Talk:Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:"i understand that psp cant withstand the memory" - End of conversation? But seriously, saying any GTA game released after SA is a step backward is a perspective thing, but a perspective that somehow a lot of people like you are vocal about it. Do you ever think that SA may be a step backwards for GTA, too? <!--SA did not include so many features from past GTA games and added those that hinders gameplay. SA does not have vehicle-mounted weapons from GTA 2, does not have vehicle-based weapons like oil slicks from GTA 2, does not have weapons like M-16 from III or Screwdriver from VC, does not have any missions that involves car bombs that III has, can only purchase one asset unlike VC where you can purchase multiple, inability to see outside from inside an interior unlike VC, horribly low draw distance compared to any other over-the-shoulder GTA games, etc. etc. etc. LCS made huge steps forward for the GTA series, most notably by being the first over-the-shoulder GTA game on a portable and the first to have a full fledged multiplayer, and the first to use dynamic reflections on cars. The list I have created, biased against SA instead of bias for SA like what you have typed, any reasonable person can see that SA is not the ultimate GTA game. I can apply this to ALL GTA games and anyone should see that no GTA game is better than the other one in terms of features. The next GTA games are never built entirely on top of the previous and so do not ever have every feature from the previous games.-->--'''[[User:Spaceeinstein|spaceeinstein]]''' 20:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC) | :"i understand that psp cant withstand the memory" - End of conversation? But seriously, saying any GTA game released after SA is a step backward is a perspective thing, but a perspective that somehow a lot of people like you are vocal about it. Do you ever think that SA may be a step backwards for GTA, too? <!--SA did not include so many features from past GTA games and added those that hinders gameplay. SA does not have vehicle-mounted weapons from GTA 2, does not have vehicle-based weapons like oil slicks from GTA 2, does not have weapons like M-16 from III or Screwdriver from VC, does not have any missions that involves car bombs that III has, can only purchase one asset unlike VC where you can purchase multiple, inability to see outside from inside an interior unlike VC, horribly low draw distance compared to any other over-the-shoulder GTA games, etc. etc. etc. LCS made huge steps forward for the GTA series, most notably by being the first over-the-shoulder GTA game on a portable and the first to have a full fledged multiplayer, and the first to use dynamic reflections on cars. The list I have created, biased against SA instead of bias for SA like what you have typed, any reasonable person can see that SA is not the ultimate GTA game. I can apply this to ALL GTA games and anyone should see that no GTA game is better than the other one in terms of features. The next GTA games are never built entirely on top of the previous and so do not ever have every feature from the previous games.-->--'''[[User:Spaceeinstein|spaceeinstein]]''' 20:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
Can you please explain this sentence "but a perspective that somehow a lot of people like you are vocal about it." i dont really get it.[[User:Nameless assasin|Nameless assasin]] ([[User talk:Nameless assasin|talk]]) 13:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:SA sold a lot of copies, so naturally there is a large fanbase for SA. So when R* makes a new GTA game that doesn't have everything SA offered, naturally you get a lot of people complaining about that, ignoring the fact that R* never build their games on top of their previous ones. I'm not sure why people like to think so one-sided but apparently a lot of people do, so on the forums I keep seeing people deriding later GTA games for missing some features from SA, listing everything that's apparently missing, but ignore everything else these games introduced that made these later games just as good or even better than SA. How can the number of interiors or features be so much more important that the city, setting, or missions themselves?--'''[[User:Spaceeinstein|spaceeinstein]]''' 21:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:10, 26 January 2012
why did gta got so cool to so boring?
I always wanted to get this of my chest i dont really get it san andreas was better then gta lcs in gta sa they allowed people to enter buildings,clothing stores and food stores,and now gtalcs took that all away what were they trying achieve i understand that psp cant withstand the memory but ps2 can withstand the memory i seriously want to know why?
- "i understand that psp cant withstand the memory" - End of conversation? But seriously, saying any GTA game released after SA is a step backward is a perspective thing, but a perspective that somehow a lot of people like you are vocal about it. Do you ever think that SA may be a step backwards for GTA, too? --spaceeinstein 20:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you please explain this sentence "but a perspective that somehow a lot of people like you are vocal about it." i dont really get it.Nameless assasin (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- SA sold a lot of copies, so naturally there is a large fanbase for SA. So when R* makes a new GTA game that doesn't have everything SA offered, naturally you get a lot of people complaining about that, ignoring the fact that R* never build their games on top of their previous ones. I'm not sure why people like to think so one-sided but apparently a lot of people do, so on the forums I keep seeing people deriding later GTA games for missing some features from SA, listing everything that's apparently missing, but ignore everything else these games introduced that made these later games just as good or even better than SA. How can the number of interiors or features be so much more important that the city, setting, or missions themselves?--spaceeinstein 21:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)