We all respect SA more than 4

#11goldwPosted 11/22/2012 7:35:17 AM
SA also had a lot of empty, bland spots, an awful desert, massive pop-in, and three terribly bland cities.
A child has a 40% chance of surviving if hit by Usain Bolt - S1nharvest
#12CruorComaPosted 11/22/2012 7:36:20 AM
Quantity vs Quality: The Game
If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window right now. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?
#13creep50Posted 11/22/2012 7:38:03 AM
professor_choas posted...
creep50 posted...
goldw posted...
From: creep50 | #004
it also lacked a good map LC was horrible....everything was just so flat and boring

Compared to SA, nothing is a bad map.

I like SA, but I would be lying if I told you that I would play that over IV.

right san andreas had the best map in the series by far....the,variety,size...just everything was just perfect..there was ALOT to see in san andreas

gta 4 had alot of tall buldings and a streets.....not much else

Not only are you comparing a low res PS2 game to an HD PS3 game, you're also comparing LA, SF, LV, and a country side to New York. Of course there's nothing but skyscrapers and streets in NYC.

ahh i see you think it is all about graphics...wow

and i know how new york is...dosnt mean its a good map...even gta 3s LC wasnt this flat
San Andreas > > > > > > > > >Desert Bus > > > > > > > >GTA 4
#14MrGazzoPosted 11/22/2012 7:44:00 AM
GTA IV is Rockstar's first HD GTA, so I can see why GTA IV is rather tedious. Then again, the game's still fun and awesome
Haytham Kenway = Roger Moore
#15creep50Posted 11/22/2012 7:44:03 AM
goldw posted...
SA also had a lot of empty, bland spots, an awful desert, massive pop-in, and three terribly bland cities.

not really....there was ALWAYS something close to you in san andreas..a car or street ....something

the citys in san andreas also felt different from each other giving the game even more variety
San Andreas > > > > > > > > >Desert Bus > > > > > > > >GTA 4
#16professor_choasPosted 11/22/2012 7:55:12 AM
No I don't think its all about graphics. I'm saying you can fit more into a lower resolution game than you can into one that's HD. It makes sense that they can include a huge map with 3 cities, a country side, and several small towns. If they would have tried the same with 4, there probably wouldn't have been nearly enough space on disc. And if you know how New York is, why are you complaining? That's all there is in NYC and the surrounding boroughs. Tall buildings and streets. I don't really know what kind of elevation you're expecting from a map based on NYC.
They see me trollin, they hatin
#17ninjaman148Posted 11/22/2012 9:20:51 AM
I like both games, but I'd choose SA. Just riding on a desert highway on a chopper, mmm
Yo Buddy, Still Alive?
Rest In Peace - Our Beloved Dog Lukas (07-31-12) - Someday, We'll Meet Again On Rainbow Bridge
#18kentuckybobPosted 11/22/2012 9:53:38 AM
Of course OP, GTA4 wasnt even good.
"You know what ol' Jack Burton always says at a time like this?"
#19TrialAndErrorPosted 11/22/2012 10:26:29 AM
I've lived in both San Francisco and New York, and I can say San Andreas felt better.

Liberty City got Manhattan pretty accurate, but Brooklyn, Queens, and Bronx... Not even close. How do you have a Bronx without the Bronx Zoo? I'll never know.

Niko was a flat and bland character, relegated to an errand boy. CJ had motives, lots of them, whether it was revenge, family, or the truth.

Not to mention... Flying jets will always be better than not flying anything. What's the point of an airport if you can't do anything there?
Pixel Republiq is coming...
PSN & Xbox Live: TrialnError423
#20f3l1xxx672Posted 11/22/2012 10:54:03 AM
I liked how you could level up weapons in SA, increasing accuracy and being able to dual wield.
Adam West was clearly the strongest Batman. Only he could punch villains so hard that words describing the impact materialise out of thin air