The "PC Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
is gta3 any good on pc
Page:
Jez13 wrote:
> Have you ever heard of the xbox! GTA3 is on that too, and has class
> graphics, but is still best played on PS2.
I'm afraid not. GTA3 is now an exclusive titles on the PS2 until 2004 including the new add-on game planned for october. Its on the PC, but the PC isn't really a console so it isn't in direct competition with the PS2.
> Have you ever heard of the xbox! GTA3 is on that too, and has class
> graphics, but is still best played on PS2.
I'm afraid not. GTA3 is now an exclusive titles on the PS2 until 2004 including the new add-on game planned for october. Its on the PC, but the PC isn't really a console so it isn't in direct competition with the PS2.
I'm sorry to dissapoint you Jez, but rockstar announced through the week that the PS2 will be the 'only' console to have GTA3. This is until 2004, so even if the game is coming out on the x-box, it won.t be for 2 years.
Jez13 wrote:
> What are you talking about? You must be insane if you think GTA3 is
> crap. It's not the best selling game on PS2 for know reason. I think
> you played it for 5 minutes, Said it was rubbish, played on it some
> more and when you realised how good it actually is, you had to say all
> this crap about 12 year olds and nothing new because your too proud to
> admit your wrong.
No. I think it's an absolutely apalling game. Sorry. I won't go near it with a ten-foot pole, and I'll avoid any and all sequels simply because I have found the first three games to complete crap, despite the amount of praise they've recieved. As far as I can tell, the only thing the first game had going for it was originality, and press coverage. The shock factor is gone, as is the originality. What's left then? A mundane, and unoriginal game with okish graphics, no strategy, and less than half the gameplay required to keep someone like me involved.
> What are you talking about? You must be insane if you think GTA3 is
> crap. It's not the best selling game on PS2 for know reason. I think
> you played it for 5 minutes, Said it was rubbish, played on it some
> more and when you realised how good it actually is, you had to say all
> this crap about 12 year olds and nothing new because your too proud to
> admit your wrong.
No. I think it's an absolutely apalling game. Sorry. I won't go near it with a ten-foot pole, and I'll avoid any and all sequels simply because I have found the first three games to complete crap, despite the amount of praise they've recieved. As far as I can tell, the only thing the first game had going for it was originality, and press coverage. The shock factor is gone, as is the originality. What's left then? A mundane, and unoriginal game with okish graphics, no strategy, and less than half the gameplay required to keep someone like me involved.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> No. I think it's an absolutely apalling game. Sorry. I won't go near
> it with a ten-foot pole, and I'll avoid any and all sequels simply
> because I have found the first three games to complete crap, despite
> the amount of praise they've recieved. As far as I can tell, the only
> thing the first game had going for it was originality, and press
> coverage. The shock factor is gone, as is the originality. What's left
> then? A mundane, and unoriginal game with okish graphics, no strategy,
> and less than half the gameplay required to keep someone like me
> involved.
Having played on it for only an hour, if that, then you are not entitled to an opinion. What friends you are racking up here for slagging off a game that you have barely played. (notice the sarcasm there?) Pathetic!!
> No. I think it's an absolutely apalling game. Sorry. I won't go near
> it with a ten-foot pole, and I'll avoid any and all sequels simply
> because I have found the first three games to complete crap, despite
> the amount of praise they've recieved. As far as I can tell, the only
> thing the first game had going for it was originality, and press
> coverage. The shock factor is gone, as is the originality. What's left
> then? A mundane, and unoriginal game with okish graphics, no strategy,
> and less than half the gameplay required to keep someone like me
> involved.
Having played on it for only an hour, if that, then you are not entitled to an opinion. What friends you are racking up here for slagging off a game that you have barely played. (notice the sarcasm there?) Pathetic!!
Little Hobbo wrote:
> Having played on it for only an hour, if that, then you are not
> entitled to an opinion. What friends you are racking up here for
> slagging off a game that you have barely played. (notice the sarcasm
> there?) Pathetic!!
What good is a game that has you bored to tears after playing it for so short a time? It offers me nothing. It really doesn't light my fire. If you like unoriginal, average looking, listless games, then GTA3 is for you. Personally, I like some playability, startegy, and involvement in a game. GTA3 seems to offer none of this. The "only reason to buy a PS2" doesn't inspire me to bother.
> Having played on it for only an hour, if that, then you are not
> entitled to an opinion. What friends you are racking up here for
> slagging off a game that you have barely played. (notice the sarcasm
> there?) Pathetic!!
