Rockstar Announces GTA San Andreas 522
Tickenest writes "According to a Yahoo-reprinted press-release, Rockstar Games has officially announced Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, the latest in the GTA series. The press release continues: 'Developed by world-class designers Rockstar North, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas will be available exclusively for the PlayStation(R)2 computer entertainment system and is expected to be in stores in North America on October 19, 2004 and in Europe on October 22, 2004.'" This confirms earlier rumors of (initial?) PS2 exclusivity and possible name for this much-awaited game.
Re:Too bad... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I can't wait for GTA: Boise (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we'd be lucky if it was the GTA engine with minimal improvements in a new locale :) we'd be guaranteed a great game.
My wishlist for GTA: San Andreas (Score:5, Insightful)
2. More indoor environments.
3. More flying (helicopters were hands down the best improvement to the vehicles in GTA: VC).
4. The property buying in GTA:VC was a good first step, but it can be expanded so much further.
5. NPC drivers, accomplices, bodyguards for hire, etc, etc.
And while I know everybody is clamoring for better graphics, am I the only one that thinks the current engine from GTA:VC got the job done? I'll take gameplay over graphics any day.
Re:No word on the time setting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exclusive? (Score:4, Insightful)
No PC version? (Score:4, Insightful)
Weren't GTA3 and VC big sellers on the PC? Until the consoles get some equilavent of "mouselook", I have zero interest in playing games like GTA on a console.
Re:I can't wait for GTA: Boise (Score:5, Insightful)
If they have got a game engine that does what they need, there is no need to re-write it for every version. Not many film reviews say "same old camera, different plot".
I was going to suggest that maybe game engines have evolved to the point where most of the effort of making a game can go into the content rather than the technology. Then I thought about all the LucasArts games based on similar SCUMM engines.
Perhaps the rule of thumb is that games need to have a certain amount of "newness" but it doesn't really matter if it comes from the technology or the content.
Re:Ride that horse till it's dead! (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, many many video game sequels are of superior quality to the original, and hence they sell very well.
Call it beating a dead horse if you like, but if horse beating is what people want, you'd be crazy not to do it, marketing or no.
I know it's been said before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether you decide to play these games is up to you, but I believe we do have to be careful with our kids. We need to make them understand the difference between reality and fantasy, and if they can't tell the difference right now, then that's a lesson for later.
I believe it's called parenting.
Re:No PC version? (Score:3, Insightful)
the driver (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Exclusives dont mean what they used to... (Score:5, Insightful)
otherwise you are right. the only truely exclusives are from the console devs themselves.
Ex.
Halo on Xbox
Mario on GC
EverQuest??? on PS2
does Sony even have an exclusive title for PS2?
Re:Flame me if you want... (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, before saying how limiting the PS2 hardware is, you should read up on how the PS2 hardware design is supposed to be used. The emotion engine opens up some insane possibilities...the problem is with developers and not with the hardware. Look at games like Gran Turismo. Disgustingly beautiful, disgustingly smooth. The X-Box can't touch that, even if MS has guides to programming for it. The problem is that the technology is too complicated for most American (and in many cases European) developers to truly comprehend and utilize without trying to hack together.
Couple that with the extra dev time Rockstar had between the PS2 and X-Box versions of the game...your argument there is weak, at best. Just because the same software seems different on two different platforms doesn't mean that software was developed for both on the same schedule or with the same resources. I think it's fair to say Rockstar had a lot of feedback, research time, and some newly-grown muscles when porting their games. I could be wrong, in which case time will tell when GTA: SA comes out. Otherwise your crankiness is unwelcome.
That said, if you don't like a sequel, thank goodness that there are about 50,000 internet review sites, gaming mags, and published reviews of games that hit the streets in advance of a game's release...well, that and the fact that you can rent a game for anywhere from $1-$3 to try it out yourself. In the PC world you can't rent games, which is why the crowd is so unforgiving. When you sink your $50 into a game you just bought because of the pretty box and the reputation (and poorly-set expectations you put on the game's shoulders), you get a little bitter. With console games, the only person to blame for buying a bad game is yourself. This is one of many reasons I try my best to limit my gaming to a console. Not only don't I develop a snappy attitude about my games, but I have an opportunity to sample games I'd normally never look twice at, just because I can spend a few dollars testing it out, then buy it cheap in a few months when the marketing craze for it is over.
