrAngryFace on February 20, 2007, 02:22:10 PM

I honestly cant recommend another one. Theyre all the same.

NO THEYVE GOT DIFFERENT MISHIONS AND VOICES UR TEH SAME MEGA MAN WHORE

Himu · « **Reply #20 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:25:06 PM »

See how Willco can't back up his broken gameplay comment?

Madrun Badrun · « **Reply #21 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:28:29 PM »

Quote from: Himuro on February 20, 2007, 02:16:22 PM

Quote from: Father_Mike on February 20, 2007, 02:14:39 PM
true. it has the potential to be great, its just fundamental aspects of it are broken - like aiming, lock on, controls. They have just expanded the world instead of fixing the problems the games have.

How are the controls bad? I think people who find the aiming in SA to be poor suck. I never had any problem with them at all.

for example, to do a drive by you need to what, press gas, stear, press r or what ever it is to look out the side and then shoot? add on top of that to being disorientating by switching the camera to do that, its not good. It would make more sence that to do a drive by the camera would stay ontop of the car and when you pressed R the camera would pull back and shoot for you.

There are lots of instances like this where the controls are bloated. Aiming is alright but no where near perfect or fun really. ask your self this, if you ripped the 3rd person mechanics out of the sandbox world and put it into a leaner 3rd person shooter, would that be fun to play? no. and I know that example is stretching it because a game should be viewed by its over all package, but when you do a lot of on foot missions they are essentially leaner. Plus things like camera inside of buildings ect.

The driving is the only part of the game that is near perfect but other that its just a package of mediocre mechanics placed in a sandbox world. I do have fun with the games but to core of it is rotten or limited by the hardware its on.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #22 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:30:33 PM »

Quote from: Himuro on February 20, 2007, 02:25:06 PM

See how Willco can't back up his broken gameplay comment?

Father Mike, MAF and myself pretty much already stated it. If you like playing the same broken game again and again, there's going to be no convincing you otherwise.

Madrun Badrun · « **Reply #23 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:32:33 PM »

Quote from: ananus on February 20, 2007, 02:18:11 PM

father_mike, have you even seen the difference between aiming and lock on between III and SA? There is simply no comparison. It's almost as if some of you didn't even play the games. The controls are fine too; they're simple yet effective.

And I don't get this broken formula shit.

yes, there is a huge difference your right. and it was a huge improvement, I mean I could actually lock on to the person I intended too in SA! ok that sounded sarcastic, there really was an improvement but its still not a great or even good aiming/lock on system at all.

Himu · « **Reply #24 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:34:42 PM »

Huh? Disoriented? You press the gas, steer, and press L or R to look out the sides of the windows, and fire. When you want to see what's in your way you let go, re position yourself and continue firing. How is that hard to grasp at all?

No, the game wouldn't be fun to play if you ripped the gun play and put it in to another game, but that's a really bad point, because it's like saying "if you ripped the fighting system out of this action rpg would be fun to play as a normal action game?" when the answer would be no. No one plays GTA for the omg shooting depth of a typical 3rd person shooter, they play it for the adventure, the side quests, the sense of being a bad guy, the exploration, the comedy.

Hey Mike, how about we strip Zelda's fighting system and put it into a normal action game, eh?

But then..who the hell plays Zelda for the fighting? The same goes for GTA.

Himu · « **Reply #25 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:37:00 PM »

Quote from: Father_Mike on February 20, 2007, 02:32:33 PM

yes, there is a huge difference your right. and it was a huge improvement, I mean I could actually lock on to the person I intended too in SA! ok that sounded sarcastic, there really was an improvement but its still not a great or even good aiming/lock on system at all.

Then how come I didn't have problems with aiming once in the game?

Madrun Badrun · « **Reply #26 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:47:24 PM »

Quote from: Himuro on February 20, 2007, 02:34:42 PM

Huh? Disoriented? You press the gas, steer, and press L or R to look out the sides of the windows, and fire. When you want to see what's in your way you let go, re position yourself and continue firing. How is that hard to grasp at all?

