GTA3 etc Overrated

[ianoid]

I just got back into Vice City figuring that I should finish Vice City before I play San Andreas, considering there are no major improvements. I'm at a mere 25%. I am really enjoying it, but I generally have a ton of complaints when I play the game;

-Combat on foot is generally weak.

-Save points are a little too spaced out for a game with 80 hours of play.

-Restarting missions is WAY too much trouble. They should allow you to replay and set speed/death records on missions like the Tony Hawk games (starting at THPS4, I think.)

-I don't like having the whole world unlocked from the start- too much to do and too many places get lost. I guess it's good for those folks who just like the random events/rampages.

-Cut scenes are hard to skip without waiting for loads, and they look like they were rendered in VGA.

-Muchos little bugs/glitches.

-Camera issues- why can't the right stick control the camera like Baldur's Gate: DA or Champions of Norrath?

I think that GTA3 was ground breaking, but ever since, the games have been a rehash with bonuses. I think that the gaming press and public have overrated the games by a small margin. Really fun, but then again, there are tons of other fun games.

[rarecube]

I must say restarting the missions does get annoying on times, but in general its a fun game to play.
I still prefer the psone gta`s. (Some missions were so much FUN)

[EnemyZero]

I honestly think i must be the only person in the world ( next to caring parents ) who can't stand the GTA series

[Griking]

I honestly think i must be the only person in the world ( next to caring parents ) who can't stand the GTA series

Not the only one. There are a few of us out there.

[rarecube]

I honestly think i must be the only person in the world ( next to caring parents ) who can't stand the GTA series

Not the only one. There are a few of us out there.

:eek 2:

[ClubNinja]

I honestly think i must be the only person in the world ( next to caring parents ) who can't stand the GTA series

Not the only one. There are a few of us out there.

Like me. *Points at GTA and gags*

[crazyjackcsa]

I can't say I dislike it. I've never even played one of them! so that must be my answer.

[pixelsnpolygons]

-I don't like having the whole world unlocked from the start- too much to do and too many places get lost. I guess it's good for those folks who just like the random events/rampages.

Not sure I understand... none of the games have been unlocked from the start.

I'm a huge GTA fan. Well, actually I like GTAIII - love Vice City (has a lot to do with the 80's feel) and I like San Andreas (even if its soundtrack sucks). While I'm here, I've never really understood the word "overrated" as far as stuff goes. I mean, can people really like something more than they're allowed to? It's like going up to someone and saying, "You're enjoying that pizza more than anyone has a right to enjoy pizza!" Stop, and enjoy it a little bit less. It's crazy really. If you don't like something, that's cool - but saying something is overrated implies that something is liked more than it should be, which implies some sort of malfunction in the eyes of those who love it. On the other hand, I can understand how something can be underrated - so I guess I'm just rambling on about nothing.

I'll be leaving now. @_@

[FantasiaWHT]

On the other hand, I can understand how something can be underrated - so I guess I'm just rambling on about nothing.

I'll be leaving now. @_@

So you can go up to someone and say- "You aren't enjoying that asparagus as much as you should be!"

hehe :)

[kainemaxwell]

My GTA gripe is the same as most, having tor estart missions by returning to location x to star tit. If/when you fail/die/get busted there should be a restart...heck for tha tmatter when you beat the game an option should open up to redo any mission you already completed.

[autobotracing]

I wouldnt call is overated .I would call is over hyped kinda liek halo and most other games out there.

[ianoid]

On the other hand, I can understand how something can be underrated - so I guess I'm just rambling on about nothing.

I'll be leaving now. @_@

So you can go up to someone and say- "You aren't enjoying that asparagus as much as you should be!"

hehe :)

OVerrated is when something achieves more acclaim than it deserves. Not that it is more fun than it should be. It would be hard to support that arguement.

Magazine after website after gamer says GTA X 9.9/10 or something close. I just think that on the third iteration, the experience should be smoother, not just the cities larger.

[goatdan]

I just started playing GTA III yesterday for the first time ever. My general impressions on it...

Interesting.

I can see why the game is addictive to a lot of people, but it doesn't seem to be that much different / better than a lot of RPG / action games that I have seen and played over the past few years. I'm also in the middle of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic right now, but I've stopped playing that because I was stuck (I finally caved and looked up online how to do it, so I think I'll be doing that again tonight.) Star Wars: KOTOR is the same soft of game in many ways -- you can run where ever you want and then you arrive at the missions as you want to.

Grand Theft Auto III seems to be like that movie that you really don't like, but you want to see what happens next so you keep playing. I've already had a prostitue complain that someone wasn't "drilling" her fast enough and I've been told that I have to kill a pimp. When I am done with a mission, I'm more interested in seeing what sort of absurd thing happens next than I am on actually getting the next mission. In fact, after playing KOTOR, I don't really like the controls -- I can't figure out how to shoot people correctly, and I think that stealing cars is so easy that it is just goofy.

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).

[Graham Mitchell]

When the first GTA came out, I thought it was entertaining, but far from the best game ever made. It controlled badly, and even though I really liked it at first, the nasty subject matter lost its appeal really fast because the game just wasn't all that much fun to me.

When GTA III came out, I bought it like everybody else, and I really liked it at first, just like with the first one. My main problems with it were: 1)After a few hours, the game makes you it's errand boy. You find yourself running from one side of the city to the other over and over again, and not doing to much of anything else. I got lost really easily, and some portions of the city were difficult to navigate through (just like any real city). I'd get the map out and try to trace my steps, but it got to be a huge pain in the ass. 2) The game throws out a million different things to do, and tries to be 800 different games, and isn't particularly good at any of them. I normally love games like Golgo 13 where there's a whole slew of different sequences with different perspectives, etc. But for some reason the GTA's left a nasty taste in my mouth with respect to this.

I have pretty much no interest in trying the two other games that came out subsequently. A lot of people really get into that game, but when I ask them about it, I find that they don't really play it. They just dig wandering around the city and causing trouble. While that might get you some cash or hidden items or whatever, it doesn't ultimately get you anywhere in the game. As such, it doesn't interest me too much. Shenmue made the exploration part of the game, and did much better at it in my opinion, but that's just me.

[NintendoMan]

I honestly think i must be the only person in the world ( next to caring parents ) who can't stand the GTA series

Not the only one. There are a few of us out there.

I am with you both on that one!!! Can't stand it either.

[petewhitley]

It's not overrated. The people have spoken. Look, you've got what's almost universally regarded as a groundbreaking world design (at least when GTA III hit the market), you've got millions of rabid fans (all three PS2 iterations have sold throught the roof), and it's nearly universally critically acclaimed. Seems like 9's and 10's are the appropriate rating to me. By San Andreas, it's becoming apparent that the current series is limited by the technical specs of this generation. There's stuff that *gasp* ain't perfect with the game design, but you could argure that Mario and Zelda had some wonky bits as well. It's cool to hate on the GTA series; it's cool to hate on whatever's popular at the time. I could start my "Is Final Fantasy overrated?" thread but I know that even though I can't get into the game, it's still a damn fine series.

[Speedy]

Ok, 9.9 is a bit overrated but i think that is for any game! No game is perfect (even my alltime favorite game Half-Life). But i think GTA is still a lot of fun, there is so much stuff to do and there are so many funny moments and things where i think *wow* This is one of the few games that can keep me for hours at my console, i just like to rampage arround or do some funny missions.
Sure it ain't perfect, far from that! I can agree with TS points (camera is shit sometimes, auto aim system sucks, slowdowns, some bugs/glitches etc) but after that i think it is still a great game just because of the gameplay ... and isn't that why we all play our games? If the game sucks it still sucks with good graphics.

After that it is up to you, like this type of game or not ... for myself i hate playing RPG's and i will never play games like Final Fantasy or so, but that doesn't make me think that it are bad games! Thousands of gamers enjoy it, so it has to be good (otherwise the franchise didn't last 10+ games long), but you just have to like the type of game.

[Kid Ice]

I don't know what to say other than I think GTAVC is the best game on the PS2. Yes, most of the things you mentioned are problematic, but I see those things as by-products of the game's overwhelming ambition.

It seems as time goes on, there are more and more dissenting opinions on games. I think Katamari Damacy is trash; most people love it. I never "got" Zelda, Metal Gear Solid, or Animal Crossing, although there are aspects of those games I enjoy. At the same time when someone criticizes Radiant Silvergun, I think something must be the matter with them.

But how many people have you heard say that Pitfall is overrated? Or Super Mario Brothers isn't good? Or that they hate Adventure?

