The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
It's not that great, is it?
I mean, I finished the first city and there is absolutely nothing that entices me back to play the next. Aside from the likes of Just Business and Reuniting the Families the missions were, if we're being honest, pretty crap. The characters (yes, all of them) were as annoying as hell and the plotline was small-time and dull.
Granted, these criticisms are most likely confined to the first city, which probably functioned as an introductionary stage. But as a third of the game, and the opening performance, surely it should have made more of an impression? With such an underwhelming beginning, can San Andreas really deserve all this acclaim?
I was pleased to see the level design improved over Vice City, but it's too big. Very little is memorable unlike the confined but familiar Liberty City of GTA3. Is bigger better? Really? Such a scale suits games like Morrowind, but I'm unsure whether or not it works here.
More generally, there's been no attempt to change the now outdated car physics, the graphics can be pretty awful in places and I don't think we needed all those unnecessary RPG-style complications - a stamina and muscle bar would've been nice, but nobody asked for The Sims on ground level. Furthermore, with this level of involvement, why does your character even speak? It's not the best idea to force us into being a person who we don't necessarily like/agree with.
The combat is good, planes and bikes are easier to drive and some other changes have genuinely been made for the good. They've tried to make it a worthy sequel, and there's enough new stuff here to say that they've achieved that, but in doing so they've overcomplicated a bulletproof formula that made GTA3 so much fun. I'm not saying San Andreas is a bad game, per se, nor am I trying to go against the crowd - it's just a pity that it will sell so much and, thus, be the game that represents the industry for quite some time.
I mean, I finished the first city and there is absolutely nothing that entices me back to play the next. Aside from the likes of Just Business and Reuniting the Families the missions were, if we're being honest, pretty crap. The characters (yes, all of them) were as annoying as hell and the plotline was small-time and dull.
Granted, these criticisms are most likely confined to the first city, which probably functioned as an introductionary stage. But as a third of the game, and the opening performance, surely it should have made more of an impression? With such an underwhelming beginning, can San Andreas really deserve all this acclaim?
I was pleased to see the level design improved over Vice City, but it's too big. Very little is memorable unlike the confined but familiar Liberty City of GTA3. Is bigger better? Really? Such a scale suits games like Morrowind, but I'm unsure whether or not it works here.
More generally, there's been no attempt to change the now outdated car physics, the graphics can be pretty awful in places and I don't think we needed all those unnecessary RPG-style complications - a stamina and muscle bar would've been nice, but nobody asked for The Sims on ground level. Furthermore, with this level of involvement, why does your character even speak? It's not the best idea to force us into being a person who we don't necessarily like/agree with.
The combat is good, planes and bikes are easier to drive and some other changes have genuinely been made for the good. They've tried to make it a worthy sequel, and there's enough new stuff here to say that they've achieved that, but in doing so they've overcomplicated a bulletproof formula that made GTA3 so much fun. I'm not saying San Andreas is a bad game, per se, nor am I trying to go against the crowd - it's just a pity that it will sell so much and, thus, be the game that represents the industry for quite some time.
Page:
It's not that great, is it?
I mean, I finished the first city and there is absolutely nothing that entices me back to play the next. Aside from the likes of Just Business and Reuniting the Families the missions were, if we're being honest, pretty crap. The characters (yes, all of them) were as annoying as hell and the plotline was small-time and dull.
Granted, these criticisms are most likely confined to the first city, which probably functioned as an introductionary stage. But as a third of the game, and the opening performance, surely it should have made more of an impression? With such an underwhelming beginning, can San Andreas really deserve all this acclaim?
I was pleased to see the level design improved over Vice City, but it's too big. Very little is memorable unlike the confined but familiar Liberty City of GTA3. Is bigger better? Really? Such a scale suits games like Morrowind, but I'm unsure whether or not it works here.
More generally, there's been no attempt to change the now outdated car physics, the graphics can be pretty awful in places and I don't think we needed all those unnecessary RPG-style complications - a stamina and muscle bar would've been nice, but nobody asked for The Sims on ground level. Furthermore, with this level of involvement, why does your character even speak? It's not the best idea to force us into being a person who we don't necessarily like/agree with.
The combat is good, planes and bikes are easier to drive and some other changes have genuinely been made for the good. They've tried to make it a worthy sequel, and there's enough new stuff here to say that they've achieved that, but in doing so they've overcomplicated a bulletproof formula that made GTA3 so much fun. I'm not saying San Andreas is a bad game, per se, nor am I trying to go against the crowd - it's just a pity that it will sell so much and, thus, be the game that represents the industry for quite some time.
I mean, I finished the first city and there is absolutely nothing that entices me back to play the next. Aside from the likes of Just Business and Reuniting the Families the missions were, if we're being honest, pretty crap. The characters (yes, all of them) were as annoying as hell and the plotline was small-time and dull.
