GTA3 etc Overrated [Archive] - Page 2 - Retrogaming Roundtable

zmweasel

11-11-2004, 01:18 PM

zmweasel, I find it interesting that you continually state that you do not and cannot understand where I am coming from with the idea that GTA and any other game in the world may be similar in many ways. The only argument that I made that you said wasn't valid is that KOTOR's card game was completely unlike the Taxi mode in GTA because you get to drive in GTA and that it is a secondary gameplay device, which I would argue that the card game is too. They are both secondary gameplay elements that you can use to attempt to get more money if you wish. And if you don't want to, you don't have to. Obviously, you aren't driving around in KOTOR or playing cards in GTA, but you accomplish the same thing -- you have the potential to earn extra money without advancing the storyline for a while.

I'm not disputing that the GTA series has gameplay elements vaguely reminiscent of other games. I was disputing, and continue to dispute, that the GTA series (especially GTA3) is comparable to either KotOR or Shenmue, which you cited as examples.

Then please dispute with an example of things that are so different about the games. All that you have said is they aren't.

I've already been throughly convinced that GTA is the best game series ever and can not be compared to any other game series ever by anyone no matter what, especially if they haven't played the whole series through, but I don't really understand why. All that I know is that my new opinion seems to be the only opinion that is okay to express on these boards. :roll:

I'd love to have someone explain why the vague elements between the series cannot be compared at all. My opinion was so wrong, but I'd like to know why.

Dan, I'm not the one who made the claim that GTA3, Shenmue, and KotOR are similar. Thus, I'm not the one who has to provide evidence to back up that claim. If you say you have a dragon living in your garage, it's not my job to disprove your claim; it's your job to prove it.

Graham was kind enough to provide what he considered to be the similarities between Shenmue and GTA3, but they were disappointingly vague, and could be applied to any number of games in any number of genres.

You provided KotOR's card-based mini-game as an example of the similarities between KotOR and GTA3, and I gave you an example of another RPG with a card-based mini-game, asking if you would compare that RPG to GTA3, as well. You didn't respond.

Again, I don't disagree that the GTA series has elements that are reminiscent of other games. I disagree that it can be compared to Shenmue or KotOR. The three are radically different in terms of gameplay and aesthetics.

Should Rockstar be charging $50 for GTA: San Andreas? You seem to think there's not enough new to justify the price. I strongly disagree, and I feel you aren't familiar enough with the series to fully appreciate the additions and improvements to SA. For example, you seem to think that players need to "constantly" eat and work out in SA, which isn't the case at all.

-- Z.

Nature Boy

11-11-2004, 01:18 PM

Nick Goracke

11-11-2004, 01:26 PM

Obviously my love of the original came in large part because of it's uniqueness, and I just don't get that from VC or SA. And just like I'd think less of a 'me too' game from another publisher, I think SA & VC should suffer the same fate, and these 9.9s (or whatever) it gets are undeserved.

Does that mean sports games should lose a point in their ratings every year?

Madden should be scoring negative by now, I think. ;)

I'm surprised you don't see the need to differentiate between a "me too" game and an "improved sequal".

ianoid

11-11-2004, 01:30 PM

I'm a little late to the party, but I'm going to agree that the series is on the overrated side.

Nice post which articulates how I feel. I am a HUGE fan of the series, but they are so flawed, for all their merits, we can't consider them the paragon of gaming as has been described.

Back to Vice City... One mission a night is my goal.

Nick Goracke

11-11-2004, 01:38 PM

we can't consider them the paragon of gaming as has been described.

Have they been? Scores have been high - I realize this - but over the years it seems the gaming press has been a little more forgiving as a whole. I find it hard to believe that a near-perfect score suggests they are much more than "really fun games".

Then again, I haven't actually *read* any reviews for the big releases this Winter. Just looked at the numbers...

goatdan

11-11-2004, 02:00 PM

Dan, I'm not the one who made the claim that GTA3, Shenmue, and KotOR are similar. Thus, I'm not the one who has to provide evidence to back up that claim. If you say you have a dragon living in your garage, it's not my job to disprove your claim; it's your job to prove it.

Prove an opinion? What are you talking about? If I state that there is a Dragon living in my room, I would be stating a fact. If I state that I like a picture of a dragon and explain why while showing a picture of a dragon, if you say that it sucks, you have to explain WHY it sucks to back up your opinoin.

You provided KotOR's card-based mini-game as an example of the similarities between KotOR and GTA3, and I gave you an example of another RPG with a card-based mini-game, asking if you would compare that RPG to GTA3, as well. You didn't respond.

You did this to attempt to say that other games had other things that were alike, would I agree? It's quite obvious that I agree that some aspects were like others. Why did I have to say anything about this?

On top of that, I haven't played the game you were talking about, so how could I reply without playing it?

Again, I don't disagree that the GTA series has elements that are reminiscent of other games. I disagree that it can be compared to Shenmue or KotOR. The three are radically different in terms of gameplay and aesthetics.

I orignally said that at the core of the games, they were both 3d third person action adventure titles, which you said was a totally improper way to label both of them. You told me to draw comparisons between gameplay, and I provided some examples.

You have yet to explain why my examples are bad with counterpoints. Except for garbage like like:

Should Rockstar be charging $50 for GTA: San Andreas? You seem to think there's not enough new to justify the price. I strongly disagree, and I feel you aren't familiar enough with the series to fully appreciate the additions and improvements to SA. For example, you seem to think that players need to "constantly" eat and work out in SA, which isn't the case at all.

Yup, you're a gaming god. I don't have time to play every game to completion, so I can't talk about them. All of us people in the same boat can stay here and just play the games and form our own opinions about them. If this is your way of "discussing" stuff, the boards would be better without your input.

If you can make an argument that backs up you opinion that GTA can't be compared to any other game (you did NOT just claim that you couldn't compare it to KOTOR and Shenmue, but that you couldn't compare it to anything), then please reply. If not, don't sit there and explain why your opinion is so much mighter than others.

I really would like to hear your opinions. It's obvious that you're very set in them, and perhaps my problem was the fact that I expressed an opinion that I knew would be controversal on a board because I was curious about what everyone else would think of it. Instead of actually learning anything about other people's argument, I have been told that I don't have enough knowledge and credibility to make comparisons because I'm just a gamer.

"GTA doesn't interest me because..." - Suddenly you made an arguement. There's a burden of proof. It's, like, rule number one of message boards: give people something to debate, and they will.

I know. And I'm still waiting for a well written, thought out counterpoint.

The fact that most anyone would agree with the first statement, yet you're finding so much resistance to the second should probably tell you it's time to take another look at your arguement...

The fact that I'm finding so much resistance to the second is the exact reason I posted in the first place. WHY DOESN'T ANYONE AGREE. With examples of the gameplay elements that are so vastly different that aren't associated with storyline elements?

The fact I've been asking for this for two pages and I have yet to get one person to actually respond is making me think that maybe my argument is even more valid than I thought, and no one is willing to challenge it other than by statements that I haven't played the games enough. That's a dumb reason, and I've never claimed that someone couldn't like one game more than another because they didn't play it all the way through. Why do I suddenly have to play all of the games to completion to form an opinion?

This arguement just isn't very strong because you can apply it to just about any game! If you wanted, you could claim Monopoly is similar.

It's not wrong to say that "this game reminds me of that game", even if the connection is a loose one. But to be "surprised that gaming mags don't call it on that type of stuff more often" when the link is so weak?

I don't think that the connection is so weak. An open ended gaming system does not mean that there is no connection. I don't understand the monopoly thing at all, unless you mean you can decide what to buy. You can't decide where to move or whether or not to pay.

I'm surprised that gaming mags don't call the game on that because they review so many different games, and there are games that are similar in many fashions to GTA I think. I would *love* for someone to explain the elements that aren't in any way similar to other elements. To this point, no one has done that. Since I don't think that zmweasel will and since you seem to be pretty fair in your reply, could you take the time to? I've been hoping for this since my first few posts in this thread.

digitalpress

11-11-2004, 02:24 PM

I'm a little late to the party, but I'm going to agree that the series is on the overrated side.

(And I'm going to use Splinter Cell in my comparison :P )

I loved GTA3 when it came out. Loved it. Couldn't wait for the next installment. Vice City comes out: and yes they've improved it a bit, but it's the same game. It's hard to get excited again about the same game.

Same thing happened to me with Splinter Cell. *LOVED* the first game. Couldn't get into the second one though, it's just too similar.

Obviously my love of the original came in large part because of it's uniqueness, and I just don't get that from VC or SA. And just like I'd think less of a 'me too' game from another publisher, I think SA & VC should suffer the same fate, and these 9.9s (or whatever) it gets are undeserved.

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment here.

There are two ways to look at your classic games. One would be, as you have stated, to see the game change significantly to justify a further, future purchase.

The other - a side which I stand on firmly - is that you want "more of the same". Same game but bigger. Same game but different characters. Same game but more levels. For many years I wished they hadn't fucked with Donkey Kong so much. I always wanted Donkey Kong's mechanics but with bigger boards, more boards, a few new surprises. Well they finally did that with Donkey Kong for Super Game Boy, and again with Donkey Kong vs. Mario for GBA.

Well, that's the same way I feel about the GTA series, and I suspect the way most GTA fans who have stuck with it from the beginning feel. We LOVE the game, and even its flaws are miniscule in comparison to the sheer joy of open-ended exploration and direction. GTA Vice City is GTA3 in the 80's alright, and I LOVED IT. GTA San Andreas is GTA3 with California urban culture, and I LOVE IT.

Similar analogy. Were the Die Hard movies really any different from one another? Die Hard in an airport, Die Hard in the city, both sequels are great because they DON'T fuck with the original premise or it's core components.

Nature Boy

11-11-2004, 03:21 PM

digitalpress

11-11-2004, 03:49 PM

Well I can't speak entirely on behalf of Tomb Raider because I never LOVED it, but I can tell you that from my personal experience the game had lost all of its charm by the third iteration. Ultimately I think too much of a good thing can ruin ANY franchise. Even Donkey Kong. If they had made four, five.. or however many Tomb Raiders there are by now I'm sure I'd feel burned out.

Keep in mind however that GTA does not have the linear nature of either of these games. In essence, each new game is an entirely new world to explore. If you can get burned out by exploration then what happened to Tomb Raider for most casual fans will happen to the GTA series as well.

But I suspect it will not, again owing to the open-ended nature of these games. Unlike Tomb Raider, there are an infinite number of ways to play the game. It's much harder to get tired of it if you're into it.

optic_85

11-11-2004, 04:15 PM

The only GTA games i ever really liked were parts 1&2 for the PC. The rest are fun for about a day...And then i loose intrest.

Nick Goracke

11-11-2004, 04:31 PM

I would *love* for someone to explain the elements that aren't in any way similar to other elements.

Using your guidelines, it can't be done.

If you strip away the context, you can ALWAYS find another game that has done something similar. It proves NOTHING. Watch...

-In GTA:VC, you can choose to buy properties. Having these prorperties can make you money. You do so in Monopoly, as well.

-In GTA:VC, you can choose to take a mission or do something else. You do so in Shenmue, as well.

Add the context back to either comparison and it is superfluous at best. The execution is completely different.

Also, nobody is saying that there are no games that show a non-trivial resemblance to GTA. I think someone mentioned True Crime, The Simpsons, and The Getaway in this very thread.

Nature Boy

11-11-2004, 04:31 PM

But I suspect it will not, again owing to the open-ended nature of these games. Unlike Tomb Raider, there are an infinite number of ways to play the game. It's much harder to get tired of it if you're into it.

Depends on what they do in the next generation of hardware I think. I mean, they've *got* to do something to it or it won't last, I don't care how open-ended it is.

