×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GTA San Andreas Goes Swimming, Gangbanging, Smuggling

simoniker posted more than 9 years ago | from the positive-role-models dept.

PlayStation (Games) 81

Thanks to Eurogamer for its article revealing a number of new details on Rockstar's forthcoming Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, as printed in the UK's Official PlayStation 2 magazine. Topics discussed include the 'invention' of swimming ("We just got pissed off with people saying, 'We can't do swimming'... so if you drive off a bridge you're not going to drown"), the advent of gangs ("You can now recruit a gang and take over territories with them, and then lose territories if you don't look after them. So you've got the idea that bits of the map become personalised to you as much as your own character becomes personalised to you"), and the widening out of the game world ("We love, from a technical point of view, the driving in the open spaces on Smuggler's Run. It's awesome. Now you'll be able to do that in GTA, with all of the GTA gameplay.")

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

81 comments

GTA:XXX (5, Funny)

BigDork1001 (683341) | more than 9 years ago | (#9684595)

Now with more gangbang action!

Re:GTA:XXX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9685661)

gangbanging definately has a different meaning where I come from: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gan gbang&r=f . Good luck to Rockstar for getting this past the censors.

Re:GTA:XXX (1)

DjMd (541962) | more than 9 years ago | (#9686359)

Thats what he ment too... he is mixing BMX:XXX (or whatever that stripper BMX game was called) and GTA.

It has to be said... (5, Funny)

netvoid (793226) | more than 9 years ago | (#9684678)

On stupid hair: "If you've got a stupid haircut, people will say, 'You look stupid'."

Something i'm sure the Slashdot crowd is already used to.

Sadly no mention of supported online play. But I suppose it's still early days.

Re:It has to be said... (1)

netvoid (793226) | more than 9 years ago | (#9685373)

What part of above comment was 'offtopic', was it the mention of the word 'slashdot'? I even quoted from the article!

Re:It has to be said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9693297)

i read (can't remember where) that it will not include online support, at least for the ps2 version. :(

Bitch at What Makes You Rich (3, Insightful)

illuminata (668963) | more than 9 years ago | (#9684791)

On characters and satire: "We've developed our characters a bit more and to that extent it's more serious. But it's still very much trying to be funny at all points. The satire... I suppose it's levelled at the broader weirdness of America and American consumerism and American action movies as well."

Oh no, consumerism didn't do an ounce of good for this game. Nor did this game try not to exploit consumerism with it's giant advertising campaigns.

I've noticed this since GTA3, but it still find it funny how they crack jokes at the very culture that makes their games sell in the millions.

Re:Bitch at What Makes You Rich (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9685037)

Very true...

But explain why this is a bad thing?

Re:Bitch at What Makes You Rich (1, Interesting)

illuminata (668963) | more than 9 years ago | (#9685501)

Well, I'm not really angry with them over it, but I do wish that they'd treat consumerism with a bit more respect, seeing how that's what's bringing in the cash. Or, if they wanted to go the other route, they could cut off the ad budget and release the game at an extremely low cost and preach that gospel. But, I highly doubt that would happen for blatantly obvious reasons.

Anyways, talking poorly about the system that keeps their business afloat is fairly hypocritcal. That fact also puts a damper on the jokes. When you're trying to show your personal opinion in a joke, it helps to stay true to that opinion. Otherwise, the joke's message isn't delivered and is less funny as well; as if it should have been told by somebody else.

Re:Bitch at What Makes You Rich (5, Interesting)

Frizzle Fry (149026) | more than 9 years ago | (#9689256)

Or maybe it's just a joke. You're not allowed to notice or point out some of the absurdities in consumerist culture without completely rejecting our culture or fighting against? No one is ever allowed to find humor in himself or something of which he is part? The world would be a much worse place if everyone had to take themselves as seriously as you suggest, being afraid to point out any of the absurdities of their own society lest they be labelled a hypocrite for being part of that society.

Re:Bitch at What Makes You Rich (0)

illuminata (668963) | more than 9 years ago | (#9693686)

Well, if a fat guy went on a tirade about how bad fat people are, that'd be funny because you know he couldn't possibly believe what he says. However, these guys have been making fun of consumerism since 1999. And, by the way that the developer talked about it, it almost seemed as if he didn't believe he was part of the consumerism culture. That's my problem.

Kinda like Michael Moore...