[SegaAges]

i have actually been playing gta since 1. my friend heard about it and got it for ps1, and then i bought it for pc. then 2 came out, and i was flabergasted at how much more stuff had been added. i bought it for dc of all systems and was blown away by all of the new things added. i own london, but it felt like an add-on pack, it didn't feel like much more was being added, but we will continue that conversation later.

gta3 came out and i was again, blown away. i thought it was super hard to steer at first, so for the first month or 2 of playing, i would always play from a top down view. the new addition compared to gta2 were astonishing, a very good sequel indeed.

vice city came out, and i was not near as excited for it after playing it. it felt like london. it felt like an add-on pack. sure there were a few extra things you could do and new missions, but anyone that has been with gta since 1 can vouch for me, vc simply felt like it was an add-on for 3, similar to how london was for 1.

now san andreas is out. of course, seeing as i own every single gta game that has come out (minus pocket versions), i am getting this game. i will edit this post to let you guys know how it is when i get it. i bought this game from starcade and am waiting for it in the mail. from what i was told, it was a huge improvement.

the only thing i am not liking about the gta series now, is that i think they know that they are simply just adding a few more things onto the series. there was no gta4, it was vice city. there is no gta5, it is san andreas. hopefully, the next gta game that comes out will actually be called gta4, because a game that is a real sequel should at least have the proper name.

it would be like them calling halo 2 halo: the forgotten war or something like that. i can't vouch for sa since i am waiting for it, i just hope it is a true sequel, and does not feel like an add-on like how vice city felt

[Graham Mitchell]

It's not overrated. The people have spoken.

I think it's important to keep in mind that, with games as with politics as with music as with anything on the planet, just because it sells well, and just because people allow themselves to believe something doesn't mean it's good. Or, more generally, it doesn't mean that eveyone will like it, and not everyone has to like it. I'm not taking a shot at anything or anyone in particular here, and maybe that's not what you were implying when you wrote that, but I think you, and everybody, should remember that.

[tyranthraxus]

Its a great series and I really love the game. However the last two games
have just been milking of the formulea and I havn't felt the need to buy
them. The errand boy aspect of the game is a drag as you get deep into
the game. I'd like to have seen more choices and consequences for doing
or not doing missions. I'd like to see them make a spin off game where you
play as the king pin and are doling out missions to wannabe hoods.

[petewhitley]

It's not overrated. The people have spoken.

I think it's important to keep in mind that, with games as with politics as with music as with anything on the planet, just because it sells well, and just because people allow themselves to believe something doesn't mean it's good. Or, more generally, it doesn't mean that eveyone will like it, and not everyone has to like it. I'm not taking a shot at anything or anyone in particular here, and maybe that's not what you were implying when you wrote that, but I think you, and everybody, should remember that.

You'r right, that's not what I was implying. I acknowledged that everyone won't like it. But, if we are to call something "overrated", that would imply that it is generally too highly regarded. I argue that it's popularity with critics, the general public, and longer-term gaming fans has shown that the GTA series is most definitely NOT "overrated". If popular critique is intended to represent the populous, that is.

[Griking]

It's not overrated. The people have spoken.

I think it's important to keep in mind that, with games as with politics as with music as with anything on the planet, just because it sells well, and just because people allow themselves to believe something doesn't mean it's good. Or, more generally, it doesn't mean that eveyone will like it, and not everyone has to like it. I'm not taking a shot at anything or anyone in particular here, and maybe that's not what you were implying when you wrote that, but I think you, and everybody, should remember that.

Lets not forget that the Backstreet Boys and Vanilla Ice had million copy selling albums as well. Just because something sells a lot of copies doesn't necessarily make it a good product. Geez, even that William Hung dude from American Idol sold thousands of copies of his CD. If that doesn't say something about not needing quality to sell a product then I don't know what does.

[Kepone]

Gotta love GTA bashers.

Just don't complain if people start bashing your favorite RPGs.

[Daria]

Lets not forget that the Backstreet Boys and Vanilla Ice had million copy selling albums as well. Just because something sells a lot of copies doesn't necessarily make it a good product. Geez, even that William Hung dude from American Idol sold thousands of copies of his CD. If that doesn't say something about not needing quality to sell a product then I don't know what does.

Except that music's shit and the GTA games have actually been enjoyable.

Which gah... I can't say I've ever been suckered into hyped up games, I even went into GTA3 prepared to hate it. Of course not everones going to love it, but there's certainly worse franchises that could be popular. Tomb Raider anyone?

[vintagegamecrazy]

I honestly think i must be the only person in the world ( next to caring parents ) who can't stand the GTA series

I'll hop on that bandwagon too

The content of the game just is a turnoff to me.

[jerkov]

As someone who normally shuns popular franchises (Halo, recent Final Fantasies, Madden, Tony Hawk, etc.) since they don't really interest me, let me say that I am a HUGE fan of all of the GTA titles. I've been addicted to the seires since the PC demo of the first GTA came out (the one where you were constrained by a five minute time limit). Right now I'm playing GTA: SA, and there is just so much goddamn stuff to do that it borders on ridiculous. I think these games have warped my perception some, because standard action or driving games now seem so limiting compared to everything in GTA.

That being said, I don't think the series is overrated at all - IMO, this is one game that deserves all of the praise being lavished on it.

[petewhitley]

Lets not forget that the Backstreet Boys and Vanilla Ice had million copy selling albums as well. Just because something sells a lot of copies doesn't necessarily make it a good product. Geez, even that William Hung dude from American Idol sold thousands of copies of his CD. If that doesn't say something about not needing quality to sell a product then I don't know what does.

But the question isn't whether or not it's a "good" product. The question is whether or not the GTA series has recieved undue critical, popular, and artistic acclaim, thus making it "overrated". To even speak of William Hung as "overrated" is parody in and of itself. The public and popular media, despite financial support, never acclaimed his product as an artisitic watermark.

[jdc]

I ran a game store at the time of GTA3's release and I used to get really tired of most of the people who played this game. THEY were the ones who turned me off of ever trying it. All that I ever heard of was how great it was to beat the shit out of this person or that person, or roll a hooker, or steal endless streams of cars. I thought to myself, "you call THAT a game?"

It wasn't until this summer that I quietly bought a copy of GTA3, just to see what the fuss (and violence) was about. I don't know about THEM, but I sure as hell haven't been playing the same game that THEY were obviously playing. I wouldn't call it the best game ever, not even remotely close but I found a cool game with a great story. I'm looking forward to playing Vice City and San Andreas. It seems that my previous customers were juvenile people with severe mental problems.

[goatdan]

Lets not forget that the Backstreet Boys and Vanilla Ice had million copy selling albums as well. Just because something sells a lot of copies doesn't necessarily make it a good product. Geez, even that William Hung dude from American Idol sold thousands of copies of his CD. If that doesn't say something about not needing quality to sell a product then I don't know what does.

Except that music's s--- and the GTA games have actually been enjoyable.

Which gah... I can't say I've ever been suckered into hyped up games, I even went into GTA3 prepared to hate it. Of course not everones going to love it, but there's certainly worse franchises that could be popular. Tomb Raider anyone?

Actually, I still kind of dig Vanilla Ice, but that's a whole different story.

I would agree that the games are overrated -- I'm not saying that the games aren't popular or aren't revolutionary or anything like that... but what I don't understand is that a bunch of different games have used the same mechanics as GTA3 and the otehrs, and GTA isn't called by critics as having had any games do it better than it originally did. It seems that either because of the content or the hype, critics and the public refuse to acknowledge that there are other games that have come along since that are just as good at doing the same gameplay, but perhaps not with the content.

Some games get to the point that after years, you don't see much of an improvement on the style. Some examples are Tempest 2000, Mario 64, Metal Gear Solid, etc. With Grand Theft Auto, there have been other games since then that have made drastic improvements on control and style, but they are not compared to GTA. It just seems odd that it keeps getting a free pass every time. Hell, Halo 2 hasn't been given the same free pass that GTA has, and it has had about the same level of hype.

I played it a little more, but I definitely haven't found it the most fun game ever or even close. There are too many little problems with it that have been cropping up, and I don't think that I'll be playing it too often in the future.

Again, this is just my opinion...

[slip81]

I was never a big fan of the orginal GTA's because I couldn't adjust to the controll, but I am a fan of the PS2 versions. I don't think they are that overated, they have good graphics, and controll, and there aren't too many glitches, and they are really fun if you like that type of game. SA is probably the best in the series so far because of the wealth of things to do. You can now swim, defend/take over territories, customize your character/car, the city is massive, the list of different things to do goes on. And you can definately have a ton of fun it in without resorthing to mindless violence.