SegaAges

11-11-2004, 04:33 PM

ok ok, you guys forced me into the argument.

i guess that i should have just posted instead of editing to add a post.

stop trying to compare gta3 to other games please. if you notice from the name, it was the 3rd game in the installment (technically fourth, maybe fifth depending on who you ask).

did any of you even talk about the ones before it?

there was a lot of long winded arguments, and i only read 1 or 2 of them, and those didn't say anything about the older ones.

time for me to give some of you a history lesson in gta games (it seems that many of you seem to have forgotten them, shame shame).

gta1 - 1st of its kind. it was banned in a bunch of countries for awhile (hmm, i think a pattern might emerge from this, seeing as IT WAS THE FIRST). it used sprites for all of its animation. it used a top-down view

gta london 1969- didn't get as much attention as gta, but was looked at during the time it came out. it was an add-on pack to gta, but had different cars, new charactes to pick from, a brand new map, and new missions. it still used sprites and used a top-down view

gta london 1961 - i have no clue if this was out for ps1, but i have it for pc. it is basically more missions (that were much more difficult than the missions on 1969) and a newer, smaller map. this still used sprites as well and still used the top-down view.

gta2 - this came out for pc, ps1, dc, and eventually gameboy (i will not even talk about the gameboy version, as it was a horrible port). this game started the transition to 3d, even though I am almost 99% sure it stayed with sprites. it used the top-down view again, but this had been successful before, so why not stay with what they know. of course they put in a larger map with more missions.

gta3 - this game went to 3d. you could still play it from a top-down view, and it would basically be a polygon version of the other ones that had already come out (of course with a bigger map, more missions, etc). since the game went to the default of 3rd person, they did add some things to make the 3d 3rd person mode work much better, as well as adding many more things to improve and turn this into a real sequel to 2 (i will talk about real sequels in a minute). they adding things such as a sniper rifle, but things like this are only natural for a game that made this transition.

gta:vc - not a true sequel, but more like an add-on pack with some extras and a bigger map. i always looked at vc like an expensive london that didn't need gta3 to run it. it had more missions, etc just like every game before it (minus 1961).

gta:sa - I now own this game and it almost counts as a true sequel, but not quite. comparing this to gta3, yes it would count as a sequel. this game is pretty much what vc should have been. the only problem is that since vc did come out, this game seems like an add-on pack for vc. yes, it has a bigger map, but that is because it is a stand-alone that didn't require gta3 or vc.

so gta is like what??????????????????????? O_O

gta is like gta, period. before you can say, "gta is like kotor or some other game", do not look at 1 title in the series, look at the entire series. It would be like me playing ffx-2 and saying it was too much like other games, and completely ignore every other ff game.

i am a gta fanboy to the core, but i started playing this game from gta1 on ps1, which convinced me to buy it for pc. if you don't know the background on something you want to argue about, than just leave it be please. i don't know enough about final fantasy games, so i don't tell people why i don't like them. i have only played like 3 of them, and didn't like any of them. i may just need to play a better one, but i don't get into long winded arguments about how it is bad.

before you can bash on gta3, play the games that came out before it and see how much the series has progressed. it is kind of funny, because this is the same with tony hawk games. people don't like them, but very, very few are willing to play from the original to see how much the game has progressed through it lifetime.

i was honestly blown away by gta3. i had played gta2 until i memorized the entire map and knew where all the cool stuff was on the map.

for anybody that does not like gta3 or the later games, please brush up on your knowledge and bash the entire series, and not just that 1 game. but... if you bash the series, do not say that the entire series sucks without even playing them all. you can find every gta game from vc on down for literally dirt cheap, and i guarentee that you can download london 1961 for free (it is a small add-on pack, but is very worthy of a play-through).

when trying to say that gta3 is like a game, it will only turn into a big circle of arguing. gta:sa is like true crime. true crime is like gta3. gta3 is like kotor. kotor is like another gta game (i haven't played kotor yet, so i can't make a comparison). you guys do know that since it is called gta3, that means there were at least 2 others before it, right? there are so many games that have gotten their ideas off of the series that it is not even funny, similar to the tony hawk games.

please bash the entire series, and not just 1 game in the series, because doing that means you need to brush up on your homework fellas

EDIT: i read some the post right above mine by nature boy. you said they have to do something or it wont last dude. it originally came out in 1998, which means it has lasted 6 years pretty easily with its "open ended" gameplay. it has been around a year longer than the tony hawk series, and not counting london 1961, has just as many games in the franchise. i know tony hawk will be around for a long time to come, so why wouldn't this be any different. oh yeah, even a big series like tony hawk has used ideas from gta. lets see, wandering around a map searching for missions, can we say, gta3 on up. everywhere uses ideas from certain games. i am sure that the gta series has used ideas from other systems. this game is not going away anytime soon whether you like it or not man. check game review sites, the series is only getting better, it is not slowly dying off with crappy sequels. yes, i think sa is more like an add-on pack, but a good add-on pack. sa is a very good game, and i enjoy playing it.

jerkov

11-11-2004, 04:39 PM

I guess that you're right -- but then again, I am not a person who runs out and buys the same football, basketball or baseball game every year for $50.00 because of expanded rosters. If the gameplay doesn't evolve much, I don't think it's fair to sell it at a $50.00 price point.

I agree with this. I also think its foolish to spend $50.00 for a new roster. But, I can't call GTA:SA an "expansion pack". How long do you think it took to create the cities in the game? I'm betting a long, long time. And the game is absolutely HUGE - I can easily see how this took two whole years to develop. Now, on the other hand, due to Vice City's much more simplistic city construction, I could see an arguement for that title being more of an "expansion pack", but certainly not San Andreas.

First off, I wish that they would either improve the control a little bit or give you options. From having played a little of both of the first two on my Xbox now, I've been surprised by how slippery the control seems. It was especially bad when I was in cars -- If I'm making a right handed turn, I should be able to turn sharp enough to go from the right lane that I'm in into the furthest right lane. About half the cars that I've picked up weren't able to corner like this. And while I understand that the cars were made to handle differently, I've never seen a real car that couldn't turn sharp enough to make a right handed turn.

The thing that drives me the most nuts about that is that I kept reading how greatly improved the vehicle control is... but then why can't the cars do simple stuff right?

Secondly, for missions... I really wish that you could decide to skip missions and come back to them sometimes. Perhaps you walk into someplace, and the guy there tells you that he has a list of ten things he needs you to do. You can read through the missions at any time and complete them at will. After you're done, you can go back to him. I don't understand why this hasn't happened, as the non free-wheeling exploration section of the games feel linear to me because the only choices that I seem to have is where I'm getting my next job from.

Doing such a thing with the missions would help the balance problems that I feel that the games have. There are certain missions that I have gone on in both games now that I wasn't able to accomplish or had a really hard time doing, and then they were followed by ones I easily did on my first try. While I am not someone that wants the game to be overly easy -- and I'm not saying that the missions are bad -- a way of skipping past missions and returning to them, even if it was only for a few missions, would've been great.

I would also like to have seen the game get something truly new and unique. I think it would've been a real improvement to have a multiplayer mode or a single vs. computer mode where you would go around, recruiting gang members and then try to take each other out in a sort of Warcraft way. Not something that would take a while, but maybe you take over with five guys and they get five guys in a limited area, and you have to take over the most turf in 15 minutes. There are a lot of different multiplayer things that could be added, and I am surprised that the only multiplayer mode added was a very small one that I can't find much information about at all. Another thing could've been saving your favorite cars that you steal and upgrade and then racing them against a friend and betting on it for real-game money. There are a lot of multiplayer places the series could have looked at.

While SA has this stat upgrade system, it's odd to me that people say that they're happy that Rockstar realized it wasn't an RPG so it's all done behind the scenes... yet eating and working out are now things that are done constantly to keep alive. I guess that I just don't understand how people can be so happy that they don't even have the option to control their own stats and at the same time, have to do things that a lot of people would claim are purely RPG things to help "level-up" their characters. I'm glad that the game attempted to do this, but I am kind of curious about why it came out like it did.

That's just a smattering. But, like I said before I'm also the type of person that won't buy a new football game for $50 every year just because of updated rosters and some new animations. I do expect that gameplay changes in some way, and whether I am right or wrong in expecting that, it's just my opinion.

Like I said before, I'm quite surprised that expressing an opinion in this thread seems to be such a negative thing. Most of the threads on here it is interesting to see and hear other people's opinions. I guess that when it comes to the hype machine, I missed the boat and aren't supposed to have any opinions of my own on the game. Again, I'll drop it, but I don't see where a lot of people are coming in this...

As far as car controls go, I think they're quite realistic. If you're going at highway speeds, there is no way you could make such a sharp turn without losing control of the car or experiencing extreme understeer. Lower speeds are much more suitable to this, and I always thought GTA handled this aspect fine - and this is coming from a hardcore racing/driving game veteran.

Only a few of the missions in the various GTA games have given me much of a problem, but I agree with you that a little more balance wouldn't hurt. As far as getting one mission at a time, I actually like that - it gives you a feeling of progression with each character that you work for and it forces you to practice that mission until you're good enough to move on. Personally, this isn't something I'd want to change, but you're not wrong in saying that there are a couple of extremely frustrating missions.

Now multiplayer ---- here's something I think you've hit dead on. Those would be some awesome features. Now, I am not an online gaming fan at all, but I have to admit that having an online GTA where everyone just goes around killing each other would be awesome. Especially in a game like San Andreas where there are so many vehicles, so many places to go, so many places to hide, etc. I've heard that someone has created an online patch for Vice City, which I'd love to try - I only hope that someone does the same thing for San Andreas when it launches on the PC. I really wish Rockstar would've put some kind of legitimate multiplayer options in, but how much more could you fit on one DVD? Now a multiplayer GTA expansion pack would be a cool thing IMO....

I was also wary about the eating/exercising thing, but it's not nearly as bad as I thought it'd be. Just pop in for a quick meal at a fast food restaurant every few game days or hit the gym for a couple of minutes if you want to build muscle or stamina. Doesn't take much time at all to max out these stats, and it allows each player to have a truly unique character (especially with all of the different clothing and haircut options).

Apart from the lack of online/multiplayer features, I still have to say that GTA: SA is one damn fine game - easily one of the best I've ever played.

goatdan

11-11-2004, 04:53 PM

gta is like gta, period. before you can say, "gta is like kotor or some other game", do not look at 1 title in the series, look at the entire series. It would be like me playing ffx-2 and saying it was too much like other games, and completely ignore every other ff game.

Hey, I'm not saying that the entire GTA series is like KOTOR and I never was. I, in fact, did play both GTA (a little) and GTA2 (on DC a LOT) already. But saying that you can't look at a title in the series would be like saying that you can't compare Banjo Kazooie to Super Mario Brothers 64 because Banjo doesn't have the 2D roots that Mario had with Super Mario Brothers.

i am a gta fanboy to the core, but i started playing this game from gta1 on ps1, which convinced me to buy it for pc. if you don't know the background on something you want to argue about, than just leave it be please. i don't know enough about final fantasy games, so i don't tell people why i don't like them. i have only played like 3 of them, and didn't like any of them. i may just need to play a better one, but i don't get into long winded arguments about how it is bad.

I found GTA2 to be relatively fun, but the general public doesn't equate GTA2 with GTA3. GTA3 sold more copies than the original games, and it isn't fair to say that you can't critique it on it's own without playing the first games. I feel that is just as weird as saying that you can't critique GTA3 vs. KOTOR because you haven't beat both games.

Talking about this stuff is why online gaming message boards is fun, I think. There are a lot of differing opinions out there, and I am interested to hear them.

before you can bash on gta3, play the games that came out before it and see how much the series has progressed. it is kind of funny, because this is the same with tony hawk games. people don't like them, but very, very few are willing to play from the original to see how much the game has progressed through it lifetime.

I have also played through the entire Tony Hawk series so far, with the exception of THUG2, and I have been disappointed by the level designs and mission designs of the games past the second in the series. The first one wasn't perfect (and I have played it on PS, N64, DC and Xbox in X2) but it was fun. The second one (which I have played on all of the same systems, and beat on DC and Xbox with every character) was a dramatic improvement in the series from both level design and objectives. After that, I just feel that the series tried to get too big, and in making the levels as big as they did, they lost the charm that the first two had.

They seemed to return to this idea with how they laid out the ideas in THUG, but it just wasn't coherent enough for my tastes yet. I have seen the previews for THUG 2 though, and I will be interested to see how the "Classic Mode" is done... but I am not going to run out and pay $50 for it.

for anybody that does not like gta3 or the later games, please brush up on your knowledge and bash the entire series, and not just that 1 game. but... if you bash the series, do not say that the entire series sucks without even playing them all. you can find every gta game from vc on down for literally dirt cheap, and i guarentee that you can download london 1961 for free (it is a small add-on pack, but is very worthy of a play-through).

I hope this wasn't directed at me, because I never said the series sucked. I just am surprised that no one compares it to anything else, and still am. KOTOR is one of my favorite games right now, and even though I do like it more than GTA3 (gasp!), that doesn't make GTA3 a bad game.

I don't like Halo at all, but I understand why people enjoy it. Same type of thing. I understand why some people love GTA3, but I think it gets a little extra credit because people don't seperate the gameplay from the storyline enough to see that there are similarities.

SegaAges

11-11-2004, 04:56 PM

multiplayer. i missed that.

i think mutliplayer would be a bad idea. hell man, if you guys think that some of the missions are frusterating, i guarentee you would get super uber kicky pissed at multiplayer. you log on, snag a car, and BAM! rocket launcher fromout of the blue and you are wasted. and how in the hell would you jack a car? nobody is going to stop so you can jack their ride, they will just run you over.

online would turn into a game that is called idlepimps. there is an online text based game called idlepimps (www.idlepimps.com in case you couldn't guess). what happens is 2 or 3 gangs group together, than kill off anybody who tries to get close to them, meaning there will only be 2 or 3 gangs running the streets. the rest will be wannabes.

EDIT: dan, i wasn't directing it at you dude, i was just pointing out the obvious to everybody bro (well obvious to me). I think it would be safe to say that if you have played mario 64, you have played one of the others in the series (the cases of that not being true are probably like .01% of the mario people out there). you also have to think, that kotor is an rpg, and gta is an action game. they tried to put rpg elements in the new one, but they turned out to be just ways to make your character unique.

and yes, i only read part of 1 of your posts, so if i read it wrong, you can correct me. some of these are so long winded that it is hard for my eyes to handle it all (i have extremely crappy, delicate eyes that literally go blurry if i stress them by reading too long, please don't be rude about my eyes though, as i can't pay 15k for laser surgery to make them better, it is the truth). so don't take it the wrong way if i look at half of your post and only read it, as there are time when i have to stop reading from my eyes being stressed too much.

i think i should include saying the original gta games with gta3. all gta3 is, is a bigger map, some newer stuff, and pulling the view behind the character to make it 3rd person, instead of top down. it is basically a sequel, but with a different camera angle and spiffy new grapghics

Nature Boy

11-11-2004, 05:03 PM

i think mutliplayer would be a bad idea.

What about a co-op mode ala Halo? That could be fun - one guy chases the hit out into the open and the second guy whacks him...

SegaAges

11-11-2004, 05:06 PM

i think mutliplayer would be a bad idea.

What about a co-op mode ala Halo? That could be fun - one guy chases the hit out into the open and the second guy whacks him...

nature boy, please read the resy of my post bro. i explain, from my personal experience with these types of games, why many people think it would suck. if they made it so that it was a free-for-all mmofps (massive multiplayer online first person shooter) that would suck as well. it would be the same situation of them making gta an mmo.