Re:Bitch at What Makes You Rich (0, Offtopic)

illuminata (668963) | more than 9 years ago | (#9693856)

Excuse me, since 1997, according to Moby Games.

Wow, the series is that old...

Re:Bitch at What Makes You Rich (1)

Metapsyborg (754855) | more than 9 years ago | (#9690411)

The only true way to fight against anything is to get your message to the people; if you are so staunch in anti-consumerist ideals that you can't make money, surely the cause will die.

The attitude that illuminata is exhibiting reminds me of the people that would bitch about RATM because they "sold out" by playing concerts and selling CD's. The point is that the GOOD stuff, with an intelligent--or at least thought provoking--message, should reach the largest audience. We do not want a country that does not trade anything, and thereby does not advance at all. We want a country that does not waste money on consumer items, but still is willing to suport that wich makes life richer and more full.

Real punk was destined to die (it did, by the way, in the '80s).

Re:Bitch at What Makes You Rich (0, Offtopic)

illuminata (668963) | more than 9 years ago | (#9693814)

The attitude that illuminata is exhibiting reminds me of the people that would bitch about RATM because they "sold out" by playing concerts and selling CD's. The point is that the GOOD stuff, with an intelligent--or at least thought provoking--message, should reach the largest audience.

The bitching was because they were signed to Epic Records, a big old Sony subsidiary. Hard to say bad things about big business when you're part of it, but that never stopped them. But facts sure do taste better with a bunch of glaze over them don't they? And, just for the record I thought that their message was filled with half-baked hippy bullshit and that their music was terrible. Thanks assholes, you helped give us rap metal.

We do not want a country that does not trade anything, and thereby does not advance at all. We want a country that does not waste money on consumer items, but still is willing to suport that wich makes life richer and more full.

Where did we come in to this? Who's we? Anyways, I have some awesome beads to trade with you, they up your spirits and make you feel whole again just by wearing them. Do you have any authentic hand-weaven rugs to offer? I'd like one with a lot of color in it, that way it'd give off some rad auras when my friends come over and we sit down to form the Circle of Peace.

Re:Bitch at What Makes You Rich (1)

Snowmit (704081) | more than 9 years ago | (#9700432)

Hypocrisy just means that you think that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than you are currently meeting yourself. Why is that such a bad thing?

Re:Bitch at What Makes You Rich (1)

incubusnb (621572) | more than 9 years ago | (#9689547)

if you can't laugh at yourself, you have no sence of humor

Re:Bitch at What Makes You Rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9702835)

If you can't spell, you suck cock.

what's the magic word? (5, Funny)

asveepay (323579) | more than 9 years ago | (#9685019)

If this game doesn't have gourangas, i'm gonna be super pissed.

Re:what's the magic word? (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 9 years ago | (#9685772)

Article states they had to put in on a dual-layer DVD to fit all the content. So you can be it has gourangas.

Oh, the possibilities... (5, Interesting)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 9 years ago | (#9685158)

I'm still waiting for them to implement an XBTF-style fully functional economy into the game and maybe add permanent consequences (i.e. if you die or get arrested you have to load your last save). Basically I'd like to see an Elite-style game but on earth, with cars, cities, etc. But then turning GTA from a crime simulator (well, as far as you can call a game where death isn't permanent a simulator...) into a "simulation" game would probably drive the core audience away.

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 9 years ago | (#9685711)

I thought GTA3 did return you to the garage where you last saved when you died.
Anyways how is loading your last save a "permanent consequence."

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (1)

mahdi13 (660205) | more than 9 years ago | (#9686469)

Anyways how is loading your last save a "permanent consequence."
You lose all your progress since the last save. Ever play a game for 2 hours, not saving and then die and have to go back to that last save spot? It sucks, makes dieing in the game more troublesome then 'respawning'.

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9686623)

If you want those consequences, feel free to play that way yourself.

The rest of us are just going to chuckle and/or get pissed off when you suggest we should all play in the masochistic manner you prefer.

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (1)

mahdi13 (660205) | more than 9 years ago | (#9687312)

Did I say I enjoy replaying 2 hours over and over and over until I can finally get it right?

This is what I hate about Metroid Prime, not enough save spots!

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (1)

realdpk (116490) | more than 9 years ago | (#9691559)

This is what I dislike about many games out there now. They're built entirely around the idea that you can just restore from your last save and try again. It's annoying having to do things over and over because of one mistake, even if it only takes 2 or 3 minutes.

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#9687156)

"I thought GTA3 did return you to the garage where you last saved when you died."

GTA3 would return you to either the nearest hospital or to to the nearest police station, depending on where you bought it. Whatever mission you were on had to be restarted. Vice City was nice because it'd offer you a taxi ride back to the mission, but I always preferred to just reload. ;)

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (4, Insightful)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 9 years ago | (#9685749)

They designed it so you wouldn't HAVE to load your save game when you died. One of fundamental principles in making a video game is that you want to suck your audience in and not let them go. If you die and you have to reload, that's a perfect time for the player to decide "Well, I just died, time for me to go [do something useful]". That's not what they want. In GTA:III, you came back at the hospital/police station. In GTA:VC you had a taxi waiting to take you to the last mission you were on. It's all very well designed ploys by Rockstar to make sure you never say "This is too time consuming, I'm going to go [do something useful]".

--trb

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (2, Funny)

sindarin2001 (583716) | more than 9 years ago | (#9685859)

It's also useful if you have to try the same mission over and over and over and over...You can just keep playing without begin hindered by menuing system of the game.

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (4, Insightful)

Mechanik (104328) | more than 9 years ago | (#9686154)

They designed it so you wouldn't HAVE to load your save game when you died.

I dunno about the rest of you but regardless of how well done and user friendly the "you just died" functionality was, if I failed a mission, I bloody well loaded up my last save point to maintain my previous stats and inventory. I'm willing to bet just about everyone else did this too.

Hell, I'm the kind of guy that used to hit the reset button back on my 486 DX33 while playing X-Wing because I didn't want my pilot to get captured or killed, and if I hit reboot before it saved the stats to the hard drive, I could just restart the mission.

Face it, these kinds of schemes are just way too easy to circumvent. As long as there are stats or an inventory that count for something, people will "cheat death" in the game.

Mechanik

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (3, Interesting)

kisrael (134664) | more than 9 years ago | (#9686192)

Yeah, the first time through i was pretty quick on the reload sequence...after a while though, once I figured out how to quickly get an arsenal, I would just try to play it straight. GTAs are nice in that your character doesn't powerup (except for the health/armor bonus possibility) and is basically the same at the end as at the begining...you're just a smarter player, and have more knowledge of getting guns, or more money.

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (1)

Frizzle Fry (149026) | more than 9 years ago | (#9689298)

GTAs are nice in that your character doesn't powerup (except for the health/armor bonus possibility) and is basically the same at the end as at the begining

By the end, you've probably also built up his stamina by running a lot.

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (1)

kisrael (134664) | more than 9 years ago | (#9689453)

By the end, you've probably also built up his stamina by running a lot.

Heh...I think you're making a funny (at least I didn't notice any improvement...though it's funny how in VC he can be like the cop robot in Terminator 2 and run down a car...) but I think that kind of exercise-related buildup is how the new GTA is slated to work. At least, if you don't exercise and/or eat crap from the restaurants you get fat. (Heh, food selections from restaurants, wonder if it'll endup being like River City Ransom...)

I'm a little wary of the level of detail they're promising...I don't want too much micromanagement to get in the way of the usual mayhem.

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (1)

Frizzle Fry (149026) | more than 9 years ago | (#9689675)

No, I was serious. At the beginning of the game, if your character runs more than a few feet, he gets tired and out of breath and needs to walk for a while before he can run again. Which is pretty inconvenient during a mission when your car blows up and you are trying to quickly run to grab another car, to evade people on foot, etc. By the time you reach the end of the game, you have built up enough stamina to run much further than you could at the beginning. There's no "stamina" statistic that you can view, but you can go to the stats and see how much running you've done (in feet or miles or something) which will give you a sense of where you are.

I agree that this sort of micromanagement might detract from the game. I would rather just focus on my current mission, rather than having to worry about keeping track of all my gangs, etc. That might lead to lots of tedious maintenance between missions. Also, I'm a little wary of swimming. If missions (or items) are going to require me to swim, that might be annoying. But maybe I'm just biased because I don't like, for example, driving boats on gta or swimming in mario 64, so more swimming seems like it could be a pain.

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (2, Funny)

GTownBeast (720737) | more than 9 years ago | (#9690314)

Fuck building up stamina. Do the ambulance missions and get infinite run.

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (1)

Frizzle Fry (149026) | more than 9 years ago | (#9690393)

Whoah. I didn't know ambulance missions gave you that. Is this true in both gta 3 and vice city? Also (I've wondered this for a while), does success at ambulance, firetruck, etc. missions count towards your percent complete in the stats? I've never actually went for 100%, so I don't know what counts and what doesn't. Thanks.

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9690929)

Screw the ambulance missions for stamina!

You can pretty much run forever from the beginning of the game as long as you don't hold the run button. Instead, just tap it as you go, you'll practically never get tired and you run just as fast to catch up to things or get away. Tap, don't hold.

Nexpert

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (1)

DjMd (541962) | more than 9 years ago | (#9686430)

As long as there are stats or an inventory that count for something, people will "cheat death" in the game.

What do you think of my soultion to the Kobayashi Maru?

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (1)

Impotent_Emperor (681409) | more than 9 years ago | (#9686685)

I just made backups of my pilot file. If my pilot ever died or was captured, I would just replace the file with the backup.

I also had the later compilation version of the X-Wing series that gave a "Top Ace" pilot. I copied that file and (I think) changed the names of the pilots. Then, I used them as my wingmates in the missions. I'm not sure if they actually had the skill of aces or not, but I hope they did, otherwise all that work was for nothing.

No, I play it straight... (1)

mekkab (133181) | more than 9 years ago | (#9688781)

, I bloody well loaded up my last save point to maintain my previous stats and inventory. I'm willing to bet just about everyone else did this too.


Nope. I just run it straight through. That stupid Columbians vs. Hatians mission took me 20 tries. So what if I lost a bit of money or my weapons? Guns are easy to come by, so are vehicles. I'll make the money back. Besides, I wouldn't risk "losing" a secret package/tiki doll!

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (2, Interesting)

Ectospheno (724239) | more than 9 years ago | (#9689842)

I dunno about the rest of you but regardless of how well done and user friendly the "you just died" functionality was, if I failed a mission, I bloody well loaded up my last save point to maintain my previous stats and inventory. I'm willing to bet just about everyone else did this too.

I have to admit that for the first half of my play through Vice City I did exactly that -- reloaded any time I died. The main reason I did this was because it took longer for me to get new weapons than it did to reload.

However, after playing for a while I gradually began to realize that there are weapons and cash everywhere. It was actually more fun to continue playing rather than reload. Sure, I no longer have a zero deaths count, but I don't have to look at a loading screen anymore either.

Later in the game you have so much money that its fairly pointless to reload. Once you have a few million you can just head on over to the store on your way to the mission and buy anything you want.

My favorite way to get money in the game is to stand behind the wall near the sidewalk outside the Northpoint Mall and snipe people until I get six stars and the tanks start rolling. Turns out if you are behind the wall the cops can't hit you and they are too stupid to just walk around the wall. You can snipe the driver of a tank through the very tiny window in front of the tank. Then you walk around the wall, grab a tank, and park it in your garage.

Vigilante missions in a tank = easy money.

Re:Oh, the possibilities... (1)

NaugaHunter (639364) | more than 9 years ago | (#9686729)

maybe add permanent consequences (i.e. if you die or get arrested you have to load your last save).

I would argue that in the early game there are permanent consequences, of a sort. Until you collect a lot of hidden packages, have a lot of money, or learn your way around there is a huge inconvenience of reacquiring your weapons and maybe that hard-to-find fast car. This was lessoned in the late game when you could just whip by a hideout or one of your car suppliers, but by that point the challenge has changed from finding things to mostly doing missions.

Also, there's nothing preventing you from reloading yourself every time you're arrested or killed. I did it all the time early game, just to get around finding weapons or health/shield buffs.

If only it weren't PS2 exclusive (1)

agraupe (769778) | more than 9 years ago | (#9686354)

I've been waiting for this a long time. I would like if it came out for the XBOX so I wouldn't have to relearn the controls on the PS2 (relax, I already have one. I'm not a fanatic). I wonder if there will be another "public radio" station...

Re:If only it weren't PS2 exclusive (1)

Doobian Coedifier (316239) | more than 9 years ago | (#9711928)

http://ps2.gamespy.com/playstation-2/grand-theft-a uto-san-andreas/523232p1.html

From Gamespy:
First revealed in January of this year, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is all set to hit the PS2 in October 19th (potential delays excluded) here in the U.S. and later in 2005 on PC and Xbox.

conspicuously absent (1)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#9686607)

from the article is the multiplayer option... no dice?

Re:conspicuously absent (2, Insightful)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#9687252)

"from the article is the multiplayer option... no dice?"

I don't think the PS2 would be the best system to launch a multiplayer option. That's what PCs are for.

Re:conspicuously absent (1)

Jane_the_Great (778338) | more than 9 years ago | (#9690885)

What now? I don't see your reasoning for believing that the PS2 is not a good system to have a multiplayer option. Let's assume that we're all talking about networked multiplayer [because if we're talking about two people playing the game while sitting next to each other, the PC is the worst option]. While the PS2 hardware is beginning to show its age, most of the PCs out there today still have less powerful hardware than the PS2. If Rockstar wants to spend extra time and cash on adding multiplayer to GTA, it would make the most sense to add it to the version of GTA that is going to sell the most copies - the PC version of GTA is not the one. This is simple ROI here.

Did I miss something? Your argument was rather brief. A statement without any supporting details. Please expand on that.

Re:conspicuously absent (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#9690966)

"Let's assume that we're all talking about networked multiplayer [because if we're talking about two people playing the game while sitting next to each other, the PC is the worst option]. "

Yes I was talking about networked multiplayer, but you are wrong about two people sitting next to each other. Split screen == The suck. Even 1vs1 would be much better on the net.

"While the PS2 hardware is beginning to show its age, most of the PCs out there today still have less powerful hardware than the PS2."

This is ridiculously untrue. Go play Vice City on the PS2, then play it on a year old PC. HUGE difference on multiple levels.

"If Rockstar wants to spend extra time and cash on adding multiplayer to GTA, it would make the most sense to add it to the version of GTA that is going to sell the most copies - the PC version of GTA is not the one. This is simple ROI here."

I agree that the PS2 would draw a bigger audience. However, few PS2 owners are on-line. Rockstar would have to put up a server and demand people pay them for it. Wouldn't work. No way. The ROI is exactly why they WOULDN'T make it work on the PS2. At least with the PC, people will set up their own servers and get it going just like Quake or UR.

"Did I miss something? Your argument was rather brief. A statement without any supporting details. Please expand on that."

I hope I've clarified. There's a reason why the PC is mopping the floor with consoles in the on-line arena.

Re:conspicuously absent (1)

Jane_the_Great (778338) | more than 9 years ago | (#9691238)

"Yes I was talking about networked multiplayer, but you are wrong about two people sitting next to each other. Split screen == The suck. Even 1vs1 would be much better on the net."
Not all multiplayer experiences on the console have to be split screen. I can rattle off quite a few but my point was that I was assuming you were talking about network gaming rather than multiple people in the same room gaming because this very rarely happens with a PC, as compared to the entire history of console gaming. I was merely bringing it up because I wanted to confirm that you were indeed talking about networked gaming.

"This is ridiculously untrue. Go play Vice City on the PS2, then play it on a year old PC. HUGE difference on multiple levels."
Before you use such an obviously loaded phrase like "ridiculously untrue" you might want to understand what the main point was. I was not saying that GTA looks better on a PS2 [I don't know how you could have gotten that out of what I said] but rather, I was saying that, percentage wise, most PCs in operation right now are using outdated hardware. We all know that the manufacturers are handing out great PCs that blow the PS2 away for little money but the fact remains that there are people out there running Windows 95. The majority of PCs out there right now are less powerful than the PS2. What this means to a manufacturer is that the market to go after is the PS2 market, not the PC market.

"I agree that the PS2 would draw a bigger audience. However, few PS2 owners are on-line. Rockstar would have to put up a server and demand people pay them for it. Wouldn't work. No way. The ROI is exactly why they WOULDN'T make it work on the PS2. At least with the PC, people will set up their own servers and get it going just like Quake or UR."
Why would Rockstar have to put up a server? There's no reason that the PS2 owners cannot host their own games. Perhaps they would need a server up to play the role of matchmaker but beyond that, the world of GTA would not be Everquest-style [at least in your suggestion of it being in a similar style as Quake] and therefore, games could be hosted by the individual PS2. For instance, Madden 2004 games are hosted by the PS2 hardware that is also running the game. EA has servers that allow players to connect to each other but once they are connected, EA has no more responsibilities. Furthermore, there is no charge for this so I don't understand your assertion that Rockstar would have to charge money. There's no fundamental reason for the difference between PS2 online gaming and PC online gaming that you suggest. You know how people are hosting Unreal servers? Guess what - that's just software running on a PC. There's no reason why that same software could not be run on a PS2. Perhaps you should try thinking a little bit outside of the box - and not even that much, this is not a huge stretch [ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE EXAMPLES ON THE PS2 OF EXACTLY THIS!!!]

"I hope I've clarified. There's a reason why the PC is mopping the floor with consoles in the on-line arena.
The reason is that PC online gaming is a much more mature medium. The market has been in development for a lot longer than the Dreamcast made the first real serious push for console online gaming. There's no reason why console games cannot play just the same online as a PC counterpart. Honestly, don't be so closeminded.

Re:conspicuously absent (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#9691447)

I>"I was not saying that GTA looks better on a PS2 [I don't know how you could have gotten that out of what I said] but rather, I was saying that, percentage wise, most PCs in operation right now are using outdated hardware."

I was talking about the current state of machines most gamers have right now. You're right, though, that I didn't clarify that enough. Most gaming machines out there have >=1 gig processors, >=512 meg of RAM, and a suitable video card to out do the PS2. Your statement is just plain untrue, it has been for a couple of years now.

"Why would Rockstar have to put up a server? There's no reason that the PS2 owners cannot host their own games."

For the same reason that Quake users cannot reasonably host their own games. Broadband connections don't typically have a high enough upload rate to be all that effective for FPS games.

"The reason is that PC online gaming is a much more mature medium. The market has been in development for a lot longer than the Dreamcast made the first real serious push for console online gaming. There's no reason why console games cannot play just the same online as a PC counterpart. Honestly, don't be so closeminded."

Close minded? This isn't about accepting people for who they are, it's about a market that nobody's been able to make any significant money on. The PC multiplayer market isn't there because it's mature, it's there because it exists on a different level from consoles. Setting up a PC as a game server is easy. Setting up a console isn't so easy. For starters, you don't even have a very effective input device to set everything up. This alone makes the PS2 or Dreamcast or any other console out there a difficult machine to use on the net without needing a custom service.

To put it more simply, the time for internet play on a console isn't here yet. It's in the early adopter phase, and with good reason. This isn't pessimism on my part, it's reflected by things Sony, Microsoft, and even Nintendo have discussed.

Re:conspicuously absent (1)

Jane_the_Great (778338) | more than 9 years ago | (#9691957)

"For starters, you don't even have a very effective input device to set everything up. This alone makes the PS2 or Dreamcast or any other console out there a difficult machine to use on the net without needing a custom service."
I'm not going to reply to the rest of what you wrote because it's just more nonsense from someone who obviously can't admit that they're wrong. I said that the majority of PCs out there are less powerful than a PS2. You said that was untrue. I again said that the majority of PCs out there are less powerful than a PS2. You then said that gamers have more powerful machines than a PS2 in reply. Obviously, you don't respond to statements but instead like to shift arguments. Finally, a keyboard seems like a fine input device for setting up any online games.

The point is that if Rockstar is going to include multiplayer in GTA then it will be in the PS2 release. If it is not in the PS2 release, Rockstar is not going to have multiplayer in the PC release. I will not be reading any more comments from NanoGator.

Re:conspicuously absent (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#9692036)

"The point is that if Rockstar is going to include multiplayer in GTA then it will be in the PS2 release."

I agree with this point, but...

" If it is not in the PS2 release, Rockstar is not going to have multiplayer in the PC release." ... I only half agree with this one. There's no reason to preclude the possiblity of multiplayer on the PC version. Likely? Probably not, but not precluded.

" You then said that gamers have more powerful machines than a PS2 in reply. Obviously, you don't respond to statements but instead like to shift arguments. "

Shifted the argument? Oooookay. I don't know what crawled up your ass, but you need to chill. Either agree to disagree or provide some proof of the average PC statstic back then. Getting mad at me and telling me I can't admit I'm wrong about anything is childlish at best.

"I will not be reading any more comments from NanoGator."

Grow up. If you can't play nice, don't tell other people to.

Re:conspicuously absent (1)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | more than 9 years ago | (#9692048)

"I'm not going to reply to the rest of what you wrote because it's just more nonsense from someone who obviously can't admit that they're wrong. "

Do you realize what a snotty little brat you sound like right now?

Re:conspicuously absent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9699078)

Golly, yet more proof that you're a throwaway account created by that fucking asshole NanoGator.

Re:conspicuously absent (1)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | more than 9 years ago | (#9702391)

"Golly, yet more proof that you're a throwaway account created by that fucking asshole NanoGator."

Heh, boy you must be really mad at NG. I imagine it happened some time after nek09 came by and confirmed that NG was right. (How come you're not accusing him of being NG, too?) Must have been a very serious blow to your ego to chase us both around and cling to the difficult-to-prove-or-disprove idea that we're the same person.

I guess I wasn't very far off the mark when I called you a snotty little brat. ;)

Re:conspicuously absent (1)

neko9 (743554) | more than 9 years ago | (#9699809)

I said that the majority of PCs out there are less powerful than a PS2

on what planet "out there"? even 3 years old PCs with good video card are more powerful than PS2 with so called "emotion engine" and another marketing blabla

some links that i quickly googled:

GTA3 [amazon.com] - "High resolution textures, enhanced sounds, and accelerated 3D graphics make GTA3 PC look and sound much better than the PS2 version"

Vice City [ugo.com] - "As they did last year with Grand Theft Auto 3, Rockstar Games has ported the massive Playstation 2 hit Grand Theft Auto: Vice City to the PC. And as before, the PC version sports better graphics, new mouse controls, MP3 playback, custom skins, and the ability to do quick replays."

and that's not only with GTA series... gaming on PCs simply rocks :-)

Re:conspicuously absent (1)

damiam (409504) | more than 9 years ago | (#9703738)

there are people out there running Windows 95.

True, although that's a very small minority (1% according to Google [google.com] ).

The majority of PCs out there right now are less powerful than the PS2.

Probably not true. The XBox is significantly more powerful than the PS2, with a 733Mhz proc, 64MB RAM, and a GeForce 3.5. I think it's safe to say that a huge majority of PCs currently in use have faster procs and more RAM. I don't know about the GFX card stats over the set of all PCs, but I'll bet you that 95% of PCs that have ever run a 3D game (i.e. everything except onboard-video office machines) have better vidcards than the XBox. So, if almost every single gaming PC out there is better than an XBox, it follows that they're also more powerful than the PS2.

Re:conspicuously absent (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#9691644)

Assuming you don't have downloadable content, the PS2 is a fine system for multiplayer. These days it tends to come with the broadband adapter, AKA NIC. If you do have downloadable content, the PS2 is a terrible platform for your multiplayer game, because the hard drive is expensive.

best single player ever? (2)

ndrtkr (708778) | more than 9 years ago | (#9687195)

does anyone else agrees with me that this franchise makes it for the best single-player experience ever? i'm really looking forward GTA:SA... i just hope there's some "Espantoso" radio in it...

Re:best single player ever? (4, Funny)

Rethcir (680121) | more than 9 years ago | (#9688037)

Since this one takes place in the early 90's, I'm hoping we get some Hammer and Vanilla Ice. Espantoso could probably play Rico Suave. (Hopefully Rockstar is watching "I Love the 90's" this week on VH1!)

Re:best single player ever? (1)

servognome (738846) | more than 9 years ago | (#9689166)

Maybe have the hookers putting on those slap bracelets (j/k), man "I Love the 90s does bring back memories".
Actually thats one of the reasons I enjoyed Vice City so much, I was young but remembered Miami Vice, the 80s Music, and later on I saw Scarface. VC was such a great satirical reflection of the 80s, so you had great open gameplay plus a nostalgic setting. I hope they do as good a job with the 90s.

Re:best single player ever? (1)

Colazar (707548) | more than 9 years ago | (#9689896)

Nah, Deus Ex would still be the best single player game I've ever played.

Oh, but you said franchise. I guess IW screws that up.

Fucking nigger bullshit. (-1, Troll)

u-238 (515248) | more than 9 years ago | (#9688378)

Just what we need next for the 10, 12, and 13 year olds who have already been tainted with the likes of filth on MTV, modern radio, and modern cinema. The video game is the obvious next medium of choice to curropt the minds of our current generation of impressionable youth.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/00 29 146739/qid=1089740260/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-69789 99-7549434?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Nothing new (1)

ildon (413912) | more than 9 years ago | (#9689451)

There really wasn't any information in the article that I hadn't heard when it was first announced at E3.

A cup of GTA with a pinch of Manhunt? (1)

Worldcrafter (796660) | more than 9 years ago | (#9691109)

From the article:
"There are shadows, which give us a gameplay thing we never had previously, because you can hide in them. Now you can sneak in a GTA game for the first time...you could sneak around and pick [the enemies] off one by one."

Is it just me or does it sound like they've incorporated the Manhunt game mechanics into GTA:SA? If so, that would be an excellent addition to the franchise since the gameplay in Manhunt was rather solid.

Re:A cup of GTA with a pinch of Manhunt? (1)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 9 years ago | (#9691738)

"...since the gameplay in Manhunt was rather solid."

Solid ? How about boring ? All the missions were the same, and it really gets boring to hit someone over the head with a club the umptieth time. Besides that, i found the AI to be very dumb : Come on, it's 2004 , we don't need invisible barriers for enemies, now do we ?

Seriously though, what did you like in particular about that game ?

Re:A cup of GTA with a pinch of Manhunt? (1)

Worldcrafter (796660) | more than 9 years ago | (#9697446)

While the gameplay got repetitive, (I haven't played far enough into the game yet for that to be true for me, though I can understand your view) the game controlled well and featured good gameplay mechanics. The gameplay in Manhunt aimed to capture a slow stealthly pace and did that very well. Lack of creative level design doesn't mean the gameplay wasn't solid.

I haven't noticed the invisible barriers you mentioned for enemies, but I agree those are always lame.

I think the sneaking aspect of Manhunt mixed in with the running/gunning aspect of GTA would make for a much more rounded gameplay experience while on foot.

Suicide Button? (4, Interesting)

ziggles (246540) | more than 9 years ago | (#9691397)

The trouble with driving off a bridge and not dying is.. now you have to swim to the nearest coast. I hate it when a game strands me somewhere and then forces me to do something very mundane to get out of the situation. I experienced this occasionally in GTAVC. It'd be nice if I could make my character kill himself so I don't have to find a way out, I can just start back at the hospital. I'm not a fan of loading a previous save when I get stuck. I'm more likely to just quit playing instead.

Re:Suicide Button? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9693225)

It's called the reset button.

Re:Suicide Button? (1)

jobbleberry (608883) | more than 9 years ago | (#9693455)

I think that Sharks would be a good idea to get you out of the water quickly.

I think there were sharks swimming in the water in GTA VC, which lead to speculation when the first screenshots were released that swimming would be included.

One little wish (1)

Zalminen (658870) | more than 9 years ago | (#9694918)

I certainly hope this game will have a bigger 'sphere of action' - or atleast have one more shaped like a sphere. Let me explain. Enemies (and civilians) are always spawned at a certain distance from the player to give the illusion of a 'real' city. However, this distance varies depending on direction - in front of you the distance is quite high so the enemies don't seem to pop out of nowhere. Since you can't see the ones behind you the 'area of real life' can be kept smaller (so the game doesn't have to calculate as big a sphere of action). Sounds smart? Not really. It's extremely frustrating in GTA 3 and GTA VC to wipe out a street and have more enemies spawn RIGHT behind you. How on earth can you watch your back if the enemies attacking from behind get to start closer to you than the ones in front? (If you don't believe this happens, try turning around constantly during a rampage... although I think it isn't that big a problem in VC as it was in 3)

Re:One little wish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9695358)

Much more depressing was seeing the car of your dreams just passing you while you were speeding, somehow managing to turn around(while killing diverse cars, civilians and local architecture), just to find that it left the 'sphere of action' and had vanished. Or turned into a lemon.

- coward flees and hides

Localization (1)

gumpish (682245) | more than 9 years ago | (#9698829)

It seems like they're really pulling out all of the stops for this sequel - but I just know that it will contain yet more painful localization blunders.

Remember hearing the mafiosos in GTA3 refer to garbage trucks as "dust carts"? Or parking garages as "car parks"? And let's not forget the sign in Manhunt that reminded players to "Please bin your rubbish".

Seems like the voice actors should have pointed that out to the writers at the time, but I guess I wouldn't speak up if I were getting a paycheck (and never played a videogame in my life).

Only one question (1)

idonttrusttheinterne (793593) | more than 9 years ago | (#9701583)

XBox version? Yes or no? GTA is my second most played single player game on my Box next to KOTOR. I hope there will be a version of this for me.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...