gta san andreas a good game?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gt4supra
  • 25 comments
  • 1,485 views
You haven't played GTA:SA? Wow...its for sure different than GTA3. It has a bit more goofy type feel to it, but its a good game. If you get it check out some of the SA easter eggs, like the ghost car and suicide photographer etc. There are several odd and interesting things to find and look for in SA.
 
It's by far my favourite GTA to date (not got GTA4 yet). The story is great and makes a change from the 'mob' style theme of GTA3 and Vice City. You get a massive playing area. You get three renderings of totally different cities with a stack of countyside between them and enough missions and variety of mission to keep you occupied for months.

I rarely play through games for a second time but recently started GTA:SA again just to work through the gang territory element again. 👍
 
The massive maps and the amount you can within it is worth the buy alone. I played it a lot when it was first released, and still occasionally go back to it today.
 
I rarely play through games for a second time but recently started GTA:SA again just to work through the gang territory element again. 👍

I've completed it 100% and beyond three times now (I've gone through the story mode a couple times more), that's how much I love this game. I still play it quite a bit, too (don't yet have a PS3 for IV). Just driving around, having fun with all the different vehicles, can keep me occupied for a very long time.
 
Definitely worth buying, as TheCracker has said, there's enough to keep you occupied for months. And if you get bored with the story-line you can always go do some side stuff.
 
No duh it is my opinion. I don't see why that was necessary. I've made it quite clear in the past that I find Vice City to be a better game simply because of the major problems that San Andreas suffers from that Vice City lacked.
 
Just saying. "It isn't the best in the series" sounds like more than just an opinion. No biggie though.

But I'm curious, what are these issues SA has that VC doesn't? Personally, none come to mind.
 
But I'm curious, what are these issues SA has that VC doesn't? Personally, none come to mind.
Frame rate dips and bogging down on consoles (Rockstar pushed that weak, ancient engine to its utter limit); huge distances to traverse through mostly empty areas; constant micromanaging of your character's health just to keep him the way you want him to be, as well as having to gain "experience" for ordinary game actions; the most difficult driving physics of the GTA3 trilogy, but neither realistic nor rewarding because of it...

Though it was certainly fun for a while, I personally think San Andreas was just tedious and uninteresting compared to Vice City. GTA4 is even worse, combining the boring gritty "realism" of SA with a pretty awful case of Gran Turismo 3 syndrome (new console, less content/features).
 
^ All that, plus a few more things:
  • The fact that the story itself that drove the game was retarded in its presentation. I can relate to the main character's inner turmoil around being framed for the death of a police officer by a crooked cop who controls gang violence. Then I remember I'm playing a GTA game, which means in between cutscenes and missions I could very well spend my time killing dozens of very similar police officers for no apparent reason and with no consequence on the stories actions.
  • Most of the side jobs in San Andreas, while adding variety, simply were not fun. The valet missions were outright boredom from start to finish, and the fact that you have to drive across town to get the valet uniform before you can perform them is like punishing you for being punished. The delivery missions were a large step back from the admittedly not-that-much-better Pizza Missions in Vice City, with the major difference being loss of atmosphere and retarded hit detection (slow down to a stop before you can drop off the item).
  • The AI car logic became pure idiocy. The missions where you have to get a car to "X" without damaging it (or indeed, basic travel among the locations within the game) are completely unraveled because of the retarded way San Andreas handles highway travel. The "AI cars go exactly as fast as you no matter how fast you are going or what they are driving" method is incredibly annoying, especially in some of the backwoods sections where, when they pull out in front of you or into you while you are traveling 100MPH, you roll your car and have to walk a few hundred yards before another one spawns. This is a bigger issue simply because the only practical way to get anywhere in the game was to use the highway systems.
  • The graphics took a major step backwards texture wise. While I love how the cars/models are so much sharper and higher poly, every single environment and background in the game is specifically designed to prevent you from seeing anything. Put through a coffee filter is one way I've heard it described. When combined with the fact that no items are highlighted when you approach them anymore, it makes ability to remember weapons and item placement without some kind of map a journey of impossibility; especially when you can be standing right besides them in some areas and not see them at all.
  • The incredibly well laid out sections are either underutilized (San Fierro, Las Venturas) or ignored altogether (everything to the east of the Airplane Graveyard), making a good majority of the game take place around the terribly designed Los Santos and Back O' Beyond, where the poor layout makes it incredibly easy to travel for a good distance only to realize you are going the wrong way upon looking at the start menu map.
  • The Ambulance missions are a degree in pure torture, about 20 times worse than they ever were in Vice City. The fact that all-of the non city areas you can do them in have confusing layouts is annoying, and the fact that you will most definitely begin being hungry when you try to do them all means you will most likely encounter the hilariously ironic "Can't Work Out Glitch." When added to the fact that towards the end of the game, your health is already maxed means that the ambulance missions don't even do anything but make your percentage go up. The multi-person drive-by similarly wrecks the vigilante missions.
  • The elimination the effects any of the special clothes have on the game map. Visiting the interesting places like the military base or naval base almost always means you will get enough stars that you will die unless you brought a plane, and the fact that the police uniform can still be unlocked just adds insult to injury when Vice City prevented such police action when entering restricted areas so equipped.
 
I liked VC more also. I had forgot about the dont damage this car type missions on SA and how hard it was because of idiot AI. I also just liked the entire vibe that VC had. It was almost like you were watching scarface, it just had that color, music, just all around feel to it. Not to mention how much fun i had on motorcycles in VC! I loved the "can't fall off bike cheat". I would always go up on that huge building that was being built and drive the bike way up there until i got to the top and carefully make my way out onto a steel beam that was going out from the building and launch off of it. Good fun...just might have to play it again...sorry GTA:IV but you were a slight let down :(
 
I don't mean to start a GTA fanboy flame war or anything, I was just curious. Thanks for the responses. I have a few disagreements though (a lot of the stuff you guys pointed out is strictly opinion-based):

huge distances to traverse through mostly empty areas; constant micromanaging of your character's health just to keep him the way you want him to be, as well as having to gain "experience" for ordinary game actions; the most difficult driving physics of the GTA3 trilogy, but neither realistic nor rewarding because of it...

I thought the countryside and desert were amazing, and a nice change to the series' constant cityscape. The open land created opportunity for a lot more activities. Being surrounded by buildings can feel very restrictive sometimes, and it gets boring. I thought Vice City's driving physics were the most frustrating, and thoroughly enjoy San Andreas' more realistic feel.

The fact that the story itself that drove the game was retarded in its presentation. I can relate to the main character's inner turmoil around being framed for the death of a police officer by a crooked cop who controls gang violence. Then I remember I'm playing a GTA game, which means in between cutscenes and missions I could very well spend my time killing dozens of very similar police officers for no apparent reason and with no consequence on the stories actions.

It's called a plot. It's supposed to make you want to continue with the story to see what happens.

Most of the side jobs in San Andreas, while adding variety, simply were not fun. The valet missions were outright boredom from start to finish, and the fact that you have to drive across town to get the valet uniform before you can perform them is like punishing you for being punished. The delivery missions were a large step back from the admittedly not-that-much-better Pizza Missions in Vice City, with the major difference being loss of atmosphere and retarded hit detection (slow down to a stop before you can drop off the item).

[...]

The Ambulance missions are a degree in pure torture, about 20 times worse than they ever were in Vice City. The fact that all-of the non city areas you can do them in have confusing layouts is annoying, and the fact that you will most definitely begin being hungry when you try to do them all means you will most likely encounter the hilariously ironic "Can't Work Out Glitch." When added to the fact that towards the end of the game, your health is already maxed means that the ambulance missions don't even do anything but make your percentage go up. The multi-person drive-by similarly wrecks the vigilante missions.

They add replay value outside of the story (of which they're not required to advance, btw). A lot of the side jobs aren't too unrealistic, so I didn't feel they were a waste of time.

The graphics took a major step backwards texture wise. While I love how the cars/models are so much sharper and higher poly, every single environment and background in the game is specifically designed to prevent you from seeing anything. Put through a coffee filter is one way I've heard it described. When combined with the fact that no items are highlighted when you approach them anymore, it makes ability to remember weapons and item placement without some kind of map a journey of impossibility; especially when you can be standing right besides them in some areas and not see them at all.

I couldn't stand the cartoony colors of VC. I prefer the more realistic look of 3 and SA (and IV's even better in this respect).

The incredibly well laid out sections are either underutilized (San Fierro, Las Venturas) or ignored altogether (everything to the east of the Airplane Graveyard), making a good majority of the game take place around the terribly designed Los Santos and Back O' Beyond, where the poor layout makes it incredibly easy to travel for a good distance only to realize you are going the wrong way upon looking at the start menu map.

Like I said, I love the areas outside of the main cities, and I would have liked them to have been utilized more during the story.

As for the special outfits not having special abilities (cop uniform not giving you clearance anywhere), it didn't bother me. I only fly over Area 69 if I purposefully want to get into a dogfight, and I'll occasionally visit either base to grab a Patriot, but the stars are easy enough to lose in about a minute (safehouse trick) so I can continue on my way.

Otherwise, I agree with everything else (especially the traffic, the most annoying aspect of the game, imo).
 
If you don't already have Vice City, then I'd buy that first. In my opinion it's far far better. The story line is much more light hearted (missions involve helping dropping flyers for porn movies all over the city) and was far more tongue-in-cheek if you follow my drift.

I really couln't get along with SA. My reasons were as follows:

1) Story line got boring, fast.
2) Missions were sometimes stupidly hard, and sometimes ridiculously easy, but most of the time very repetitive.
3) It didn't have that replay factor for me. I didn't care about my character at all or his circumstances.
4) On Vice City I could spend hours just cruising around on a motorbike, whereas on SA, it just didn't happen. It was almost too big in a sense.

Well, these are just a few reasons, I'm sure there are plenty of people who liked it, so if you want to get it, go ahead. If I was the buyer though? I'd go with Vice City!
 
Vice City is waaay better than 3... and SA in my opinion. The soundtrack makes the game.
 
SA and Vice City are quite different games, obviously both are of the same series. I played SA before I played VC, I actually didn't get on with VC and I think it was because I'd played SA first. San Andreas is a very good game, so many different things to do.
 
Back