GTA III...give me a break...

I wonder if I am the only one in this forum that thinks the Grand Theft Auto series is a piece of crap..
Don't get me wrong, I've been playing GTA since the original came out for DOS.  Those were the days..

It was actually an awesome FUN game..then GTA2 came out, and it was just like the old one.  It had its moments, it was more of the same with Direct3D graphics.  Then comes GTA3, a good game in its own right but come on..one of the greatest?  Hardly.

"Grand Theft Auto III is easily one of the greatest games of all time. It was quietly released in 2001 for the PlayStation 2 and after widespread critical acclaim and positive word of mouth, quickly became a cultural phenomenon that forever changed the world of video games. I"

 Give me a break..YES it reintroduced the series and it gave it a new twist. Hell it was even fun for a while.  Then they overkilled it with San Andreas..just more of the same crap.  I got bored with the whole thing within a month..and a week with Andreas.

I agree it was a good game but that's just it. A good game.  A dime a dozen.  Definitely not GREATEST.

 I'm not looking to be flamed by fanboys of the series but would appreciate a smart discussion of why it's a GREAT game rather than a GOOD game.  Anyone feel like I do?

Want a good discussion about what? You're just giving you're opinion and start about San Andreas being more of the same 'crap'.

What do you expect from GTA? What do you want them to do? Make it a other genre? They've added a RPG element to GTA:SA, made the gamemap as big as a real-life state, introduced a huge single-player campaign, lots of vehicles and custimization, not to forget all the mini-games, maybe its just me that GTA:SA made a new standard for games in it genre.

For its time, GTAIII was revolutionary and started its genre, it was enjoyable to play and did many things right, you can't possibly bash on it because you think that its only fun for a while and that the later games didn't add something to the series while it actually did.

Please, if you are going to write a rant, do give up some critism about it, what you did was 'Oh, it was a fun game and all but not the greatest-' and then you spend half of the test saying how much GTA:SA didn't improve from other GTA games.

Grand Theft Auto III is one of the greatest and most influential games ever made. Even though it was built around the same principles as the 2D iterations, the way Rockstar North managed to pull it off was still revolutionary in its own right. The biggest testament to its greatness is the fact that even though it spawned numerous copycats, not a single one of them managed to come close to Grand Theft Auto - let alone surpass it.

Grand Theft Auto III is one of the greatest and most influential games ever made. Even though it was built around the same principles as the 2D iterations, the way Rockstar North managed to pull it off was still revolutionary in its own right. The biggest testament to its greatness is the fact that even though it spawned numerous copycats, not a single one of them managed to come close to Grand Theft Auto - let alone surpass it.

 

UpInFlames

I also would'nt say it has'nt been surpassed. Immediately upon playing the PC game "Mafia" I felt that it had been surpassed. Even stricter copiers of the GTA formula like Saints Row have surpassed GTA in many aspects. To the point that many (me included) feel that Saints Row is the game Rockstar has to beat with GTA4, not San Andreas. Crackdown and Juse Cause were two similarly styled games that I would say at least did the genre justice, if not quite up there yet for their short campaigns.

Now I wouldn't go that far. Most of the experience offered in GTA3 could already be found in the Driver games years before. There were obvious improvements and the great ability to free-roam and choose which missions are done first to some degree, but the gameplay itself had been done.

I also would'nt say it has'nt been surpassed. Immediately upon playing the PC game "Mafia" I felt that it had been surpassed. Even stricter copiers of the GTA formula like Saints Row have surpassed GTA in many aspects. To the point that many (me included) feel that Saints Row is the game Rockstar has to beat with GTA4, not San Andreas. Crackdown and Juse Cause were two similarly styled games that I would say at least did the genre justice, if not quite up there yet for their short campaigns.The_Duke_Lives

Take away the open-ended gameworld and mission structure, on-foot gameplay, and you've got a racing game. Obviously, it wasn't Need for Speed, but Driver was basically...a driving game. Grand Theft Auto was always much, much more than that.

Personally, I wouldn't really compare Mafia to Grand Theft Auto - at least not directly. Mafia was kind of a Max Payne/GTA hybrid rather than a complete open-ended experience. The missions were linear, the gameworld wasn't as interactive (there was no incentive to explore whatsoever). The action sequences in Mafia are beyond anything in GTA, but it didn't benefit at all from having an open city.

In my opinion, Saints Row is a well-executed and polished carbon copy of San Andreas. Volition simply took the formula and fine-tuned it, but forgot to add any personality or style to it. I wouldn't give them too much credit for that.

EDIT: Honestly, the closest anyone came to surpassing Grand Theft Auto was Rockstar itself - with Bully.

I appreciate everyone's views on the game.  I admit it was a leap in the right direction and yes GTA3 was fun.  I did read someone state that Andreas brought many new features to the series..I must say I don't know what these features are..

On another note, I think the reason I played GTA3 more than Andreas was because I played it on PC.  The ability to add new cars to the game was a big plus.  Kinda makes me question how people playing it on the consoles enjoyed it so much.  I think the fact that GTA3 did so well hurt the series in a way.  Correct me if I'm wrong but after GTA3 did so well GTA SanA was released on the consoles before it came to the PC...therefore locking the crappy graphics limited then only to consoles.  Andreas for the PC was 1/4 of what it could have been (at least graphically) due to it being an almost direct port of a console game.

That's what really got me and made crappy before I even played it.

I appreciate everyone's views on the game. I admit it was a leap in the right direction and yes GTA3 was fun. I did read someone state that Andreas brought many new features to the series..I must say I don't know what these features are..

On another note, I think the reason I played GTA3 more than Andreas was because I played it on PC. The ability to add new cars to the game was a big plus. Kinda makes me question how people playing it on the consoles enjoyed it so much. I think the fact that GTA3 did so well hurt the series in a way. Correct me if I'm wrong but after GTA3 did so well GTA SanA was released on the consoles before it came to the PC...therefore locking the crappy graphics limited then only to consoles. Andreas for the PC was 1/4 of what it could have been (at least graphically) due to it being an almost direct port of a console game.

 

That's what really got me and made crappy before I even played it.

sandplasma

The implication that "crappy" graphics are only limited to consoles is insulting and incorrect.  The GTA series was never known for great graphics in the first place, regardless of which platform they were on.  It sounds to me like you're far too focused on visuals in the first place.

As for San Andreas and GTA III...they're night and day.  I would think anyone could've seen that, honestly.  I know people have already called you on that, but they didn't go nearly far enough, in my opinion. 

The entire GTA series is only fun if you are between the ages of 12-18 (or have the mental maturity of that age group). They are kids games designed to make kids feel like they are adults by letting them do things that are otherwise immoral or illegal in real life. Never mind that the gameplay is repetitive, and boring after 15 minutes but to kids the 'fun' is in the fact that they are doing outrageous things and not in the gameplay itself. Dont misunderstand, violence in a video game doesnt bother me at all but these games are just a gimmick. The elements of the games are horrid. The RPG elements are a laugh to anyone who plays RPG's. The action elements are a joke to anyone who plays action adventures. And the racing elements were... well you get the point... for anyone who plays racing games. Sure it combines all of those things, but it does so in ways that can only appeal to the inexperienced (or young) gamers.marc5477

Dude, I get the feeling that you never actually played those games that much and are just restating the common complaint against the game that it does a lot of things, but none of them well.  While there is something to that, I think you're missing the point since the RPG elements are barely there because it isn't an RPG, the action elements are actually better than most action games (at least the PC version), and the driving was actually really fun unless you look at it from a simulation standpoint.

The other part of your argument that it is only for the kids, however, makes me not care too much about your opinion.  One thing I have learned through these series of tubes that are the internets is that when somebody makes a claim such as, "Give me the sniper, I'm really good!" or "That's for losers!" tend to either suck or fit into the category they are trying to cut down.  Also, you don't make the best-selling game of the year by only appealing to people who are under 18 and/or inexperianced. 

I got GTA3 on the PC because it was the game I played back then. The first time I saw it, I was like WoW! so much freedom anything. Curiosity exploded in my head. Kill anybody, steal any car, become a cop and so on...

Once you do everything (even getting 3 tarts in your car), it becomes... rather bland. I don't play it anymore and I wouldn't touch Andreas. Yes, maybe there's more cars, freeways, bigger places, some rpg food eating working out stuff, but what got me into GTA was curiosity, not that the gameplay was actually great.

When you see something for the first time, whether it's your first FPS, your first RPG, you are going to remember it. GTA3 was my first trip in a simulated city, where I could just screw around. 

I'm not shocked or offended by whining because no series is universally loved and any game named after a felony and starring a felon is going to get more than its share of flack.   None of that changes the fact that the GTA series is brilliant and San Andreas is the best of the lot.  Freedom is a very beautiful thing, and GTA gives you a tremendous amount of it.  In San Andreas one can turn one character into a tub of lard, a wiry guy with a ton of endurance or a guy with a ton of muscle but little endurance.  One could transport cargo, intercept drug shipments (which got really wild), gamble, put out fires, play vigilante, get into it with other gangs, ride an atv around a mountain, go swimming in the ocean, target practice (San Andreas really nailed manual aiming) or a ton of other things. 

Aside from the freedom, the other really notable thing about GTA is its sense of humor (GTA3's final punchline was rough but hilarious).  GTA is remarkably self assured in its treatment of pop culture, offering clear nods to many movies and artists and suchlike, but never hesitating to take shots.  MC Loc was a hilarious shot at rap music at a time when every other videogame which paid attention to popular trends was sucking up to it (look, you can unlock Snoop Dogg!).  On a similar note, GTA's soundtrack is on a whole other level than that of other videogames with licensed music.  It tries to show you not only the best, but also the worst, as well as maybe a few types of music one doesn't normally listen to (I never listened to Indian music prior to LCS, but I own several Indian music cds post LCS). 

The only problem I have with the GTAs is that the stories of the Stories games were kind of weak.  Like all of the GTAs, they had interesting, often overlapping casts, but the starring characters just weren't as compelling as the guys in the mainline games (well, the Stories were as entertaining as those of Vice City, whose storytelling is the weak point of the series).  However, the very little of GTA4's storyline that has been shown is quality stuff, so I am optimistic.

I was amazed by GTA 3 when I first played it.

I think it deserves it. 

I was amazed by GTA 3 when I first played it.

I think it deserves it. 

bigmit37

I was also taken back when I first played GTA3, maybe you had to try it when it was actually new or something but back then it really made you feel you were free to explore or sod about or play the actually main game, not only that but it finally proved to PS2 was not a waste of money :D.  The only bad thing I can say about the game is that unfortunately it has spawned a very lazy and generic flow of rip offs but that is hardly its creators fault, flattery and imitation and all that....

Once you do everything (even getting 3 tarts in your car), it becomes... rather bland.

Revelade

Dude, how long did it took you to do anything in the game?

Want a good discussion about what? You're just giving you're opinion and start about San Andreas being more of the same 'crap'.

What do you expect from GTA? What do you want them to do? Make it a other genre? They've added a RPG element to GTA:SA, made the gamemap as big as a real-life state, introduced a huge single-player campaign, lots of vehicles and custimization, not to forget all the mini-games, maybe its just me that GTA:SA made a new standard for games in it genre.

For its time, GTAIII was revolutionary and started its genre, it was enjoyable to play and did many things right, you can't possibly bash on it because you think that its only fun for a while and that the later games didn't add something to the series while it actually did.

Please, if you are going to write a rant, do give up some critism about it, what you did was 'Oh, it was a fun game and all but not the greatest-' and then you spend half of the test saying how much GTA:SA didn't improve from other GTA games.

Sytzepunk

I agree with the above. "This popular/classic game is overrated" threads are a dime a dozen, I could do with some more substantial points.

[QUOTE="Sytzepunk"]

Want a good discussion about what? You're just giving you're opinion and start about San Andreas being more of the same 'crap'.

What do you expect from GTA? What do you want them to do? Make it a other genre? They've added a RPG element to GTA:SA, made the gamemap as big as a real-life state, introduced a huge single-player campaign, lots of vehicles and custimization, not to forget all the mini-games, maybe its just me that GTA:SA made a new standard for games in it genre.

For its time, GTAIII was revolutionary and started its genre, it was enjoyable to play and did many things right, you can't possibly bash on it because you think that its only fun for a while and that the later games didn't add something to the series while it actually did.