Re:Ride that horse till it's dead! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Flame me if you want... (Score:4, Insightful)
How's that?. It had better graphics than the first one and even ran better on the same hardware. How many games can claim that in the PC world? The city was bigger and you got to do things like fly helicopters. Really it was an improvement in many ways but didn't ruin the basic game formula. Sure maybe you wanted multiplayer and custom maps etc, but as far as sequels goes this one was a nice extension of an already great game. I don't know how interesting it will be if they just move it to a new city but Vice City should stand as a solid improvement for those who are fans of the genre.
"That would never happen in the PC world. If you produce a shit sequel, you are done."
Vice City was available on the PC. If if really did suck shouldn't this be the end of GTA?
Re: Only difference between that kid and me at 3 (Score:5, Insightful)
The fighting part was no different ^.^
Re:I know it's been said before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Game developer #1 and #2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Blue Shift?
Opposing Force?
Team Fortress Classic?
Counter Strike?
Day of Defeat?
This is called a successful business model, and personally if the engine isn't broken, why fix it?
Re:My wishlist for GTA: San Andreas (Score:5, Insightful)
I lost many evenings with network play on GTA2 on the PC.
Re:I can't wait for GTA: Boise (Score:5, Insightful)
If you replace GTA 3 with [insert EA Sports Title here] you can see that recycling the same engine, gameplay, art, etc is not an uncommon procedure.
Re:Awesome! (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that it's frustrating, but I can't agree with your solution.
Part of the reason for keeping parts of the city locked are to keep you from accessing certain vehicles during the early missions. If you could get your hands on a tank at the beginning of the game, where's the challenge?
Besides, as soon as you make it a time-lock feature, every gamer will just get into the habit of starting a new game at bed-time, letting it run while they sleep, and save once they wake up. Absolutely nothing bad happens to you when you're just standing around (a few places you might get mugged or something, but there's always some remote place you can get to).
Re:Game developer #1 and #2 (Score:3, Insightful)
>> developer #1: you know how no one had ever really heard of GTA 1 and 2, but 3 was a great success right?
Actually, I played 1 & 2 at the time they were released. Still have the originals somewhere. Good games, same basic premise as 3, just different perspective.
So they've not just re-used their game engine, they've also re-used their game concept.
All I can really say is, Good. It's a good concept. It's immaculately realised. I'm happy to give these guys my money - they've earned it.
~Cederic
Re:Non-PC games (Score:3, Insightful)
I think they're not looking for the relatively small number of hardcore high-spending gamers. They're looking for the much larger (and still growing) number of casual gamers. GTA is one of those games you can play for a short or a long time.
I don't know what they gain by being platform-exclusive though. At least make it for more than one console. Those are fixed hardware configurations. It does seem like they'd lose out.
Ravi
Re:Non-PC games (Score:3, Insightful)
PC games are still the big players in the online gaming arena.
EQ/DAOC/AO are pulling in millions a month, and have no real console equivalent (don't even try and suggest EQ on the PS2). These tend to work more through social interaction than gameplay.
Quake, UT, BF1942 are providing the gameplay. Quite simply there isn't anything on a console to match the adrenaline rush you can get from these games, every day, for months at a time.
I haven't even mentioned the top online game, Counter Strike. Not seen that on any consoles recently.
Of course, PCs do much more than that. Championship Manager (sells millions of copies a year) is PC based (although a console port is now available), there are a myriad of strategy games better than anything on a console, hard core flight sims are still PC based, and the really really popular played by hundreds of millions of people games are all on the PC. Or do you hate minesweeper and hearts?
Personally I'm happy for developers to take the approach that Rockstar do - develop for the console cash cow, then add in proper mouse support, beef up the graphics and release the game on the PC.
~Cederic
Re:I can't wait for GTA: Boise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Game developer #1 and #2 (Score:1, Insightful)
The PS2 is the same hardware it was 4 years ago.
