I was gonna wait until I finished the game to do this thread, but I don't know if I'm going to. I'm right before the end and am at the part where you finally have to take over a bunch of territory and the riots are going on, but for some reason I can't find any rival gang members anywhere. That might be the last straw on top of a game that, despite some really excellent qualities, also has base mechanics that are outdated as hell. People tell me this is one of the greatest games of all time, but I really don't see how it stands the test of time.
This is my second attempt at San Andreas. I first tried it around 2006 and it was my first GTA game. After getting back into it, on one hand I see what Rockstar understands about open-world games that most other developers don't, but there are also some things about Rockstar games that have always baffled me, mainly regarding the controls.
Really my biggest problem with SA and Rockstar games in general is the controls simply aren't fun. It's the same problem a lot of people have had with The Witcher 3 (myself not included) -- excellent characters and world-building stuck with a nearly unplayable game. All the different minigames and vehicles and various things to do in the world of SA aren't fun because the controls aren't fun. I didn't even think they were fun circa 2006. Maybe it was because that was still after games like RE4 came out and started to solidify the modern third person shooter. For whatever reason, this shooting system built around lock-on is either boring when I can get through it, or frustrating because I can't effectively take cover.
I even had problems with this when I forced my way through GTA IV. The controls in that game felt slightly more modern but still felt stupidly awkward compared to what third person shooters had become post-Gears. I finished GTA IV, but it wasn't fun at all. Soon I think I'll finally try out the PC version to see if a mouse and keyboard at least make things a little better. I tried this for San Andreas but I had to mod the fuck out of it to get it to the same standards as the PS2 version and undo what Rockstar apparently did to the PC port. I couldn't even start the game without it crashing, so I just went back to the PS2 version on my CRT.
And the thing is, structurally GTA understands things about open-world games all its imitators have been clueless about, but there are also things Rockstar is only just figuring out. Other developers like to make open-world games that are pretty much just a bunch of objectives and collectibles dropped all over the place. GTA games feel more like, well, sandboxes in which you're just supposed to exist and get resources. In SA you can still feel the heritage of game design that brought about games like Elite and eventually even No Man's Sky, where you just make your way through a world dealing with mechanics that run on autopilot. The heart of the game is really just a loop where you get into combat to get money to get better stuff to get more money and so-on. The only recent AAA non-Rockstar open-world game I think understands this is Assassin's Creed Black Flag. Black Flag, when it's not being another AC game, is basically Grand Theft Pirate Ship -- you rob ships to get money to get more stuff to help you better rob more ships and so-on.
I only figured all this out on my latest attempt at SA. On my first attempt I was frustrated because I actively fought against the save system. I hated reloading a save, driving back to Ammu-Nation, going back the mission start, and driving back to the mission only to immediately get killed. This time I learned to roll with it. I learned to use Pay-n-Sprays, I started over and built my way back up every time I died by getting into more combat, and I learned where items were hidden. In that sense, GTA kind of doesn't have a fail state. It's sort of a roguelike but also doesn't have a real game over. You can always rebuild, and that start from the bottom is actually kind of fun. Because of that loop and the focus of the world, GTA games feel a lot more organic than most other open-world games. The different things to do to make money didn't feel as interesting in San Fierro and Last Venturas as the gang wars in Los Santos though. I had the same problem in Red Dead Redemption, I didn't like any of the mission providers after the first one -- that Sheriff. My favorite parts of RDR were bounty hunting and cattle ranching, basically the stuff you do at the very beginning and very end.
This is all aside from the above-average world building and characters that are expected with Rockstar games. The early 90's rap soundtrack pretty much set itself up perfectly for SA, and the world feels remarkably well-realized despite its small size. Part of that is the fog, but Rockstar planned it out so each individual location feels just isolated enough from everywhere else. It's an impressive sense of vastness in a compact world.
But the world and mechanics also highlight the real weakness of GTA here, and I think it's also why GTA Online has taken over.
The main missions are the least interesting part of the game.
GTA is at its best when you're just doing your own shit to earn money and other stuff, and I haven't played GTA Online at all yet, but to my understanding that's pretty much what you do there. The linear missions are so restrictive they work against the structure that makes GTA great. This is the same problem I've had with Ubisoft games, their open-worlds filled with linear activities. This is the reason Elite, Minecraft, and NMS don't have story missions, they're at their best when they don't tell players what to do, or at least don't tell them how to do it. Fallout 4 is the worst example of this conflict. Ghost Recon Wildlands is a sign Ubisoft is starting to learn this. Honestly, I think all open-world games at this point should be bifurcated into one mode that's built around the main quest like GTA V or Withcer 3, and another that lets you do whatever you want with your own character in the same world like GTAO.
