[GTAboyWonder]

He's just mad because Niko was a white (Serbian) man, and not another black guy. Or because the story didn't feature a cliche, gang story with the main characters constantly saying, "Ayo'" or "N*gga", and maybe "Homie".

[BabeRuth]

I'm not mad at all, i just don't see/uderstand how SA is for infants thats all .

[bud23]

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Wednesday, Aug 1 2012, 04:18)

QUOTE (GTAboyWonder @ Wednesday, Aug 1 2012, 12:43) I hate the fact that the people who only like SA think we like IV only because of the graphics. Same. Obviously the graphics are nice, but that's not the only reason I like it. Really it's the only GTA where I'll stroll around and take in all the sights. I try doing it in SA with LS, but IMO LS is a lifeless hole compared to LC. Sure the game doesn't have as many materialistic features, but I find it far more immersive because it isn't weighed down by insignificant stuff that I'd barely use. I like watching the tv, bowling, pool, darts, comedy club etc. SA simply doesn't draw me in.

You guys forget that SA is a game of 2004, R* pushed at the limit the capacity of the ps2,
what you are speaking was just impossible in a hardware of 2004.

I prefer by far SA to gta IV, LC is a museum not a playground.

The freedom of SA ,the minigames, the sensation of discovering any thing in any place, the infinite amount of myths , the variety of environments, three amazing cities and very diferent between themselves , the countryside, planes , activities like climb a mountain....you can´t compare SA with LC.

Imo,SA is the best gta so far and the only one with a consistent,coherent and special universe.
"I don't know that thing, that magic", yeah,the magic of san andreas.
I can´t wait for GTA V.

[BabeRuth]

i agree with you 100%!

[Flight180Victm]

QUOTE (GTAboyWonder @ Thursday, Aug 2 2012, 15:46)

He's just mad because Niko was a white (Serbian) man, and not another black guy. Or because the story didn't feature a cliche, gang story with the main characters constantly saying, "Ayo'" or "N*gga", and maybe "Homie".

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (bud23 @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 05:26)

You guys forget that SA is a game of 2004, R* pushed at the limit the capacity of the ps2, what you are speaking was just impossible in a hardware of 2004.

What do you mean? Something I've always noticed in these kind of threads is people are quick to jump on SA's side and praise the map for being so big yet at the same time use technology as an excuse. So which is it?

Sorry to be blunt, but the cities in SA are lifeless compared to GTA IV's LC whether people want to admit it or not.

I'm not talking about graphics or physics, but the way things are operated with peds performing simple actions like construction workers working, peds talking on phones, doing yogo in parks, trash collectors working etc. All of which bring the city to life.

It's not just compared to SA either. Even compared to the majority of sandbox games this generation GTA IV's LC is one of the few cities that actually feels real with a sense of believability.

As I said at the start of this thread I do think SA's map is quite impressive especially for how old it is, but GTA IV did do an urban environment much better than SA.

This post has been edited by Miamivicecity on Thursday, Aug 2 2012, 22:32

[dragon_goran_mijo]

To be quite frank, half of GTA SA is just blank space. Back roads & trees, but in GTA IV however, only about 5% are non active.

GTA SA took a step back, when in GTA Vice City people would have shopping bags and things, but in GTA SA the peds just walk around meaninglessly.

GTA IV peds talk on cellphones, beg for money, drink coffee, hail taxi's, use payphones, buy items & fight.

GTA SA did a poor job capturing the realism feel that Iv mastered, in my mind presentation wise/graphically & story wise, you can't compare IV to SA because IV is miles ahead on both departments.

[GTAboyWonder]

QUOTE (dragon_goran_mijo @ Thursday, Aug 2 2012, 20:01)

To be quite frank, half of GTA SA is just blank space. Back roads & trees, but in GTA IV however, only about 5% are non active. GTA SA took a step back, when in GTA Vice City people would have shopping bags and things, but in GTA SA the peds just walk around meaninglessly. GTA IV peds talk on cellphones, beg for money, drink coffee, hail taxi's, use payphones, buy items & fight. GTA SA did a poor job capturing the realism feel that Iv mastered, in my mind presentation wise/graphically & story wise, you can't compare IV to SA because IV is miles ahead on both departments.

All is true. SA didn't feel anything like a GTA game, but a horrible GTA Clone like Saints Row.

[BabeRuth]

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Thursday, Aug 2 2012, 22:25)

QUOTE (bud23 @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 05:26) You guys forget that SA is a game of 2004, R* pushed at the limit the capacity of the ps2, what you are speaking was just impossible in a hardware of 2004. Sorry to be blunt, but the cities in SA are lifeless compared to GTA IV's LC whe

I smell bullsh*t.

[GTAboyWonder]

QUOTE (BabeRuth @ Thursday, Aug 2 2012, 21:56)

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Thursday, Aug 2 2012, 22:25) QUOTE (bud23 @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 05:26) You guys forget that SA is a game of 2004, R* pushed at the limit the capacity of the ps2, what you are speaking was just impossible in a hardware of 2004. Sorry to be blunt, but the cities in SA are lifeless compared to GTA IV's LC whe I smell bullsh*t.

Seriously. Just accept the flaws, dammit! Even I noticed flaws in IV and VC. IV's city was too depressing, but I still like it-flaw! Tommy Vercetti was too crazy and emotionless when it came to killing someone-flaw!

Stop protecting SA! How can three empty cities with the same buildings in each different streets be more lifelike than a city with detail in every street, and people doing daily work?

I swear, you're the most self-denying person I know...

[MyDog]

SA would have probably become my second favorite game if it weren't for the whole Toreno desert chapter. That completely ruins the game.

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (dragon_goran_mijo @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 13:01)

To be quite frank, half of GTA SA is just blank space. Back roads & trees, but in GTA IV however, only about 5% are non active. GTA SA took a step back, when in GTA Vice City people would have shopping bags and things, but in GTA SA the peds just walk around meaninglessly. GTA IV peds talk on cellphones, beg for money, drink coffee, hail taxi's, use payphones, buy items & fight. GTA SA did a poor job capturing the realism feel that Iv mastered, in my mind presentation wise/graphically & story wise, you can't compare IV to SA because IV is miles ahead on both departments.

Yeah this is what I was getting at before. The only thing that slightly bugs me is peds don't pick up things they drop. It's the only thing that stops it being perfect IMO.

Also unlike SA peds will go for their umbrellas when it rains. Even Niko reacts to it. All these things add up for an immersive experience. You don't realize how dull it is in SA until you start walking around.

The ridiculously empty streets, abundance of clones arghhhh. It really is like smashing your head against a desk.

This post has been edited by Miamivicecity on Friday, Aug 3 2012, 07:14

[Master of San Andreas]

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 07:10)

QUOTE (dragon_goran_mijo @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 13:01) To be quite frank, half of GTA SA is just blank space. Back roads & trees, but in GTA IV however, only about 5% are non active. GTA SA took a step back, when in GTA Vice City people would have shopping bags and things, but in GTA SA the peds just walk around meaninglessly. GTA IV peds talk on cellphones, beg for money, drink coffee, hail taxi's, use payphones, buy items & fight. GTA SA did a poor job capturing the realism feel that Iv mastered, in my mind presentation wise/graphically & story wise, you can't compare IV to SA because IV is miles ahead on both departments. Yeah this is what I was getting at before. The only thing that slightly bugs me is peds don't pick up things they drop. It's the only thing that stops it being perfect IMO. Also unlike SA peds will go for their umbrellas when it rains. Even Niko reacts to it. All these things add up for an immersive experience. You don't realize how dull it is in SA until you start walking around. The ridiculously empty streets, abundance of clones arghhhh. It really is like smashing your head against a desk.

You Cant compare 4 to SA who the heck can compare SA to 4 people just dont get the point do they? here i am telling this again and again repeating it once more.

*SA released in 2004 and 4 in 2008 tech was better when 4 released tech took a huge step iphone,windows 7 PS3,Xbox 360 etc.
*R* was forced to remove many features from SA due to the limitations of the PS2 but the PS3 nad 360 could handle more much more so 4 was damn realistic and awseome! but yet people dont like it they wanted it to be like SA all fun and glitchy which would have ruined it.
*You can compare any gta game every gta game is awseome.!


Hope people understand now.I love SA and 4 but silly people compare it or say 4 is bad.


now no comparing!

[ZoomZoom]

I think the argument depends on the likes of people some people like to say San Andreas is better while some say IV is awesome and San Andreas is sh*t. Actually what people should do is not argue and say directly "SA or IV is better" but say it like this "IMO SA is better". Add the IMO it works a lot...

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (Master of San Andreas @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 22:58)

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 07:10) QUOTE (dragon_goran_mijo @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 13:01) To be quite frank, half of GTA SA is just blank space. Back roads & trees, but in GTA IV however, only about 5% are non active. GTA SA took a step back, when in GTA Vice City people would have shopping bags and things, but in GTA SA the peds just walk around meaninglessly. GTA IV peds talk on cellphones, beg for money, drink coffee, hail taxi's, use payphones, buy items & fight. GTA SA did a poor job capturing the realism feel that Iv mastered, in my mind presentation wise/graphically & story wise, you can't compare IV to SA because IV is miles ahead on both departments. Yeah this is what I was getting at before. The only thing that slightly bugs me is peds don't pick up things they drop. It's the only thing that stops it being perfect IMO. Also unlike SA peds will go for their umbrellas when it rains. Even Niko reacts to it. All these things add up for an immersive experience. You don't realize how dull it is in SA until you start walking around. The ridiculously empty streets, abundance of clones arghhhh. It really is like smashing your head against a desk. You Cant compare 4 to SA who the heck can compare SA to 4 people just dont get the point do they? here i am telling this again and again repeating it once more. *SA released in 2004 and 4 in 2008 tech was better when 4 released tech took a huge step iphone,windows 7 PS3,Xbox 360 etc. *R* was forced to remove many features from SA due to the limitations of the PS2 but the PS3 nad 360 could handle more much more so 4 was damn realistic and awseome! but yet people dont like it they wanted it to be like SA all fun and glitchy which would have ruined it. *You can compare any gta game every gta game is awseome.! Hope people understand now.I love SA and 4 but silly people compare it or say 4 is bad. now no comparing!

Fair enough.

[BabeRuth]

QUOTE (GTAboyWonder @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 04:44)

QUOTE (BabeRuth @ Thursday, Aug 2 2012, 21:56) QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Thursday, Aug 2 2012, 22:25) QUOTE (bud23 @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 05:26) You guys forget that SA is a game of 2004, R* pushed at the limit the capacity of the ps2, what you are speaking was just impossible in a hardware of 2004. Sorry to be blunt, but the cities in SA are lifeless compared to GTA IV's LC whe I smell bullsh*t. Seriously. Just accept the flaws, dammit! Even I noticed flaws in IV and VC. IV's city was too depressing, but I still like it-flaw! Tommy Vercetti was too crazy and emotionless when it came to killing someone-flaw! Stop protecting SA! How can three empty cities with the same buildings in each different streets be more lifelike than a city with detail in every street, and people doing daily work? I swear, you're the most self-denying person I know...

I'll admit SA has some dead areas.

But the part i don't get is your calling IV'S map depressing, then your calling it lifelike detail, that makes no sense.

Oh so IV doesn't have the same buildings? ya no SA isn't the only GTA to have the same buildings.

[dragon_goran_mijo]

Honestly? I can't say GTa IV has many repeating buildings.

[GTAboyWonder]

By depressing I meant the mood of the city. The skies are always grey and dull, but the nice detail and touches made me forget about that. TBoGT actually fixed the bland of grey and changed it to pink and blue.

Speaking of TBoGT, I think many of you SA fanboys would be interested in this game in the IV era. It has over-the-top action, parachutes, and alot of minigames like SA.

[BabeRuth]

I believe all the skies in GTA are grey and dull at times.

I've never seen a pink sky then again I've never played TBGOGT so I wouldn't know.

[GTAboyWonder]

QUOTE (BabeRuth @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 18:21)

I believe all the skies in GTA are grey and dull at times. I've never seen a pink sky     then again I've never played TBGOGT so I wouldn't know.

Than play it! It's kinda like playing next-gen SA.