I'd say the biggest problem I had with III was that all the missions were pretty much the same, now the missions seem to be more varied, though they are still quite similar. Also the other problem for me is that the games seem to have no replay value as far as the story goes. I've beaten III and VC, and I really have no desire to replay through all the missions again.

Does SA deserve all the hype it's been getting? Probably not because it's really not too different from III. But I think III deserves credit for it's innovation, it started the whole open world trend, and even though RPG's were doing it long before, they were never as open ended as the PS2 GTA's

Note* I'm reffering to console RPG's because I know there are a lot of PC games that are completely opend ended, some even moreso than GTA.

[EricRyan34]

I don't see what the problem is, these are great games, there is a reason they are best-sellers

[goatdan]

I don't see what the problem is, these are great games, there is a reason they are best-sellers

I don't think anyone is saying there is a problem, just that they feel that the games are overrted.

As was already pointed out, just because a game is a best-seller doesn't mean that it is the greatest. The example before of Vanilla Ice and the Backstreet Boys is just about dead on. Just because they sold a ton of CDs doesn't mean that they are the best CDs ever made.

[Daria]

Lets not forget that the Backstreet Boys and Vanilla Ice had million copy selling albums as well. Just because something sells a lot of copies doesn't necessarily make it a good product. Geez, even that William Hung dude from American Idol sold thousands of copies of his CD. If that doesn't say something about not needing quality to sell a product then I don't know what does.

Except that music's s--- and the GTA games have actually been enjoyable.

Which gah... I can't say I've ever been suckered into hyped up games, I even went into GTA3 prepared to hate it. Of course not everones going to love it, but there's certainly worse franchises that could be popular. Tomb Raider anyone?

Actually, I still kind of dig Vanilla Ice, but that's a whole different story.

I would agree that the games are overrated -- I'm not saying that the games aren't popular or aren't revolutionary or anything like that... but what I don't understand is that a bunch of different games have used the same mechanics as GTA3 and the otehrs, and GTA isn't called by critics as having had any games do it better than it originally did. It seems that either because of the content or the hype, critics and the public refuse to acknowledge that there are other games that have come along since that are just as good at doing the same gameplay, but perhaps not with the content.

I did like Mafia a bit better for the story, but damn was that game difficult. :P

[Graham Mitchell]

Does SA deserve all the hype it's been getting? Probably not because it's really not too different from III. But I think III deserves credit for it's innovation, it started the whole open world trend, and even though RPG's were doing it long before, they were never as open ended as the PS2 GTA's


You know, I wouldn't give it that much credit. Starflight is pretty open-ended (about as much as it could be in 1992). Also, are we forgetting Shenmue? Shenmue did all this a couple years before GTA 3 was released.


I ran a game store at the time of GTA3's release and I used to get really tired of most of the people who played this game. THEY were the ones who turned me off of ever trying it. All that I ever heard of was how great it was to beat the shit out of this person or that person, or roll a hooker, or steal endless streams of cars. I thought to myself, "you call THAT a game?"

It wasn't until this summer that I quietly bought a copy of GTA3, just to see what the fuss (and violence) was about. I don't know about THEM, but I sure as hell haven't been playing the same game that THEY were obviously playing. I wouldn't call it the best game ever, not even remotely close but I found a cool game with a great story. I'm looking forward to playing Vice City and San Andreas. It seems that my previous customers were juvenile people with severe mental problems.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to insult anybody, but most of the people I've spoken with who love the GTA games don't actually play it. They run around causing trouble, and don't actually partake in any missions. I think the missions (ie-the actual game) is where a lot of people feel the games fall short. Yes, they're fun to mess around in; that's undeniable. But if you do what the designers intended for you to do, it gets old.

[petewhitley]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to insult anybody, but most of the people I've spoken with who love the GTA games don't actually play it. They run around causing trouble, and don't actually partake in any missions. I think the missions (ie-the actual game) is where a lot of people feel the games fall short. Yes, they're fun to mess around in; that's undeniable. But if you do what the designers intended for you to do, it gets old.

I guess we just don't run in the same circles. I know quite a few people who hated the series when they thought it was just about a running around and causing senseless violence, but have since grown to love it after giving the missions a chance.

[slip81]

[quote]You know, I wouldn't give it that much credit. Starflight is pretty open-ended (about as much as it could be in 1992). Also, are we forgetting Shenmue? Shenmue did all this a couple years before GTA 3 was released.

Your right. I completely forgot about Shenmue, and I own it. Haven't gotten a chance to play it yet though.

[jdc]

I should also add that plenty of the people that I was referring to in my previous post were either minors or in their late teens thru to early-twenties.

I suppose that to these guys the whole thrill of the game WAS the freedom to run around bludgeoning everyone with a baseball bat, letting the story progression take a back seat. It got so that I was under the impression that that was what the majority of the game entailed. I stayed away from it because of that. When I finally did sit down and play the game with an open mind, I got a little pissed off because it was a game that I didn't mind at all, and because of these other idiots I might never have given the game a chance.

The only thing that still bothers me is that we have to endure "greatest game the world has ever seen" for the next 5 months. Even worse, I have a teenager who is destined to arrive home from work this evening with his pre-ordered copy of Halo2, which he has already proclaimed as the best game that ever graced the face of the earth. The disc will stay in his XboX drive tray (he doesn't bother to even remove it) for the next 6 months and he will literally play nothing else.

[Daria]

You know if all everybody loved about GTA was the freedom to go around killing everything in your path then State of Emergency would have been their hit title instead of you know... bombing miserably.

[zmweasel]

[With Grand Theft Auto, there have been other games since then that have made drastic improvements on control and style, but they are not compared to GTA.

None of the GTA wanna-bes have come anywhere near emulating GTA's look, feel, and fun. Driv3r totally sucked. True Crime mostly sucked. The Getaway kind of sucked. The console versions of Mafia sucked. Spider-Man 2, after the first eight hours, sucked. The Simpsons: Hit & Run came the closest to duplicating the magic of GTA, but its great use of the license was as entertaining as its gameplay.

-- Z.

[tritium]

I don't like open world's like that. I get lost easily. It drives me crazy to have to map everything and backtarck and such. Quite a few games I don't play for that reason. (ie: Metroid, as beautiful and fun as it is =( )

-Tritium

[goatdan]

[With Grand Theft Auto, there have been other games since then that have made drastic improvements on control and style, but they are not compared to GTA.

None of the GTA wanna-bes have come anywhere near emulating GTA's look, feel, and fun. Driv3r totally sucked. True Crime mostly sucked. The Getaway kind of sucked. The console versions of Mafia sucked. Spider-Man 2, after the first eight hours, sucked. The Simpsons: Hit & Run came the closest to duplicating the magic of GTA, but its great use of the license was as entertaining as its gameplay.

I'm not necessarily comparing GTA 3 to the other "crime" games like it. In many ways, I think that Star Wars: KOTOR is a lot like it, Shenmue is a lot like it and so on. The game subject matter may be different, but the games play similiarly. So...

In other words, to me it is like comparing Goldeneye 007 to Doom. They were both different games, but when it came down to it the gameplay wasn't that different -- you still went around shooting baddies.

[zmweasel]

[With Grand Theft Auto, there have been other games since then that have made drastic improvements on control and style, but they are not compared to GTA.

None of the GTA wanna-bes have come anywhere near emulating GTA's look, feel, and fun. Driv3r totally sucked. True Crime mostly sucked. The Getaway kind of sucked. The console versions of Mafia sucked. Spider-Man 2, after the first eight hours, sucked. The Simpsons: Hit & Run came the closest to duplicating the magic of GTA, but its great use of the license was as entertaining as its gameplay.

I'm not necessarily comparing GTA 3 to the other "crime" games like it. In many ways, I think that Star Wars: KOTOR is a lot like it, Shenmue is a lot like it and so on. The game subject matter may be different, but the games play similiarly. So...

In other words, to me it is like comparing Goldeneye 007 to Doom. They were both different games, but when it came down to it the gameplay wasn't that different -- you still went around shooting baddies.

KotOR plays NOTHING like GTA3/VC/SA, and I haven't a clue how you come up with that "comparison." They are radically different in almost every aspect. Have you actually played KotOR or GTA3/VC/SA to completion?

Shenmue has very little in common with GTA3/VC/SA, and I've always been dismayed by the transparent attempts of Sega fanboys to give Yu Sukuzi undeserved credit for influencing GTA. The original GTA shipped in 1997; Shenmue shipped in 2000, at which point GTA3 (which shipped in 2001) was already in development.

-- Z.