What good is a game that has you bored to tears after playing it for so short a time? It offers me nothing. It really doesn't light my fire. If you like unoriginal, average looking, listless games, then GTA3 is for you. Personally, I like some playability, startegy, and involvement in a game. GTA3 seems to offer none of this. The "only reason to buy a PS2" doesn't inspire me to bother.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> What good is a game that has you bored to tears after playing it for
> so short a time? It offers me nothing. It really doesn't light my
> fire. If you like unoriginal, average looking, listless games, then
> GTA3 is for you.
GTA3 is neither unoriginal nor listless. It's idea was unique at the time of conception, and with the possible exception of Driver 2, the whole creation is original.
> Personally, I like some playability, startegy, and
> involvement in a game. GTA3 seems to offer none of this.
GTA3 can't offer strategy because it's not a strategy game. But it's playability and involvement are huge selling factors.
> The "only reason to buy a PS2" doesn't inspire me to bother.
Then get it for PC. Or if you don't, then just don't try and put others off it with your criticism.
> What good is a game that has you bored to tears after playing it for
> so short a time? It offers me nothing. It really doesn't light my
> fire. If you like unoriginal, average looking, listless games, then
> GTA3 is for you.
GTA3 is neither unoriginal nor listless. It's idea was unique at the time of conception, and with the possible exception of Driver 2, the whole creation is original.
> Personally, I like some playability, startegy, and
> involvement in a game. GTA3 seems to offer none of this.
GTA3 can't offer strategy because it's not a strategy game. But it's playability and involvement are huge selling factors.
> The "only reason to buy a PS2" doesn't inspire me to bother.
Then get it for PC. Or if you don't, then just don't try and put others off it with your criticism.
Little Hobbo wrote:
> GTA3 is neither unoriginal nor listless. It's idea was unique at the
> time of conception, and with the possible exception of Driver 2, the
> whole creation is original.
No, GTA was original. Ipso Facto, GTA3 is not.
> GTA3 can't offer strategy because it's not a strategy game. But it's
> playability and involvement are huge selling factors.
All games contain strategy, whether labelled strategy games or not. If a game has no strategy, it isn't worth playing. Tetris had strategy, Mario Bros. had strategy, Gran Tourismo has strategy. GTA3 does not.
> Then get it for PC. Or if you don't, then just don't try and put
> others off it with your criticism.
I'd sooner smash my hdd over my knee. If people intend to buy the game, they won't listen to me about it anyway.
> GTA3 is neither unoriginal nor listless. It's idea was unique at the
> time of conception, and with the possible exception of Driver 2, the
> whole creation is original.
No, GTA was original. Ipso Facto, GTA3 is not.
> GTA3 can't offer strategy because it's not a strategy game. But it's
> playability and involvement are huge selling factors.
All games contain strategy, whether labelled strategy games or not. If a game has no strategy, it isn't worth playing. Tetris had strategy, Mario Bros. had strategy, Gran Tourismo has strategy. GTA3 does not.
> Then get it for PC. Or if you don't, then just don't try and put
> others off it with your criticism.
I'd sooner smash my hdd over my knee. If people intend to buy the game, they won't listen to me about it anyway.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> No, GTA was original. Ipso Facto, GTA3 is not.
We are talking about the whole game here, not the concept. Now the game has turned 3D that is another innovative turn, thus making it original, except for maybe Driver 2, like I mentioned before.
>
>
> GTA3 can't offer strategy because it's not a strategy game. But
> it's
> playability and involvement are huge selling factors.
>
> All games contain strategy------------GTA3 does not.
Not all games contain strategy, and you directly contradicted yourself in that sentence, so unsure are you of what you really mean.
> I'd sooner smash my hdd over my knee. If people intend to buy the
> game, they won't listen to me about it anyway.
You'd be surprised, some gullible fools believe everything they read.
> No, GTA was original. Ipso Facto, GTA3 is not.
We are talking about the whole game here, not the concept. Now the game has turned 3D that is another innovative turn, thus making it original, except for maybe Driver 2, like I mentioned before.
>
>
> GTA3 can't offer strategy because it's not a strategy game. But
> it's
> playability and involvement are huge selling factors.
>
> All games contain strategy------------GTA3 does not.
Not all games contain strategy, and you directly contradicted yourself in that sentence, so unsure are you of what you really mean.
> I'd sooner smash my hdd over my knee. If people intend to buy the
> game, they won't listen to me about it anyway.
You'd be surprised, some gullible fools believe everything they read.
Page: