State of Play...

DrNuyenVanFaulk

With regards to the PS3 and all its super-computer abilities, running linux, browsing internet, etc etc..... Don't we just wanna play games when we buy a games machine? I'll let my PC do all the 'work', thank you very much Mr. Kutaragi.
I say the same to the X-Box 360 and its baldy nerd supervisor, who, in a wonderful little trick of presentation, managed to state in the launch video "Everything we've done for the X-Box 360 has been for the gamer!" very shortly followed by "...allowing the gamer to change the front of the 360 with various designs."
Wow, Dead or Alive rehashed for the third time is going to seem so much better when I have the graphics of semi-nude beach-babes stuck onto my console.

I also automatically discount anything that plays MP3's that isn't a dedicated MP3 player.

I guess Nintendo have the right idea for having a games-only machine, but they always screw-ball it up somehow. However, I bet the Revolution won't play MP3's.

YOU'VE READ IT! YOU CAN'T UN-READ IT!!
PREPARE TO AGREE OR DISAGREE!!

StonedParadoX

heh i disagree on what you said *gasp*

you can UNread stuff Mr 27 poster faulky lad

so HAH!

Citizen_Erased

All it's supercomputer abilities....


Thats funny , but last time I checked it was a console and lacked even the abilities of a high end gaming PC. And why are you so excitied about linux and browsing the web , have you forgotten Pc s have been doing both for over a decade?

Anyways , why do you want the machine to play mp3's? The psone/2 plays music cd's but I have never once met someone who uses it for that purpose. It sounds nice but its utterly useless.

Changable fronts , hmmm , money spinner. Why do you care what it looks like ? To compensate for something?

Steven

Why can't we all just get along?

Thats funny , but last time I checked it was a console and lacked even the abilities of a high end gaming PC.

He's talking about the ps3, not the ps2. If you believe the sony hype, then the cell's supposed to be some kind of silicon based holy grail.

OP, who gives a damn what else it does as long as it doesn't interfere with the gaming. You don't have to play mp3s with it if you don't want to and changing the face plate is not going to drop your fps. Also, those who don't own a pc might find some of those features useful.

steviec

As much fun as being cynical about everything is, why does having extra features automatically make the games worse? Do you think Microsoft said 'oh lets leave a couple of levels out of Halo 3 so we can put those programmers designing faceplates instead.' If you don't want to change them then don't bother, it's not a big deal. It's just a bonus for people who care about that kind of thing. As for MP3 playback, I know that's added a hell of a lot of value to my PSP. And whats the downside for people who don't like listening to music for some reason? Oh, there isn't any! But lets complain about it anyway because its nothing to do with games!

monument

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

With regards to the PS3 and all its super-computer abilities, running linux, browsing internet, etc etc..... Don't we just wanna play games when we buy a games machine?

I hate Aertel, it stops me from watching TV. And the camera, wap browser, games, diary, alarm clock etc on my phone stop me from making phone calls. And I could never play any game on the Xbox or PS2 because the two of them are just bloody DVD players. Oh dear god, I’m off to write a letter to the Irish Times, Joe Duffy, and Matt Cooper – all this convergence has to be stopped!

Khalim

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

YOU'VE READ IT! YOU CAN'T UN-READ IT!!
PREPARE TO AGREE OR DISAGREE!!

I'd like to make a decision, I really do, but I don't understand what there is to agree or disagree on.

projectmayhem

watch over the sony and xbox (if you can stand allard for that long) presentations again, they're not selling games consoles anymore. they're selling multimedia units...

savemejebus

steviec wrote:

Do you think Microsoft said 'oh lets leave a couple of levels out of Halo 3 so we can put those programmers designing faceplates instead.'

Ah so that's what happened to the end of HALO 2

BloodBath

Stupid thread with no real topic, lock it already.

sceptre

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

With regards to the PS3 and all its super-computer abilities, running linux, browsing internet, etc etc..... Don't we just wanna play games when we buy a games machine? I'll let my PC do all the 'work', thank you very much Mr. Kutaragi.

I wouldn't be bothered a whole lot about these extras either, just for me, but lots of people like the idea that their new console can play DVDs, play mp3s, run emulators and be made a different colour. Like monument, none of this stuff is exactly taking from my gaming experience, not that there's much of that in my house anyway. You could make the case that they're wasting time on development of addons but if these lead to increased sales it's more likely that games companies are going to bother making the effort when there's an extra house they can make a sale to.

Monument said it better. Especially the Aertel bit, I liked that. Nothing further to see here after that I reckon.

Citizen_Erased

Steven wrote:

Why can't we all just get along?


He's talking about the ps3, not the ps2. If you believe the sony hype, then the cell's supposed to be some kind of silicon based holy grail.

OP, who gives a damn what else it does as long as it doesn't interfere with the gaming. You don't have to play mp3s with it if you don't want to and changing the face plate is not going to drop your fps. Also, those who don't own a pc might find some of those features useful.

I am more than aware that he was talking about the PS3 and I completely stand by my statement.

And anyone who doesnt have a pc will not find linux useful , because they wont be able to work it, simply. How many households do you know without a pc anyways?

Boco

And anyone who doesnt have a pc will not find linux useful

I'm sure all those people using linux in phones, handhelds, tvs and toasters would disagree with you there.

How many households do you know without a pc anyways?

About half of them according to the CSO.

You nearly have a point about high end PCs out performing the PS3. nVidia have said themselves that by the time the PS3 is out, they will have a more powerful graphics card for the PC market. But, for most people, they wont own a PC in the first year or two of the next generation of consoles that outperforms them, alot like this generation.

Citizen_Erased

Sorry but I cant understand your last point. What you are saying is that the consoles will be better than the pc's for a year or too?
If that was your point then I have to disagree , mainly because I'm like that but also just because of battle field 2 , farcry , doom , up-and-coming quake etc..
So if high end pcs are out preforming them now just think what they will be doing by the time the ps3 reaches the shelves.

Boco

I expect the next gen consoles to run games at the quality of far cry and doom 3 with ease and at the highest quality while maintaining decent framerates. Videos and tech demos of next gen console games surpass anything I've seen on a current high end pc. Now, you also have to consider that the current top end PC video card costs 600 dollars (Geforce 7800) while a next gen console will cost between 300 and 400 dollars. The graphics chip in the next gen of consoles will be more powerul than the geforce 7800 (as stated by nVidia, and according to ATI, their chip in the next xbox is more powerful again). The xbox 360 will be out at christmas, the ps3 will follow sometime in mid to late 2006. If you have a read of the xbox 360 spec and have a look at some videos you'll realise that a current high end pc is woefully outperformed and by a 300 dollar box. It will probably be entirely possible to match the performance of these consoles by a pc early in their lifetime (ie, a year or two) but how much will it cost? You only have to look at the current consoles. It took about a year for PCs to catch up in terms of graphical quality and even then it took a PC with specs much higher than their console equivalents

BloodBath

This has been discussed about 100 times already in previous threads. Any arguement against a console having extra features is just plain stupid. If you don't like the extras, don't use them. Plain and simple. At least you have the choice. As for the graphics capabilities just look at the specs of the ps3 and x-box 360. There are no processors or graphics cards on the market to rival these on pc and there are no games that look anywhere near as impressive as the likes of the killzone 2 demo if that is indeed the quality of graphics we will get.

Citizen_erazed get a clue please and try reading the several hundred posts made by informed people about this topic before posting drivel.

Citizen_Erased

Boco wrote:

graphics chip in the next gen of consoles will be more powerul than the geforce 7800 (as stated by nVidia, and according to ATI, their chip in the next xbox is more powerful again)

Ah , but this pc has two in SLI so that is considerabley more

And I have a clue , I am not a fanboy , I have a ps2 , I have gameboys (which I favour over anything else) . I am also not trying to say the Ps3 will be bad. I am against peoples attitude towards it.

BloodBath

Sure you can use 2 in sli. You won't have any games making use of the capabilities of using 2 high end cards in sli though. You will get better frame rates and that's about it. Companies won't develop games that can make use of the capabilities because only a tiny percentage of people will have 2 high end cards in sli.

The difference with the consoles is the standard spec that everyone has so they will push it as far as they can.

Citizen_Erased

I know we are drifting terribly far from topic and we should stop soon but , the ps2 imo reached its peak a few years ago and all games have just come along on a level plateau and thge occasional game has dropped below it. Seriously though , I have not bought a ps2 game in ages because it is now just a sea of mediocre deja vous .

monument

Citizen_Erased wrote:

I know we are drifting terribly far from topic and we should stop soon but

As far as I’m concerned the thread-starter left the topic wide open within the boundaries ‘State of play’, with references to next and current generation consoles and the PC. In short, the thread is coming nothing more, so please feel free to continue along the lines you are…

projectmayhem

the point of a console over a PC is that everyone is on a level playing field, and you can have your mates round to have some multiplayer action without any hassle

steviec

Citizen_Erased wrote:

I know we are drifting terribly far from topic and we should stop soon but , the ps2 imo reached its peak a few years ago and all games have just come along on a level plateau and thge occasional game has dropped below it. Seriously though , I have not bought a ps2 game in ages because it is now just a sea of mediocre deja vous .

I have to disagree there. The thing I like about consoles is that programmers get more inventive as the hardware ages, unlike PC games which can just rely on rehashing the same idea over and over and over with ever more fancy graphics thanks to ever more powerful hardware. Meanwhile the PC owner is expected to pay for yearly upgrades for the privilege.

If you had bought a PC at the same time the PS2 was released, which would have cost many times more than a PS2, and had not upgraded it at all in the meantime, how much use do you think it'd be getting as a games machine right now? A lot less than the PS2 thats for sure.

I like PC games and console games but I hate it when people say one is better than the other. Their both very different and have their own place. You'll never appreciate an FPS fully without a mouse and keyboard. But there's so many types of games that benefit from sitting on the couch with friends, joypad in hand. And consoles will always be better value for money for gaming purposes than PCs, and if Sony pull off a decent functional version of Linux that will be even more true.

Citizen_Erased

Yes I agree with most of them points and the Ps2 does have some large advantages. But the point about the programmers making better games as they get to know the platform better is also true, but it can only go to a certain point and that recently it's just been a boring mass of done-before with very little over each other or previous games.

Citizen_Erased

BloodBath wrote:

Sure you can use 2 in sli. You won't have any games making use of the capabilities of using 2 high end cards in sli though. You will get better frame rates and that's about it. Companies won't develop games that can make use of the capabilities because only a tiny percentage of people will have 2 high end cards in sli.

The difference with the consoles is the standard spec that everyone has so they will push it as far as they can.

Hang on , you're saying that all the new games being developed in co-operation with nVidea (eg BF2 ) are not capable of exploiting sli? That sounds slightly outrageous to me.

DrNuyenVanFaulk

steviec wrote:

As much fun as being cynical about everything is, why does having extra features automatically make the games worse? Do you think Microsoft said 'oh lets leave a couple of levels out of Halo 3 so we can put those programmers designing faceplates instead.' If you don't want to change them then don't bother, it's not a big deal. It's just a bonus for people who care about that kind of thing. As for MP3 playback, I know that's added a hell of a lot of value to my PSP. And whats the downside for people who don't like listening to music for some reason? Oh, there isn't any! But lets complain about it anyway because its nothing to do with games!

Because it distracts from the games. And PSP is cack.

DrNuyenVanFaulk

Khalim wrote:

I'd like to make a decision, I really do, but I don't understand what there is to agree or disagree on.

It's quoting. Guess what from!

DrNuyenVanFaulk

Alright, some of you seem to dislike the idea of disliking convergence.... rather, a lot of you seem to like devices that do a lot of things.

My original point was, I want a games machine. I don't want to spend €500 on a PS3 just to play Wanda and the Colossus, or Shadow of Colossus or whatever (Ico 2), and about five other games worth buying by the end of its life-span (as is generally the case with consoles).

Yeah, you're right, for people who don't have PC's, it could do a lot for them.

And my complaint about Xbox 360's changeable front is just - it will not distract developers, of course, but it reflects the gimmicky nature that I feel a lot of modern technology has. Why didn't Microsoft focus on something a bit more worth while?
It's almost as bad as the hideous java games on mobile phones: they're all ****, so stop using them as an advertising gimmick. "Can play java games!" Wow!! java! Sounds cool, but lets face it, Java is arse.

My biggest, hugest gripe is the lack of non-comformaty across the games market. Three more consoles, and a PC market! Oh my god!! Imagine walking into Xtravision and having three DVD sections for three different DVD player types. It's the exact same thing with videogames, and it's absolute horse****.

Steven

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

Because it distracts from the games. And PSP is cack.

Exactly. Why, only the other day, whilst playing a PS2, did I feel the irresistible urge to watch a DVD. Such was the frenzy this urge generated, that I failed to correctly save my game and lost hours of intensive RPG work.


You really aren't adding anything to this discussion other than the intellectual equivalent of "e><tra 5tufF sux0rz!!!1!1!!twelve"

[edit] It appears I replied a little too slowly [/edit]

Steven

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

Alright, some of you seem to dislike the idea of disliking convergence.... rather, a lot of you seem to like devices that do a lot of things.

My original point was, I want a games machine. I don't want to spend €500 on a PS3 just to play Wanda and the Colossus, or Shadow of Colossus or whatever (Ico 2), and about five other games worth buying by the end of its life-span (as is generally the case with consoles).

All of those extra features that you seem so adverse to are software or are tiny alterations to the hardware production (like the exchangeable face plate). The increase in cost from these is practically negligible. They already sell consoles at a loss but, as the tech becomes more complex, the manufacturing costs go up.

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

And my complaint about Xbox 360's changeable front is just - it will not distract developers, of course, but it reflects the gimmicky nature that I feel a lot of modern technology has. Why didn't Microsoft focus on something a bit more worth while?

They're the largest software company in the world. I doubt too many development hours were lost in creating changeable fonts.

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

It's almost as bad as the hideous java games on mobile phones: they're all ****, so stop using them as an advertising gimmick. "Can play java games!" Wow!! java! Sounds cool, but lets face it, Java is arse.

Seperate issue, but some of those java games are ridiculously poorly made.

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

My biggest, hugest gripe is the lack of non-comformaty across the games market. Three more consoles, and a PC market! Oh my god!! Imagine walking into Xtravision and having three DVD sections for three different DVD player types. It's the exact same thing with videogames, and it's absolute horse****.

If you want standardisation of platforms then you're going to get less innovation in hardware development. Who knows, the cell could change the way console processors are built forever?* That aside, what are the chances that you could get 3 industry giants to agree to one machine :rolleyes:



*may not be true

Citizen_Erased

Pretty slim , because if they did standardise then the hardware would have to be pretty much standardised aswell . That would mean the cheapest console would own the market. Maybe if games that were coming out on more than one console anyway could be standardised ( although they would have to run under the power of one machine) could be interchangeable. Then each console could still have its own style too.

BloodBath

Hang on , you're saying that all the new games being developed in co-operation with nVidea (eg BF2 ) are not capable of exploiting sli? That sounds slightly outrageous to me.

Omg, way to miss the point. Nvidia sponsers EA on BF2. EA Stick a short nvidia clip on the front of the game and on the box. It's advertising and nothing more. My point is there are no games that need sli to run on full detail at a high res. Any high end card from 6800gt - x800pr0 upwards will run bf2 or most other pc games on a high res with max detail. The only benifits of sli is pushing your frame rate higher or using crazy resolutons over 2000x1400 or whatever it is. Only a tiny tiny percentage of the pc market will ever do this. Comparing sli to console graphics cards is just stupid. The fact of the matter is the x-box360 and ps3 have more advanced tech than high end pc's so the games can and will look better on them for at least a year especially with hdtv. Look at the tech demos for christs sake. There is nothing comparable on the pc apart from unreal 2007 which the consoles will have as well.

Peteee

BloodBath wrote:

Companies won't develop games that can make use of the capabilities because only a tiny percentage of people will have 2 high end cards in sli.

The difference with the consoles is the standard spec that everyone has so they will push it as far as they can.

Right time for my 2 cents

OP if you dont like the extra features, dot use them. I for one will use the DVD/Blu-Ray player capabilities in hte PS3, just like the ps2 will be the dvd player in my gaf next year.

Also bloodbath, take a look at the MINIMUM specs for F.E.A.R. (admitidly beta)

Windows ® 2000/XP with latest service pack installed
DirectX(tm) 9.0c
Pentium ® 4 1.7 Ghz or equivalent
1GB RAM
128 MB DirectX ® 9.0 Compliant Video Card with hardware T&L and pixel shader support*
3.0 GB free Hard Drive Space for installation

ehh 1GB of RAM MINIMUM, thats insane.

I think this is the reason less people are playing PC games.

Sure it looks amazing, but then so does GT4 running (at 50/60fps) on a 300mhz, 32mb ram and 4 mb video ram (ps2 specs)

DrNuyenVanFaulk

Steven wrote:

All of those extra features that you seem so adverse to are software or are tiny alterations to the hardware production (like the exchangeable face plate).

I'm not talking about cost - I'm talking about their lack of dedication to games. Its their methodology I dislike. Look at Nintendo, everything they do for their consoles is purely for the benefit of the games. I have the strong feeling the Capcom brought two of their biggest, baddest games (Viewtiful Jow and Resident Evil 4) to thhe GC, not just because they could risk experimenting a a machine with a small user-base, but because they, and I'm semi-quoting them on this, believe that Nintendo still have the largest amount of innovation when it games to games and they enjoy developing for Nintendo.

So when Sony and Microsoft are developing their consoles, while adding changeable fronts/MP3 players etc might be small changes, it shows that their minds are somewhere else. As I said last post, Sony ARE trying to make a home super computer, like a PC, something that can do everything for a household. They are not focusing purely on games - and that's my problem - because the end result is going to be 1000's more **** games that flood the market. AND It'll cost a fortune.

Steven wrote:

They're the largest software company in the world. I doubt too many development hours were lost in creating changeable fonts.

As I said above, it shows that their hearts and minds are not on making games, rather, they are not as fully comittted as Nintendo.


[/QUOTE=Steven]If you want standardisation of platforms then you're going to get less innovation in hardware development. Who knows, the cell could change the way console processors are built forever?* That aside, what are the chances that you could get 3 industry giants to agree to one machine :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

I believe the Cell processor WILL change the way consoles are made and games are played. But I have to argue - the PS3 tech demo of the dude witht the gloves, pouring the water from one cup to another.... is it going to be fun? In a game? As much as I loved Half Life 2, I mean, I really loved it, playing it again doesn't do much for me. The ragdoll physics is nice to look at, I guess. But other parts, like throwing bricks onto the see-saw.... is that fun? We can say, "Wow, just like real life!"... but it's not fun second time around.

Now take Res 4 - someone in EDGE magazine was arguing about the unrealistic aspects of the game. I don't care!! I have played the games three times over without stopping, and played all the extras - it IS the most FUN game I have played since Goldeneye.

So, the Cell processor - yes, it WILL give developers a lot more freedom to do things, but methinks developers (most of them) will spend a lot of time programming complex physics routines, and forget to focus on the fun-elements. Likewise, they may rely on the gimmicky extras provided by the hardware.
And to further my arguement about standardisation of platforms - I believe that three consoles is pushing the market too fast, with too much competition, and not enough fun.

Ciaran500

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

So when Sony and Microsoft are developing their consoles, while adding changeable fronts/MP3 players etc might be small changes, it shows that their minds are somewhere else. As I said last post, Sony ARE trying to make a home super computer, like a PC, something that can do everything for a household. They are not focusing purely on games - and that's my problem - because the end result is going to be 1000's more **** games that flood the market. AND It'll cost a fortune.

Sony don't make most of the games for their console, you can't blame Sony and the extra features they put into their consoles for the ****e software that flooded this gen and will flood next gen.

EDIT: The cell will not revolutionise the way games are played, just like the PS2 didn't. Its just the next progression with more power and more features.

Citizen_Erased

But , on the previous point , how do you exactly define a gimmick?
The touch screen on the DS seems like a gimmick but on inspection is incredibly fun and useful.
The analog stick on the n64 was origionally consudered "Just a gimmick" . Look now... You may be able to look ahead say that but really you can't accurately tell wether it will be useful. Even if it is , it may still be a gimmick...

steviec

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

So when Sony and Microsoft are developing their consoles, while adding changeable fronts/MP3 players etc might be small changes, it shows that their minds are somewhere else. As I said last post, Sony ARE trying to make a home super computer, like a PC, something that can do everything for a household. They are not focusing purely on games - and that's my problem - because the end result is going to be 1000's more **** games that flood the market. AND It'll cost a fortune.

Neither Sony or Microsoft are games companies first and foremost. They're playing to their strengths, Sony have always made cutting edge gadgets and Microsoft are focussing on their online strengths. I see this as a good thing. They're leaving the games to the people that make great games. They build a great machine and then 3rd party developers are let loose on it. I don't see anything wrong with that. It gives each console something unique and if you can do things other than gaming on it then surely that's a bonus. About your earlier PSP comments, how does playing mp3s hurt the games? In fact it helps some games because there are plans for some titles to allow for customisable sound tracks using your memory stick just like the X-Box does. And it also means that when I want to listen to music, I can listen to music. If that feature wasn't there I don't see how that would be an improvement.

Nintendo need to focus on the games because its all they're good at. And by creating consoles that are designed for Nintendo games they've done a lot to alienate 3rd parties over the last two generations and they really need to ensure Nintendo are making good games because they've little else to fall back on. There's enough demand and different tastes out there to support all three consoles though, especially as they all target different things, so I wouldn't worry too much.

DrNuyenVanFaulk

steviec wrote:

Neither Sony or Microsoft are games companies first and foremost. They're playing to their strengths...

Very good point.... I think that's my problem with them!


Woah woah woah!! Analogue stick on N64 being a gimmick!?!? That stick made 3D games properly playable on consoles. It was a revolution, and Miyamoto new it when he invented it. NOT a gimmick.

We might not have a solid definition of a gimmick, but I could safely say that changeable fronts would be. I may even go so far as to say built-in physics routines could be.

DrNuyenVanFaulk

Yeah, I've been thinking about the whole thing. I guess, if I were to get my own pad, hopefully in the next three years, it would be an alright games machine and perfect for home cinema (blue ray and 1080p res). I think I have to admit that the idea of a pure games machine only is in the past.

I'm still going to have to buy a Revolution to play Zelda. Maybe I should be griping about Nintendo not going software only on Sony and Microsoft... =/

Citizen_Erased

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

Woah woah woah!! Analogue stick on N64 being a gimmick!?!?

I didnt say it was a gimmick ,I was trying to make the point that it was thought to be just a gimmick before they released the console and before people actually got to use it.

ps probably buy a revolution for Zelda too.

DrNuyenVanFaulk

Citizen_Erased wrote:

I didnt say it was a gimmick ,I was trying to make the point that it was thought to be just a gimmick before they released the console and before people actually got to use it.

Yeah, sorry, good point.

But for me, the PSP is just a slightly less powerful PS2... very unattractive. At least the DS, with its paltry PS1 graphics, has the touch screen, and you're right, it is a lot of fun.

Gizzard

Citizen_Erased wrote:

I know we are drifting terribly far from topic and we should stop soon but , the ps2 imo reached its peak a few years ago and all games have just come along on a level plateau and thge occasional game has dropped below it. Seriously though , I have not bought a ps2 game in ages because it is now just a sea of mediocre deja vous .

I would not call God of War mediocre, Lego starwars is fun too, GTA SA?, Psychonauts, there are some great new PS2 games, I think your being a bit hard on the old PS2

Citizen_Erased

GTA SA is exactly my point. It is in the opinions of quite a large number of people , myself included , to be one of the worst games in the series. It was less advanced in every way than vice city and is just the perfect example for my point.

steviec

Citizen_Erased wrote:

GTA SA is exactly my point. It is in the opinions of quite a large number of people , myself included , to be one of the worst games in the series. It was less advanced in every way than vice city and is just the perfect example for my point.

I thought it was brilliant. So did most of my friends.

Because they couldn't just go and give it better graphics because the console was old, they went and expanded the game in so many other ways, did great things with the story and mission designs and added lots of new types of gameplay and new features and expanded the game in every other way possible.

Now of course the PC is the definitive version, with all those features AND quality graphics(so I hear anyway haven't got it yet but I plan to). But if it was just a PC game to begin with I don't think they'd have gone to all the trouble they did to get it to where it is.

That's my opinion anyway. Loved GTA3. Thought Vice City was great but didn't add all that much, never actually completed it. SA was by far the best for me though.

Citizen_Erased

Yes they may have expanded it but they rushed it and made a complete hash of most of it.
The biggest thing of all is the size of the map. Sure its huge but it nothing but huge open landscapes with very little in between. What I mean was in previous games , you'd arrive at a cool destination that was hard to get too and you knew you'd be rewarded with something cool eg car or gun. In SA there are so many times I have gotten to cool places and just found blank nothingness. The maps are about as interestingb as those in driver.
Pimping cars - what a diaster , the focus on roughly 12 cars and said sod it to the 120 odd other ones. It's pathetic.
Two player , terrible ,l why cant you get into garages or tune shops , give one good reason why. Can't use a camera to take cool pics of each other and stuff. The learjet only hold one person??? THe cargo plane only holds one person???
Two cars at once , sure there could be problems because its not splitt screen. I know thats because the computer couldnt handle rendering the game twice but at leats the bloodring circuit or something.
Graphics , same console but somehow not as nice as Vice City???Wtf , no reason for that at all apart from no room or laziness.
Sound quality was slashed too..
The mission were dreadful. Not a single one of the was challenging provuded you know the difference between a challenge and just through 20 enemies at once. Most of them are unnecessarily drawn out.
Stiry line , come back to town for you mothers funeral , end up killimg two of your brothers.
Huge map , bigger than ever , but strangely , fewer assets ans fewer sub missions involved in them.Now that dosent make sense. Sure there are lots of houses but all you are really buying is the garage and the front door (and even most of them are the same) because apart from that the interiors are nearly all the same.
And spraying tags , you spray 100 you get 4 weapons at one of your hideouts. Same goes for the other thing s to which is utterly useless.

DrNuyenVanFaulk

Personnaly I found GTA SA to be a week-long-wonder. Now, I know a lot of you love it to bits, and I know people who think it has brought gaming to a whole new level - but falling off a cliff and having to swim for twenty minutes just isn't fun.

Yeah, it's an incredible idea for a game, and much of it is pulled off very well. But I got bored kinda quickly with it.

And what's with all the jazz-talk about Halo!?!? Man, I bought it a while ago and it was so boring!! I'm a Marathon fan from bungie's ealy days,a nd Halo didn't do anything cool that Marathon didn't do. Man, I still reckon Goldeneye is the best console FPS, and serious contendor for best FPS ever.

On gamespy, some reviewer actually says "...So the later levels get very repetetive, but who cares!" Jesus... he should be fired.

steviec

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

falling off a cliff and having to swim for twenty minutes just isn't fun.

I agree with that totally but it's the only flaw I'd really agree with. The others mentioned didn't make sense. VC is better because SA's 2-player mode isn't great? Compared to what, VC's 2 player mode? I never noticed the sound being worse, I thought the radio stations, acting and storylines were the best of the series by far. Again, pimping is a tiny little bonus feature and you can't say the game isn't as good as VC because you can only do it on a few cars, while VC lets you do it on no cars! Graphically the games not great yea, but so what? The variety of missions, locations, vehicles and gameplay is far greater than VC and I'll take that over slightly better graphics any day.

Actually seems the anti-SA points have a lot in common with the anti-convergence vibe in general. I don't want my games to have extra features. Even if the core game is fantastic it will suddenly become crap by allowing you to pimp some cars as a completely optional bonus!

Citizen_Erased

As I said before the storyline has lost it foot in reality. A gang mobster - defeats the army single handedly and robs area 51, flys fighter jets etc All the other story lines were realistic nd thats what made them fun.
I wasn't saying that Vc's 2 player was better than SA's (unless you happen have a pc in which case it is) but it was just part of the huge point of how the game was complataly rushed and very little thought was put into any aspect of it.
The radio is not funny fr a start , neither is anything else eg what the helicopter dudes say.

"Hey , If I shot him do I get a medal?" - "You get two"

Yeah that was really funny , my side was splittin :rolleyes:
It just sounds as though it trying to be funny every second of the way. Comparing Vc radio to Sa's is like comparing Fawlty towers to most newer comedy show. Newer comedy show just have a string mediocre jokes throughout the show , but fawlty towers took it's time and set each one up perfectly and blew you away each time, it was brilliant.
Do you like it because of the songs , oh its Rage against machine oooo, it must be the best radio ever ooo...

Missions - Which is better , and endless dribble of meaningless , repetative , unchalleging missions (SA) or less mission that are well thought out , challenging and have a proper goal(VC) I dont think its any competition.

steviec

I'd rather sacrifice a little realism in one or two of the missions for the completely new gameplay mechanics the jetpack and fighter jets offered to be honest. GTA has always been completely over the top anyway so I don't see how they don't fit in. And in mentioning the jetpack and jet fighter you've pointed out 2(of many) missions in SA that aren't meaningless and repetitive.

Citizen_Erased

You found the jet pack useful? It takes about 5 min to get it to civiliasation to start with and then what - there another thing why cant you use handguns out the windows of cars or AK's? and why in 2 player cant player 2 use whatever weapon he wants?
Back to the jatpack , you've spent 5 min getting it to civilisation (unless you cheated , in which case stop arguing , your not a real gamer) what do you do? Oh that looks like a cool building, up I go. Oh this is a nice blank roof top. Lets go down again , whoooo. :rolleyes:

steviec

Its not particularly far from civilization, and its located at the airstrip you often come back to. I found it fun to play around with and go killing things with, the mission involving it and the train was also a lot of fun. Its all about freedom. IF you want to use it you can play with it and have fun with it, and IF you dont then it doesn't magically make the rest of the game worse. Just like many many many other features in SA. If you got rid of them all it'd still be as good as Vice City but with the freedom of choice in there it adds an extra dimension.

Citizen_Erased

Didn't you (or was it someone else) just describe them as opptional extras that arent there to enhance gameplay?

Yeah but if they took out the jetpack engine , the could use the space freed up to make a decebt two player engine.