they were already far from the best (like on ps2/xbox, not pc) when it first came out. what was incredible about SA was its ridiculously HUGE overworld. its like 5 times vice city, or something giant like that.
[QUOTE="ramulux"][QUOTE="dude6578"]it wasn't that nice nothing really updated looks the same as it did with the original XboxEgghead360
the graphics are way dated nowBut the design is still among the best the maps too big with too much waste its a great game but gets boring for a short while ( or maybe irratating is the word) when ur stuck in the countryside on the wrong side of the mountain you need to be (more so after you played and completed the game and know you got a 5 minute drive to get to where you want to be just to start a mission). maybe a fast travel option would of helped. great game though 2nd best gta game ive played and only one i liked better was vice city stories on ps2. has all the extra features of san andreas and more improovements to the game play, level desins and tweaks to do with dying and gettign your stuff back and getting back at the mission fast. san andreas was great but if they put more content in the huge map instead of using up alot with desert and countryside then it could of been a even better game. maybe it could of helped by making it much eaiser to cut thourgh the mountain that was really what killed the countryside for me, the desert wasnt as bad because you could just scale it really easily plus they was a airport to fly out if needs be. but usually in the countryside your stuck with a bike or a car. id of prefrered another 2 areas of town/city to the desert/countryside, maybe they couldnt fit or they never wanted to put in the extra missions that these places would of required to make them work. but i think thats reflected in the gta games afterwards not utilizing the huge open spaces. but they just minor niggles i loved the game and still play it for a hour or so every so often on my 360. it looks ok on the 360 but on hi-def tv it dont look as good as a crt sdtv. the emulation seems to not interlace the parts of the graphics that a crt tv would. so you get some fuzzy edges when looking into the distance or at certain buildings. if you play vice city or gta 3 mind you then you dont have the same trouble with the emulated graphics but you can clearly see they are a much lower resolution of graphcis and the techniques used are much older looking so i guess its easier to get runnign on the xbox
[QUOTE="Egghead360"][QUOTE="ramulux"][QUOTE="dude6578"]it wasn't that nice nothing really updated looks the same as it did with the original Xboxdjrobst
the graphics are way dated nowBut the design is still among the best the maps too big with too much waste its a great game but gets boring for a short while ( or maybe irratating is the word) when ur stuck in the countryside on the wrong side of the mountain you need to be (more so after you played and completed the game and know you got a 5 minute drive to get to where you want to be just to start a mission). maybe a fast travel option would of helped. great game though 2nd best gta game ive played and only one i liked better was vice city stories on ps2. has all the extra features of san andreas and more improovements to the game play, level desins and tweaks to do with dying and gettign your stuff back and getting back at the mission fast. san andreas was great but if they put more content in the huge map instead of using up alot with desert and countryside then it could of been a even better game. maybe it could of helped by making it much eaiser to cut thourgh the mountain that was really what killed the countryside for me, the desert wasnt as bad because you could just scale it really easily plus they was a airport to fly out if needs be. but usually in the countryside your stuck with a bike or a car. id of prefrered another 2 areas of town/city to the desert/countryside, maybe they couldnt fit or they never wanted to put in the extra missions that these places would of required to make them work. but i think thats reflected in the gta games afterwards not utilizing the huge open spaces. but they just minor niggles i loved the game and still play it for a hour or so every so often on my 360. it looks ok on the 360 but on hi-def tv it dont look as good as a crt sdtv. the emulation seems to not interlace the parts of the graphics that a crt tv would. so you get some fuzzy edges when looking into the distance or at certain buildings. if you play vice city or gta 3 mind you then you dont have the same trouble with the emulated graphics but you can clearly see they are a much lower resolution of graphcis and the techniques used are much older looking so i guess its easier to get runnign on the xbox
So should i get that game and play it on the 360 console?
I do want to play it, but I can't find anywhere to change the controls so that A is to accelerate. That's how I have it in III & VC (which I've been playin' lately) and I don't want to adapt.
I do want to play it, but I can't find anywhere to change the controls so that A is to accelerate. That's how I have it in III & VC (which I've been playin' lately) and I don't want to adapt.elektrixxx
[QUOTE="Egghead360"][QUOTE="ramulux"][QUOTE="dude6578"]it wasn't that nice nothing really updated looks the same as it did with the original Xboxdjrobst
the graphics are way dated nowBut the design is still among the best the maps too big with too much waste its a great game but gets boring for a short while ( or maybe irratating is the word) when ur stuck in the countryside on the wrong side of the mountain you need to be (more so after you played and completed the game and know you got a 5 minute drive to get to where you want to be just to start a mission). maybe a fast travel option would of helped. great game though 2nd best gta game ive played and only one i liked better was vice city stories on ps2. has all the extra features of san andreas and more improovements to the game play, level desins and tweaks to do with dying and gettign your stuff back and getting back at the mission fast. san andreas was great but if they put more content in the huge map instead of using up alot with desert and countryside then it could of been a even better game. maybe it could of helped by making it much eaiser to cut thourgh the mountain that was really what killed the countryside for me, the desert wasnt as bad because you could just scale it really easily plus they was a airport to fly out if needs be. but usually in the countryside your stuck with a bike or a car. id of prefrered another 2 areas of town/city to the desert/countryside, maybe they couldnt fit or they never wanted to put in the extra missions that these places would of required to make them work. but i think thats reflected in the gta games afterwards not utilizing the huge open spaces. but they just minor niggles i loved the game and still play it for a hour or so every so often on my 360. it looks ok on the 360 but on hi-def tv it dont look as good as a crt sdtv. the emulation seems to not interlace the parts of the graphics that a crt tv would. so you get some fuzzy edges when looking into the distance or at certain buildings. if you play vice city or gta 3 mind you then you dont have the same trouble with the emulated graphics but you can clearly see they are a much lower resolution of graphcis and the techniques used are much older looking so i guess its easier to get runnign on the xbox
Why does the game play so bad on my system? Is it a bad download? It has horribly long load times and the visuals in the game are slow to load. When i drive thru the city, the environment graphics do not load and everything appears invisible for awhile until it loads. I think maybe i got a bad download. The game is almost unplayable. The radio music is choppy like a scratched cd. Very fustrating.
Log in to comment