Anyway, I'm just hoping GTA V doesn't have shitty controls. I feel like I would love all the stuff in GTA if I could actually play the game.
This is my second attempt at San Andreas. I first tried it around 2006 and it was my first GTA game. After getting back into it, on one hand I see what Rockstar understands about open-world games that most other developers don't, but there are also some things about Rockstar games that have always baffled me, mainly regarding the controls.
Really my biggest problem with SA and Rockstar games in general is the controls simply aren't fun. It's the same problem a lot of people have had with The Witcher 3 (myself not included) -- excellent characters and world-building stuck with a nearly unplayable game. All the different minigames and vehicles and various things to do in the world of SA aren't fun because the controls aren't fun. I didn't even think they were fun circa 2006. Maybe it was because that was still after games like RE4 came out and started to solidify the modern third person shooter. For whatever reason, this shooting system built around lock-on is either boring when I can get through it, or frustrating because I can't effectively take cover.
I even had problems with this when I forced my way through GTA IV. The controls in that game felt slightly more modern but still felt stupidly awkward compared to what third person shooters had become post-Gears. I finished GTA IV, but it wasn't fun at all. Soon I think I'll finally try out the PC version to see if a mouse and keyboard at least make things a little better. I tried this for San Andreas but I had to mod the fuck out of it to get it to the same standards as the PS2 version and undo what Rockstar apparently did to the PC port. I couldn't even start the game without it crashing, so I just went back to the PS2 version on my CRT.
And the thing is, structurally GTA understands things about open-world games all its imitators have been clueless about, but there are also things Rockstar is only just figuring out. Other developers like to make open-world games that are pretty much just a bunch of objectives and collectibles dropped all over the place. GTA games feel more like, well, sandboxes in which you're just supposed to exist and get resources. In SA you can still feel the heritage of game design that brought about games like Elite and eventually even No Man's Sky, where you just make your way through a world dealing with mechanics that run on autopilot. The heart of the game is really just a loop where you get into combat to get money to get better stuff to get more money and so-on. The only recent AAA non-Rockstar open-world game I think understands this is Assassin's Creed Black Flag. Black Flag, when it's not being another AC game, is basically Grand Theft Pirate Ship -- you rob ships to get money to get more stuff to help you better rob more ships and so-on.
I only figured all this out on my latest attempt at SA. On my first attempt I was frustrated because I actively fought against the save system. I hated reloading a save, driving back to Ammu-Nation, going back the mission start, and driving back to the mission only to immediately get killed. This time I learned to roll with it. I learned to use Pay-n-Sprays, I started over and built my way back up every time I died by getting into more combat, and I learned where items were hidden. In that sense, GTA kind of doesn't have a fail state. It's sort of a roguelike but also doesn't have a real game over. You can always rebuild, and that start from the bottom is actually kind of fun. Because of that loop and the focus of the world, GTA games feel a lot more organic than most other open-world games. The different things to do to make money didn't feel as interesting in San Fierro and Last Venturas as the gang wars in Los Santos though. I had the same problem in Red Dead Redemption, I didn't like any of the mission providers after the first one -- that Sheriff. My favorite parts of RDR were bounty hunting and cattle ranching, basically the stuff you do at the very beginning and very end.
This is all aside from the above-average world building and characters that are expected with Rockstar games. The early 90's rap soundtrack pretty much set itself up perfectly for SA, and the world feels remarkably well-realized despite its small size. Part of that is the fog, but Rockstar planned it out so each individual location feels just isolated enough from everywhere else. It's an impressive sense of vastness in a compact world.
But the world and mechanics also highlight the real weakness of GTA here, and I think it's also why GTA Online has taken over.
The main missions are the least interesting part of the game.
GTA is at its best when you're just doing your own shit to earn money and other stuff, and I haven't played GTA Online at all yet, but to my understanding that's pretty much what you do there. The linear missions are so restrictive they work against the structure that makes GTA great. This is the same problem I've had with Ubisoft games, their open-worlds filled with linear activities. This is the reason Elite, Minecraft, and NMS don't have story missions, they're at their best when they don't tell players what to do, or at least don't tell them how to do it. Fallout 4 is the worst example of this conflict. Ghost Recon Wildlands is a sign Ubisoft is starting to learn this. Honestly, I think all open-world games at this point should be bifurcated into one mode that's built around the main quest like GTA V or Withcer 3, and another that lets you do whatever you want with your own character in the same world like GTAO.
Anyway, I'm just hoping GTA V doesn't have shitty controls. I feel like I would love all the stuff in GTA if I could actually play the game.