Nature Boy

11-11-2004, 05:07 PM

if you bash the series, do not say that the entire series sucks without even playing them all

Simmer down Beavis. "Overrated" does not mean "Sucks"! If the topic read "GTA3 etc Sucks!" you wouldn't see me posting (because that would be such an *obvious* attempt to troll and would be a pretty boring conversation to boot).

goatdan

11-11-2004, 05:10 PM

THANK YOU!!! This is what I've been wanting to know... a few comments and questions follow...

As far as car controls go, I think they're quite realistic. If you're going at highway speeds, there is no way you could make such a sharp turn without losing control of the car or experiencing extreme understeer. Lower speeds are much more suitable to this, and I always thought GTA handled this aspect fine - and this is coming from a hardcore racing/driving game veteran.

Actually, I agree with that. The problems that I've had is when I'm stopped and wanting to make a right handed turn. The cars that I've been using haven't steeted sharp enough in that scenario to make the turn into the correct lane most of the time. And I don't think it's my steering.

I actually really appreciate the fact that if you are going at higher speeds you can't steer as well.

Only a few of the missions in the various GTA games have given me much of a problem, but I agree with you that a little more balance wouldn't hurt. As far as getting one mission at a time, I actually like that - it gives you a feeling of progression with each character that you work for and it forces you to practice that mission until you're good enough to move on. Personally, this isn't something I'd want to change, but you're not wrong in saying that there are a couple of extremely frustrating missions.

:) Fair enough.

Now multiplayer ---- here's something I think you've hit dead on. Those would be some awesome features. Now, I am not an online gaming fan at all, but I have to admit that having an online GTA where everyone just goes around killing each other would be awesome. Especially in a game like San Andreas where there are so many vehicles, so many places to go, so many places to hide, etc. I've heard that someone has created an online patch for Vice City, which I'd love to try - I only hope that someone does the same thing for San Andreas when it launches on the PC. I really wish Rockstar would've put some kind of legitimate multiplayer options in, but how much more could you fit on one DVD? Now a multiplayer GTA expansion pack would be a cool thing IMO....

See here's the thing that I at least a little disagree on. I feel that if I'm going to drop $50.00 on a new game, I want there to be something that is completely new in there. While the city is new and did take a long time to create, I am sure that football franchises also take forever to upgrade -- many of those games remodel and rescan stuff for every year. The smaller things that were added don't justify in my mind a $50.00 purchase.

While I think that GTA could have a really big online game that could stand alone, I think that a smaller multiplayer one with GTA:SA would've done it for me. It could've made a strategy element with real people that would've been cool. Hell, GTA: SA built the gang wars into it. Just give two people the ability to take over territory based on time, and do it however you want.

I want a game like that. Badly. That would be a HUGE bonus to me, and I would be a lot more ready to spend $50 on it.

I was also wary about the eating/exercising thing, but it's not nearly as bad as I thought it'd be. Just pop in for a quick meal at a fast food restaurant every few game days or hit the gym for a couple of minutes if you want to build muscle or stamina. Doesn't take much time at all to max out these stats, and it allows each player to have a truly unique character (especially with all of the different clothing and haircut options).

I'm wasn't saying that they were bad options at all, I was just surprised that the game doesn't allow you the choice of controlling those stats yourself or by the game. It wouldn't be a huge negative by any means.

Apart from the lack of online/multiplayer features, I still have to say that GTA: SA is one damn fine game - easily one of the best I've ever played.

Sounds good. Thanks. I'm glad that I can actually get some counterpoints in this thead :)

Nature Boy

11-11-2004, 05:11 PM

nature boy, please read the resy of my post bro. i explain, from my personal experience with these types of games, why many people think it would suck. if they made it so that it was a free-for-all mmofps (massive multiplayer online first person shooter) that would suck as well. it would be the same situation of them making gta an mmo.

I did read your post bro (at least before you edited it - that probably happened as I was replying). My train of thought said "hey, co-op is multiplayer. Might that not be fun? So I threw it out there to see how it sounded. The rest of your post didn't relate to that train of thought so why bother mentioning it?

zmweasel

11-11-2004, 05:11 PM

zmweasel

11-11-2004, 05:25 PM

The other - a side which I stand on firmly - is that you want "more of the same". Same game but bigger. Same game but different characters. Same game but more levels. For many years I wished they hadn't fucked with Donkey Kong so much. I always wanted Donkey Kong's mechanics but with bigger boards, more boards, a few new surprises. Well they finally did that with Donkey Kong for Super Game Boy, and again with Donkey Kong vs. Mario for GBA.

How about the Tomb Raider series? Didn't the first game blow people away? Why were people throwing their hands up in the air by the 4th installment? Wasn't it because we kept getting the same game?

Take a peek at at Tomb Raider Chronicles review from ign. The first paragraph itself is perfect...

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=39723

This is where I think GTA is heading until they do *something* new, and yet San Andreas is still getting a 9.9 from IGN (compare that to the 6.5 of the TRC review).

Don't get me wrong - I still want the game (it'll be on my xmas wish list :) ). But I also still think it's overrated.

What happened with the Tomb Raider series is that the original creators left after Tomb Raider II (still the best TR) to create Galleon, which recently shipped after years in development hell. The same thing recently happened to EA's Medal of Honor series, with all the talented folks behind it bolting to Activision and launching the competing Call of Duty franchise. That's why Rising Sun sucked.

GTA3, VC, and SA, by comparison, have the same creative team at their core.

-- Z.

goatdan

11-11-2004, 05:44 PM

Prove an opinion? What are you talking about? If I state that there is a Dragon living in my room, I would be stating a fact. If I state that I like a picture of a dragon and explain why while showing a picture of a dragon, if you say that it sucks, you have to explain WHY it sucks to back up your opinoin.

Dan, you've missed the point of my analogy, while coming up with a nonsensical one of your own.

I'm in this thread to dispute your claim of similarities between GTA and KotOR (and Shenmue). The points you've presented to back up your opinion have been weak and vague.

I have no problem with you liking or not liking GTA3 or $50 price points or pictures of dragons. It's your nonsensical grouping of GTA, KotOR, and Shenmue that I'm disputing.

I already summarized in an earlier post why Shenmue has nothing in common with GTA, and I've already stated several times why KotOR has nothing in common with GTA. Different genres, different gameplay, different presentation, different EVERYTHING. Saying that these games are similar is like saying there's a dragon living in your garage: crazy.

You have given ZERO reasons why you can't compare these games other then the fact that you call them different genres (what are the different genres? How?), different gameplay (again, how that is not story based?), different presentation (which is storyline driven, and not a game thing in my mind, and has never been a point that I've disputed) and different EVERYTHING, which I keep asking for examples of.

Your points have been that there were similar game points like the billiards part of Shenmue and stuff like that, but you haven't given any direct comparisons that I have read. If so, I would be happy to discuss them on a level playing field so I can see where you are coming from. That's why I'm here. I'm not posting in this thread to see how wrong I am, but the points of view of other gamers. Jerkov just replied to my points with points of his own, and that was what I've been looking for. Every time I reply to you, you simply state that my opinions are wrong.

And now my analogy is dumb because your opinion is apparently a fact.

On top of that, I haven't played the game you were talking about, so how could I reply without playing it?

Your unfamiliarity with GTA: SA hasn't prevented you from commenting on it.

I have played the series, I have read the reviews, and I understand the general concepts of the series. I made a direct comparison between two aspects of games that I felt were similar, but I don't think that I should have to dig up a ton of information on a different game. You've played KOTOR. If you hadn't, I would've explained what the Catina game that I'm talking about is, and why I feel it is the same sort of element as the taxi version (even though it is not similar playing, it gets the same thing done in both stories.)

If you care to explain it, as I have my points, I'll be happy to consider it.

I orignally said that at the core of the games, they were both 3d third person action adventure titles, which you said was a totally improper way to label both of them. You told me to draw comparisons between gameplay, and I provided some examples.

I said it's a maddeningly vague label, as an astounding number of modern games can be categorized as "3D third-person action-adventures."

You said it was a vague label. I can respect that, but I think that there are an astounding number of modern games that can be compared. Why can't they? All that I have heard from you so far is they can't, and the ONLY reason that I can see why this would be is that their storylines are different. Please, explain otherwise.

Yup, you're a gaming god. I don't have time to play every game to completion, so I can't talk about them. All of us people in the same boat can stay here and just play the games and form our own opinions about them. If this is your way of "discussing" stuff, the boards would be better without your input.

I'm not a gaming god, and never claimed to be. But I do feel you haven't played enough of GTA: SA (or earlier games in the series) to understand the improvements. These are enormous games, and it takes a long time to experience and absorb all of their elements.

You never directly stated you were a gaming god, but your arguments against my opinions have been:

"I feel you aren't familiar enough with the series to fully appreciate the additions and improvements to SA."

"I have looked, in great detail, at both KotOR and the GTA games. I co-authored the KotOR strategy guide. I reviewed the original Grand Theft Auto for the PC. And they are RADICALLY DIFFERENT. I literally cannot understand how you can perceive any similarities between them, beyond the extremely vague categorization of "third-person action-adventure." "

And the above argument of the fact that I haven't played enough to appreciate the improvements in SA.

The fact is that I am a gamer, but I also have a life. I can only spend so much time playing games. I only have so much of a budget every month for games. If I don't see the improvements in GTA:SA from the reviews, and haven't been overly impressed with the series thus far, I'm not going to plunk down the cash to get the next one in the series.

When I come on the board to express my opinions, I stated that: "All that having been said, I know that I'll keep playing this game for a while, and I know that I'm not overall going to hate it. It just isn't living up to the expectations that I had for it so far (three or so hours in)." (about GTA III) Since then, I have pulled out GTA:VC and played that for about four hours too. And I still feel the same way about them. That I can form an opinion about them, and that even at the point that I'm at with these games, an opinion that I have formed can be valid.

I was hoping to get other people to tell me why these games are rated so high, and if they feel that the removing of the storyline and changing it with something else would make the series rated the same. How about you respond about that next time -- would GTA be just as popular if it was set in a fantasy world or a future world or in the past if it had the exact same play mechanics. I would love to hear someone else's opinions on this, and I don't want to hear that I haven't played them enough to wonder this or understand or an analogy about how I have to back up stuff because my claim is impossible and only your side is right. Please, think about this and spend time answering this part of it. I really don't care what you think about the dragon that is or isn't living in my room and the picture of Trogdor. I just care about hearing some opinions.

I swear. Talking about this game so far has been like talking about politics lately. It seems that people are either on one side or the other and are completely unwilling to budge off their position, regardless of whether or not the other side may or may not have some points. Just like with the election, I'm rather in the middle about the whole thing -- I can see both sides of the argument to a point, but I don't think that either is right 100% of the time. Some people think their side is. I might not agree with you, but I really would enjoy hearing your opinion on why you feel that it is 100% perfect.

zmweasel

11-11-2004, 07:10 PM

You have given ZERO reasons why you can't compare these games other then the fact that you call them different genres (what are the different genres? How?), different gameplay (again, how that is not story based?), different presentation (which is storyline driven, and not a game thing in my mind, and has never been a point that I've disputed) and different EVERYTHING, which I keep asking for examples of.

Dan, go back and re-read my earlier posts. I've already succinctly described both Shenmue's and KotOR's genres and gameplay. I also touched upon Shenmue's aesthetic presentation, but didn't bother with the other two because their approaches are already quite well-known. Going into meticulous detail about the differences between the three games would be killing a butterfly with a nuclear bomb: extreme overkill.

You said it was a vague label. I can respect that, but I think that there are an astounding number of modern games that can be compared. Why can't they? All that I have heard from you so far is they can't, and the ONLY reason that I can see why this would be is that their storylines are different. Please, explain otherwise.

I have no problem with the comparison of games within the same genre. For example, it would make perfect sense for you to mention other volleyball games in your review of Outlaw Volleyball. (I'm mystified by your issues with its "extreme" attitude, as that's the selling point of the Outlaw franchise, and what separates it from other sports games. Complaining about Outlaw Volleyball's crude humor is like complaining about South Park's crude humor. But I digress.)

"3D third-person action-adventure" isn't a genre--it's such a broad, vague category that almost any modern game could be placed into it. Other posters have already given you excellent examples of this. It's not simply the storylines that differentiate GTA3, Shenmue, and KotOR.

The fact is that I am a gamer, but I also have a life. I can only spend so much time playing games. I only have so much of a budget every month for games. If I don't see the improvements in GTA:SA from the reviews, and haven't been overly impressed with the series thus far, I'm not going to plunk down the cash to get the next one in the series.

That's fine, Dan. I certainly don't expect you to purchase something you don't feel is worth your money. But your unfamiliarity with the GTA series weakens your opinions about the evolution of its gameplay, as with your comment about the "constant" eating and working out in SA.

I was hoping to get other people to tell me why these games are rated so high, and if they feel that the removing of the storyline and changing it with something else would make the series rated the same. How about you respond about that next time -- would GTA be just as popular if it was set in a fantasy world or a future world or in the past if it had the exact same play mechanics.

The Simpsons: Hit & Run borrowed many GTA mechanics, and while it didn't execute them as well, it was very entertaining, and demonstrated that GTA's core gameplay is solid.

Would GTA be as popular without its mature themes, contemporary setting, and brilliant satire of American pop culture? Very doubtful. Would KotOR be as popular without its Star Wars setting? Very doubtful (although we'll see how Jade Empire sells). But the underlying gameplay of both would be just as great.

Between your concerns over Outlaw Volleyball's tone and GTA's storyline, I'm starting to suspect you're a conservative individual--you're in the Midwest, after all--and you're troubled by video games with what you feel is excessive sexual or violent content. Is that the case?

-- Z.

