This game really could appeal to both SA and GTA IV fans

#41puffinslaughterPosted 2/22/2013 10:00:42 PM
From: hellfire582 | Posted: 2/22/2013 9:05:13 PM | #038
Saying that there's no argument about whether SA or GTA IV was better is ridiculous, because that question is all about one's individual opinion. My argument has nothing to do with that, though. All I was saying is that certain things, like a bigger or comparable map size, would be normally expected. You shouldn't have to rent a game to see if they made the obvious improvements over its prequel.


It is better quality wise. The graphics and physics engine are better. That's what I mean by quality. You can't expect a bigger map size every single time. And it isn't always an improvement. If you don't wanna bother to go out and spend 5 bucks on a rental or do some research on the game then don't complain about it not living up to your standards. Just because you're spending money on it doesn't mean it has to be what you want.
---
Kris Letang stat tracker ~ 3 Goals, 9 Assists, +5. Pittsburgh Penguins: 11-6
http://i49.tinypic.com/20l12ld.png ~grape_purple ^_^
#42hellfire582(Topic Creator)Posted 2/22/2013 10:35:21 PM
puffinslaughter posted...
From: hellfire582 | Posted: 2/22/2013 9:05:13 PM | #038
Saying that there's no argument about whether SA or GTA IV was better is ridiculous, because that question is all about one's individual opinion. My argument has nothing to do with that, though. All I was saying is that certain things, like a bigger or comparable map size, would be normally expected. You shouldn't have to rent a game to see if they made the obvious improvements over its prequel.


It is better quality wise. The graphics and physics engine are better. That's what I mean by quality. You can't expect a bigger map size every single time. And it isn't always an improvement. If you don't wanna bother to go out and spend 5 bucks on a rental or do some research on the game then don't complain about it not living up to your standards. Just because you're spending money on it doesn't mean it has to be what you want.


I'd argue that a bigger map pretty much is always better for GTA at least. Every GTA game up to SA had an increasing map size, which most people seemed to like. When you have an established trend like that, no one would expect the series to take a step back.

There are definitely other things that I agree a person can't complain about. For example, I didn't like the city setting of GTA IV, but I knew that it would be like that because it was obvious from the game cover alone. But I don't think a smaller map is something that a person should have to rent a game to figure out about,
#43Sword_of_DuskPosted 2/23/2013 9:14:08 AM
hellfire582 posted...
puffinslaughter posted...
From: hellfire582 | Posted: 2/22/2013 9:05:13 PM | #038
Saying that there's no argument about whether SA or GTA IV was better is ridiculous, because that question is all about one's individual opinion. My argument has nothing to do with that, though. All I was saying is that certain things, like a bigger or comparable map size, would be normally expected. You shouldn't have to rent a game to see if they made the obvious improvements over its prequel.


It is better quality wise. The graphics and physics engine are better. That's what I mean by quality. You can't expect a bigger map size every single time. And it isn't always an improvement. If you don't wanna bother to go out and spend 5 bucks on a rental or do some research on the game then don't complain about it not living up to your standards. Just because you're spending money on it doesn't mean it has to be what you want.


I'd argue that a bigger map pretty much is always better for GTA at least. Every GTA game up to SA had an increasing map size, which most people seemed to like. When you have an established trend like that, no one would expect the series to take a step back.

There are definitely other things that I agree a person can't complain about. For example, I didn't like the city setting of GTA IV, but I knew that it would be like that because it was obvious from the game cover alone. But I don't think a smaller map is something that a person should have to rent a game to figure out about,



No, all one needs to do is just do a bit of research on the internet to find that out. It isn't that hard, and someone would only have themselves to blame if a game doesn't have a feature they want and they spent $60 on it. A little research and money can be saved.
---
"The angels have the phone box".
#44nativenginePosted 2/23/2013 9:21:02 AM
hellfire582 posted...
puffinslaughter posted...
From: hellfire582 | Posted: 2/22/2013 9:05:13 PM | #038
Saying that there's no argument about whether SA or GTA IV was better is ridiculous, because that question is all about one's individual opinion. My argument has nothing to do with that, though. All I was saying is that certain things, like a bigger or comparable map size, would be normally expected. You shouldn't have to rent a game to see if they made the obvious improvements over its prequel.