[Graham Mitchell]

Shenmue has very little in common with GTA3/VC/SA, and I've always been dismayed by the transparent attempts of Sega fanboys to give Yu Sukuzi undeserved credit for influencing GTA. The original GTA shipped in 1997; Shenmue shipped in 2000, at which point GTA3 (which shipped in 2001) was already in development.


My, aren't we getting a little defensive here? No need to namecall. This is a place where opinions are supposed to be expressed, is it not?

I never said that Shenmue influenced GTA3. But it had been in development before GTA3, and it was around first. And, like many other games before it, Shenmue did have an open environment where you were given the freedom to do what you want.

[zmweasel]

My, aren't we getting a little defensive here? No need to namecall. This is a place where opinions are supposed to be expressed, is it not?

I'm not "getting defensive" in the slightest. I'm expressing my opinion that Sega fanboys--which may or may not include you; I don't know and don't care to guess--are usually the ones who hail Shenmue as having influenced GTA3, which is quite obviously not the case. GTA3's core gameplay was largely borrowed from the original GTA, which shipped in 1997, three years before Shenmue. Shenmue and GTA3 have virtually nothing in common beyond an open-ended environment, and games have been exploring and expanding that concept as far back as Elite.

-- Z.

[Graham Mitchell]

My, aren't we getting a little defensive here? No need to namecall. This is a place where opinions are supposed to be expressed, is it not?

I'm not "getting defensive" in the slightest. I'm expressing my opinion that Sega fanboys--which may or may not include you; I don't know and don't care to guess--are usually the ones who hail Shenmue as having influenced GTA3, which is quite obviously not the case. GTA3's core gameplay was largely borrowed from the original GTA, which shipped in 1997, three years before Shenmue. Shenmue and GTA3 have virtually nothing in common beyond an open-ended environment, and games have been exploring and expanding that concept as far back as Elite.

-- Z.

That's cool, I understand your point. I just couldn't tell if you were attacking me LOL !

For the record, I like Sega, but they're far from perfect in my book. And whether or not any of these games are related to one another probably depends on a subjective idea of what the main point of the games are. Shenmue and GTA3 have their obvious similarities, which are glaring to me. Others may not see that because Shenmue doesn't involve picking up prostitutes from the clinic, and you can't play Space Harrier in GTA3.

[Ed Oscuro]

GTA3 isn't anything like Shenmue...I can tell you that for a fact, and I just *watched* somebody play GTA3. If GTA is anything like 3, then the same holds true for that and Shenmue.

Ah the Shenmue series...favorite of book stacking kung fu artists everywhere O_O

[zmweasel]

For the record, I like Sega, but they're far from perfect in my book. And whether or not any of these games are related to one another probably depends on a subjective idea of what the main point of the games are. Shenmue and GTA3 have their obvious similarities, which are glaring to me. Others may not see that because Shenmue doesn't involve picking up prostitutes from the clinic, and you can't play Space Harrier in GTA3.

Please elaborate on what you consider to be the glaring similarities between Shenmue and GTA3.

-- Z.

[Kepone]

There are no similarities.

Hell, I still remember the day I picked up the original GTA for the PS. I think I paid like $20 back in '99 or '00. I loved it so much, that I bought GTA2 and then GTA:London 1969. The missions were fun but I also liked exploring.

GTA3 totally blew away the other 3 GTAs. I never beat it, but my brother was very close to finishing it up before GTA:SA came out, so now he's trying to beat GTA:SA. We both beat GTA:Vice City, working on the missions together.

I think the missions are the core of the GTA experience. Some are very cool. Some of them suck. Some of them are pointless. You can't possibly do a lot of other stuff unless you beat some missions first.

It's just not for everyone. I've been into the GTA series long before GTA3 and all the newbie fanboys came along. It wasn't always a pretty game, being a top-down view and simple graphics.

[goatdan]

KotOR plays NOTHING like GTA3/VC/SA, and I haven't a clue how you come up with that "comparison." They are radically different in almost every aspect. Have you actually played KotOR or GTA3/VC/SA to completion?

I've played enough of them to think that they are similar. I don't have to complete both games to decide if the gameplay is similar, that's crazy.

The reason why is simple -- in both games, you have a general idea of what to do, but you go about doing them in whatever order you choose to a point. Do I start a mission from this guy, or this other guy? Do I stay in the Cantina and play cards all day, or do I go out and advance the storyline? Do I borrow a cab and earn money, or do I go out and advance the storyline?

If you refuse to believe that there is any similarity between these two 3rd person action / adventure games, I'm really surprised. Yes, the combat is different, but I think that they advance in very similar ways.


Shenmue has very little in common with GTA3/VC/SA, and I've always been dismayed by the transparent attempts of Sega fanboys to give Yu Sukuzi undeserved credit for influencing GTA. The original GTA shipped in 1997; Shenmue shipped in 2000, at which point GTA3 (which shipped in 2001) was already in development.

I'm not giving a "transparent" attempt at giving it credit for giving GTA some sort of influence. What I'm saying and what I've been saying all along is that the two games bear a similarity to each other, and I'm surprised that gaming mags don't call it on that type of stuff more often. I don't think that Shenmue is perfect -- far from it -- but I do think that it is the same *style*. Like I said:


I'm not necessarily comparing GTA 3 to the other "crime" games like it. In many ways, I think that Star Wars: KOTOR is a lot like it, Shenmue is a lot like it and so on. The game subject matter may be different, but the games play similiarly. So...

In fact, on further reflection after posting this, I came up with another game that it reminds me of -- does anyone remember Road Warrior? You were in a taxi and you drove around doing missions based on the people you picked up. You could ask them to leave and return to the mission later if you wanted. Some of the missions that I remember were crazy things like a guy was in a race and had to win, so you had to go kill the other 29 guys in the race by running them over. Or another one where you had to blow up a cop station for some reason. The whole game was like this, and it came out in what... 1994? I have my copy here, and it is for Win 3.1 I think.

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. While the series isn't bad, saying that it can't rank against any other series (and I'm not talking to anyone on here but more mags in general) is just incorrect. With all of the new games that have come out, I'm really surprised that GTA:SA has received the rankings that it has. Any other game that comes out after so many years with no huge graphic or gameplay overhaul usually gets reviews that say "It was good... the first time." GTA seems to have the magic magazine formula though...

[Neonsolid]

Gone.

[zmweasel]

If you refuse to believe that there is any similarity between these two 3rd person action / adventure games, I'm really surprised. Yes, the combat is different, but I think that they advance in very similar ways.

I can assure you that not once during my considerable time with KotOR--a Star Wars RPG!--did I think to myself, "Wow, this sure is a lot like the Grand Theft Auto series." It's not just the combat that's different. It's EVERY aspect of gameplay.

Also, "third-person action-adventure" is such an absurdly broad definition that it applies to many hundreds of 3D games that play nothing like each other.


I'm not giving a "transparent" attempt at giving it credit for giving GTA some sort of influence. What I'm saying and what I've been saying all along is that the two games bear a similarity to each other, and I'm surprised that gaming mags don't call it on that type of stuff more often. I don't think that Shenmue is perfect -- far from it -- but I do think that it is the same *style*.

You're the second person in this thread to assume that I was referring to him when I used the generic, nonspecific term of "Sega fanboy." That's very interesting.

In any case, Shenmue and GTA3, beyond the broad gameplay goal of presenting an open-ended world, have no stylistic similarities. The gameplay and storytelling are both radically different.


With all of the new games that have come out, I'm really surprised that GTA:SA has received the rankings that it has. Any other game that comes out after so many years with no huge graphic or gameplay overhaul usually gets reviews that say "It was good... the first time." GTA seems to have the magic magazine formula though...

GTA has the magic GAMEPLAY formula. There have been lots of imitators over the past three years (which I mentioned in my earlier post), but no duplicators. GTA:SA is getting rave reviews because it's fantastic.

Game development has become so expensive and intensive that it's ridiculous to expect every game to be designed from scratch, and I would expect professional reviewers AND hardcore gamers to understand that.

-- Z.

[Daria]

The reason why is simple -- in both games, you have a general idea of what to do, but you go about doing them in whatever order you choose to a point. Do I start a mission from this guy, or this other guy? Do I stay in the Cantina and play cards all day, or do I go out and advance the storyline? Do I borrow a cab and earn money, or do I go out and advance the storyline?

So... you're saying GTA is like all non linear RPGs?

[goatdan]

If you refuse to believe that there is any similarity between these two 3rd person action / adventure games, I'm really surprised. Yes, the combat is different, but I think that they advance in very similar ways.

I can assure you that not once during my considerable time with KotOR--a Star Wars RPG!--did I think to myself, "Wow, this sure is a lot like the Grand Theft Auto series." It's not just the combat that's different. It's EVERY aspect of gameplay.

Also, "third-person action-adventure" is such an absurdly broad definition that it applies to many hundreds of 3D games that play nothing like each other.

It's interesting to see how you refuse to look and see that at the core, the gameplay elements in the games may be similar. Considering that it is my opinion that the games are alike, I can't see how I am so very wrong.

I'm not going to sit here and try to claim the title of biggest game player or anything like that. I haven't finished KOTOR, I haven't played through more than a few hours of GTA, but I definitely see similarities. Just because you say that there isn't doesn't mean that there isn't.

The fact is that both games are third person adventure titles that are non-linear. The two games are not alike because of their storyline, but seem to be rather alike in parts of their gameplay, like I outlined.



I'm not giving a "transparent" attempt at giving it credit for giving GTA some sort of influence. What I'm saying and what I've been saying all along is that the two games bear a similarity to each other, and I'm surprised that gaming mags don't call it on that type of stuff more often. I don't think that Shenmue is perfect -- far from it -- but I do think that it is the same *style*.

You're the second person in this thread to assume that I was referring to him when I used the generic, nonspecific term of "Sega fanboy." That's very interesting.

You reply in this thread and say that too many Sega fanboys state that Shenmue had a big influence on GTA3. The two people that mentioned that the two games are similar replied to this statement, and you seem to take some sort of win because of that.

If I'm playing by your rules, I'd have to agree with your statement or suddenly I'm a fanboy. Whatever.

Shenmue is nothing at all like Grand Theft Auto, and you can't make that comparison because GTA roxorz while Shenmue suxorz!!!111

If that is all that you are looking for, then you probably shouldn't have put your comments on a message board where people can reply to them. Put them in a magazine or on a Web site instead. Otherwise, don't take some "win" if people disagree with your opinion. It doesn't breed open conversation.


In any case, Shenmue and GTA3, beyond the broad gameplay goal of presenting an open-ended world, have no stylistic similarities. The gameplay and storytelling are both radically different.

See, again -- here is where our opinions differ. When Sonic came out, it had gameplay that was a pretty big departure from the slower series like Mario, but there is enough things that are alike to compare the two games as two different platformers.

The storyline and the content - in my mind - does not suddenly make the difference in two games radically different. Therefore, I think that Shenmue could be compared to it.

I'm not even claiming that Shenmue is a better game or anything like that. I'll be the first to admit that I haven't "gotten" Shenmue, and I'm not really trying to force myself into the game, although someday I will play it more. But from what I've seen of it, it does have some similiarities. The battles and the storyline aren't the same, but it doesn't make it worlds apart.


GTA has the magic GAMEPLAY formula. There have been lots of imitators over the past three years (which I mentioned in my earlier post), but no duplicators. GTA:SA is getting rave reviews because it's fantastic.

GTA:SA has the magic gameplay formula in your opinioin. GTA:SA is getting rave reviews because it is fantastic in your opinion. More on this in a second...


Game development has become so expensive and intensive that it's ridiculous to expect every game to be designed from scratch, and I would expect professional reviewers AND hardcore gamers to understand that.

Game development has become more expensive, and I completely appreciate that. At the same time, I don't understand why the gameplay hasn't really been compared to *any* other games in the same genral genre.

From everything that I have seen on GTA:SA, it is another world for the GTA3 engine. There are a few things that have been changed and a few new mission types that have been added, but it doesn't seem to be that much more expanded then the previous two games. That doesn't make the game bad, but I think that many people are blinded by the content, and the fact that being a criminal is more fun sometimes than saving the world, your father or the princess, and therefore decide that they can't compare it to anything else.

It actually reminds me of another series that I like, the Tony Hawk series. The first game wasn't great, but the second game was incredible. The third game started to lose a little bit of it's charm, but was still rated as nearly perfect. The fourth game lost more charm, but again was still rated nearly perfect. The stuff that magazines were gushing about were things that were added to the games to make them more interactive, and a lot of it just seemed to fall flat. With THUG, the gameplay formula was again changed, the game got nearly perfect reviews and I don't feel that it is any more. Again, this is an opinion of mine, but considering that game reviewers tend to play and review more games in a month than I play in a year, I'm surprised these changes went nearly unnoticed by them.

Then again, it could be that between everything else that these people see, when these games that have proven game types show up, they are like a breath of fresh air and get good scores because of that.

From my vantagepoint -- my opinion -- it seems that the games are given free passes on certain things that others would complain about, whether it is because of bias, hype or just because they are a breath of fresh air. I can understand giving the first GTA game a 10 / 10, but I don't think that Vice City deserved higher than a 9.5 considering how similiar it was, even though it was fun. Same with GTA:SA.


So... you're saying that GTA is like all non linear RPGs?

In certain aspects, yes it is. In others, no it isn't. Are you trying to say that nothing in GTA is like any other non-linear RPG? I don't agree with that point, and that is why I feel that GTA:SA hasn't gotten the full shake that it should.

GTA isn't the only game that I feel like this on. I already mentioned Tony Hawk, and I'll also toss in Halo and Gran Turismo as two other series that were revolutionary, but I think get more of a free pass now than perhaps they should. That's not to say that the games aren't great fun to play for most people -- they are -- but that the reviewing of them doesn't seem to be as harsh as other games are.

[FantasiaWHT]

You could probably pick ANY two games and call them similar by your standards.

[zmweasel]

It's interesting to see how you refuse to look and see that at the core, the gameplay elements in the games may be similar. Considering that it is my opinion that the games are alike, I can't see how I am so very wrong.

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."


You reply in this thread and say that too many Sega fanboys state that Shenmue had a big influence on GTA3. The two people that mentioned that the two games are similar replied to this statement, and you seem to take some sort of win because of that.

I'm not declaring a "win," nor was I referring to you or the other poster as fanboys. I was using the term in the generic sense, while explaining why the claim that Shenmue influenced GTA is so easily disproved.


See, again -- here is where our opinions differ. When Sonic came out, it had gameplay that was a pretty big departure from the slower series like Mario, but there is enough things that are alike to compare the two games as two different platformers.

Sonic and Mario are easily and fairly comparable because they both exist in the shallow, narrow genre of 2D platformers. Sega itself directly compared Sonic and Mario at videogame trade shows. What does that have to do with the myriad differences between KotOR, Shenmue, and GTA3?


Game development has become more expensive, and I completely appreciate that. At the same time, I don't understand why the gameplay hasn't really been compared to *any* other games in the same genral genre.

Because there hasn't been anything like GTA before. You can compare Driv3r and True Crime and The Getaway and Mafia to GTA3, because those games are obviously inspired by GTA's approach--but GTA's approach of combining a massive game-world with a fast, fun method of exploration was unprecedented.


From everything that I have seen on GTA:SA, it is another world for the GTA3 engine. There are a few things that have been changed and a few new mission types that have been added, but it doesn't seem to be that much more expanded then the previous two games. That doesn't make the game bad, but I think that many people are blinded by the content, and the fact that being a criminal is more fun sometimes than saving the world, your father or the princess, and therefore decide that they can't compare it to anything else.

So you're saying that you believe the reason for GTA's popularity is because of its mature content. And I would agree with you to a point. I'm a 32-year-old man, and I'm more interested in the themes of Grand Theft Auto than Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. But it's the gameplay, above all else, that makes GTA so great. The pop-culture satirization is just a (big) bonus.


From my vantagepoint -- my opinion -- it seems that the games are given free passes on certain things that others would complain about, whether it is because of bias, hype or just because they are a breath of fresh air. I can understand giving the first GTA game a 10 / 10, but I don't think that Vice City deserved higher than a 9.5 considering how similiar it was, even though it was fun. Same with GTA:SA.

So, for you, originality is the most important aspect of a game? You would rate GTA3 higher than SA, although SA is inarguably better, because GTA3 was a "breath of fresh air" (when it was mostly a 3D recasting of a popular 2D game)?

-- Z.

[goatdan]

It's interesting to see how you refuse to look and see that at the core, the gameplay elements in the games may be similar. Considering that it is my opinion that the games are alike, I can't see how I am so very wrong.

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."

Being serious here, what about the same type of things that I compared before:

In KOTOR, you have the option to either play cards in the Cantina, or continue the storyline through exploration. In GTA, you have the option to either drive through the city in a Taxi getting fares, or you can continue the storyline through exploration. You can decide to do one thing first or another.

The differences that I seem to see that you are stating is the theme (which I couldn't deny) and the speed of exploration. But I still see both of those games as doing the same sort of thing -- smaller adventures in the order that you want to for the advancement of the storyline. KOTOR is a little more linear than GTA, but not by a stupendous margin, in my opinion.

Does that make it any more clear? I really don't know how else to explain this, and I'm surprised that no one else even considers that the two games could be alike, and instead make wild claims such as "You could probably pick ANY two games and call them similar by your standards." I didn't think that stating that the two games reminded me of eachother would be such a horribly wrong opinion.

Like I said, I'm not going to sit here and claim that I'm some super gamer that writes strategy guides or whatever because that isn't true, and if that is the only reason you continually dismis my ideas, I'll drop the topic because it is obvious that we won't be conversing about anything.


I'm not declaring a "win," nor was I referring to you or the other poster as fanboys. I was using the term in the generic sense, while explaining why the claim that Shenmue influenced GTA is so easily disproved.

All that I'm saying is that for us to say that Shenmue is in some ways similar does not necessarily equate us to being huge Sega fanboys or Shenmue fanboys. I don't think that either of us were saying that GTA was heavily influenced by Shenmue, but I do believe that the two games are comparable.



See, again -- here is where our opinions differ. When Sonic came out, it had gameplay that was a pretty big departure from the slower series like Mario, but there is enough things that are alike to compare the two games as two different platformers.

Sonic and Mario are easily and fairly comparable because they both exist in the shallow, narrow genre of 2D platformers. Sega itself directly compared Sonic and Mario at videogame trade shows. What does that have to do with the myriad differences between KotOR, Shenmue, and GTA3?

I just find that it is interesting that on these boards, everyone would agree that Mario and Sonic are very similar games, when I think that they are about as similar as some of these other games. Sonic was based on speed and huge levels. Mario was based on strategy and pinpoint navigation. Just because Sega compared Sonic to Mario doesn't mean it was the best comparison to make.

I do think that the two of them are comparable though. I just also think that other games that are similar gameplay styles with completely different elements can be compared. To say that the genre of 2D platformers is a "shallow, narrow genre" while the genre of 3D action adventure can't be compared to each other is strange to me. Maybe I make things too simple in my mind, but I think that you can compare games that are in a wide genre base.



Game development has become more expensive, and I completely appreciate that. At the same time, I don't understand why the gameplay hasn't really been compared to *any* other games in the same genral genre.

Because there hasn't been anything like GTA before. You can compare Driv3r and True Crime and The Getaway and Mafia to GTA3, because those games are obviously inspired by GTA's approach--but GTA's approach of combining a massive game-world with a fast, fun method of exploration was unprecedented.

Again, I've tried to explain why I think that there are other games like GTA in the world with different sorts of themes and so on. You have stated that I'm wrong because you wrote the guide on the games and they aren't similar. Nothing that I can say will change your mind, so I guess I'll just stop arguing.

On an aside, I can understand your point that there hasn't been a game storyline wise like GTA before. The closest was probably Road Warrior but that wasn't in a third person type of adventure... and Road Warrior was never well known. Anyway, I digress...

I do understand what you're saying, but to declare that GTA is perfect and doesn't need anything else improved just seems wrong to me. From what I have played of the Xbox versions, I haven't been that impressed with many different aspects of the games from control to the "freedom" not being as free as I expected. I'm just surprised that no one else seems to recognize that.

Apparantly though, my opinion is "wrong" so I'll just stop trying to explain why I have an opinion that isn't the same as yours.


So you're saying that you believe the reason for GTA's popularity is because of its mature content. And I would agree with you to a point. I'm a 32-year-old man, and I'm more interested in the themes of Grand Theft Auto than Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. But it's the gameplay, above all else, that makes GTA so great. The pop-culture satirization is just a (big) bonus.

I agree, and I do think that's a huge reason it is more popular. I'm not trying to compare GTA to Turtles, but it is a more "adult" theme than a game like KOTOR or Shenmue is. And that is an attraction. And I think that it also blinds people to the ability to see that the game underneath the exterior IS like other games in some ways. Apparently though, I'm the only person in the world that thinks this way.


So, for you, originality is the most important aspect of a game? You would rate GTA3 higher than SA, although SA is inarguably better, because GTA3 was a "breath of fresh air" (when it was mostly a 3D recasting of a popular 2D game)?

It isn't necessarily originality, but improvement. I don't and haven't seen how just creating a bigger world and making different missions suddenly makes a game "inarguably better," but I've learned through this conversation that I can't argue about how great the entire GTA series is because my opinions aren't valid.

It's interesting to me how you cut and paste what you reply to in my messages very selectively. I compared the GTA series to the Tony Hawk series, which is one that I very much enjoy but I also think continually passes without the correct amount of scrutiny. If you had read through what I wrote in that message, I think that REVIEWERS may give game series like GTA and Tony Hawk free passes because to them, those games are a breath of fresh air compared to the countless sports titles, racing titles and whatnot that they continually play. I look for improvement in the titles though, and that is something that I don't feel there has been as much as there could be in the subsequent GTA releases or Tony Hawk 3 and so on.

Maybe I'm looking for developers to put more into their games than I have any right to. It's obvious that they put in enough to make 99% of their customers happy, and that 99% can insist that the 1% with a different opinion have to be completely wrong.

Through all of these posts, it has been apparent to me that I can't have an opinion on this matter, and I can't compare the GTA series to anything, because nothing has ever been like it or will ever be like it. Because of that, this will probably be my last post in this thread. I'll stop comparing GTA to any other games that I have ever played, and from here on out I'll just realize that I know nothing about game types and that GTA is obviously on a gameplay plane that is way more advanced than my poor little gaming mind can comprehend...

Thinking that I could compare it with any other game in existance... I'm an idiot. GTA RoXoRz!!!111

[zmweasel]

In KOTOR, you have the option to either play cards in the Cantina, or continue the storyline through exploration. In GTA, you have the option to either drive through the city in a Taxi getting fares, or you can continue the storyline through exploration. You can decide to do one thing first or another.

You're comparing KotOR's throwaway blackjack-esque mini-game to one of GTA3's umpteen secondary gameplay elements? That's not what I would call a good example of the similarities between the two. Final Fantasy IX has a card-based mini-game; would you compare that to GTA3, as well?


Does that make it any more clear? I really don't know how else to explain this, and I'm surprised that no one else even considers that the two games could be alike, and instead make wild claims such as "You could probably pick ANY two games and call them similar by your standards." I didn't think that stating that the two games reminded me of each other would be such a horribly wrong opinion.

It's just a very difficult opinion to understand, is all.


Like I said, I'm not going to sit here and claim that I'm some super gamer that writes strategy guides or whatever because that isn't true, and if that is the only reason you continually dismis my ideas, I'll drop the topic because it is obvious that we won't be conversing about anything.

I'm just trying (and failing) to understand how you can see any similarities between a stat-heavy, narrative-driven Star Wars RPG and a driving/shooting/exploration game.


I just find that it is interesting that on these boards, everyone would agree that Mario and Sonic are very similar games, when I think that they are about as similar as some of these other games. Sonic was based on speed and huge levels. Mario was based on strategy and pinpoint navigation. Just because Sega compared Sonic to Mario doesn't mean it was the best comparison to make.

It was the perfect comparison to make, because Sonic was specifically developed as Sega's answer to Mario.


I do think that the two of them are comparable though. I just also think that other games that are similar gameplay styles with completely different elements can be compared. To say that the genre of 2D platformers is a "shallow, narrow genre" while the genre of 3D action adventure can't be compared to each other is strange to me. Maybe I make things too simple in my mind, but I think that you can compare games that are in a wide genre base.

But KotOR and GTA3 are in wildly different genres! Same with Shenmue and GTA3.


I do understand what you're saying, but to declare that GTA is perfect and doesn't need anything else improved just seems wrong to me. From what I have played of the Xbox versions, I haven't been that impressed with many different aspects of the games from control to the "freedom" not being as free as I expected. I'm just surprised that no one else seems to recognize that.

I never declared that GTA3 is perfect. I said it's fantastic.


I agree, and I do think that's a huge reason it is more popular. I'm not trying to compare GTA to Turtles, but it is a more "adult" theme than a game like KOTOR or Shenmue is. And that is an attraction. And I think that it also blinds people to the ability to see that the game underneath the exterior IS like other games in some ways. Apparently though, I'm the only person in the world that thinks this way.

Which people is it "blinding"? Professional reviewers? Hardcore gamers? These are the people who would most clearly recognize any similarities between GTA3, Shenmue, and KotOR. Why aren't they pointing out the similarities you see? Because they aren't there.


It isn't necessarily originality, but improvement. I don't and haven't seen how just creating a bigger world and making different missions suddenly makes a game "inarguably better," but I've learned through this conversation that I can't argue about how great the entire GTA series is because my opinions aren't valid.

Play through GTA3 and GTA: SA and you'll understand that SA is a better game, that it's more than just "a bigger world" and "different missions," that the gameplay HAS been improved. I'm surprised you don't recognize the same evolution in the Pro Skater series. Have you actually gone back and played Pro Skater 1 or 2 lately after spending some time with THUG 1 or 2? The latter games are much better.


It's interesting to me how you cut and paste what you reply to in my messages very selectively. I compared the GTA series to the Tony Hawk series, which is one that I very much enjoy but I also think continually passes without the correct amount of scrutiny. If you had read through what I wrote in that message, I think that REVIEWERS may give game series like GTA and Tony Hawk free passes because to them, those games are a breath of fresh air compared to the countless sports titles, racing titles and whatnot that they continually play. I look for improvement in the titles though, and that is something that I don't feel there has been as much as there could be in the subsequent GTA releases or Tony Hawk 3 and so on.

Reviewers aren't giving GTA: SA or Underground 2 "free passes." They're giving them glowing reviews because they're GREAT GAMES.

I'm not sure how much "improvement" you expect in a modern video game sequel, but it seems to be more than current sequels are providing, and that's fine. But to say that GTA3 is better than GTA: SA because SA isn't "improved" enough for your liking is an unusual opinion, and difficult to defend.

-- Z.

[jerkov]

In fact, on further reflection after posting this, I came up with another game that it reminds me of -- does anyone remember Road Warrior? You were in a taxi and you drove around doing missions based on the people you picked up. You could ask them to leave and return to the mission later if you wanted. Some of the missions that I remember were crazy things like a guy was in a race and had to win, so you had to go kill the other 29 guys in the race by running them over. Or another one where you had to blow up a cop station for some reason. The whole game was like this, and it came out in what... 1994? I have my copy here, and it is for Win 3.1 I think.

Heh, I remember this game. Actually, it's a sequel to Quarantine, which is still one of my favorite games of all time. My friend gave me a copy of Road Warrior, but I could never get the game to run right on any of my PCs. My old Pentium 100 runs the original Quarantine fine, however. Wasn't Road Warrior a little more linear that Quarantine, or is my memory a little hazy? I agree that the GTA series borrows a lot from Quarantine/Road Warrior, much more so than these ridiculous KOTOR or Shenmue comparisons. In fact, I'd venture to say that Quarantine is a DIRECT influence on GTA - just look at the similarity in the in-car view drive-bys in both Quarantine and the recent GTAs.



I'm not sure how much "improvement" you expect in a modern video game sequel, but it seems to be more than current sequels are providing, and that's fine. But to say that GTA3 is better than GTA: SA because SA isn't "improved" enough for your liking is an unusual opinion, and difficult to defend.

Agreed. I hate when people bring this "improvement" issue up. To those who use this argument, have you actually played any of these games? GTA: SA is much more polished than GTA 3 or Vice City, gameplay wise, and it adds tons of new elements never seen in any other GTA games before.

Additionally, what do YOU suggest they do to improve these games? I think Rockstar has done a damn good job of representing real-world activities and has based the games around this real-world concept. If anyone can come up with some worthwhile suggestions to improve the series significantly, I'm listening, but I doubt anyone will be able to.

[Psycho Mantis]

I hate GTA. GTA must die.

[Graham Mitchell]

Wow, this has gotten out of control.


Please elaborate on what you consider to be the glaring similarities between Shenmue and GTA3.

-- Z.

When you get down to how the games function, they're very similar. Both involve navigating characters through a 3-D world that has day/night cycles, and which changes according to your actions. You can also interact with other characters within the games that are performing their own routines and tasks. They both have a storyline that only progresses if you act to make it progress...just sitting there gets you nowhere.

GTA has carjacking and more killing, the main character in GTA3 is malignant versus benevolent in Shenmue, blah blah blah. But when you really get down to it, and ignore the "subject matter", the two games offer very similar experiences. There are mechanical differences, etc., but one of both games' main goals is to give you the ability to freely interact with your surroundings. I'm not asking anybody to take a leap of faith with this...these similarities seem apparent to me. If you get too hung up on the stories and the combat systems, then you're missing the point of my argument.

[zmweasel]

When you get down to how the games function, they're very similar. Both involve navigating characters through a 3-D world that has day/night cycles, and which changes according to your actions. You can also interact with other characters within the games that are performing their own routines and tasks. They both have a storyline that only progresses if you act to make it progress...just sitting there gets you nowhere.

These are all very generic "similarities."

"Navigating characters through a 3D world"? Not many console games released since 1995 don't fit that description.

"Interacting with other characters"? GTA3's character "interaction" is mostly limited to the many ways in which you can kill random pedestrians. Shenmue's character interaction is via poorly dubbed, awkwardly translated conversations.

"Sitting there gets you nowhere"? Not many console games allow the player to progress by doing nothing.


GTA has carjacking and more killing, the main character in GTA3 is malignant versus benevolent in Shenmue, blah blah blah. But when you really get down to it, and ignore the "subject matter", the two games offer very similar experiences. There are mechanical differences, etc., but one of both games' main goals is to give you the ability to freely interact with your surroundings. I'm not asking anybody to take a leap of faith with this...these similarities seem apparent to me. If you get too hung up on the stories and the combat systems, then you're missing the point of my argument.

GTA3 has carjacking as an entertaining means to its enjoyable end of exploring a massive game-world. Part of the fun of GTA3 is zipping around Liberty City in various vehicles. Shenmue doesn't provide that same joy of exploration. (If anything, its heavy reliance on time-based events and awkward conversations suck the joy OUT of exploration.)

Shenmue is kind of Dragon's Lair (QTEs), kind of Virtua Fighter (Free Battle), and kind of an RPG (NPC conversations, item-collecting, "lite" puzzle-solving). GTA3 is none of those things.

It should be noted that GTA: SA does several things Shenmue did before: billiards (although SA offers a full game, not a single shot!), slot machines, arcade mini-games, and fighting moves to be learned. But GTA3? Nope.

-- Z.

[DynastyLawyer]

When I played the first Grand Theft Auto, I was rolling on the floor laughing. The game was a blast to play, under-rated, and a masterpiece of gameplay simplicity. I don't think I had ever seen a game that far tilted to the dark side. You could go on rampages through barricades, missions dealt with parking a truck underneath a police station to blow it up, insane stuff.

When GTA 3 came out, I finally watched as the series got the nods it deserved, and then some. It was like overnight, videogame's media changed it's opinions about the franchise. Gamers who had no idea what the franchise was two months before that game hit the market picked it up, inspired by Penny Arcade. Probably driven by suburbia's fascination with urban culture and hip-hop, people who didn't play videogames got into videogames to play it.

People view GTA 3 as a revolution in game-making, and that is false. The "growth" of the GTA franchise's gameplay has taken at most baby steps at most in terms of gameplay, and has been mostly owed to who was actually playing the game. In fact, Rockstar has resold us the same game about 6 times now. Sure, at one end it was in 2d and no jumping was allowed, and at the other end Samuel L. Jackson voices the antagonist, but the game has largely not changed. San Andreas has so many creative nods to other games (Dead to Rights, mostly), I'm surprised it's a CD and not a bobble-head doll.

In conclusion: Is the Grand Theft Auto series based upon good gameplay and freedom of movement? Yes. It it a revolutionary series? It was, but not where people give it hype. Does each game up the bar the franchise initially set? Probably not.

[zmweasel]

When GTA 3 came out, I finally watched as the series got the nods it deserved, and then some. It was like overnight, videogame's media changed it's opinions about the franchise. Gamers who had no idea what the franchise was two months before that game hit the market picked it up, inspired by Penny Arcade. Probably driven by suburbia's fascination with urban culture and hip-hop, people who didn't play videogames got into videogames to play it.

GTA3's popularity was fueled by something simpler than suburban fascination with urban culture: the jump to 3D graphics.

-- Z.

[SoulBlazer]

I'm not so sure about that. GTA Advance is doing very well, and that game is 2D based. Not every game NEEDS to go into 3D graphics. GTA 1 and 2 did well as 2D games, but it was more the changes to the franchise that 3 brought in that made it damn popular. IMHO. ;)

[zmweasel]

I'm not so sure about that. GTA Advance is doing very well, and that game is 2D based. Not every game NEEDS to go into 3D graphics. GTA 1 and 2 did well as 2D games, but it was more the changes to the franchise that 3 brought in that made it damn popular. IMHO. ;)

GTA 1 and 2 didn't do poorly by any means, but GTA3 was a blockbuster, and that's because of the jump to 3D. GTA Advance is doing well because GTA3 established the brand as a triple-A franchise, but it's 2D because that's what the GBA can manage. GTA on the DS and/or PSP will be 3D.

-- Z.

[SoulBlazer]

You make it sound like the GBA is a 'poor' system just cause it can only handle 2D games, Zach. LOL

Like I said, not every game NEEDS to be in 3D graphics. Some it helps, for sure, but I recall my first reaction when I played GTA 3 -- 'Whoa! Did they crank up the violence and the mature content in this one or what!' I think more then anything THAT'S what sold the game.

[Habeeb Hamusta]

I think GTA games are horrible. You just walk or drive around wasting people. It's lame. No fun at all. Guess people need a way to express their anger in video games rather than commiting the crimes in real life. LOL

[zmweasel]

You make it sound like the GBA is a 'poor' system just cause it can only handle 2D games, Zach. LOL

Like I said, not every game NEEDS to be in 3D graphics. Some it helps, for sure, but I recall my first reaction when I played GTA 3 -- 'Whoa! Did they crank up the violence and the mature content in this one or what!' I think more then anything THAT'S what sold the game.

GTA1 and 2 were just as violent as GTA3, but the move from a distant overhead 2D view to a close-up third-person 3D view made the violence in GTA3 much more immediate and visceral. (It also improved the gameplay by making exploration more interesting and rewarding.) GTA doesn't need to be in 3D, but it's certainly a better game in 3D.

-- Z.

[ianoid]

If popular critique is intended to represent the populous, that is.

This absolutely isn't that case. Good critical reviews do not imply success/sales and the converse (sales do not implay good reviews.)

Popular has little to do with my initial post. I just think it's a great game. I love it. But it also pisses me off on the design side (not even the missions) and has flaws, some of which I think are major. So I think that the game is really good, but just not that much gooder than alot of games. Revolutionary, but imperfect.

And I hear this 'the game makes me it's errand boy' arguement alot, which I find silly. Almost every game makes you attempt to accomplish some mission. And the glory of games, unlike life, is that you can actually accomplish something.

[ianoid]

but most of the people I've spoken with who love the GTA games don't actually play it. They run around causing trouble, and don't actually partake in any missions.

This may be one of the best points of the game, IMHO.

The fact is, there aren't that many games that maintain so many open ended activities. Let's see some other games in other worlds with other themes that match to 'something to do in this world' factor. It could be called Sims: A$$hole.

[petewhitley]

If popular critique is intended to represent the populous, that is.

This absolutely isn't that case. Good critical reviews do not imply success/sales and the converse (sales do not implay good reviews.)

Of course good critical reviews do not imply success. But the very point of the popular press reviewing anything is to inform the masses of what they may expect from the said media. Hence, popular critique is intended to represent the populous. Does it always? No. However, in the case of the GTA series, it has.


I hate GTA. GTA must die.

There you go. If "Moonwalker" fans hate GTA, it's gotta be good.

[SegaAges]

And so it has come to be...

I now own San Andreas. It doesn't really feel like a new game, but maybe that is because I am not very far in it yet. Everything in this they should have done in Vice City.

So Many people live the gta series because it is so open ended. that is the fun of it. I was playing a mission in San Andreas where my gang had to do some drive-by's, and my car kept getting blown up, I got tired of it, and just started running the guys over. You can't shoot back if I run you over. I won the mission on my first try doing it that way.

there are so many people out there that think it is extremely cool to be able to beat the crap out of random people, kill them in the middle of the sidewalk during the day, and have to consequence come of it.

you know what, nobody ever bashes rpg's like somebody said. how about this: rpg's suck! at least in gta, you can see who you are about to be in a random battle with, instead of super vine monster poppping up out of nowhere and this super vine monster is 2 stories tall. why the hell would you fight something like that unless you are dumb? super vine monster isn't going anywhere, leave it, fly over it later with some insecticide or weed killer or something, and it will all be just fine. you don't even have to run away, you can walk away, it is not like it will follow you.
i could go on and on, but no need for a threadjack.

gta is a good game. it has vastly improved since it was first introduced to pc and ps1. the maps have gotten bigger, and the gameplay has gotten deeper. it is still a game of commiting crimes, but than again, so is pokemon. it is animal cruelty to capture animals and make them fight each other. i thought cock fighting was illegal, so now i guess we use other animals because they can shoot a lightning bolt out of their ass.

what i would suggest to people that don't like gta is this: play through every single title from the original up through san andreas. hell, you don't even have to beat them. just play it enough to get a pretty good feel for it. the only thing that really annoys me about gta are all the people that started at gta3 and now think they are gta experts who know everything about the game and think that 3 and up are god.

i am one of many, many people that have supported gta since the beginning. the only problem is that i can't play it anymore like people do know. it was open ended from the 1st game that was released. actually, the 1st game was by far more open ended than any of the later 3. actually, the 1st 3 games were far more open ended (gta, gta-london, gta2), simply because you progressed through the game based on how much money you had, not which missions you beat. if you were skilled enough, you could make a living in 1 of the 1st 3 by killing everything in sight and get through the game just fine.

seriously, i know that you guys know people like that, those people that only played 3 and up. it would be the same thing as somebody watching return of the king and none of the other 2 and saying the lord of the rings is the best movie saga ever. if you are a true gta fanboy, play the 1st 3, better yet 4, and come back to me (sorry, I keep forgetting there are 2 london packs).

all i can say about the gta series is this: changing the story does not change the game. you have to make progress and improve the game.

p.s. - you can now swim in san andreas. hurray, swimming gangstas!

[goatdan]

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.

Why don't you try to put your side of the argument and explain why GTA cannot be compared to any other game? What does GTA do that is so completely revolutionary that does not have to do with the storyline? You keep claiming that I have made all these wild arguments, but in response you have made none about why they are so different...


Heh, I remember this game. Actually, it's a sequel to Quarantine, which is still one of my favorite games of all time. My friend gave me a copy of Road Warrior, but I could never get the game to run right on any of my PCs. My old Pentium 100 runs the original Quarantine fine, however. Wasn't Road Warrior a little more linear that Quarantine, or is my memory a little hazy?

I thought that it was for a long time while playing it (and most of the reviews do too), but there was a way to cycle through the available fares in the city -- I believe by pressing the tab or T button -- and then you could deny jobs if you wanted to by pressing the E key.

You eventually had to do all of the jobs, but you could choose what order to do them in.


I agree that the GTA series borrows a lot from Quarantine/Road Warrior, much more so than these ridiculous KOTOR or Shenmue comparisons. In fact, I'd venture to say that Quarantine is a DIRECT influence on GTA - just look at the similarity in the in-car view drive-bys in both Quarantine and the recent GTAs.

My god, I didn't claim that GTA "borrowed" anything from any of these games, but that it was alike in many ways. Again, no one that has claimed that I was insane to make this comparison has made any arguments to explain why GTA can't be compared to anything.




Agreed. I hate when people bring this "improvement" issue up. To those who use this argument, have you actually played any of these games? GTA: SA is much more polished than GTA 3 or Vice City, gameplay wise, and it adds tons of new elements never seen in any other GTA games before.

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.

Then again, GTA:SA has obviously had so much hype and so many people don't feel that way that it doesn't matter. Madden is the same way every year. I guess I'm just expecting too much from my game manufacturers. An updated roster or changed city should be enough for anyone to want to purchase a game.

It's funny to me that GTA had the London add-on that was a different city with different missions to play. GTA 3 gets two games after it that are essentially the same, and I'm thought of as crazy for suggesting that they didn't grow enough. Why wouldn't Rockstar just do a mission pack? Oh, I forgot, the rest of the world (and I) should be extremely happy to plunk down $50.00 on small improvements to games.

I guess that personally, I wanted to see more of an upgrade in the series if the games were going to continue to be so expensive. Especially coming from a company that has released add-on packs in the past.


Additionally, what do YOU suggest they do to improve these games? I think Rockstar has done a damn good job of representing real-world activities and has based the games around this real-world concept. If anyone can come up with some worthwhile suggestions to improve the series significantly, I'm listening, but I doubt anyone will be able to.

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...

[digitalpress]

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...

I care about your opinion Dan, and I'm sure others do as well. Forums run this way sometimes. People are fiercely loyal to their game, their system, and ESPECIALLY their points of view. Not everyone fights fair, either.

For what it's worth I think you bring up some valid arguments. Some I agree with, some I do not. In any case, I love the game immensely and don't have any particular reason to so fiercely defend or attack ANY point I've seen in this thread.

Forums are all about "survival of the thickest skin". With that analogy in mind, note that Zach is the elephant hunter among us :)