Please, if you are going to write a rant, do give up some critism about it, what you did was 'Oh, it was a fun game and all but not the greatest-' and then you spend half of the test saying how much GTA:SA didn't improve from other GTA games.

nopalversion

I agree with the above. "This popular/classic game is overrated" threads are a dime a dozen, I could do with some more substantial points.

Wait, so World of Warcraft really isn't the fast food of MMOs, Halo isn't popular just because it was on Xbox and not PC, GTA doesn't sell just because of the casuals, and Mario isn't popular because he is being milked so much by being put in mediocre games?

[QUOTE="nopalversion"][QUOTE="Sytzepunk"]

Want a good discussion about what? You're just giving you're opinion and start about San Andreas being more of the same 'crap'.

What do you expect from GTA? What do you want them to do? Make it a other genre? They've added a RPG element to GTA:SA, made the gamemap as big as a real-life state, introduced a huge single-player campaign, lots of vehicles and custimization, not to forget all the mini-games, maybe its just me that GTA:SA made a new standard for games in it genre.

For its time, GTAIII was revolutionary and started its genre, it was enjoyable to play and did many things right, you can't possibly bash on it because you think that its only fun for a while and that the later games didn't add something to the series while it actually did.

Please, if you are going to write a rant, do give up some critism about it, what you did was 'Oh, it was a fun game and all but not the greatest-' and then you spend half of the test saying how much GTA:SA didn't improve from other GTA games.

AtomicTangerine

I agree with the above. "This popular/classic game is overrated" threads are a dime a dozen, I could do with some more substantial points.

Wait, so World of Warcraft really isn't the fast food of MMOs, Halo isn't popular just because it was on Xbox and not PC, GTA doesn't sell just because of the casuals, and Mario isn't popular because he is being milked so much by being put in mediocre games?

[QUOTE="marc5477"]The entire GTA series is only fun if you are between the ages of 12-18 (or have the mental maturity of that age group). They are kids games designed to make kids feel like they are adults by letting them do things that are otherwise immoral or illegal in real life. Never mind that the gameplay is repetitive, and boring after 15 minutes but to kids the 'fun' is in the fact that they are doing outrageous things and not in the gameplay itself. Dont misunderstand, violence in a video game doesnt bother me at all but these games are just a gimmick. The elements of the games are horrid. The RPG elements are a laugh to anyone who plays RPG's. The action elements are a joke to anyone who plays action adventures. And the racing elements were... well you get the point... for anyone who plays racing games. Sure it combines all of those things, but it does so in ways that can only appeal to the inexperienced (or young) gamers.AtomicTangerine

Dude, I get the feeling that you never actually played those games that much and are just restating the common complaint against the game that it does a lot of things, but none of them well. While there is something to that, I think you're missing the point since the RPG elements are barely there because it isn't an RPG, the action elements are actually better than most action games (at least the PC version), and the driving was actually really fun unless you look at it from a simulation standpoint.

The other part of your argument that it is only for the kids, however, makes me not care too much about your opinion. One thing I have learned through these series of tubes that are the internets is that when somebody makes a claim such as, "Give me the sniper, I'm really good!" or "That's for losers!" tend to either suck or fit into the category they are trying to cut down. Also, you don't make the best-selling game of the year by only appealing to people who are under 18 and/or inexperianced.

[QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"]

[QUOTE="marc5477"]The entire GTA series is only fun if you are between the ages of 12-18 (or have the mental maturity of that age group). They are kids games designed to make kids feel like they are adults by letting them do things that are otherwise immoral or illegal in real life. Never mind that the gameplay is repetitive, and boring after 15 minutes but to kids the 'fun' is in the fact that they are doing outrageous things and not in the gameplay itself. Dont misunderstand, violence in a video game doesnt bother me at all but these games are just a gimmick. The elements of the games are horrid. The RPG elements are a laugh to anyone who plays RPG's. The action elements are a joke to anyone who plays action adventures. And the racing elements were... well you get the point... for anyone who plays racing games. Sure it combines all of those things, but it does so in ways that can only appeal to the inexperienced (or young) gamers.marc5477

Dude, I get the feeling that you never actually played those games that much and are just restating the common complaint against the game that it does a lot of things, but none of them well. While there is something to that, I think you're missing the point since the RPG elements are barely there because it isn't an RPG, the action elements are actually better than most action games (at least the PC version), and the driving was actually really fun unless you look at it from a simulation standpoint.

The other part of your argument that it is only for the kids, however, makes me not care too much about your opinion. One thing I have learned through these series of tubes that are the internets is that when somebody makes a claim such as, "Give me the sniper, I'm really good!" or "That's for losers!" tend to either suck or fit into the category they are trying to cut down. Also, you don't make the best-selling game of the year by only appealing to people who are under 18 and/or inexperianced.

Whoa... thinking GTA is overrated is like a coming of age thing in your household?  Also, you've proven my point by saying it isn't very good by watching your brother play it for about an hour.  Personally, I like to play a game before I say it sucks.

And on another note, Pokemon games are quality games, and that really isn't up for debate.  The fact that children play them does nothing to the quality. 

Want a good discussion about what? You're just giving you're opinion and start about San Andreas being more of the same 'crap'.

What do you expect from GTA? What do you want them to do? Make it a other genre? They've added a RPG element to GTA:SA, made the gamemap as big as a real-life state, introduced a huge single-player campaign, lots of vehicles and custimization, not to forget all the mini-games, maybe its just me that GTA:SA made a new standard for games in it genre.

For its time, GTAIII was revolutionary and started its genre, it was enjoyable to play and did many things right, you can't possibly bash on it because you think that its only fun for a while and that the later games didn't add something to the series while it actually did.

Please, if you are going to write a rant, do give up some critism about it, what you did was 'Oh, it was a fun game and all but not the greatest-' and then you spend half of the test saying how much GTA:SA didn't improve from other GTA games.

Sytzepunk

I agree and IMO GTA III is the best GTA because without it, there would be no Vicecity or SA.

I wonder if I am the only one in this forum that thinks the Grand Theft Auto series is a piece of crap..
Don't get me wrong, I've been playing GTA since the original came out for DOS. Those were the days..

It was actually an awesome FUN game..then GTA2 came out, and it was just like the old one. It had its moments, it was more of the same with Direct3D graphics. Then comes GTA3, a good game in its own right but come on..one of the greatest? Hardly.

"Grand Theft Auto III is easily one of the greatest games of all time. It was quietly released in 2001 for the PlayStation 2 and after widespread critical acclaim and positive word of mouth, quickly became a cultural phenomenon that forever changed the world of video games. I"

Give me a break..YES it reintroduced the series and it gave it a new twist. Hell it was even fun for a while. Then they overkilled it with San Andreas..just more of the same crap. I got bored with the whole thing within a month..and a week with Andreas.

I agree it was a good game but that's just it. A good game. A dime a dozen. Definitely not GREATEST.

I'm not looking to be flamed by fanboys of the series but would appreciate a smart discussion of why it's a GREAT game rather than a GOOD game. Anyone feel like I do?

sandplasma

First off, look at all games. Look at super mario, one could argue that it's much of the same. In each game you jump from platform, collect powerups and save someone/place/thing. Each time they change the levels, gameply and add some new features.

 Now look at another game Pokemon. Same story, newer graphics, newer features, more creatures and stuff to do. Look at any damned FPS what is the basic idea? Shoot stuff. How is each game different? Well each game has their own way to shoot stuff, new places to shoot stuff in, new weapons to shoot stuff with, etc. Do you see the connection?

ARE these games still the same?! YES! They are! What makes them different from their predecessors? New features. What made all the GTA installments different? Their FEATURES! Get it in your head man, I know your seeing repetition, but geez, you could say gaming, life, eating, sleeping is ALL repetition...

i'm assuming that you just started gaming, or that you've played to many of the newer games to realize why it got inducted

Since you said the original came out on dos im just gonna laugh and walk away from this topic. hahathemexican201

Um the original GTA was released as a DOS title.

[QUOTE="themexican201"]Since you said the original came out on dos im just gonna laugh and walk away from this topic. hahadchan01

Um the original GTA was released as a DOS title.