It is better quality wise. The graphics and physics engine are better. That's what I mean by quality. You can't expect a bigger map size every single time. And it isn't always an improvement. If you don't wanna bother to go out and spend 5 bucks on a rental or do some research on the game then don't complain about it not living up to your standards. Just because you're spending money on it doesn't mean it has to be what you want.


I'd argue that a bigger map pretty much is always better for GTA at least. Every GTA game up to SA had an increasing map size, which most people seemed to like. When you have an established trend like that, no one would expect the series to take a step back.

There are definitely other things that I agree a person can't complain about. For example, I didn't like the city setting of GTA IV, but I knew that it would be like that because it was obvious from the game cover alone. But I don't think a smaller map is something that a person should have to rent a game to figure out about,


Ok, so if renting isn't an option why isn't doing research? Its not like the internet is a brand new thing, like gaming magazines don't do full stories on GTA. Basically what you're arguing is we should be able to tell from the case what's in the game, which is probably the worst way to decide on buying a game or not.

1. Some things on the case may not be in the game
2. It's easy to make a game look good on it's case, very easy

So you're willing to sacrifice the level of detail shown in GTA4 to have a bigger map? I repeat, Saints Row is a great option. This may be hard for you to understand but a large amout of people felt overwhelmed with the map in SA. That overwhelming feeling turned to disappointment when people realized the map was barren.

I knew full well what I was getting from GTA4, doesn't take long to figure out info a few weeks before the game. I knew we were getting a smaller map and as a result planes wouldn't be a means of transportation. I knew that we were getting a darker more serious story. The only thing that truely suprised me was the lack of a tank. In today's day in age there is no excuse to look at a game cover and say "this will be everything I expect". We have magazines and most importantly the f***ing Internet to find any and all info on a game. I think that's your problem, your own expectations. It's your expectations of what GTA4 should've been that let you down. That in turn, more then likely, led to you neglecting to see that GTA4 improved on the much more important aspects of what a GTA game is. It set the bar for open world games this gen and none have captured what GTA4 did 5 years ago.
---
Vegetarian- an old Indian word meaning bad hunter
Elected Leader of the GTA5 360 board
#45hellfire582(Topic Creator)Posted 2/23/2013 12:52:51 PM
nativengine posted...


Ok, so if renting isn't an option why isn't doing research? Its not like the internet is a brand new thing, like gaming magazines don't do full stories on GTA. Basically what you're arguing is we should be able to tell from the case what's in the game, which is probably the worst way to decide on buying a game or not.

1. Some things on the case may not be in the game
2. It's easy to make a game look good on it's case, very easy

So you're willing to sacrifice the level of detail shown in GTA4 to have a bigger map? I repeat, Saints Row is a great option. This may be hard for you to understand but a large amout of people felt overwhelmed with the map in SA. That overwhelming feeling turned to disappointment when people realized the map was barren.

I knew full well what I was getting from GTA4, doesn't take long to figure out info a few weeks before the game. I knew we were getting a smaller map and as a result planes wouldn't be a means of transportation. I knew that we were getting a darker more serious story. The only thing that truely suprised me was the lack of a tank. In today's day in age there is no excuse to look at a game cover and say "this will be everything I expect". We have magazines and most importantly the f***ing Internet to find any and all info on a game. I think that's your problem, your own expectations. It's your expectations of what GTA4 should've been that let you down. That in turn, more then likely, led to you neglecting to see that GTA4 improved on the much more important aspects of what a GTA game is. It set the bar for open world games this gen and none have captured what GTA4 did 5 years ago.


You really don't get as much as you'd think from doing research. Most websites out there wouldn't have told you that GTA IV had a significantly smaller map, at least not when the game first came out. So, no, the f***ing internet isn't always all that helpful.

Also, I wasn't surprised by the fact that GTA IV had a small map and no planes. I knew that going in because I'd talked to friends about the game. I'm not saying that GTA IV was a game not worth buying. It was just worse than SA. I really can't see how a big map can be "overwhelming." There's something wrong if your senses can be overwhelmed by a video game. The bigger map of SA just gave it more replay value and more to explore. Nor did I think the detail was lacking. Even the desert had oil fields and structures interspersed throughout.

Finally, I actually agree with you that my expectation are what made me dislike GTA IV. Again, I don't think it was a bad game overall, just worse than SA. The reason I dislike it, admittedly, is just because I thought SA was so much better. I still thought it was worth buying. But it is a problem if Rockstar starts a trend of making sequels worse than their predecessors.
#46BaconNeckPosted 2/23/2013 2:19:59 PM
Am I the only one that remembers driving on a highway and DOING NOTHING BUT DRIVING for 5-10 minutes between areas in SA? "Oh, here's a small town with 3 streets and 10 small houses that you can't interact with." Then another 5 minutes of driving. I'll take a smaller map all day over that crap.

As far as I'm concerned, this series peaked fun-wise at VC. Quality is always there, but the "charm" (for lack of a better word) hasn't been. Maybe they will get some of that back.
#47holden4everPosted 2/23/2013 2:54:31 PM
From: hellfire582 | #045
That overwhelming feeling turned to disappointment when people realized the map was barren.


From: BaconNeck | #046
Am I the only one that remembers driving on a highway and DOING NOTHING BUT DRIVING for 5-10 minutes between areas in SA? "Oh, here's a small town with 3 streets and 10 small houses that you can't interact with." Then another 5 minutes of driving. I'll take a smaller map all day over that crap.


This.

The bigger map of SA just gave it more replay value and more to explore. Nor did I think the detail was lacking. Even the desert had oil fields and structures interspersed throughout.


Not this.


What's the point of having a huge map if there's nothing in it. What's there to explore? Trees? Mountains? Oil fields? If I wanted to look at trees and mountains I'd go bushwalking, not play a GTA game. Same goes for getting a haircut, a tattoo or working out. If I wanted to do those things the last place I'd want to do them would be in a f***ing video game. Why are SA fans so totally unable to see why people don't like it? I can see why people don't like GTA4.
---
http://thebulldogs.com.au/media/logo_2010.png - 2012 NRL Season: Minor Premiers. Grand Final runners-up. Bring on 2013.
#48hellfire582(Topic Creator)Posted 2/23/2013 3:31:16 PM
holden4ever posted...
From: hellfire582 | #045
That overwhelming feeling turned to disappointment when people realized the map was barren.


From: BaconNeck | #046
Am I the only one that remembers driving on a highway and DOING NOTHING BUT DRIVING for 5-10 minutes between areas in SA? "Oh, here's a small town with 3 streets and 10 small houses that you can't interact with." Then another 5 minutes of driving. I'll take a smaller map all day over that crap.


This.

The bigger map of SA just gave it more replay value and more to explore. Nor did I think the detail was lacking. Even the desert had oil fields and structures interspersed throughout.


Not this.


What's the point of having a huge map if there's nothing in it. What's there to explore? Trees? Mountains? Oil fields? If I wanted to look at trees and mountains I'd go bushwalking, not play a GTA game. Same goes for getting a haircut, a tattoo or working out. If I wanted to do those things the last place I'd want to do them would be in a f***ing video game. Why are SA fans so totally unable to see why people don't like it? I can see why people don't like GTA4.


I'm not unable to see why people don't like it. I completely realize it's a matter of opinion. I'm just trying to explain why I do like it. I thought the so-called barren areas were nice. It's not as though they were just flat land. They were hilly and had structures to interact with that let you do car tricks and stuff like that. Personally, I think that's preferable to a dense area of buildings without many opportunities to do stunts with vehicles. Not to mention, SA did have it's fair share of city regions, which is another reason why a bigger map is better. The bigger the map, the more variety of regions you can have.
#49KidInTheHallPosted 2/23/2013 3:52:48 PM
To me SA didn't have too many barren areas, I thought they did a great job on that map. I like the big maps because just driving around was enjoyable and relaxing for me and to be able to do that with IV's driving just gets me way excited.
---
i5-3570k | ASRock Z77 Extreme6 | EVGA 560Ti 448 Classified x2 SLI | 16GB G.Skill Ares | Corsair 600T White | 212 EVO | HX750
#50professor_choasPosted 2/23/2013 8:43:20 PM
San Andreas was filled with barren/boring areas. The game was great nonetheless, but to try and say that the country side wasn't filled with almost pure filler is the definition of denial. They had all that space and nothing to do there. Aside from the few missions that were based in the country, a few stunt jumps, and the mountain, the country side was filler to make the map larger. And most of it was indeed, boring.
---
That activates my hilarity unit.