Forum:One thing I've noticed...(Graphics)

From Grand Theft Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums GTA One thing I've noticed...(Graphics)

First off, I will begin by saying this is not a fanboy post. I like both Vice City and San Andreas, but have never played GTA III.

One thing I've noticed in the GTA III era, is textures and shadowing. Judging off of pictures, Vice City was an updated III but with more age to the cars or so to speak. However, San Andreas took a complete and drastic turn and basically ruined a realistic feel to the game. I look at pictures of Vice City and think "Wow, there's actually dirt and shading on the side of the vehicles!" but when I look at San Andreas, the cars look like plastic toys with no sense of realism. GTA III had some really good textures, and Vice City expanded on that. I wish that San Andreas had kept Vice City type textures, like somewhat dirty sides, shading in between parts...Take the BF Injection for example. Look at the gallery. GTA III looked cool, but had some pretty cheesy reflections. Vice City looks just about perfect, and then San Andreas is flat. When I look at Vice City, I see depth and realism. When I see San Andreas, I see nothing but flat paint that looks like it was made in a hurry. And don't even get me started on Shadows! San Andreas lacks good shadow effects, while Vice City had some prettt neat shadows.

All I'm saying here people is that Vice City had some of the best texture jobs you'll ever see. San Andreas is pretty cheap when it comes to textures, but please don't judge me on that. I just wish we could have Vice City type graphics with a San Andreas type of storyline. Hell, I wish there was some things Vice City had that San Andreas didn't. Oh well, one can only wish...


Wishes can come true on the PC version. I also liked Vice City's car textures more than San Andreas's. The main reasons why Rockstar changed the style were the addition of the ability to wash off the dirt and the game was very intense on the PS2. Rockstar can use less textures to free up memory to spawn more cars and the environment. When Rockstar made SA, they chose to focus on adding features rather than polishing the game. Compared to VC, there are lots of useless junk that are not used in SA. VC looks really good for a game produced in a year.--spaceeinstein 08:57, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, VC was definitely a good game produced in a year. No doubt about it. San Andreas would be 100X better if they had some sort of depth, realism, I don't know what to call it...San Andreas had a LOT of potential, definitely. -CarLuver69 09:42, August 15, 2010 (UTC)