Nick Goracke

11-11-2004, 07:56 PM

You have given ZERO reasons why you can't compare these games other then the fact that you call them different genres (what are the different genres? How?), different gameplay (again, how that is not story based?), different presentation

You're ABSOLUTELY right, when you remove all context, it's very easy to call things similar.

Monopoly and GTA, for example. ;)

Also... how is "different gameplay" not story based? Typo, I hope?

jerkov

11-12-2004, 12:30 AM

I was hoping to get other people to tell me why these games are rated so high, and if they feel that the removing of the storyline and changing it with something else would make the series rated the same. How about you respond about that next time -- would GTA be just as popular if it was set in a fantasy world or a future world or in the past if it had the exact same play mechanics. I would love to hear someone else's opinions on this, and I don't want to hear that I haven't played them enough to wonder this or understand or an analogy about how I have to back up stuff because my claim is impossible and only your side is right. Please, think about this and spend time answering this part of it. I really don't care what you think about the dragon that is or isn't living in my room and the picture of Trogdor. I just care about hearing some opinions.

As far as being popular if set in either a fantasy world, in the future, or the past, then I don't think GTA would be nearly as popular. To me, I think the appeal is that your are running around in a realistic city of our own time period. I loved Vice City's '80s setting, but I don't think I want to see a GTA set in any time period before that. Hell, I thought that Mafia was interesting, but certainly not as good as any of the 3D GTAs. Conversely, I wouldn't want to see a futuristic GTA either - it would most likely be too cheesy or abstract to enjoy. I could be wrong about this, but I believe the GTA team developed Body Harvest for the N64, which was a 3D, free-roaming game structured very similarly to GTA, including tons of vehicles to pilot around. You controlled a soldier fighting off alien invaders. Last time I checked, it doesn't have quite the popularity that the GTA series has. ;)

zmweasel

11-12-2004, 12:53 AM

As far as being popular if set in either a fantasy world, in the future, or the past, then I don't think GTA would be nearly as popular. To me, I think the appeal is that your are running around in a realistic city of our own time period. I loved Vice City's '80s setting, but I don't think I want to see a GTA set in any time period before that. Hell, I thought that Mafia was interesting, but certainly not as good as any of the 3D GTAs. Conversely, I wouldn't want to see a futuristic GTA either - it would most likely be too cheesy or abstract to enjoy. I could be wrong about this, but I believe the GTA team developed Body Harvest for the N64, which was a 3D, free-roaming game structured very similarly to GTA, including tons of vehicles to pilot around. You controlled a soldier fighting off alien invaders. Last time I checked, it doesn't have quite the popularity that the GTA series has. ;)

Yep, Body Harvest was from the DMA Design crew that worked on GTA1 and 2, headed up by David Jones (who also designed Lemmings). There's an interview with Jones in the second edition of High Score! where he discusses the problematic development of BH.

-- Z.

Kepone

11-12-2004, 01:02 AM

GTA fanboys are no different from Halo fanboys or FF fanboys or any other fanboys.

Who cares?

No one's forcing you to like GTA.

But you gotta put down people who do like GTA and I think that implies that you have problems accepting that a game is popular with a certain segment of gamers. You don't like it? That's ok.

I don't see the point of a topic like this but if someone posted a topic trashing YOUR favorite game, how would you feel? Would you react the same way you're reacting now?

Neonsolid

11-12-2004, 01:08 AM

Gone.

dracula

11-12-2004, 04:42 AM

san andreas is easily the best gaming experience i have ever had, and i started on an atart 2600.

I think san andreas lived up to the hype and exceeded by a good bit.

all the options like the haircuts, tatoos, the fact that some of the potential girlfriends wont date you unless you are chubby, the decaps when you get a head shot with the AK47,

I would have loved to have seen another "KILL ALL THE HAITIANS" level, i laughed out loud when i saw that and knew rockstar would get sued by some haitians for it. But the fact that I never thought I would see that in a video game(or owning your own porn studio in vice city) and the fact that the voice acting is top notch, If you cant enjoy san andreas, then you are not a gamer, plain and simple.

digitalpress

11-12-2004, 07:17 AM

would GTA be just as popular if it was set in a fantasy world or a future world or in the past if it had the exact same play mechanics. I would love to hear someone else's opinions on this, and I don't want to hear that I haven't played them enough to wonder this or understand or an analogy about how I have to back up stuff because my claim is impossible and only your side is right.

I'm not on either "side" here, I don't care if you like the game or not. There's plenty of other games out there to choose from!

As I've said before, the lure of this game to me is in the exploration and the open-ended gameplay. Those are the two things that draw me to videogames. I want to get lost in the game. I want to have too many things to do. I want diversity in my levels, travels, or missions. This game delivers that in spades.

So with that in mind, I know that I would LOVE to see the game played in fantasy world or future world, presuming the same mechanics and depth were in place. Naturally we'd have to keep the propensity for mayhem and an intelligent, well-acted storyline as well. Those are the undercurrents of GTA and can't be abandoned just because the series no longer involves gangsters (or gangstas).

Hope this helps you with your information gathering.

Nature Boy

11-12-2004, 08:35 AM

What happened with the Tomb Raider series is that the original creators left after Tomb Raider II (still the best TR) to create Galleon, which recently shipped after years in development hell. The same thing recently happened to EA's Medal of Honor series, with all the talented folks behind it bolting to Activision and launching the competing Call of Duty franchise. That's why Rising Sun sucked.

GTA3, VC, and SA, by comparison, have the same creative team at their core.

Doesn't change the fact that I still think VC and SA are overrated. TR was used to illustrate a point about how I feel the series is going. The creative teams involved are moot points to me.

(BTW: Thanks for the heads up about Rising Sun. I was actually thinking of picking it up (since I liked the other MoH games) - maybe now I'll take a look at Call of Duty instead :) ).

FantasiaWHT

11-12-2004, 08:44 AM

Grand Theft Hyrule :)

I'd play that

zmweasel

11-12-2004, 09:17 AM

Doesn't change the fact that I still think VC and SA are overrated. TR was used to illustrate a point about how I feel the series is going. The creative teams involved are moot points to me.

The TR series plunged into mediocrity because the people who made it good to begin with only worked on the first and second games in the series. The GTA franchise isn't getting worse with each entry, as happened with TR from the third installment onward; it's getting better with each entry.

Same deal with the Tony Hawk franchise, which has received an improved installment every year since its '99 debut, and which has also kept the same creative team at its core.

What I'm sayin' is that your point is flawed, and that you MUST take creative teams into account. TR lost its luster because its creators bailed on it and the gameplay quality dropped, not because Eidos published yearly installments (until the unmitigated disaster that was The Angel of Darkness).

-- Z.

Nature Boy

11-12-2004, 10:33 AM

What I'm sayin' is that your point is flawed, and that you MUST take creative teams into account. TR lost its luster because its creators bailed on it and the gameplay quality dropped, not because Eidos published yearly installments (until the unmitigated disaster that was The Angel of Darkness).

I disagree - I don't think I have to take creative teams into account at all. In fact I'd rather not think about *any* of that stuff when I'm forming an opinion on a game or a series or whatever. What matters to me is the game that's put before me and what I think about it as I'm playing it and how I remember that experience later.

I do see what your argument is with what I said though, and you're probably right. It was perhaps a poor attempt at drawing a parallel, but it's as close as I could come in the brief amount of time I had to post. But I think (hope) that Joe knew what I was getting at and I stand beside what I wrote.

zmweasel

11-12-2004, 10:51 AM

What I'm sayin' is that your point is flawed, and that you MUST take creative teams into account. TR lost its luster because its creators bailed on it and the gameplay quality dropped, not because Eidos published yearly installments (until the unmitigated disaster that was The Angel of Darkness).

I disagree - I don't think I have to take creative teams into account at all. In fact I'd rather not think about *any* of that stuff when I'm forming an opinion on a game or a series or whatever. What matters to me is the game that's put before me and what I think about it as I'm playing it and how I remember that experience later.

So you don't care about the designers of a game, or the author of a book, or the director or screenwriter or stars of a film? You don't compare and contrast their bodies of work? You just randomly choose games and books and movies, instead of picking the ones from people whose creative endeavors you've previously enjoyed? That's willful ignorance, which is acceptable (if unfortunate) if you're just playing games to play 'em, but wholly unacceptable for any sort of valid criticism.

EDIT: Just read your second paragraph (which I assume you went back and added after your initial post--I didn't see it the first time!), and I'm glad you kind of see what I mean.

-- Z.

goatdan

11-12-2004, 11:23 AM

Dan, go back and re-read my earlier posts. I've already succinctly described both Shenmue's and KotOR's genres and gameplay. I also touched upon Shenmue's aesthetic presentation, but didn't bother with the other two because their approaches are already quite well-known. Going into meticulous detail about the differences between the three games would be killing a butterfly with a nuclear bomb: extreme overkill.

No, you haven't.

I have no problem with the comparison of games within the same genre. For example, it would make perfect sense for you to mention other volleyball games in your review of Outlaw Volleyball. (I'm mystified by your issues with its "extreme" attitude, as that's the selling point of the Outlaw franchise, and what separates it from other sports games. Complaining about Outlaw Volleyball's crude humor is like complaining about South Park's crude humor. But I digress.)

Change of topic...

"3D third-person action-adventure" isn't a genre--it's such a broad, vague category that almost any modern game could be placed into it. Other posters have already given you excellent examples of this. It's not simply the storylines that differentiate GTA3, Shenmue, and KotOR.

Again no information.

That's fine, Dan. I certainly don't expect you to purchase something you don't feel is worth your money. But your unfamiliarity with the GTA series weakens your opinions about the evolution of its gameplay, as with your comment about the "constant" eating and working out in SA.

I never said that there was constant eating and working out in SA. Reread.

Now, I'm still waiting for you to make a point.

I was hoping to get other people to tell me why these games are rated so high, and if they feel that the removing of the storyline and changing it with something else would make the series rated the same. How about you respond about that next time -- would GTA be just as popular if it was set in a fantasy world or a future world or in the past if it had the exact same play mechanics.

The Simpsons: Hit & Run borrowed many GTA mechanics, and while it didn't execute them as well, it was very entertaining, and demonstrated that GTA's core gameplay is solid.

Would GTA be as popular without its mature themes, contemporary setting, and brilliant satire of American pop culture? Very doubtful. Would KotOR be as popular without its Star Wars setting? Very doubtful (although we'll see how Jade Empire sells). But the underlying gameplay of both would be just as great.

FINALLY, you make a statement. Page 5, on your million and second post. About damn time. Unfortunately, again, you do NOTHING to support your opinions other than say that it would be doubtful.

Between your concerns over Outlaw Volleyball's tone and GTA's storyline, I'm starting to suspect you're a conservative individual--you're in the Midwest, after all--and you're troubled by video games with what you feel is excessive sexual or violent content. Is that the case?

Now you change the topic again. Can you ever answer the question? Or are you that blinded by it because you've wrote the strategy guides and all that I have to do is read them? Stop replying, your replies are a complete waste of bandwidth, and I feel sorry that someone is paying for it.

As for your concerns about me being "conservative" a) what does that have to do with anything and b) because I criticize Outlaw Volleyball for using racist stereotypes, I am suddenly a bad person?

Lets see here... I work with people from different races, including one that comes from the Middle East and one that is from China. I have two good friends that are openly gay. I see these stereotypes in games and I realize that they do not help any of these groups in any way. If you want to get into a debate about how stereotypes hurt groups in America, I'll be happy to discuss that in another topic or PM, but considering that your only point would be "I have seen many minorities, and I don't see how Outlaw Volleyball hurt them" I know that I woudln't be getting anywhere.

I am asking the question about GTA's violence level not because I think that it is a bad thing, as you change the topic to because you have NO RESPONSE but 'probably not' but because if the gameplay truly holds up, you could have it in another setting. I have no concerns over GTA's violence, nor do I think it's bad at all -- but I wonder if the game would have the same critical acclaim without it. I am still waiting for someone to explain if it would or not. You obviously can't / won't because I'm way too far below you.

And, in case you missed it, most of the Midwest went to Kerry in the election. I know that you don't have enough time to look at the news because you have to play so many games. Why don't you go back to getting so many great opinions on them that are so high and mighty that you can't even express them in words, and stop telling me that I can't have an opinion or ask questions.

Nature Boy

11-12-2004, 11:30 AM

So you don't care about the designers of a game, or the author of a book, or the director or screenwriter or stars of a film? You don't compare and contrast their bodies of work? You just randomly choose games and books and movies, instead of picking the ones from people whose creative endeavors you've previously enjoyed? That's willful ignorance, which is acceptable (if unfortunate) if you're just playing games to play 'em, but wholly unacceptable for any sort of valid criticism.

Not exactly correct.

A lot of the games I buy are purchased based on who makes them. I'm probably 'guilty' of looking more at the publisher than the developer but whatever (maybe that's my problem in your eyes). The catalyst behind the decision is similar to how I pick out books and movies.

Once I'm enjoying my purchase, though, it's all about the experience. If the experience isn't what I'm expecting I'm disappointed. And yes, my expectations are based on previous experiences of the game/author/whatever. It might not be fair to VC that I expected more than I got but that's the way it is, and that's why my opinion is the way it is.

Are you perhaps taking this a bit too seriously? "Valid Criticism?" It's just a message board, not my application for a correspondant job at G4. I know you love picking on fanboys - is that it? Am I a fanboy?

EDIT: I just saw your second edited paragraph, where you commented on my second paragraph :) Yeah, I added that after I hit submit, because after reading my post I wasn't happy (I don't normally do that but I didn't want to create another post so I stuck it in there).

goatdan

11-12-2004, 11:46 AM

You're ABSOLUTELY right, when you remove all context, it's very easy to call things similar.

Monopoly and GTA, for example. ;)

Removing the storyline from both of them ends up with a board game and a 3d third person action / adventure game. I would call those different.

Also... how is "different gameplay" not story based? Typo, I hope?

What I mean is that if you stripped the story out of the gameplay, and were just given the missions, at that point is it really that different than every other game in existance? I am not pretending to have played every game ever, but I personally feel like GTA 3 and VC are two games that I have played before if you strip out their storylines.

I'm not saying the storyline is a BAD thing and I never was (zmweasel made that up), I just think that people don't compare it to other games because of it. And considering that I have had few examples of why GTA's gameplay is so different, I think that people are just getting angry because maybe when you took out the story, it would be the same as other games.

I would like someone to tell me otherwise. Not try to make up stuff like I'm an idiot, or that I'm too conservative, or that I can't have an opinion with only about 20 hours of the games played.

So with that in mind, I know that I would LOVE to see the game played in fantasy world or future world, presuming the same mechanics and depth were in place. Naturally we'd have to keep the propensity for mayhem and an intelligent, well-acted storyline as well. Those are the undercurrents of GTA and can't be abandoned just because the series no longer involves gangsters (or gangstas).

Thanks Joe! An actual response.

---

Basically, if I had ever got an answer on this, my point was going to be that it would be interesting to see the game applied to other storylines in the same way. I would especially like a '20's mafia / mobster one (better than Mafia), a futuristic one or especially a Western. I don't think these games exist yet. I don't know. I don't claim to be gaming genius like some people in this thread do, and I don't claim to know it all. All that I know is that the gameplay in the GTA series (3 and VC) don't seem to be all that new to me, and I'd like to know what some other ones that potentially could be like it are...

jerkov, thank you for your intelligent posts. That's extremely interesting about Body Harvest, a game that I have at the GOAT Store and can borrow to check out. I most definitely will be doing this. Thanks.

zmweasel

11-12-2004, 11:49 AM

No, you haven't.

Dan, you're asking for information that I (and several other posters) have already given in this thread. And as I stated before, there's no need to go into further detail. The differences between Shenmue, KotOR, and GTA3 are so obvious to myself and everyone else that to spell them out is an insult to the forum's collective intelligence.

I never said that there was constant eating and working out in SA. Reread.

Actually, Dan, you did: "...yet eating and working out are now things that are done constantly to keep alive." And you're wrong. It's hardly constant, and it's not necessary to "keep [sic] alive."

If you can't make sense of your OWN posts, no wonder you can't make sense of mine.

Stop replying, your replies are a complete waste of bandwidth, and I feel sorry that someone is paying for it.

Dan, no one's forcing you to reply to me, or even to participate in this discussion. I certainly don't consider your posts "a complete waste of bandwidth" because I happen to disagree with you.

As for your concerns about me being "conservative" a) what does that have to do with anything and b) because I criticize Outlaw Volleyball for using racist stereotypes, I am suddenly a bad person?

If you're a conservative individual, that could very well influence your opinions of GTA, considering its mature content. You asked whether GTA would be as popular if it didn't have its mature themes, and you expressed what I considered to be unusual concern over the comical stereotypes in what's clearly an over-the-top game. These two facts led me to ask whether or not you're a conservative person. I'm not at all claiming you're a BAD person, and I've no idea what would lead you to think that.

And, in case you missed it, most of the Midwest went to Kerry in the election. I know that you don't have enough time to look at the news because you have to play so many games. Why don't you go back to getting so many great opinions on them that are so high and mighty that you can't even express them in words, and stop telling me that I can't have an opinion or ask questions.

Actually, Dan, I followed the election quite closely. I also voted. Did you? Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois went to Kerry. That's not "most of the Midwest." That's half of the Midwest. Seeing as the Midwest was the birthplace of the Republican Party, it's hardly outrageous to assume that the average Midwesterner has conservative leanings.

-- Z.

zmweasel

11-12-2004, 11:54 AM

A lot of the games I buy are purchased based on who makes them. I'm probably 'guilty' of looking more at the publisher than the developer but whatever (maybe that's my problem in your eyes). The catalyst behind the decision is similar to how I pick out books and movies.

I can't really blame you for looking at game publishers instead of game developers when publishers make a concerted effort to promote themselves at the expense of developers. It takes some effort to determine who developed what. I don't mind expending that effort, but then, it's my job.

Are you perhaps taking this a bit too seriously? "Valid Criticism?" It's just a message board, not my application for a correspondant job at G4. I know you love picking on fanboys - is that it? Am I a fanboy?

Hell, no, you're not a fanboy. I was just disturbed by what I perceived as willful ignorance, one of my biggest pet peeves.

-- Z.

Ed Oscuro

11-12-2004, 11:55 AM

Grand Theft Hyrule :)

I'd play that
Hey, Link can knock enemies off their horses...while he won't likely pick up the reins if he's got Epona, it's getting closer!

goatdan

11-12-2004, 11:56 AM

So you don't care about the designers of a game, or the author of a book, or the director or screenwriter or stars of a film? You don't compare and contrast their bodies of work? You just randomly choose games and books and movies, instead of picking the ones from people whose creative endeavors you've previously enjoyed? That's willful ignorance, which is acceptable (if unfortunate) if you're just playing games to play 'em, but wholly unacceptable for any sort of valid criticism.

This is a good point, but yet I think that if we are honest with ourselves, if a book is in a series of stuff or a movie is in a series, we do compare and contrast them regardless of who made them. Here's some examples:

The Star Wars book series. There are a whole bunch of different people that wrote very different books, but they are all based on the Star Wars license. Is it unfair to compare them?

This is probably the best example that I have -- for movies, the Batman series. The series changed directions, directors and stars (except Alfred) and it still makes sense to compare the movies to one another. If the first two movies hadn't been released, I think that the reviews of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin probably would have been a little better.

I'm not saying that people don't pick books, movies or games based on things that I like, but I don't think that it is completely fair to not compare games in the same series amongst themselves. If that's the case, it isn't willful ignorance. I know for instance that the KOTOR2 team is different than the first game, but it doesn't mean I'm going to judge it by itself without thinking about the first game when it comes out. That would also be willful ignorance.

The Tomb Raider series crashed and burned (which I agree with and couldn't have defended against the GTA series) not necessarily because the design team changed, but because the gameplay didn't evolve enough for most people. Obviously, GTA's gameplay *has* evolved enough for most people, and that's great. I don't think that it fully matters on the developers.

Promophile

11-12-2004, 12:11 PM

Wow. I hate Halo very muchly but you don't see me making a 5 page thread about it. If you don't like the game just relax and skip threads that are about it, let the fans enjoy themselves

Ed Oscuro

11-12-2004, 12:13 PM

zmweasel

11-12-2004, 12:20 PM

This is a good point, but yet I think that if we are honest with ourselves, if a book is in a series of stuff or a movie is in a series, we do compare and contrast them regardless of who made them.

Absolutely, we do. What I'm saying is that I think it's good to know the history of the creators of books, movies, and games. If nothing else, it makes you a more informed pop-culture consumer. Admittedly, it's not always easy to determine the developer of a game, or that developer's history. It takes a little legwork. Amazon.com and IMDb.com make it a trifle to look up authors and moviemakers.

This is probably the best example that I have -- for movies, the Batman series. The series changed directions, directors and stars (except Alfred) and it still makes sense to compare the movies to one another. If the first two movies hadn't been released, I think that the reviews of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin probably would have been a little better.

You can also extend that line of reasoning and guess that the reviews of Batman Beyond will be a little better than they should be because Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were so shitty. And that's probably true, thanks to lowered expectations. Whereas GTA: SA lived up to, and even surpassed, critics' sky-high expectations. It certainly doesn't fall into the category of "overrated."

The Tomb Raider series crashed and burned (which I agree with and couldn't have defended against the GTA series) not necessarily because the design team changed, but because the gameplay didn't evolve enough for most people. Obviously, GTA's gameplay *has* evolved enough for most people, and that's great. I don't think that it fully matters on the developers.

But TR's gameplay didn't evolve because the original design team left, and took the evolution with it, and put it into Galleon. It was entirely because the design team changed. And if you aren't aware of that fact, it leads to an uninformed comparison of the games in the series. You'd be damning people who don't deserve to be damned, or giving credit to people who don't deserve it.

-- Z.

goatdan

11-12-2004, 12:24 PM

Stop replying, your replies are a complete waste of bandwidth, and I feel sorry that someone is paying for it.

Dan, no one's forcing you to reply to me, or even to participate in this discussion. I certainly don't consider your posts "a complete waste of bandwidth" because I happen to disagree with you.

zmweasel (by the way, is it Zach or Zack, and can I use that instead?), I am in this conversation because I want to stir up some responses so that I can learn more about the series and people's love for it. I really, honestly don't feel that I have gotten any solid response from you on it.

I really, honestly wish that I would because I do respect your opinion. Your responses so far have been very vague. I tried to use stuff to support mine, and you have taken details in them and broken them down to discount my entire arguments.

Could you please take the time to re-make your argument using details? I'm not going to sit here and tell you that you're wrong about anything. I'm just wondering where you are coming from, and I don't feel I've had that answered.

As for your concerns about me being "conservative" a) what does that have to do with anything and b) because I criticize Outlaw Volleyball for using racist stereotypes, I am suddenly a bad person?

If you're a conservative individual, that could very well influence your opinions of GTA, considering its mature content. You asked whether GTA would be as popular if it didn't have its mature themes, and you expressed what I considered to be unusual concern over the comical stereotypes in what's clearly an over-the-top game. These two facts led me to ask whether or not you're a conservative person. I'm not at all claiming you're a BAD person, and I've no idea what would lead you to think that.

How you were doing that, you implied that my concerns were coming from the type of person that wishes games wouldn't go into this category.

Maybe my concern over the racial stereotypes comes from the fact that I live in Milwaukee, WI, which is the most racially segregated city in all of America. My wife is a public school teacher because she wants to help the underprivilged kids, and her schools are woefully underfunded. Compared to the suburbs, she gets less than 25% funding per year. Guess where all the minority kids are segregated into? That's right, the city where they don't get any funding.

I see stuff like that, and then when I play a game like Outlaw Volleyball which I realize is over the top (and, by the way, there really hasn't been many other volleyball games recently), but I wasn't expecting it to be so racially over the top as I was sexually. I would rather it be sexually over the top. Any time.

I wondered (and still do) if GTA would've become such a sensation if it didn't have the violent themes -- not because I think that they should be removed or altered, but because I wonder if people feel that the underlying game would be as good without the storyline.

Games can have their storylines moved or altered and still stand if they are good. I'm not so sure that GTA would stand as well without it's storyline, and I wanted someone to explain why it would or wouldn't.

Actually, Dan, I followed the election quite closely. I also voted. Did you? Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois went to Kerry. That's not "most of the Midwest." That's half of the Midwest. Seeing as the Midwest was the birthplace of the Republican Party, it's hardly outrageous to assume that the average Midwesterner has conservative leanings.

I guess it all depends on how you perceive the Midwest. Is Iowa part of the Midwest? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Same with Ohio. For instance, the advertising for Six Flags Great America claims the tallest and fastest ride in the Midwest, while Cedar Point in Ohio has one twice as tall and fast. But they draw the line at Indiana for purposes of advertising. But anyway, I digress...

The Midwest may have been the birthplace of the modern Republican Party, but for the most part the states around here vote democratic. I believe that Wisconsin has gone Democratic for at least the last three elections, and before that I wasn't voting and I don't really remember. Both of our Senate chairs are Democratic. Even so...

In case you missed it, the popular vote was about a 51 / 49 vote. That menas that it would be fair to say that perhaps just over half the country has conservative leanings. Considering that the Midwest had half of the states go to the democrats, I wouldn't say that it is an easy assumption to make. If I came from Texas or Oklahoma, that would be a much more fair assumption to make... and you're still only going to be correct about two out of three people there.

Anyway, this isn't about politics. And I'm not conservative, but I don't bring it up online because it doesn't matter. It was about GTA, and I would like it to remain on that.

goatdan

11-12-2004, 12:32 PM

The Star Wars book series. There are a whole bunch of different people that wrote very different books, but they are all based on the Star Wars license. Is it unfair to compare them?
Rebel Assault II vs. Dark Forces vs. Jedi Knight II: JO vs. Shadows of the Empire vs. Knights of the Old Republic vs. Galactic Battlegrounds vs. Masters of Teras Kai vs. Galaxies vs. Return of the Jedi vs. Force Commander vs. ?

I dare say that almost none of those play anything alike.

You're right. But at the same time, you could compare how the license was used for each of them. I wasn't really trying to discuss different genres though, and I knew the Batman argument was much stronger when I wrote it.

All of these games contain elements of the franchise, and some feature some of the same set pieces and the (nearly) omnipresent Imperial Stormtrooper...but almost all feature wholly different design teams and radically different gameplay styles. It really doesn't make sense to compare them; the FMV shooter fan might be repulsed by the strategy games, while the strategist may not be very appreciative of Star Wars Episode 1: Racer.

Agreed. I was trying to make more of a point that it does make sense to compare games in the same series though. I can't think of any examples in movies or books where they were in the same series, but so vastly different as the example above.

The Tomb Raider series crashed and burned (which I agree with and couldn't have defended against the GTA series) not necessarily because the design team changed, but because the gameplay didn't evolve enough for most people. Obviously, GTA's gameplay *has* evolved enough for most people, and that's great. I don't think that it fully matters on the developers.

But TR's gameplay didn't evolve because the original design team left, and took the evolution with it, and put it into Galleon. It was entirely because the design team changed. And if you aren't aware of that fact, it leads to an uninformed comparison of the games in the series. You'd be damning people who don't deserve to be damned, or giving credit to people who don't deserve it.