Granted, these criticisms are most likely confined to the first city, which probably functioned as an introductionary stage. But as a third of the game, and the opening performance, surely it should have made more of an impression? With such an underwhelming beginning, can San Andreas really deserve all this acclaim?
I was pleased to see the level design improved over Vice City, but it's too big. Very little is memorable unlike the confined but familiar Liberty City of GTA3. Is bigger better? Really? Such a scale suits games like Morrowind, but I'm unsure whether or not it works here.
More generally, there's been no attempt to change the now outdated car physics, the graphics can be pretty awful in places and I don't think we needed all those unnecessary RPG-style complications - a stamina and muscle bar would've been nice, but nobody asked for The Sims on ground level. Furthermore, with this level of involvement, why does your character even speak? It's not the best idea to force us into being a person who we don't necessarily like/agree with.
The combat is good, planes and bikes are easier to drive and some other changes have genuinely been made for the good. They've tried to make it a worthy sequel, and there's enough new stuff here to say that they've achieved that, but in doing so they've overcomplicated a bulletproof formula that made GTA3 so much fun. I'm not saying San Andreas is a bad game, per se, nor am I trying to go against the crowd - it's just a pity that it will sell so much and, thus, be the game that represents the industry for quite some time.
Dull, Dull, Dull, Dull, Dull...
My thoughts exactly.
Yeah, it's not a bad game by any stretch of the imagination ... it's just lacking that certain something, and most of the new bits are pointless.
And too big, yes. Far too much.
Yeah, it's not a bad game by any stretch of the imagination ... it's just lacking that certain something, and most of the new bits are pointless.
And too big, yes. Far too much.
Although I do think most of the missions were an improvement on Vice City - more varied, anywho.
Reading this has actually made me notice all the bad things about the game, I was loving it until I read this. I'm not saying this in a nasty way but I sometimes wish I never look at/listen to people's opinions so I can just enjoy the game without noticing the bad parts.
Oh well.
Oh well.
Agree with lots of it.
Vice City, I believe, was the perfect size for a GTA game, as it was possible to memorise the majority of the map, even although it still is of extremely large size. I still don't know quite a lot of the map in Los Santos, and in the smaller San Fierro and Las Venturas I still only know the major streets rather than everywhere, like I did in Vice City and GTA3.
Visually crap at times, although this isn't really anyone's fault, and just technology advancing. A game of Vice City's size was probably the limit for the PS2, and considering the fact that San Andreas is about 6 times bigger, I suppose it's a miracle the thing even works at all.
Also, 2-player is a complete waste of time, and a totally needless inclusion.
Vice City, I believe, was the perfect size for a GTA game, as it was possible to memorise the majority of the map, even although it still is of extremely large size. I still don't know quite a lot of the map in Los Santos, and in the smaller San Fierro and Las Venturas I still only know the major streets rather than everywhere, like I did in Vice City and GTA3.
Visually crap at times, although this isn't really anyone's fault, and just technology advancing. A game of Vice City's size was probably the limit for the PS2, and considering the fact that San Andreas is about 6 times bigger, I suppose it's a miracle the thing even works at all.
Also, 2-player is a complete waste of time, and a totally needless inclusion.
AfroJoe wrote:
> Agree with lots of it.
>
> Vice City, I believe, was the perfect size for a GTA game, as it was
> possible to memorise the majority of the map, even although it still
> is of extremely large size. I still don't know quite a lot of the map
> in Los Santos, and in the smaller San Fierro and Las Venturas I still
> only know the major streets rather than everywhere, like I did in
> Vice City and GTA3.
>
WHAT!!! i know san andreas off by heart!! IT really is an easy layout i should know cos i couldnt memorise vice city at all but this i can.
> Agree with lots of it.
>
> Vice City, I believe, was the perfect size for a GTA game, as it was
> possible to memorise the majority of the map, even although it still
> is of extremely large size. I still don't know quite a lot of the map
> in Los Santos, and in the smaller San Fierro and Las Venturas I still
> only know the major streets rather than everywhere, like I did in
> Vice City and GTA3.
>
WHAT!!! i know san andreas off by heart!! IT really is an easy layout i should know cos i couldnt memorise vice city at all but this i can.
Still my favourite GTA game, and I deleted my completed save last night. I', gonna restart the game from scratch, and not use a single cheat this time.
On the subject of it being too big, I didn't really think it was. I know most of Los Santos and San Fierro like the back of my hand, but I'm not used to Las Vetura yet. It took me longer to learn the streets of VC than it did SA. I guess that's because of the much improved level design, and more detailed map.
Ninjax wrote:
> IT really is an easy layouti should know cos i couldnt memorise vice > city at all but this i can.
Good for you.
> IT really is an easy layouti should know cos i couldnt memorise vice > city at all but this i can.
Good for you.
Page: