The guys over at Gamespot have posted a new article about GTA for their History of: series which, apparently, was written by someone who knows little about the games prior to GTA3. If you only started playing the games after they went 3D and want a little info about the older titles, the article might be a good read. There's some decent canned descriptions about the classics- just be sure to take it all with the proverbial grain of salt, as some of it is rather dodgy and opinionated.
If, on the other hand, you're a long-time fan of GTA, you'll surely get a laugh or two out of the story. I spotted enough amusing errors and silly bits myself to bang out a brief rant about it on the forums. If you're interested, you can read a repost of it by hitting the "read more" link.
Thanks to Schu over at Gouranga! and ProXimity WarNing on GTAF for the heads up.
Pffft. Stupid Gamedot.
Great "article"- some half assed descriptions of each game, a handful
of poorly researched "facts", and a sad display of GTA3D
fanboyism/graphics whore-edness. One would think a big game site would know what they're talking about.
QUOTE (Gamedot @ GTA)
for those days, the game's top-down, 2D graphics were relatively
primitive. Your character and other people walking around the levels
yea, okay graphics whore. Nevermind the fact they started working on
the game in 1995 when CPU's were about as fast as a modern pocket
calculator. Pay no attention to the fact the ped sprites had like 24
frames of animation just for running, and another 100 or so for
everything else. And let's just ignore that the 3D engines of the day
would have died under the weight of all the peds and cars onscreen in
the game. But, yea, a pretty (read: blocky with a 5 meter draw
distance, and two cars and a ped on screen) 3D would have been soooo
much better than making a fun old-school game.
QUOTE (Gamedot @ GTA:L)
expansion pack called London 1969 was released. As the title suggests,
Grand Theft Auto: London 1969 took the series into a different time
period and setting. But as far as the gameplay went, not a lot changed,
aside from driving on the left side of the road. The top-down graphics
were the same...|
Right after saying it's an expansion pack, they go on to complain abuot
the graphics and such being the same? Erm, looks to me like someone
forgot to take their Ritalin, and didn't bother to read their first
sentence after it got lost in the haze of ADD. No f*cking sh*t it
looked the same, what do they expect? And not only was it just an
addon, it wasn't even made by R*^, GTAL was a product of a few people
at R*NY and R*Toronto (mostly just Ray Larabie). Furthermore, they used
fan-made tools (GTACars and such) to create the addon. I suppose next
the author of this article will say CounterStrike sucks because it has
the same engine as Half Life?
and London also had a few instances of driveby shooting, which most
considered new in 3. And it seems they forgot all about the second
GTA:L addon as well...
QUOTE (Gamedot @ GTA2)
|The sequel, Grand Theft Auto 2, at least made a token attempt at advancing the series....|
from these minor tweaks, everything pretty much remained the same
between Grand Theft Auto and its sequel--the top-down, 2D presentation
and the tedious manner in which you had to accumulate points to unlock
later levels both remained.
...Players would have to wait until
Grand Theft Auto III for changes that revolutionized the franchise, and
many would argue they were changes that revolutionized gaming in
of the game industry. Now. I hardly know where to start on this. Well,
for one, the screenshot embedded in the article (with "GTA 2 was not a
very inspired sequel" as a caption, no less) shows a nice example of
the onscreen chaos. Not sure if this guy ever played GTA2, but the
density of peds and cars onscreen was- and still is -mindblowing. For
those reading this rant who may have missed out on 2, there were
literally dozens of peds and cars in view at any given time. In
congested areas, this number could jump up to like 50 peds/cars. All
with no drop in frame rate. GTA was, is, and always will be all about
the "living breathing city", and what better way to illustrate this
than with a crowded area? As it stands, the 3D GTA's probably won't
catch up to this level of insanity until either the PS4, or until they
ditch making toy versions for consoles and focus on PC's with a bottom
spec of dual 3ghz+ processors.
And whilst on the subject of
graphics, did the author not notice GTA2 uses proper 3D environments
with real-time lighing, stencil shadows, and whatnot? Oh, right,
graphics whores don't notice this kind of thing unless the engine
pushes a bazillionty polygons per second. Then of course there's the
explosions, which still look better than the explosions in SanAn, and a
number of nifty particle effects.
As for revolutionizing the
series waiting until GTA3, bah, I say. The only things GTA3 really
revolutionized were the graphics and story stuffs. Otherwise, lots of
things took a step back from GTA2. For starters, there was the dynamic
gang respect thing which went awol until San An. Sure, GTA3 let you
work for different gangs, but all of it was scripted and linear. IMHO,
GTA2 did a better job of making such things open-ended.
is the AI- If you've ever played GTA3, you probably noticed that cops
pretty much just went in a straight line towards you, and in some cases
stood bewildered on the other side of a small wall, shooting
brainlessly in your general direction without results. In GTA2, the
cops (or whoever else might be chasing) would actually go around things
to find you- even if this meant driving around the block and navigating
up a couple of flights of stairs.
Oh, and who could forget the
cops in 2 actually chasing and shooting at gangs, pickpockets, and
other criminals; even if you were wanted. This feature was gone in 3.
It made a half assed comeback in VC with cops chasing scripted
criminals. And In San An, the cops finally pay attention to other
criminals again. Although they'll now completely ignore them if you're
wanted, even if they're getting shot at from behind and all you have is
a handful of flowers.
Then there were trailers which
disappeared until just recently, vehicle add-ons (mmmmmm, mines and oil
slicks), stealth missions using the silenced machine gun, and the
various levels of police attention including a national guard with
tanks that fired on you with cannons. Oh, yes, and there's the
apparently little known fact the first four games had online
QUOTE (Gamedot @ GTA and 2)
|Since there was no save system, this required a ton of patience.|
QUOTE (Gamedot @ GTA and 2)
Theft Auto and its sequel--the top-down, 2D presentation and the
tedious manner in which you had to accumulate points to unlock later
levels both remained.|
Silly b00n. GTA2 had the churches where you could save the game whenever you wanted.
QUOTE (Gamespot @ GTA3)
most obvious difference between Grand Theft Auto III and previous games
in the series is the 3D engine, which was made possible by the series
moving onto the PlayStation 2 console.|
This has to be the single most idiotic statement I've heard in ages.
The only thing the PS2 made possible was dumbing down the graphics and
the gameplay so it could run on the console's limited resources. If the
PS2 is the divine creator of all things GTA3D, then why the f*ck did
the game look and run better on the PC?
QUOTE (Gamedot @ GTA3)
city was designed in such a way that those who played the game long
enough could actually navigate by landmarks without using the map.|
And the first 4 didn't? Funny, I don't remember a radar map, and I got around just fine by looking at landmark buildings.
QUOTE (Gamedot @ GTA3)
found it fun just committing random crimes and earning higher and
higher "wanted" ratings so the FBI helicopters and military tanks would
go after them.|
again, GTA2 already had higher "wanted" levels. Been there, done that,
and with 20-30 army dudes on the screen trying to kill me, with jeeps
having mounted gun turrets, and tanks firing rockets at me.