I'd agree that it would be an uninformed comparison, but not necessarily an unfair one. If the first game in a series (or two or three) lived up to a certain standard and then the new design team dropped the ball, they still deserve to be damned. If the team does better with it, they still deserve to have credit for building upon the gameplay. Another good example like this would be the Twisted Metal series. The third (if memory serves) game was done by a different design team, and while as a game by itself it wasn't that bad, it didn't live up to the evolution of the first games. Because it got the TM license, it deserved all of the negative reviews that it got I think. That was fair criticism.

zmweasel

11-12-2004, 01:18 PM

I'd agree that it would be an uninformed comparison, but not necessarily an unfair one. If the first game in a series (or two or three) lived up to a certain standard and then the new design team dropped the ball, they still deserve to be damned. If the team does better with it, they still deserve to have credit for building upon the gameplay. Another good example like this would be the Twisted Metal series. The third (if memory serves) game was done by a different design team, and while as a game by itself it wasn't that bad, it didn't live up to the evolution of the first games. Because it got the TM license, it deserved all of the negative reviews that it got I think. That was fair criticism.

We're "debating" the same point. I absolutely agree that the designers of TR1 and 2 should be praised, and the designers of TR3-6 should be damned. The point is that, if you didn't know the design team had changed between 2 and 3, you'd think the designers of 1 and 2 had suddenly started to suck. That makes you an ignorant consumer.

Admittedly, game publishers don't promote developers, unless they've just snagged a development studio from a rival, like Microsoft and Rare. Not that Rare's "name" made Grabbed by the Ghoulies a success--but that's because all of the designers from Rare's GoldenEye era are long gone.

Part of the reason for Galleon's commercial failure (other than its obsolete graphics) was that casual gamers saw it was "from the creator of Tomb Raider," and associated him with the shitty later entries instead of the superior earlier entries. Also, game critics didn't make it clear enough that Galleon's creator only worked on the good TRs. Deceptive marketing by Eidos, well-meaning marketing by Atlus, and ignorance by game critics and consumers kept a good game from commercial success.

-- Z.

goatdan

11-12-2004, 01:34 PM

We're "debating" the same point. I absolutely agree that the designers of TR1 and 2 should be praised, and the designers of TR3-6 should be damned. The point is that, if you didn't know the design team had changed between 2 and 3, you'd think the designers of 1 and 2 had suddenly started to suck. That makes you an ignorant consumer.

Admittedly, game publishers don't promote developers, unless they've just snagged a development studio from a rival, like Microsoft and Rare. Not that Rare's "name" made Grabbed by the Ghoulies a success--but that's because all of the designers from Rare's GoldenEye era are long gone.

Gotcha, and I agree.

Part of the reason for Galleon's commercial failure (other than its obsolete graphics) was that casual gamers saw it was "from the creator of Tomb Raider," and associated him with the shitty later entries instead of the superior earlier entries. Also, game critics didn't make it clear enough that Galleon's creator only worked on the good TRs. Deceptive marketing by Eidos, well-meaning marketing by Atlus, and ignorance by game critics and consumers kept a good game from commercial success.

I think that the other reason that Galleon wasn't a huge commercial success is that it came out only for the Xbox without a huge marketing blitz. For the most part, a big media campaign is what really makes a game sell well now, whether that is good or not is another thing.

What is Galleon's gameplay like? I'll admit that I haven't played it, but hearing your description it makes it sound more interesting, although I'll admit that I'm not a huge fan of the TR style of play. For 3D third person games, I like the gameplay of series like Headhunter and Metal Gear Solid more.

zmweasel

11-12-2004, 02:04 PM

zmweasel (by the way, is it Zach or Zack, and can I use that instead?), I am in this conversation because I want to stir up some responses so that I can learn more about the series and people's love for it. I really, honestly don't feel that I have gotten any solid response from you on it.

Zach is fine, and of course you may use it.

Could you please take the time to re-make your argument using details? I'm not going to sit here and tell you that you're wrong about anything. I'm just wondering where you are coming from, and I don't feel I've had that answered.

At this point, I'd prefer to agree to disagree on the Shenmue/KotOR/GTA3 matter. I feel I've made my points, and I don't feel a need to rehash or expand upon them. I could refer you to various reviews that describe each title's gameplay (and illustrate the differences between the games) in exquisite detail, but you've already expressed your surprise that game reviewers haven't noted the similarities between the games, so that wouldn't do any good.

I see stuff like that, and then when I play a game like Outlaw Volleyball which I realize is over the top (and, by the way, there really hasn't been many other volleyball games recently), but I wasn't expecting it to be so racially over the top as I was sexually. I would rather it be sexually over the top. Any time.

I grew up as a white kid in Hawaii, so I was an extremely rare case: a Caucasian victim of racism. It certainly made me sensitive to the issue. But I didn't get bent about the stereotypes in Outlaw Volleyball, because they're so over-the-top that they're impossible to take seriously.

No, there haven't been any v-ball games recently, but Outlaw Volleyball shipped in July 2003, not too long after Dead or Alive Extreme Beach Volleyball, Summer Heat Beach Volleyball, and Beach Spikers. (I noted this in my review of Outlaw Volleyball for GameSpy.) That's why I'm surprised you expressed dismay at Outlaw Volleyball's outrageous elements, when there are several other v-ball games that provide the straightforward experience you prefer.

Games can have their storylines moved or altered and still stand if they are good. I'm not so sure that GTA would stand as well without it's storyline, and I wanted someone to explain why it would or wouldn't.

Most modern games are fueled by stories, not high scores. Tetris doesn't have a story. GTA3/VC/SA are hybrids, with both story and high-score elements.

Should GTA3/VC/SA be held in less regard because some of its pleasure comes from its secondary elements--the modern setting, the pop-culture satire, the killer soundtracks, the great voice acting, et cetera? I certainly don't think so. Game design has evolved to the point that storylines and settings are an integral aspect of gameplay.

GTA was built around the concept of the fast, fun exploration of a game-world, and the carjacking mechanic was a brilliant way to enable that exploration. It's a gameplay mechanic that wouldn't work in a fantasy setting (horse-jacking?) or a futuristic setting (X-wing-jacking?). But that fact doesn't mean the mechanic itself is flawed.

Super Mario Bros. 2 was a graphic hack. Would it have been as successful in the U.S. had it been released in its original non-Mario form? Of course not. But that doesn't mean the game itself is flawed. Its success was dependent on its theme. Is it a better game because any visual theme can be plugged into it? No. It's just a game from an earlier era of design.

I guess it all depends on how you perceive the Midwest. Is Iowa part of the Midwest? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Same with Ohio. For instance, the advertising for Six Flags Great America claims the tallest and fastest ride in the Midwest, while Cedar Point in Ohio has one twice as tall and fast. But they draw the line at Indiana for purposes of advertising. But anyway, I digress...

I used the most conservative definition of the Midwest, which includes eight states. The most liberal definition includes eleven states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin), only four of which went to Kerry. Using that definition, my assumption that the average Midwesterner is conservative is even easier to make, and your statement that "most of the Midwest voted for Kerry" is even more incorrect.

-- Z.

zmweasel

11-12-2004, 02:17 PM

I think that the other reason that Galleon wasn't a huge commercial success is that it came out only for the Xbox without a huge marketing blitz. For the most part, a big media campaign is what really makes a game sell well now, whether that is good or not is another thing.

Atlus gave it an okay push for a second-string Xbox title, but never expected it to be a smash--and it didn't even meet Atlus's low expectations, which is too bad.

What is Galleon's gameplay like? I'll admit that I haven't played it, but hearing your description it makes it sound more interesting, although I'll admit that I'm not a huge fan of the TR style of play. For 3D third person games, I like the gameplay of series like Headhunter and Metal Gear Solid more.

The best and least graphic-obsessed online review of the game is at http://xbox.gamespy.com/xbox/galleon/536486p1.html. (It also mentions what I forgot to mention earlier--that TR creator Toby Gard is now at Crystal Dynamics, working on the TR franchise again. Rejoice!)

-- Z.

goatdan

11-12-2004, 03:17 PM

I see stuff like that, and then when I play a game like Outlaw Volleyball which I realize is over the top (and, by the way, there really hasn't been many other volleyball games recently), but I wasn't expecting it to be so racially over the top as I was sexually. I would rather it be sexually over the top. Any time.

I grew up as a white kid in Hawaii, so I was an extremely rare case: a Caucasian victim of racism. It certainly made me sensitive to the issue. But I didn't get bent about the stereotypes in Outlaw Volleyball, because they're so over-the-top that they're impossible to take seriously.

No, there haven't been any v-ball games recently, but Outlaw Volleyball shipped in July 2003, not too long after Dead or Alive Extreme Beach Volleyball, Summer Heat Beach Volleyball, and Beach Spikers. (I noted this in my review of Outlaw Volleyball for GameSpy.) That's why I'm surprised you expressed dismay at Outlaw Volleyball's outrageous elements, when there are several other v-ball games that provide the straightforward experience you prefer.

Zach, the thing is that I expected the outrageous elements to be more sexual than stereotypical racist. And I guess that the point that we disagree on is how over the top these stereotypes are. Personally, I don't see either Chica or the Native American one (can't recall her name) being that over the top.

And I did know about the other games, but I didn't own a PS2 and therefore had two choices -- eventually, I will probably pick those other ones up as I am a hopeless volleyball game fan. But with the two choices I had, I heard one had little to do with volleyball while the other had a strong volleyball connection. Therefore, OV it was. And for $9.99, why not?

Like I said in that review, I'm just surprised that they decided to use the stereotypes as strongly as they did. I don't think the game would've been any less over the top if they had less racially stereotypical elements. And, as an aside, I was basically disappointed with the lack of sexuality in it.

Games can have their storylines moved or altered and still stand if they are good. I'm not so sure that GTA would stand as well without it's storyline, and I wanted someone to explain why it would or wouldn't.

Most modern games are fueled by stories, not high scores. Tetris doesn't have a story. GTA3/VC/SA are hybrids, with both story and high-score elements.

Apparently, Tetris does now have a story, as I was muddling my way through Tetris Worlds in Story mode for a bit yesterday... although I'll admit I didn't see one.

I agree that most games are fueled by stories, but under that story the gameplay elements can be compared. It is possible to strip off the story of GTA (in my mind) and look at it as a 3D third person action / adventure game, as I've said before. Apparently, I am the only one that looks at games that way, and I guess that I'm okay with that, but it's rather surprising.

I don't think that my Sonic / Mario comparison was that out of the blue for two games that are not very similar that could be compared. I see GTA in the same way -- You aren't doing what you are doing in many / any other games, but you use the same gameplay to get through those points. In Mario, you aren't running so fast and in Sonic you aren't needing to collect power ups to give you different abilities. The core of both games is a 2D platformer, which encompassed probably 50% of the games that came out back then. Maybe I see things too simply, but I do think it is fair to compare 3D third person action / adventure games to one another, regardless of the other aspects of them.

No, I don't see games like Monopoly and GTA being similar because when you strip the storyline off, you get two games that are vastly different -- one is a board game with a distinct set of rules where the other one is an adventure title with many different paths to get to similar results.

I'm surprised through this conversation that it seems that no one else on these boards view modern games like this. I wonder in ten years when we look back at them if they will or not.

Should GTA3/VC/SA be held in less regard because some of its pleasure comes from its secondary elements--the modern setting, the pop-culture satire, the killer soundtracks, the great voice acting, et cetera? I certainly don't think so. Game design has evolved to the point that storylines and settings are an integral aspect of gameplay.

I'm not denying that. Although I might debate the satire part of your comment with you, but that's for another conversation at another time. Storylines are an integral aspect of gameplay, and I really enjoy a few games because of them that others I'm sure don't -- games like Lost Eden (3DO), Headhunter (DC), Earthbound (SNES) and so on. I recognize though that their gameplay has some flaws in it, even though I think the stories are great. Lost Eden is more like a choose your own adventure than a game. Headhunter has really stupid driving parts. Earthbound has other issues that have been discussed in threads in the past.

It seems that even some fans of the GTA series think that there are some flaws in the gameplay, and I think that perhaps they are overlooked because the storyline is so fresh. I'm not saying this is horrible, but I agree with that assessment and was / am wondering how many others do.

For the people that haven't thought about it, I'm just wondering if stripping out the story would leave a solid game. If you stripped the story of the three games above, Lost Eden would suck, Headhunter would be decent and Earthbound wouldn't have had a chance with me, but would've been very solid.

GTA was built around the concept of the fast, fun exploration of a game-world, and the carjacking mechanic was a brilliant way to enable that exploration. It's a gameplay mechanic that wouldn't work in a fantasy setting (horse-jacking?) or a futuristic setting (X-wing-jacking?). But that fact doesn't mean the mechanic itself is flawed.

I don't know if you couldn't apply the mechanic in a fantasy / western setting... horse stealing (grab one still wild, and have to stay on as it attempts to buck you off, grab one with it's owner around, and get shot at) and I think that a futurisitic setting would work too if it wasn't space set -- like a Back to the Future type of setting.

I do think that it could be done with a different setting, but I don't know if it would be as successful. It does seem that you are agreeing that it wouldn't be though.

Super Mario Bros. 2 was a graphic hack. Would it have been as successful in the U.S. had it been released in its original non-Mario form? Of course not. But that doesn't mean the game itself is flawed. Its success was dependent on its theme. Is it a better game because any visual theme can be plugged into it? No. It's just a game from an earlier era of design.

If SMB2 had been released without the graphic hack, the gameplay would've held up exactly as it has -- which is that some people enjoy it while others don't. This is actually a perfect example of what I've been trying to get at.

Is GTA a better game because any visual theme can be plugged into it? I'm not so sure that it would be as good of a game without the theme that it has, and from your comments above I think that you're agreeing?

