The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Grand Theft Auto'.
Have you noticed ever since Grand Theft Auto 3 all the games have been based on America (American characters, cars, dress-sense etc.)? Wouldn't it be nice if Rockstar could produce something like GTA: London again, but in 3D? San Andreas had a touch of British with two cockney characters, but that's been about it. I'm looking more along the lines of The Getaway or The Italian Job, only with a touch of Rockstar genius. It's got all the ingredients of a great game.
Page:
Obviously it does if thats the way you interpreted it.
Chr1s wrote:
> Obviously it does if thats the way you interpreted it.
no i just took a wild guess. andif u really dont get it then look harded. foo'
> Obviously it does if thats the way you interpreted it.
no i just took a wild guess. andif u really dont get it then look harded. foo'
Well unless you're going to explain it then this will be the last post. I'm not wasting any more time on a prat who doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Chr1s wrote:
> Well unless you're going to explain it then this will be the last
> post. I'm not wasting any more time on a prat who doesn't really know
> what he's talking about.
yeah apart from me proving you wrong about the GTA:3 Trilogy the post you talk about i really didnt say anything.
> Well unless you're going to explain it then this will be the last
> post. I'm not wasting any more time on a prat who doesn't really know
> what he's talking about.
yeah apart from me proving you wrong about the GTA:3 Trilogy the post you talk about i really didnt say anything.
Ah right, my original argument returns to me. They are a Trilogy, albeit a very loose one but they are not the GTA 3 Trilogy.
Chr1s wrote:
> Ah right, my original argument returns to me. They are a Trilogy,
> albeit a very loose one but they are not the GTA 3 Trilogy.
they are the "GTA 3 Trilogy." what makes you think they are not?
> Ah right, my original argument returns to me. They are a Trilogy,
> albeit a very loose one but they are not the GTA 3 Trilogy.
they are the "GTA 3 Trilogy." what makes you think they are not?
Its simple, if they were the "GTA 3 Trilogy" then they would be known as GTA 3 Vice City and GTA 3 San Andreas, which of course they are not. They are part of a very loose Trilogy but not part of this so called "GTA 3 Trilogy". How many times am I going to have to say this before you can actually decode the text into a simple enough format for your brain to understand?
Chr1s wrote:
> Its simple, if they were the "GTA 3 Trilogy" then they would
> be known as GTA 3 Vice City and GTA 3 San Andreas, which of course
> they are not. They are part of a very loose Trilogy but not part of
> this so called "GTA 3 Trilogy". How many times am I going
> to have to say this before you can actually decode the text into a
> simple enough format for your brain to understand?
the first one was called GTA3 Liberty City. Yeah,you got that good, then to carry the trilogy the called the next one, GTA Vice City, and the last one GTA San Andreas. Now from what you have said above that means that VC and SA were all the first GTA because they did not have a number, Rockstar have said that it is a trilogy.
> Its simple, if they were the "GTA 3 Trilogy" then they would
> be known as GTA 3 Vice City and GTA 3 San Andreas, which of course
> they are not. They are part of a very loose Trilogy but not part of
> this so called "GTA 3 Trilogy". How many times am I going
> to have to say this before you can actually decode the text into a
> simple enough format for your brain to understand?
the first one was called GTA3 Liberty City. Yeah,you got that good, then to carry the trilogy the called the next one, GTA Vice City, and the last one GTA San Andreas. Now from what you have said above that means that VC and SA were all the first GTA because they did not have a number, Rockstar have said that it is a trilogy.
My God, you really are struggling to understand this. For one thing GTA 3 was only called "GTA 3", NOT "GTA 3 Liberty City". For the final time, you said that they were part of the "GTA 3 Trilogy". I'm not saying they aren't part of a Trilogy and I never was, I'm saying that they are not part of the "GTA 3 Trilogy". Its all about the name for crying out loud!
I'll give you an example to try and attempt the futile task of getting you to understand. The first Lord Of The Rings film was entitled "The Fellowship Of The Ring". The three films are known as the LOTR Trilogy, not The Lord Of The Rings The Fellowship Of The Ring Trilogy. Is that sufficient enough? Do you finally understand where I'm going with this?
I'll give you an example to try and attempt the futile task of getting you to understand. The first Lord Of The Rings film was entitled "The Fellowship Of The Ring". The three films are known as the LOTR Trilogy, not The Lord Of The Rings The Fellowship Of The Ring Trilogy. Is that sufficient enough? Do you finally understand where I'm going with this?
Chr1s wrote:
> My God, you really are struggling to understand this. For one thing
> GTA 3 was only called "GTA 3", NOT "GTA 3 Liberty
> City". For the final time, you said that they were part of the
> "GTA 3 Trilogy". I'm not saying they aren't part of a
> Trilogy and I never was, I'm saying that they are not part of the
> "GTA 3 Trilogy". Its all about the name for crying out
> loud!
No it isnt.
> I'll give you an example to try and attempt the futile task of
> getting you to understand. The first Lord Of The Rings film was
> entitled "The Fellowship Of The Ring". The three films are
> known as the LOTR Trilogy, not The Lord Of The Rings The Fellowship
> Of The Ring Trilogy. Is that sufficient enough? Do you finally
> understand where I'm going with this?
you are being a very prejudiced little fool i know what a Trilogy is. Ever read The Black Magician Trilogy.
GTA3 Liberty City was the first name, they the made a trilogy out of it you do not need to keep the original name to have a trilogy.
Cant you get this into your tiny little imbecile skull?
> My God, you really are struggling to understand this. For one thing
> GTA 3 was only called "GTA 3", NOT "GTA 3 Liberty
> City". For the final time, you said that they were part of the
> "GTA 3 Trilogy". I'm not saying they aren't part of a
> Trilogy and I never was, I'm saying that they are not part of the
> "GTA 3 Trilogy". Its all about the name for crying out
> loud!
No it isnt.
> I'll give you an example to try and attempt the futile task of
> getting you to understand. The first Lord Of The Rings film was
> entitled "The Fellowship Of The Ring". The three films are
> known as the LOTR Trilogy, not The Lord Of The Rings The Fellowship
> Of The Ring Trilogy. Is that sufficient enough? Do you finally
> understand where I'm going with this?
you are being a very prejudiced little fool i know what a Trilogy is. Ever read The Black Magician Trilogy.
GTA3 Liberty City was the first name, they the made a trilogy out of it you do not need to keep the original name to have a trilogy.
Cant you get this into your tiny little imbecile skull?
Page: