Quote:
Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto
Funnily enough because I think Vice City had the best setting (the 80s) and also because it basically played out as a linear game. San Andreas brought in these shitty RPG elements that were a total chore. I still enjoyed San Andreas but the training/eating/girlfriend stuff did absolutely nothing for me. Having to earn different levels in guns and stuff too. It felt tacked on, like it was trying to be an RPG but GTA was fun, going back to the first game, for its total lack of morals and chaos. It still had the authentic feel and the humour (as RDR does, presentation is unquestionable, the soundtrack, voice acting, script etc. etc. is all perfect) but it was when they put things in that felt more like drudgery than playing a game.
|
Fair enough, I definitely loved Vice City, though like I said I did enjoy San Andreas a bit more.
What you said though, you didnt have to train, eat or have a girlfriend, you could have gone through the entire game without doing any of them, but it did reward you for doing them.
One thing that pissed me off is that driving school didnt affect your driving in any fucking way besides getting neat cars with custom plates.
The ability to swim was a big kicker for me and Choppers and Planes were another.
The desert and open spaces were a bit outlandish but it provided a nice feel and a nice area to mess around on offroad vehicles (not justifying, just saying what I did with it)
The 2nd Zero Mission and I think R.O.E (where you have to fly a plane low to the ground despite trees coming into view a second or two before you hit them
)
Anyways, if you match the good and the bad of each, they come out about even in my opinion, for what each game has that the other doest, that game is missing something the other has.
Back to RDR, it is very similar to GTA, but it has a nice feel to it. I like it purely for the weapons and hunting.