The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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: San Andreas'.
In the voice of that guy from Little Britain: I don't like it.
Page:
yarr wrote:
> You forgot option D - a complete and utter fanboy stating an opinion
> differing from the general consensus in a bid to appear
> controversial.
Or possibly, just maybe, perhaps, Edgy, er, doesn't like this game? Not everyobdy is as clever and downright bold as you in being special and above-the-scum I know, but not everybody is an idiot.
> You forgot option D - a complete and utter fanboy stating an opinion
> differing from the general consensus in a bid to appear
> controversial.
Or possibly, just maybe, perhaps, Edgy, er, doesn't like this game? Not everyobdy is as clever and downright bold as you in being special and above-the-scum I know, but not everybody is an idiot.
Edgy wrote:
> No, it's generic.
Where else have you played a game that gives such freedom and variation in a modern setting? Aside from GTA3 and Vice City, I struggle to think of a good one.
And let's face it - it's an RPG in essence. Would you judge Zelda on one hour's play? Morrowind? Give it the time it deserves, get past the rubbishy opening missions and you'll realise it's a very well made game.
Don't get me wrong, it has its flaws. You mentioned them yourself; poor graphics and framerate, dodgy control system and a few misplaced ideas (e.g. you HAVE to eat, at one point you must lose a lot of muscle, etc etc), and the gang you start off with is full to the brim with annoying characters - and that includes your own.
I didn't like it so much at first, for these reasons. But if you play it as you would play any other RPG, I'd be very surprised if you didn't like it. Especially considering you enjoyed GTA3.
> No, it's generic.
Where else have you played a game that gives such freedom and variation in a modern setting? Aside from GTA3 and Vice City, I struggle to think of a good one.
And let's face it - it's an RPG in essence. Would you judge Zelda on one hour's play? Morrowind? Give it the time it deserves, get past the rubbishy opening missions and you'll realise it's a very well made game.
Don't get me wrong, it has its flaws. You mentioned them yourself; poor graphics and framerate, dodgy control system and a few misplaced ideas (e.g. you HAVE to eat, at one point you must lose a lot of muscle, etc etc), and the gang you start off with is full to the brim with annoying characters - and that includes your own.
I didn't like it so much at first, for these reasons. But if you play it as you would play any other RPG, I'd be very surprised if you didn't like it. Especially considering you enjoyed GTA3.
A fanboy to what Azul?
You forgot option D - a complete and utter fanboy stating an opinion differing from the general consensus in a bid to appear controversial.
The vast majority of Americans voted Bush in as President for the next 4 years.
Look how stupid they are :P
Look how stupid they are :P
Well, I disagree wholeheartedly, as do the vast majority, it appears. Doesn't make you wrong, because all everything is is opinion, but just grossly outnumbered :0D
Reefer wrote:
> It is a very good game. Anyone who says otherwise is either
>
> a) lying
What reason have I to lie? I would hardly try to look cool on an internet forum full of people I don't know.
> b) hasn't played it
Again, see my response for a)
> c) is saying it to sound "cool" or "different".
>
Again, see my response to a)
> Granted, the graphics can be cack here and there, but as a game, it's
> bloody better than 99% of the games churned out.
No, it's generic. So far the only major difference I've experienced is being able to gain stamina, being able to ride a bicycle and the graphics and sound effects being really really crap.
I enjoyed GTA 3 and to some extent Vice City. But so far, I have not felt any compulsion to carry on with San Andreas. Really really poor.
> It is a very good game. Anyone who says otherwise is either
>
> a) lying
What reason have I to lie? I would hardly try to look cool on an internet forum full of people I don't know.
> b) hasn't played it
Again, see my response for a)
> c) is saying it to sound "cool" or "different".
>
Again, see my response to a)
> Granted, the graphics can be cack here and there, but as a game, it's
> bloody better than 99% of the games churned out.
No, it's generic. So far the only major difference I've experienced is being able to gain stamina, being able to ride a bicycle and the graphics and sound effects being really really crap.
I enjoyed GTA 3 and to some extent Vice City. But so far, I have not felt any compulsion to carry on with San Andreas. Really really poor.
I was playing it at my friend's house earlier.
I thought it was excellent.
I thought it was excellent.
It is a very good game. Anyone who says otherwise is either
a) lying
b) hasn't played it
c) is saying it to sound "cool" or "different".
Granted, the graphics can be cack here and there, but as a game, it's bloody better than 99% of the games churned out.
a) lying
b) hasn't played it
c) is saying it to sound "cool" or "different".
Granted, the graphics can be cack here and there, but as a game, it's bloody better than 99% of the games churned out.
Well I tried it, gave it an hour, and was utterly appauled by the repeated gameplay of the first two games, the crap quality of sounds (like listening to Game Boy Advance) and the absolutely crap graphics. IGN and other media were threatened to sing its praises. I am now certain of it.
Page: