Slashdot Mirror
Rockstar Announces GTA San Andreas
Tickenest writes "According to a Yahoo-reprinted press-release, Rockstar Games has officially announced Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, the latest in the GTA series. The press release continues: 'Developed by world-class designers Rockstar North, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas will be available exclusively for the PlayStation(R)2 computer entertainment system and is expected to be in stores in North America on October 19, 2004 and in Europe on October 22, 2004.'" This confirms earlier rumors of (initial?) PS2 exclusivity and possible name for this much-awaited game.
I think we'd be lucky if it was the GTA engine with minimal improvements in a new locale :) we'd be guaranteed a great game.
1. Umm, swimming, a little bit, please?
2. More indoor environments.
3. More flying (helicopters were hands down the best improvement to the vehicles in GTA: VC).
4. The property buying in GTA:VC was a good first step, but it can be expanded so much further.
5. NPC drivers, accomplices, bodyguards for hire, etc, etc.
And while I know everybody is clamoring for better graphics, am I the only one that thinks the current engine from GTA:VC got the job done? I'll take gameplay over graphics any day.
ce n'est pas un Sig.
I have to say, the 80's setting + the real music (which was the only way to make the setting convincing) in Vice City is what made the game for me. The press like to look at GTA as a stupid, ultra-violent shooter - but it's one of the most well put together and balanced game I've played. The production standards at Rockstar are through the roof.
My religion forbids the use of sigs.
It will probably be as exclusive as the last games... meaning they aren't ready to release the PC version yet, but maybe next year...
Weren't GTA3 and VC big sellers on the PC? Until the consoles get some equilavent of "mouselook", I have zero interest in playing games like GTA on a console.
"The same GTA engine [...] with a new locale" isn't necessarily a bad thing. Both the games based on the GTA 3 engine have been very playable.
If they have got a game engine that does what they need, there is no need to re-write it for every version. Not many film reviews say "same old camera, different plot".
I was going to suggest that maybe game engines have evolved to the point where most of the effort of making a game can go into the content rather than the technology. Then I thought about all the LucasArts games based on similar SCUMM engines.
Perhaps the rule of thumb is that games need to have a certain amount of "newness" but it doesn't really matter if it comes from the technology or the content.
Uh, people loved both GTA 3 and GTA: Vice City because there were constant improvements. Each had its own story, its own gameplay enhancements and above all, both were fun.
In fact, many many video game sequels are of superior quality to the original, and hence they sell very well.
Call it beating a dead horse if you like, but if horse beating is what people want, you'd be crazy not to do it, marketing or no.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
My buddy has a 3 year old. During the time his wife was away, my buddy would play GTA: Vice City, and his son would watch. The son thought it was cool when daddy "beat the shit" of of other guys with the bats. Well, Mom came home to see her son, and saw her son going to town on his favourite teddy bear with a kid-sized hockey stick. He said to his mom that it was because daddy did this "on tv". (And yes, the son would say daddy "beat the shit" out of somebody on tv.)
Whether you decide to play these games is up to you, but I believe we do have to be careful with our kids. We need to make them understand the difference between reality and fantasy, and if they can't tell the difference right now, then that's a lesson for later.
I believe it's called parenting.
I find the most fun way to do this mission is to fight my way to the trash truck and then the goons in the comets just bounce off you. much more satisfying than the helo method (unless you use the apache, but that is another post)
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
i prefer the word exclusive to mean "the console develop paid us money to make our game only work on their system for some period of time X"
otherwise you are right. the only truely exclusives are from the console devs themselves.
Ex.
Halo on Xbox
Mario on GC
EverQuest??? on PS2
does Sony even have an exclusive title for PS2?
I'll preface by saying I don't want to start a flame war between hardcore X-Box fans, PC gamers, and the Sony elite.
:)
:)
That said, before saying how limiting the PS2 hardware is, you should read up on how the PS2 hardware design is supposed to be used. The emotion engine opens up some insane possibilities...the problem is with developers and not with the hardware. Look at games like Gran Turismo. Disgustingly beautiful, disgustingly smooth. The X-Box can't touch that, even if MS has guides to programming for it. The problem is that the technology is too complicated for most American (and in many cases European) developers to truly comprehend and utilize without trying to hack together.
Couple that with the extra dev time Rockstar had between the PS2 and X-Box versions of the game...your argument there is weak, at best. Just because the same software seems different on two different platforms doesn't mean that software was developed for both on the same schedule or with the same resources. I think it's fair to say Rockstar had a lot of feedback, research time, and some newly-grown muscles when porting their games. I could be wrong, in which case time will tell when GTA: SA comes out. Otherwise your crankiness is unwelcome.
That said, if you don't like a sequel, thank goodness that there are about 50,000 internet review sites, gaming mags, and published reviews of games that hit the streets in advance of a game's release...well, that and the fact that you can rent a game for anywhere from $1-$3 to try it out yourself. In the PC world you can't rent games, which is why the crowd is so unforgiving. When you sink your $50 into a game you just bought because of the pretty box and the reputation (and poorly-set expectations you put on the game's shoulders), you get a little bitter. With console games, the only person to blame for buying a bad game is yourself. This is one of many reasons I try my best to limit my gaming to a console. Not only don't I develop a snappy attitude about my games, but I have an opportunity to sample games I'd normally never look twice at, just because I can spend a few dollars testing it out, then buy it cheap in a few months when the marketing craze for it is over.
"Vice City was a huge disappointment."
How's that?. It had better graphics than the first one and even ran better on the same hardware. How many games can claim that in the PC world? The city was bigger and you got to do things like fly helicopters. Really it was an improvement in many ways but didn't ruin the basic game formula. Sure maybe you wanted multiplayer and custom maps etc, but as far as sequels goes this one was a nice extension of an already great game. I don't know how interesting it will be if they just move it to a new city but Vice City should stand as a solid improvement for those who are fans of the genre.
"That would never happen in the PC world. If you produce a shit sequel, you are done."
Vice City was available on the PC. If if really did suck shouldn't this be the end of GTA?
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Is that when I was 3 me and my older brother made these little cardboard cut-out replicas with gold and silver marker of all the items in the original Legend of Zelda.
The fighting part was no different ^.^
Have you ever heard of Halflife?
Blue Shift?
Opposing Force?
Team Fortress Classic?
Counter Strike?
Day of Defeat?
This is called a successful business model, and personally if the engine isn't broken, why fix it?
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
If you replace GTA 3 with [insert EA Sports Title here] you can see that recycling the same engine, gameplay, art, etc is not an uncommon procedure.
My patience is infinite, my time is not.
I agree that it's frustrating, but I can't agree with your solution.
Part of the reason for keeping parts of the city locked are to keep you from accessing certain vehicles during the early missions. If you could get your hands on a tank at the beginning of the game, where's the challenge?
Besides, as soon as you make it a time-lock feature, every gamer will just get into the habit of starting a new game at bed-time, letting it run while they sleep, and save once they wake up. Absolutely nothing bad happens to you when you're just standing around (a few places you might get mugged or something, but there's always some remote place you can get to).
I think they're not looking for the relatively small number of hardcore high-spending gamers. They're looking for the much larger (and still growing) number of casual gamers. GTA is one of those games you can play for a short or a long time.
I don't know what they gain by being platform-exclusive though. At least make it for more than one console. Those are fixed hardware configurations. It does seem like they'd lose out.
Ravi
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
That's kinda the point. Driver's realistic, almost, GTA gives you 0-130 in 6 seconds on wet sand.
1) The ability to turn around on the spot without all the cars disappearing;
2) Some semblance of draw distance so that if you're standing on top of a building there are actually cars and people to shoot at?
This is 2004; we have decent hardware now!
No, I think he means that sane people will have more fun playing the game than they might expect out of a sequel which probably will have only incremental improvements to its engine.
Expectations about stupid, homicidal people being stupid and homicidal are already high, regardless of their playing a video game or desire to have a scapegoat for their stupid and homicidal actions. As such, I'm pretty sure he was mentioning just the game aspect.
If not now, when?