Why design a completely new engine when one you've already coded uses the max resources already available. They may need to do some tweaking here and there to fix bugs and improve efficiency but there is no reason to start from zero like we do with most PC games. PC components are improved day to day while the PS2 hasn't changed at all. I'd rather have Rockstar spend the time to imrpove gameplay by adding more content than recoding an engine to mimick one they have.
Draw distance? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) The ability to turn around on the spot without all the cars disappearing;
2) Some semblance of draw distance so that if you're standing on top of a building there are actually cars and people to shoot at?
This is 2004; we have decent hardware now!
Re:Ride that horse till it's dead! (Score:1, Insightful)
By the same arguement, id is beating the Doom and Quake horses to death, Blizzard mutilated the Warcraft corpse, and Valve needs to just let dead Half-Life's lie
Actually yes those are perfect examples of the same problem. id is beating the whole Doom thing to death. I wish Carmack would get a new genre for god's sake! This whole FPs thing has been so very much beaten into the ground it's practically turning into coal.
And Blizzard are mutilating Warcraft. We've had Warcrafts 1 through 3, Starcraft (same game but with spaceships whoohoo!), and coming soon World of Warcraft, and Starcraft 2. Not to mention the copious expansion packs.
There's a difference between expanding on a great game (say Diablo plus Expansion pack) versus beating the damn horse to death (Diablo plus expansion packs plus Diablo 2 plus more expansion packs).
Or, for the movie analogy that /. geeks might understand better, it's the difference between stopping at Return of The Jedi and doing the three "prequels".
The former is good creatively. The latter is just milking the consumer - and boring them to death while doing it.
Re:Flame me if you want... (Score:2, Insightful)
I won't even comment on half the blabbering you've just done.
If you knew anything about game development, much less programming...
Just because you drive in Grand Turismo, and you can drive in GTA, doesn't mean you can compare them.
Ever heard of a trade-off? Game programmers have limited resources to work with and make some decisions. GTA has better graphics because of many reasons.
You don't have a 'city simulation' running while you play Grand Turismo. You can't jump out of your car and blow stuff up. You can't pick items up on the road. You can't go in buildings. There's no 'mission' going on in the backround. Not to mention how big the city is in GTA and how detailed it is. There's no helicopters in Grand Turismo or cop cars that shoot at you. Hell, you can't even damage your car in Grand Turismo.
The bottom line is you only have so many CPU cycles and so much memory to work with in a game. I'm sure there are American programmers that are every bit as adept at using the hardware as the Japanese, unlike what you're implying. Then you bash the Europeans. Europeans as bad programmers, especially game programmers? You honestly know nothing.
Stop me when you've heard of a game company:
Argonaut
Probe
Rare
Codemasters
Eurocom
Vi
Criterion
Eidos
Rage
Cavedog
Bit
Peter Molyneux
That's just the UK! I'm not even getting into Finland, Russia, Croatia, and all the other places that some genius stuff has come out of.
Hell, Rockstar North is based in the UK, and thats where the game was developed! Another popular UK-developed game that you might have heard of was Metal Gear Solid 2!
Everyone knows the XBOX hardware is much more powerful that the PS2. It came out later, of course it should be. Have you taken a look at RalliSport Challenge 2 [xbox.com] for XBOX?
Leaps and bounds ahead of the Rally cars and track of Gran Turismo. Again, you've got a slightly more specialized case of game programming/optimisation.
Re:Exceed Expectations? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I think he means that sane people will have more fun playing the game than they might expect out of a sequel which probably will have only incremental improvements to its engine.
Expectations about stupid, homicidal people being stupid and homicidal are already high, regardless of their playing a video game or desire to have a scapegoat for their stupid and homicidal actions. As such, I'm pretty sure he was mentioning just the game aspect.
Re:San Andreas? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:No PC version? (Score:1, Insightful)
the thing is the motion of a mouse is more analagous to to movement of your head and eyes. when you look at something you look right at it almost immediately. you can do this with a mouse. the position of your hand allows you to almost immediately move to a point.
when you walk (like in 3rd person) you walk left, you walk right, you walk forward, whatever, and you keep walking until you reach your destination and stop. this is like what an analogue stick simulates.
1st person shooters? mouse. but gta is a 3rd person game with one optional 1st person view. the stick is better.
-andy