No, the game wouldn't be fun to play if you ripped the gun play and put it in to another game, but that's a really bad point, because it's like saying "if you ripped the fighting system out of this action rpg would be fun to play as a normal action game?" when the answer would be no. No one plays GTA for the omg shooting depth of a typical 3rd person shooter, they play it for the adventure, the side quests, the sense of being a bad guy, the exploration, the comedy.

Hey Mike, how about we strip Zelda's fighting system and put it into a normal action game, eh?

But then..who the hell plays Zelda for the fighting? The same goes for GTA.

ok yes that was a bad example to rip it out but the point is, the 3rd person shooting makes up like 1/4 of the game, and there are lots of times where i have been frustrated because of having the game lock on to the wrong guy or because the camera changed and obscured my view of the action ect. it is not good, now im not saying that gtas are bad games, but they have big problems that have not been addresses and instead they have just been expanding the world as a means to show progression in the series. Now to go back to your mario example yes they didn't change the core of the game until 64, but because it was so simple, mario is almost perfect at the core, so there was no reason to change it. gta on the other hand needs a make over and I'm really hoping they do that for the next one instead of spending all there time into online coop or other new features.

Himu · « **Reply #27 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:58:05 PM »

In GTAIII, there were problems with the lock on because the camera moved in a weird way, but it didn't ruin the game by any means. In VC and SA it's ultimately not a problem, SA more so than VC, because VC has some quirks her and there, but once again, not enough to ruin the game. In SA it's not a problem because you can aim anywhere you want. The fact you can shoot with L1 makes the controls much more intuitive as well, and more relaxed.

Himu · « **Reply #28 on:** February 20, 2007, 03:01:53 PM »

No, I like point out how people spooge over Mario when all of his 2d outings are basically the same damn thing, with the exception of Yoshi's Island, which is why it's the best 2d Mario in my eyes. Yes, Mario is simple, but so what? Still a contradiction and hypocrisy.

It seems that people only have a problem with franchises that are "milked" when they don't really care for them. That's fine, but don't try to ruin my fun or bitch every time I try to talk about GTA.

Now Resident Evil and Street Fighter II, yeah, I can totally see why someone would hate on that milking because the differences are small. But in each GTA, Mario, CV, there have been noticable difference between the games. In GTAIII it's mostly "go here and kill this guy" but it's more atmospheric (imo). In GTAVC, it's atmospheric, but it has more non linearity to how you engage missions, making each and every player's experience differ from his peers. In SA, it's the exploration and adventure that takes charge, rather than the missions.

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #29 on:** February 20, 2007, 03:09:56 PM »

Hey I BOUGHT the first one for psp, I bought GTA3, GTAVC, I mean ive had my time with the series, and honestly the PSP version really opened my eyes.

Himu · « **Reply #30 on:** February 20, 2007, 03:14:56 PM »

But isn't that the one that's considered a rehash even by the most ardent GTA supporters like me? Even I think GTALCS looked like a rehash. I'm not denying that at all, but see, I just don't think the handheld ones count. You can do significantly less on the handheld as opposed to a console. One of the reasons being that the psp lacks a lot of key buttons.

I wouldn't judge GTA until GTA IV comes out, maf.

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #31 on:** February 20, 2007, 03:18:44 PM »

Its the formula. Its base elements never change or evolve. Its me driving between half-assed quests with cars and people screaming wacky street stuff and omg I can listen to the radio.

The Sceneman · « **Reply #32 on:** February 20, 2007, 03:46:04 PM »

Hay guys I heard they added amazing new gameplay elements into this one you can change your shirt texture and steal a motorbike this time around

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #33 on:** February 20, 2007, 03:49:10 PM »

OMG NEW RADIO STATION?!?!

Cupil · « **Reply #34 on:** February 20, 2007, 07:51:45 PM »

I'll buy it on PS2 but I probably will only play it for 10 hours at most. I'm tired of the series but I'm willing to check it out just to see the city design

tiesto · « **Reply #35 on:** February 21, 2007, 08:50:19 AM »

Quote from: MrAngryFace on February 20, 2007, 03:49:10 PM

OMG NEW RADIO STATION?!?!

I'll admit - most of the fun for me with these games is seeing what new radio stations they have.

News:

Author Topic: How's GTA: VCS? (Read 3001 times)