The "PC Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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: San Andreas'.
Is now available!!!! I've heard about a pirate version being circulated around. Ages before its release. And unlike the pirate version of Halflife 2, it apparently works quite well.
I'll post a review if I get my grubby mits on a copy.
I'll post a review if I get my grubby mits on a copy.
Page:
Heh, nothing wrong with trying I guess, right?
Lipe wrote:
> Heh, nothing wrong with trying I guess, right?
Right. But if this 'San Andreas' or whatever it's called blows, I can safely say I will be a mug.
> Heh, nothing wrong with trying I guess, right?
Right. But if this 'San Andreas' or whatever it's called blows, I can safely say I will be a mug.
Bob_The_Moose wrote:
> I really doubt they haven't started work on a sequel.
I would say they've been busy working on a sequel as well (well, more of that later) - but playable code doesn't result until they're well into the process. More importantly, optomisation to make it run on standard software won't occur until very late in the process. It's not a case of it'll look a bit rough, it's a case of it won't run in Windows and that there is no collective whole to be stolen/leaked/whatever.
Look at the surrounding facts. There's been no news of this leak - if true, it would be as big as Half-Life 2 leaking. Secondly, after Half-Life 2 leaking, every developer will have locked down security, an unlikely event even more unlikely. Thirdly, the internet is full of fake "leaks" that fools are taken in by. Fourthy, Rockstar have been busy since Vice City was launched on the PS2 - see PC version and XBox conversions, plus I'm assuming they have other franchises. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect there simply to be tech demos and conceptual designs for levels at this point. Making a game in as much planning as coding... which brings me back to their being no playable code until rather late in the process. Why do you think games that are just a few months away from release end up in video form at ECTS/E3/etc? This is a process that Rockstar have said will take until late 2004 for a PS2 version. Then, by previous titles, a good 6 to 8 months more for a PC version. So a PC verion leaking now? No way.
There is no significant playable code of the next GTA game available now. Guaranteed.
> I really doubt they haven't started work on a sequel.
I would say they've been busy working on a sequel as well (well, more of that later) - but playable code doesn't result until they're well into the process. More importantly, optomisation to make it run on standard software won't occur until very late in the process. It's not a case of it'll look a bit rough, it's a case of it won't run in Windows and that there is no collective whole to be stolen/leaked/whatever.
Look at the surrounding facts. There's been no news of this leak - if true, it would be as big as Half-Life 2 leaking. Secondly, after Half-Life 2 leaking, every developer will have locked down security, an unlikely event even more unlikely. Thirdly, the internet is full of fake "leaks" that fools are taken in by. Fourthy, Rockstar have been busy since Vice City was launched on the PS2 - see PC version and XBox conversions, plus I'm assuming they have other franchises. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect there simply to be tech demos and conceptual designs for levels at this point. Making a game in as much planning as coding... which brings me back to their being no playable code until rather late in the process. Why do you think games that are just a few months away from release end up in video form at ECTS/E3/etc? This is a process that Rockstar have said will take until late 2004 for a PS2 version. Then, by previous titles, a good 6 to 8 months more for a PC version. So a PC verion leaking now? No way.
There is no significant playable code of the next GTA game available now. Guaranteed.
As it got buried in the midst of a rant, can I just point out my most overwhelmingly strong point...
*** *** ***
Thirdly, the internet is full of fake "leaks" that fools are taken in by.
*** *** ***
*** *** ***
Thirdly, the internet is full of fake "leaks" that fools are taken in by.
*** *** ***
If there was indeed playable code available, it would be a textureless, eventless landscape with wireframe buildings and characters, and no AI.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
Well, I'll agree with you that it's almost certain none of their code or anything else has been leaked, but whether any of this actually exists is another matter that nobody outside of their development circle will really know. What annoyed me enough to start arguing about this was the "You idiot" attitude that some people took.
That's what general chat's for.
That's what general chat's for.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> There is no significant playable code of the next GTA game available
> now. Guaranteed.
A sweeping statement, and very well covered by subtle use of the word 'significant'. I have been involved in the creation of a small budget game for a Uni project, and I wholeheartedly disagree with that ridiculous concept you so boldly proclaim.
Basic coding is neccessary all the way through the production process, to test speeds, angles, movement and a myriad other parameters that are not visible to the multitudes. The final usable code may not be written until a late stage, but basic stuff is used from start to finish.
Mr Gonzo fella. What on earth inspired you to give out such a wildly inaccurate idea of game production?
> There is no significant playable code of the next GTA game available
> now. Guaranteed.
A sweeping statement, and very well covered by subtle use of the word 'significant'. I have been involved in the creation of a small budget game for a Uni project, and I wholeheartedly disagree with that ridiculous concept you so boldly proclaim.
Basic coding is neccessary all the way through the production process, to test speeds, angles, movement and a myriad other parameters that are not visible to the multitudes. The final usable code may not be written until a late stage, but basic stuff is used from start to finish.
Mr Gonzo fella. What on earth inspired you to give out such a wildly inaccurate idea of game production?
I sincerely doubt any useful playable code will be available. By useful I mean, levels, quests, or anything involving more than five lines of AI.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> I sincerely doubt any useful playable code will be available. By
> useful I mean, levels, quests, or anything involving more than five
> lines of AI.
Agreed. You don't need much more than that to test the various elements.
> I sincerely doubt any useful playable code will be available. By
> useful I mean, levels, quests, or anything involving more than five
> lines of AI.
Agreed. You don't need much more than that to test the various elements.
Little Hobbo wrote:
> A sweeping statement, and very well covered by subtle use of the word
> 'significant'. I have been involved in the creation of a small
> budget game for a Uni project, and I wholeheartedly disagree with
> that ridiculous concept you so boldly proclaim.
>
> Basic coding is neccessary all the way through the production
> process, to test speeds, angles, movement and a myriad other
> parameters that are not visible to the multitudes. The final usable
> code may not be written until a late stage, but basic stuff is used
> from start to finish.
Thanks for that Hobbo. It was what I suspected but having never written anything more complicated than a few Java scripts I couldn't say for sure.
And I'd rather keep my mouth shut than say something completely incorrect.
> A sweeping statement, and very well covered by subtle use of the word
> 'significant'. I have been involved in the creation of a small
> budget game for a Uni project, and I wholeheartedly disagree with
> that ridiculous concept you so boldly proclaim.
>
> Basic coding is neccessary all the way through the production
> process, to test speeds, angles, movement and a myriad other
> parameters that are not visible to the multitudes. The final usable
> code may not be written until a late stage, but basic stuff is used
> from start to finish.
Thanks for that Hobbo. It was what I suspected but having never written anything more complicated than a few Java scripts I couldn't say for sure.
And I'd rather keep my mouth shut than say something completely incorrect.
Page: