Slashdot Mirror
The Making of Grand Theft Auto
Edge Online has another fantastic feature, discussing the creation process behind GTA. From the article: "One of the defining moments of the series happened in early 1996, not long after Baird joined the team. 'At that time, we were still a series of small missions,' he says. "We had a long, long brainstorming session where we picked up on an idea for one long level containing multiple missions proposed by one of the level designers, Paul Farley. We took this and expanded it into the open-ended structure that the game shipped with. This meant a big expansion of the scripting and improvements to game systems — they had to handle the game running over multiple missions instead of the short structure.'"
Though I'm a raving GTA fan boy, I don't consider this sacrilege. You bring up good points. One thing I'd mention, though, is that it's fairly clear that you played this on the PS2 and not the PC. I played GTA3 and Vice City on the PC. Though the driving suffered a little, it made the targetting problem a LOT better. When I played San Andreas, well it was on the PS2, and frankly this change in perspective illuminated your points quite clearly. I don't think any GTA fan out there who's being honest with himself could tell you that those problems don't exist. As a matter of fact, San Andreas is the EXACT reason I will not be getting a PS3. I do NOT want to go through this control-hell again. I cannot BELIEVE that they did the exact same controller again. It's not right.
"I've posed this before. What's the response I usually get? "Try the games on the PC!". So the solution to bad controls on a console is a port that they made later? If they can't get it right on a console (where I can at least rent it) then why should I shell out money for the PC version?"
Err.. I'm sorry... I wrote the previous paragraph before reading this line. I was heading towards 'try it on the PC!' Well, should you? I cannot promise you that you'd love these games anywhere near as much as I did. I really don't know anything about your tastes other than you liked Zelda. I can sympathize, there. I can tell you that the targeting problem is a LOT better on the PC versions. Perfect? No. You're not going to get Zelda's top-notch control here. But it's still good, and yes, the games are rewarding. The mouse is FAR better for taking shots with. I would suggest that if you can find Vice City for $15, it'd be a good gamble for you. (Though GTA 3 was good, Vice City was considerably better, and that one may actually convince you to give SA a try. I don't imagine you taking the leap from GTA3 to SA...) If you balk at paying $15 (I don't even know if you can find it that cheap... but it's the amount I'd pay to try something recommended.) then let it go. S'alright, man. Even though I think these games are great, I get the impression from your post you did give them a serious try. GTA did earn its spot in gaming history, even before the Hot Coffee pitchfork party.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Memory constraints...heard of them?
/keyboard/? In that day and age, when the first GTA came out, keyboard was de rigeur. You wanted to drive with the mouse instead? You're crazy....driving with a mouse must have been possibly the worst control mechanism you could come up with for a top-down driving game.
Not only that, but you got frustrated using the
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
I really enjoyed the way there were a bunch of mini missions within the whole thing. I t made me wanna go back and play some that I missed not knowing in the first levels, but it reall made a huge difference when I had trouble with a couple of the missions, I wasn't STUCK. I twas nice to be able to continue enjoying the game play when finding a portion beyond my capability.
True of GTA 1 & 2, possibly true of GTA 3+ on the PS2. Certainly not true on the PC. One of the most annoying aspects of playing GTA 3 / VC / SA on the PC is that you can turn 360 degrees and everything behind you - vehicles, pedestrians etc. has respawned as something else. The only things that pass the rotate test are stolen / wrecked cars, enemies & bodies, but they too have some low timeout. If your typical MMPORG (e.g. WoW) can have literally hundreds of player chars, all individual and replete in their own kit on screen at once, then I don't see a technical constraint with GTA being able to track a couple of hundred peds and cars in your immediate vicinity.
The reason that it exists I feel has more to do with GTA being a port. But if they can revamp the graphics and controller, then why not the game engine? Here's hoping the next gen game is attempts to resolve these issues. The driving aspect is actually very good, but the environment is too static and predictable. It needs smarter peds, less obvious spawning, proper indoor areas, destructable landscapes and long term memory of the mayhem you've caused.
Ok tell me the truth, did you play GTA when it first came out or AFTER GTA3 made the series popular.
Obviously going backwards is an experience in low tech, but the original GTA was amazing for its day and time. Give credit where credits due.