I used the most conservative definition of the Midwest, which includes eight states. The most liberal definition includes eleven states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin), only four of which went to Kerry. Using that definition, my assumption that the average Midwesterner is conservative is even easier to make, and your statement that "most of the Midwest voted for Kerry" is even more incorrect.

Well, based on your definitions (and I have never heard of Kansas being part of the definition of the Midwes), going by electoral votes, Kerry got 58 and Bush got 55. If you strip down to the definition that is more used from my perspective in the Midwest, you have Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michiagan, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana. Sometimes Ohio. If you go off that definition (with Ohio), you still have 58 votes for Kerry and 38 for Bush. Based on that, most of the Midwest voted for Kerry.

Regardless, especailly with the election having been so close, no matter what, I wouldn't try to make any assumptions about the politcal swingings of any particular part of the country. It seems that only a few states had more than 66% of their voters voting one way or another, and that *still* wouldn't be enough for me to make a general assumption about every person in the state.

SoulBlazer

11-12-2004, 03:44 PM

Just as a side note -- I MYSELF never knew that the people who worked on the TR 3-6 were different from TR 1-2! It's not always EASY to find out who develops a game, although it's getting a little easier in this day and age. And the review of Galleon confirms I was best off not picking the game up in the store for full price -- like I was seriously tempted to do -- but wait for it at a cheap used price.

And I'll say again -- I think DOA: XBV is the better VOLLEYBALL game then any of the Outlaw Volleyball games. ;)

goatdan

11-12-2004, 03:47 PM

And I'll say again -- I think DOA: XBV is the better VOLLEYBALL game then any of the Outlaw Volleyball games. ;)

Not to drag this off topic but...

Seriously? I've heard the exact opposite from people, including some who had owned both.

I quite enjoy the DOA series... Hmmm...

SoulBlazer

11-12-2004, 03:50 PM

Well, I do own both games -- one I bought and the other was given to me as a gift -- so I'd LIKE to say I can make a fair compairson. ;)

Yes, don't want to drag this too far off topic, but here's a few thoughts -- the volleyball simulator in DOA seems easier to use and is more realisitc, you can have two or four player teams, and the AI is better -- damn hard, in some cases. Plus the eye candy is much better to look at. :P

And there some other fun things to do in the game -- the casino games, for example -- that allow me to give the game a nod.

Nature Boy

11-12-2004, 04:36 PM

I can't really blame you for looking at game publishers instead of game developers when publishers make a concerted effort to promote themselves at the expense of developers. It takes some effort to determine who developed what. I don't mind expending that effort, but then, it's my job.

It seems that this business is the worst for that too, doesn't it? (publishers pushing developers into the background).

I probably made it sound worse than it is too to be honest. 90% of the time I do know who the developer is, it's just that the publisher catches my eye first instead of the other way around. I think. (This conversation is going to make me pay more attention to this question for the next little while).

]Hell, no, you're not a fanboy. I was just disturbed by what I perceived as willful ignorance, one of my biggest pet peeves.

Whew! ;)

Mostly that last question of mine came about because of that whole multiple editing thing we had going (which was kinda amusing really :) ).

I think I've hijacked this thread enough for now...

zmweasel

11-12-2004, 04:36 PM

Zach, the thing is that I expected the outrageous elements to be more sexual than stereotypical racist. And I guess that the point that we disagree on is how over the top these stereotypes are. Personally, I don't see either Chica or the Native American one (can't recall her name) being that over the top.

So you're only offended by SOME of the stereotypical characters in Outlaw Volleyball? Which ones? The Russian chick? The redneck chick? The redneck dude? The white guy acting like a black guy? How can you only be offended by some of the game's characters when they're all equally ridiculous? Or are you only offended by the non-white stereotypical characters?

Like I said in that review, I'm just surprised that they decided to use the stereotypes as strongly as they did. I don't think the game would've been any less over the top if they had less racially stereotypical elements. And, as an aside, I was basically disappointed with the lack of sexuality in it.

How much sexuality did you EXPECT? Most of the female characters are wearing thong bikinis. One of the cut-scenes zooms in on a female's ass as she spanks herself with glee. Another cut-scene has the stripper character giving the judge a lap-dance. Outlaw Volleyball goes about as far as it can go while maintaining an M rating.

If you're looking for a more sensual, less raunchy presentation, you want XBV, which isn't too far from the "lesbian simulator" someone described it as.

Apparently, Tetris does now have a story, as I was muddling my way through Tetris Worlds in Story mode for a bit yesterday... although I'll admit I didn't see one.

I was referring to the original Tetris, not the subsequent versions, some of which add a "story" (which is really just level progression).

I agree that most games are fueled by stories, but under that story the gameplay elements can be compared. It is possible to strip off the story of GTA (in my mind) and look at it as a 3D third person action / adventure game, as I've said before. Apparently, I am the only one that looks at games that way, and I guess that I'm okay with that, but it's rather surprising.

I disagree that GTA can be stripped of its theme, because most modern games (GTA included) incorporate theme into their design. GTA was conceived as the exploration of a late-20th-century game-world, not as the exploration of a medieval fantasy or sci-fi game-world. It doesn't mean GTA is flawed because its gameplay elements can't easily be transplanted into different themes. It means GTA does an outstanding job of exploiting and incorporating the contemporary theme its designers chose.

I don't think that my Sonic / Mario comparison was that out of the blue for two games that are not very similar that could be compared.

Sonic and Mario are 2D platformers, easily slotted into the same genre. Sonic is faster, and Mario is deeper, but the experiences can be directly compared--especially since Sonic was created as a direct response to Mario.

I see GTA in the same way -- You aren't doing what you are doing in many / any other games, but you use the same gameplay to get through those points. In Mario, you aren't running so fast and in Sonic you aren't needing to collect power ups to give you different abilities. The core of both games is a 2D platformer, which encompassed probably 50% of the games that came out back then. Maybe I see things too simply, but I do think it is fair to compare 3D third person action / adventure games to one another, regardless of the other aspects of them.

There's no question that most 2D platformers of the 8-bit and 16-bit era were variants of a straightforward gameplay concept: run to the right and jump across gaps and over platforms. But most 3D platformers have incorporated bits and pieces of other genres, creating deeper gameplay. Look at Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal. It's a platformer at its core, but it's also a damn good third-person shooter.

It's easy to strip old-school games down to their gameplay essence, because they're so simply constructed. Modern games are more complex, and more closely intertwined with visual themes and storylines.

It seems that even some fans of the GTA series think that there are some flaws in the gameplay, and I think that perhaps they are overlooked because the storyline is so fresh. I'm not saying this is horrible, but I agree with that assessment and was / am wondering how many others do.

I don't think anyone's overlooking the flaws in GTA. It's that the gameplay is so compelling that the flaws are minor distractions, not deal-breakers. I'm more than willing to put up with the occasional floating tree or underwater gang member in SA, in exchange for the fantastic gameplay.

For the people that haven't thought about it, I'm just wondering if stripping out the story would leave a solid game. If you stripped the story of the three games above, Lost Eden would suck, Headhunter would be decent and Earthbound wouldn't have had a chance with me, but would've been very solid.

I have to wonder at this point why you think games can, and should, be entirely separated from their themes or stories in order to evaluate them. Lost Eden was built around its story. Why penalize its designers for making that choice? EarthBound is built around its story, as well--it's an RPG, the most story-driven of all video game genres. Would you penalize (the original) Tetris because it doesn't have a story or a theme?

Well, based on your definitions (and I have never heard of Kansas being part of the definition of the Midwes), going by electoral votes, Kerry got 58 and Bush got 55. If you strip down to the definition that is more used from my perspective in the Midwest, you have Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michiagan, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana. Sometimes Ohio. If you go off that definition (with Ohio), you still have 58 votes for Kerry and 38 for Bush. Based on that, most of the Midwest voted for Kerry.

So we can't even agree on how many states make up the Midwest. Heh.

-- Z.

Daria

11-12-2004, 04:47 PM

goatdan

11-12-2004, 05:05 PM

Zach, the thing is that I expected the outrageous elements to be more sexual than stereotypical racist. And I guess that the point that we disagree on is how over the top these stereotypes are. Personally, I don't see either Chica or the Native American one (can't recall her name) being that over the top.

So you're only offended by SOME of the stereotypical characters in Outlaw Volleyball? Which ones? The Russian chick? The redneck chick? The redneck dude? The white guy acting like a black guy? How can you only be offended by some of the game's characters when they're all equally ridiculous? Or are you only offended by the non-white stereotypical characters?

What I meant by this was that I don't see them being so over the top that someone would automatically look at them and think, "What a funny stereotype! No one is that way!" Some of them are, but others aren't done as well. The two that I named above are two that I feel weren't so far over the top that you automatically looked at them and said, "Dang, that's really far off."

Like I said in that review, I'm just surprised that they decided to use the stereotypes as strongly as they did. I don't think the game would've been any less over the top if they had less racially stereotypical elements. And, as an aside, I was basically disappointed with the lack of sexuality in it.

How much sexuality did you EXPECT? Most of the female characters are wearing thong bikinis. One of the cut-scenes zooms in on a female's ass as she spanks herself with glee. Another cut-scene has the stripper character giving the judge a lap-dance. Outlaw Volleyball goes about as far as it can go while maintaining an M rating.

Perhaps I was using the wrong characters in my playing, but I missed those two cut scenes.

If you're looking for a more sensual, less raunchy presentation, you want XBV, which isn't too far from the "lesbian simulator" someone described it as.

I'm not really looking for a more erotic presentation, I guess it is just that the stereotypes in the game were more obvious to me than the sexuality. Maybe I wasn't playing with the right characters or maybe I was looking at it more deep than I should've, but that's how I felt and still feel.

I agree that most games are fueled by stories, but under that story the gameplay elements can be compared. It is possible to strip off the story of GTA (in my mind) and look at it as a 3D third person action / adventure game, as I've said before. Apparently, I am the only one that looks at games that way, and I guess that I'm okay with that, but it's rather surprising.

I disagree that GTA can be stripped of its theme, because most modern games (GTA included) incorporate theme into their design. GTA was conceived as the exploration of a late-20th-century game-world, not as the exploration of a medieval fantasy or sci-fi game-world. It doesn't mean GTA is flawed because its gameplay elements can't easily be transplanted into different themes. It means GTA does an outstanding job of exploiting and incorporating the contemporary theme its designers chose.

But so what you're saying is that the underlying gameplay of GTA probably wouldn't hold up well with a different type of story -- the Western or the Futuristic idea that I had presented. Possibly, this would be the case because the flaws would be more visable.

I don't think that my Sonic / Mario comparison was that out of the blue for two games that are not very similar that could be compared.

Sonic and Mario are 2D platformers, easily slotted into the same genre. Sonic is faster, and Mario is deeper, but the experiences can be directly compared--especially since Sonic was created as a direct response to Mario.

Again, maybe I'm looking into things too simply, but the reason that I saw such a correlation between GTA and KOTOR was that I felt that the experiences could be directly compared and that the only major difference to me was the storyline. There are obviously some major differences -- KOTOR's combat system, interactive storyline and GTA's speed of exploration and completely open world -- but at the end of the day, in one game I feel that I'm pretty much free to roam in the Star Wars universe, and in one I feel that I'm pretty much free to roam in the Liberty City / Vice City universe, doing what I please and advancing the storylines as I want.

Does that make sense?

There's no question that most 2D platformers of the 8-bit and 16-bit era were variants of a straightforward gameplay concept: run to the right and jump across gaps and over platforms. But most 3D platformers have incorporated bits and pieces of other genres, creating deeper gameplay. Look at Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal. It's a platformer at its core, but it's also a damn good third-person shooter.

Agreed -- but would that mean that it is unfair to look at it in comparison to some of the other 3D platformers? It incorporates some stuff that is different, but not so much that I think that you can't compare it to anything.

If GTA truly can't be compared to anything, would you agree that it is only because of the storyline? It seems to me through your posts that you would. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but I'm more of just wondering where people are coming from -- like I have been.

I don't think anyone's overlooking the flaws in GTA. It's that the gameplay is so compelling that the flaws are minor distractions, not deal-breakers. I'm more than willing to put up with the occasional floating tree or underwater gang member in SA, in exchange for the fantastic gameplay.

Fair enough. And the argument is that the gameplay is so compelling due to the storyline, correct?

For the people that haven't thought about it, I'm just wondering if stripping out the story would leave a solid game. If you stripped the story of the three games above, Lost Eden would suck, Headhunter would be decent and Earthbound wouldn't have had a chance with me, but would've been very solid.

I have to wonder at this point why you think games can, and should, be entirely separated from their themes or stories in order to evaluate them. Lost Eden was built around its story. Why penalize its designers for making that choice? EarthBound is built around its story, as well--it's an RPG, the most story-driven of all video game genres. Would you penalize (the original) Tetris because it doesn't have a story or a theme?

I'm not saying that games necessarily *should* be entirely separated from their themes, but that if you're looking strictly at the gameplay, they can be. I definitely feel that without the story, Lost Eden *would* suck. And that you can't apply the gameplay style to another genre without it having a great chance of sucking.

So we can't even agree on how many states make up the Midwest. Heh.

I think it's more of a case that there are just two different ways to look at things. I'm trying to look at them from another perspective in this whole discussion. I already realize the storyline one. 'Tis all ;)

goatdan

11-12-2004, 05:18 PM

Apparently he was just disapointed that the chicks that were in the game weren't wearing an appropriate measure of butt floss.

Um...

The game is a beach volleyball game. You're going to have people in swimsuits. I expected that. Hell, at the Olympics the beach volleyball people sure weren't overly covered up. So expecting that a beach volleyball game would be any different would have been strange, and it was definitely not the reason I bought it.

