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.

Comments

Re:I can't wait for GTA: Boise

[dave420]

You're talking as if GTA4 was a bad game... it's clearly one of their most successful games ever, and the series has one of the largest followings around.

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.

My wishlist for GTA: San Andreas

[newdamage]

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.

Re:No word on the time setting?

[Quill]

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.

Re:I can't wait for GTA: Boise

[zero-one]

"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.

I know it's been said before...

[dark-br]

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.

Re:I can't wait for GTA: Boise

[visgoth]

it was basically exactly like GTA 3 with some bells and whistles. It was fun but nothing as mind blowing as GTA 3 was.

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.