Talk:Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories: Difference between revisions

 
Line 5: Line 5:


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)
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)