. And, as an aside, I was basically disappointed with the lack of sexuality in it.

:roll:

I didn't expect the game to just have nekkid chicks, as you apparently think that I did. I am married to a beautiful woman whom I love, and if I wanted to I have a high speed internet connection where I could see porn. If I'm going out and buying a volleyball game for $9.99 to see digital people with no clothes on and for no other reason, god help me.

That wasn't the case at all. I expected jokes and more comedy stuff based on sexuality, which I didn't see much in the game on. I was expecting funny sexual innuendos, and instead I saw jokes based on racial stereotypes. And yes, that WAS disappointing to me.

Heck, the Muppets have worked a lot of sexual innuendos into their programs, and I think that stuff like that is hilarious. I thought that OV would have a more overt sense of it, but it would still be rather funny. I didn't find anything that I thought was very funny at all.

Daria

11-12-2004, 05:28 PM

That wasn't the case at all. I expected jokes and more comedy stuff based on sexuality, which I didn't see much in the game on. I was expecting funny sexual innuendos, and instead I saw jokes based on racial stereotypes. And yes, that WAS disappointing to me.

It's just a funny comparison to be shocked and outraged by one extreme sterotype (racial) but be disapointed by the lack of another (sexism).

And hey before you get defensive remember you said it first.

And, as an aside, I was basically disappointed with the lack of sexuality in it.

goatdan

11-12-2004, 05:33 PM

It's just a funny comparison to be shocked and outraged by one extreme sterotype (racial) but be disapointed by the lack of another (sexism).

I did not mean, nor did I say "sexist", but as you quoted me saying... (moves bold tags)

And, as an aside, I was basically disappointed with the lack of sexuality in it.

I definitely think that you can have sexual jokes that are funny without being sexist. I don't think that the game succeeded in doing that either though. Some things are very good at succeeding in that department. Outlaw Volleyball succeeded in being a decent game with an overly stupid and in-poor-taste exterior, in my opinion.

zmweasel

11-12-2004, 06:13 PM

But so what you're saying is that the underlying gameplay of GTA probably wouldn't hold up well with a different type of story -- the Western or the Futuristic idea that I had presented. Possibly, this would be the case because the flaws would be more visable.

No, what I'm saying is that GTA's gameplay is intertwined with, and built upon, its contemporary theme and its emphasis on fast, fun, open-ended exploration. If the designers had wanted an Old West theme instead of a late-20th-century theme, they would've designed the exploratory aspects around that period of time.

Of course, the Old West setting doesn't really provide for a "fast" method of exploration, nor any opportunities for pop-culture satire--which is exactly why the designers DIDN'T choose an Old West theme. It didn't fit their creative vision. It doesn't mean their creative vision is flawed. A gameplay mechanic doesn't have to be universally compatible with any visual theme or storyline to be great.

Again, maybe I'm looking into things too simply, but the reason that I saw such a correlation between GTA and KOTOR was that I felt that the experiences could be directly compared and that the only major difference to me was the storyline. There are obviously some major differences -- KOTOR's combat system, interactive storyline and GTA's speed of exploration and completely open world -- but at the end of the day, in one game I feel that I'm pretty much free to roam in the Star Wars universe, and in one I feel that I'm pretty much free to roam in the Liberty City / Vice City universe, doing what I please and advancing the storylines as I want.

KotOR is a story-driven RPG. It's not open-ended. When the story's over, the game's over. You can "explore" its worlds, but the emphasis of the gameplay isn't on exploration by any means, and there's no real joy to be had in the simple act of exploring--no zippy vehicles, no hidden rewards (other than the occasional item-filled crate). KotOR's gameplay emphasis is on extensive branching-path interaction with NPCs, well-disguised turn-based combat, and statistical/inventory management. GTA3 contains none of those elements.

Both games are in 3D, yes. Both games are also in color. So what?

Agreed -- but would that mean that it is unfair to look at it in comparison to some of the other 3D platformers? It incorporates some stuff that is different, but not so much that I think that you can't compare it to anything.

It wouldn't be unfair to compare it to other 3D platformers, because those games would be in the same genre. KotOR and GTA3 (and Shenmue) are in entirely different genres.

If GTA truly can't be compared to anything, would you agree that it is only because of the storyline? It seems to me through your posts that you would. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but I'm more of just wondering where people are coming from -- like I have been.

No, I wouldn't agree it's only because of the storyline or setting. It's because GTA presents its gameplay elements in a unique and enjoyable way. The storyline and setting are intertwined with some of the gameplay elements, but that doesn't make those elements any less enjoyable.

I'm not saying that games necessarily *should* be entirely separated from their themes, but that if you're looking strictly at the gameplay, they can be. I definitely feel that without the story, Lost Eden *would* suck. And that you can't apply the gameplay style to another genre without it having a great chance of sucking.

Game design has reached the point where "strictly gameplay" doesn't apply anymore. Games have been adopting and incorporating narrative elements since Pac-Man and Super Mario Bros. In several genres, narrative elements have reached the point where they've become intertwined with gameplay.

The GTA wanna-bes have failed in part because they don't execute their gameplay elements as well as GTA does, and in part because they didn't incorporate their themes and storylines into the gameplay as well as they could or should have. The Getaway attempted realism, but allowed the player to heal his wounds by leaning against a wall for 30 seconds. True Crime attempted a branching storyline, but the storytelling sucked, and the gameplay was mediocre. RoadKill attempted to emulate GTA's humor, but didn't know how to be funny.

-- Z.

goatdan

11-12-2004, 07:04 PM

No, what I'm saying is that GTA's gameplay is intertwined with, and built upon, its contemporary theme and its emphasis on fast, fun, open-ended exploration. If the designers had wanted an Old West theme instead of a late-20th-century theme, they would've designed the exploratory aspects around that period of time.

Of course, the Old West setting doesn't really provide for a "fast" method of exploration, nor any opportunities for pop-culture satire--which is exactly why the designers DIDN'T choose an Old West theme. It didn't fit their creative vision. It doesn't mean their creative vision is flawed.

I do think that you could apply the Old West setting within a game that is similar (stealing horses, horse-drawn-wagons, shooing bad guys / good guys, blowing up dance halls, etc. Mining for gold as a minigame... The more I've talked about it, the more that I hope that someone does make it :) )

But anyway, I understand now that you're saying that the gameplay of GTA came before the gameplay, and because of that they are inseprable... Right? That makes sense, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

KotOR is a story-driven RPG. It's not open-ended. When the story's over, the game's over. You can "explore" its worlds, but the emphasis of the gameplay isn't on exploration by any means, and there's no real joy to be had in the simple act of exploring--no zippy vehicles, no hidden rewards (other than the occasional item-filled crate). KotOR's gameplay emphasis is on extensive branching-path interaction with NPCs, well-disguised turn-based combat, and statistical/inventory management. GTA3 contains none of those elements.

I just explained that again to show how I can view the two as similar. GTA isn't fully open ended either -- you still need to get your missions from somewhere, and once you've completed them all, the game's over.

Both games are in 3D, yes. Both games are also on DVDs. So what?

I believe that the underlying gameplay of them both is similar. You don't. Before, you said let's agree to disagree. I brought it back up because you said that you can compare 2D platformers because the experiences can be directly compared. I was directly comparing GTA and KOTOR, which I do feel is a fair comparison.

The original thing that I was trying to figure out in this entire conversation was if other people felt that GTA could not be compared to any other games because of the storyline, or because of the gameplay. It seems that you are saying that they cannot be compared because of their storylines. If not, I would appreciate the explanation of what parts of GTA's gameplay hasn't been done in other series. I don't feel that it is just the open endedness. Is that what you are saying it is? If so, that's fine, and that's what I'm looking for.

I've never been looking for someone to say that I'm right or wrong, but to tell me more about GTA from their perspective about why the game is so special. I asked specifically about the storyline, because from my playing of the game, I feel that the most driving thing to advance is to see the next part of the story. Do you feel otherwise? Do others feel otherwise?

I'm not asking anyone to just say that I'm wrong, but instead why you agree or disagree.

It wouldn't be unfair to compare it to other 3D platformers, because those games would be in the same genre. KotOR and GTA3 (and Shenmue) are in entirely different genres.

Out of curiosity, can you tell me what differences in genre you would put them in.

No, I wouldn't agree it's only because of the storyline or setting. It's because GTA presents its gameplay elements in a unique and enjoyable way. The storyline and setting are intertwined with some of the gameplay elements, but that doesn't make those elements any less enjoyable.

Okay.

Game design has reached the point where "strictly gameplay" doesn't apply anymore. Games have been adopting and incorporating narrative elements since Pac-Man and Super Mario Bros. In several genres, narrative elements have reached the point where they've become intertwined with gameplay.

I agree with that. I think that I made a good example of that with Lost Eden -- if you strip out the story, the game is gone. If you did that to GTA, would it be the same way?

The GTA wanna-bes have failed in part because they don't execute their gameplay elements as well as GTA does, and in part because they didn't incorporate their themes and storylines into the gameplay as well as they could or should have. The Getaway attempted realism, but allowed the player to heal his wounds by leaning against a wall for 30 seconds. True Crime attempted a branching storyline, but the storytelling sucked, and the gameplay was mediocre. RoadKill attempted to emulate GTA's humor, but didn't know how to be funny.

What then do you feel is the reason that GTA succeeded where the others failed? Which gameplay elements does GTA do better than the other ones?

zmweasel

11-12-2004, 08:28 PM

I just explained that again to show how I can view the two as similar. GTA isn't fully open ended either -- you still need to get your missions from somewhere, and once you've completed them all, the game's over.

Wrong. GTA has many secondary gameplay elements beyond its storytelling missions, along with the never-ending joy of exploring its world and wreaking havoc on its habitants. The game's hardly over when you complete the missions. When you've completed all of the missions in San Andreas, for example, you've achieved less than half of the game's goals (using the game's own percentage system).

KotOR is story-driven. When the story's over, the game's over. You don't get to go back and continue exploring, and there's no reward or pleasure in doing so. You don't have gobs of secondary gameplay elements to take on. You can play through a game a second time to go through the branching-path conversations in different orders, but again, that's story.

GTA is a sandbox with many different gameplay elements, including a story. KotOR is a bunch of movie sets, with gameplay elements that facilitate a story.

I believe that the underlying gameplay of them both is similar. You don't. Before, you said let's agree to disagree. I brought it back up because you said that you can compare 2D platformers because the experiences can be directly compared. I was directly comparing GTA and KOTOR, which I do feel is a fair comparison.

Sonic and Mario are both 2D platformers. KotOR fits squarely into the RPG genre, and exhibits many gameplay elements that have been part of the genre since it was invented. GTA is an amalgam of many genres, but none of its gameplay elements are similar to the gameplay elements of KotOR.

The original thing that I was trying to figure out in this entire conversation was if other people felt that GTA could not be compared to any other games because of the storyline, or because of the gameplay. It seems that you are saying that they cannot be compared because of their storylines. If not, I would appreciate the explanation of what parts of GTA's gameplay hasn't been done in other series. I don't feel that it is just the open endedness. Is that what you are saying it is? If so, that's fine, and that's what I'm looking for.

GTA can be compared to other games, most particularly those which steal and attempt to improve upon its gameplay elements and thematic elements. (I mentioned many of those games in earlier posts.) GTA can't reasonably be compared to KotOR, because they're in different genres and feature radically different gameplay.

I agree with that. I think that I made a good example of that with Lost Eden -- if you strip out the story, the game is gone. If you did that to GTA, would it be the same way?

There's no point in stripping the story out of a story-driven game, or removing the theme from a game which was partially or entirely designed around that theme.

Lost Eden isn't much of a game when you remove its storytelling elements, but it was the designers' goal to focus on storytelling elements. Did they make a mistake in doing so? Not at all.

Some of GTA's gameplay elements are linked to its contemporary theme, but it was the designers' goal to use a contemporary theme. Did they make a mistake in doing so? Not at all.

What then do you feel is the reason that GTA succeeded where the others failed? Which gameplay elements does GTA do better than the other ones?

That's asking for a review, and to be blunt, I get paid for those. Sorry.

Also, this'll be my last post in the thread, as I've stated and restated every point to be made about this subject. Perhaps one of the other posters who disagrees with you will pick up where I left off.

-- Z.

goatdan

11-12-2004, 09:57 PM

What then do you feel is the reason that GTA succeeded where the others failed? Which gameplay elements does GTA do better than the other ones?

That's asking for a review, and to be blunt, I get paid for those. Sorry.

Zach, it's disappointing that you refuse to answer the question that I've been asking all along in your "last post in the thread" because again, you get paid to do interviews and are assuming the role of a "holier than thou" gamer. Again.

I have made statements like this since the first page we talked:

All that I'm saying is that the newer GTA games weren't really that innovative, but they have been given excessive credit as if they were a gameplay style that has never been seen in any way before.

If you get paid to rebuke my comments and therefore I have to buy the stuff you do to find out the answer to my question on a message board, I think you're full of crap. Had you every tried answering those two questions, maybe I would've understood something. You don't, and you can't. Instead, you avoided them and called all of my arguments baseless, without ever supporting your own.

Funny, that does sound like how a lot of industry folk operate.

Also, this'll be my last post in the thread, as I've stated and restated every point to be made about this subject. Perhaps one of the other posters who disagrees with you will pick up where I left off.

Good riddance. Go write your reviews. I'll be much happier to talk with gamers that will actually reply with intelligent posts instead of hear that you have to get paid to do this type of stuff. Damn, maybe one day I could grow up to be as cool as you and play video games for my entire life...

Would anyone that doesn't get paid, but instead treat these boards as a *hobby* care to reply and discuss further. I *really* am curious, and I'm not paying $15.00 to get the strategy guide...