Printable View
This game got a lot of praise last year.I am trying to play it, but the game just isn't that good.The biggest problem I have is the controls, they just don't have enough options, I really want to like the game it feels like a chore.Anybody else have a less than favorable experience with this game?
playing it on the 360 I hope... poor PS3 really got the short end of the stick on that port for some reason (graphically that is)... and it's weird considering GTA IV came out so well on the PS3..
yeah the 360, I wanted to wait for the PC, but ....
Interesting... is it being ported to PC??Quote:
Originally Posted by kokujin
They were planning to, but I am not sure anymore.If they are,they're taking their sweet time.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchool
I haven't played this yet. I know a few people that say the same thing about it, so I haven't taken the time to give it a try. It did receive a shit load of positive reviews though, so it couldn't be that bad.
The first game, Red Dead Revolver, was one of my favorite ps2 games though.
I like it. The controls aren't perfect, but they are no worse than any of the GTA games. It's fun being able to roam around in the old west. They did a nice job with the environments and whatnot.
Chris
As much as I like it, I don't get why it's praised so much. It's just GTA4 dumbed way down. Riding horses isn't as fun as driving cars, there are limited weapon supplies by comparison, you're discouraged from committing crimes, most areas are deserted wastelands instead of bustling, detailed cities, and the only thing it's got that GTA doesn't is the stranger feature. It also pisses me off that the targeting reticle is a three pixel wide white dot that camouflages on anything so you can't see where you're aiming. They did a good job with what they were trying to do, but in comparison to Rockstar's other series, it just doesn't cut it.
This kind of how I feel.Rockstar's losing their touch I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Why-Disciple
Maybe it's because I've never played GTA4 (or 3, 2, 1, or San Andreas), but I absolutely loved this game. I never got into the free roaming of the game since I just played the storyline and was done with it, but I loved every minute of the story. I have a feeling the faults of the game are shown in the free roaming. Also, I didn't think the controls were too terribly bad, but the dead eye thing made combat too easy, I think. In Undead Nightmare, though, it would be near impossible without dead eye.
Wow, do yourself and play GTA 2,3,Vice City, and then San Andreas in that order.You can see the progression of the series, and how they've gotten better with each iteration.You can skip 4, that game was garbage, it's only worth getting for the PC.Quote:
Originally Posted by NavesRegge
I was going to get GTA2 one day for PS1 (or was it Dreamcast?), but decided not to because I wanted to have enough money to buy Symphony of the Night. I don't have much money now because I recently bought Undead Nightmare, MGS4, and Uncharted 2. Next time I squander up enough money, I'll have to get them.Quote:
Originally Posted by kokujin
Man you should try those out, especially San Andreas. That was an incredible gameQuote:
Originally Posted by NavesRegge
Most definitely the high point of the series.Quote:
Originally Posted by snotmaw
San Andreas is the Sonic CD of the GTA series.
I say this because although you two prefer SA, me and my best friend would prefer Vice City. I didn't beat San Andreas, but then again, I didn't beat 3 either. I liked the RPG style character building but I guess it either was too ghetto for me, or the game was too huge.
San Andreas is huge, like almost WoW huge. I preferred Vice City better because of the Miami atmosphere (I live in FL), and I thought the characters were more memorable, particularly Ricardo Diaz.
Sidenote: GTAIV is not that bad, but still inferior. Graphically it is better, but that's expected.