Okay. All the slavish praise that GTA3 is getting is starting to make me ill. First IGN, now GameSpot. And I hope Erik doesn't mind me quoting his e-mail here, but: "BEST. GAME. EVER."

From what I can tell by reading the two reviews, the game seems to blend Carmageddon 1, Driver, elements of the previous two games, and a completely open-ended mission oriented design. I've often bemoaned the lack of a good car combat game where you could actually leave the vehicles. Maybe this will be the first? All of this in a giant, detailed city with a complete physics and AI simulation engine. Go anywhere. Do anything. Kill anyone.

Anyone else picked up this game and have any thoughts? I'll admit I'm intrigued, and it sounds like a no brainer. I'll probably pick it up tomorrow.

Man. The Playstation 2 may win the console wars by actually delivering the best games. Sheesh. It's an embarrassment of riches this holiday season-- Tony Hawk 3, GTA3, Metal Gear 2, GTA3, Devil May Cry.. etc etc etc. I was foolish to buy my PS2 at launch, but it's getting damn essential to pick one up by the end of this year.

It's a crying shame about the crappy, low-res graphics on the PS2, though. Grrr. I know I bring this up EVERY time, but I swear, that friggin' PS2 output makes me flashback to the days of DOS 320x240 every damn time I look at it.

Isn't the monitor adaptor out yet?

I'm really damned impressed with it. The freedom of it is pretty incredible. It may not be for those who demand focus in the way the game flows, though I honestly can't comment much on the over-arching mission structure, as I've been spending 90% of the last 2 days play time just screwing around with the first 1/3rd of the city. The plot missions I have played have been interesting and varied. Combat on foot can be a bit frustrating, at least with the handgun and shotgun, but that just makes you re-evaluate situations you probably would never have to think twice about in most console games. For instance: one of the missions requires you to whack the noodle stand owner. Every time I'd approach, his bodyguards would grease me before I could even draw a bead on my target in the confusion. Eventually, I noticed that he was fleeing to a car as soon as the mayhem started. So, the next try, I triggered the fight, ran like mad back to my car, then followed his car until there were no cops around, smashed into it, and shot him as he fled from his wrecked vehicle.

The amount of detail is insane - you can pick up a hooker, drive to a secluded spot and do the deed, flip off cops or anyone who almost hits you on foot, and all sorts of other little things that make you chuckle. It's so nice to have a really high quality, high production value console game that isn't the product of Japanese gaming cliche or an emulation of that Konami/Capcom/et al school of design and characterization.

It's weird - since I got my PS2 I've been so looking forward to Devil may Cry and Metal Gear Solid 2. I can't comment on MGS2 yet, but it seems as though GTA3 and Ico have shaken things up as far as my expectations for great console games go.

-Matthew

I played a demo of GTA2 on the PC, and I must say that it's one of the most fun demos I've ever played (you only get six minutes, and then you blow up...) If they ever release GTA3 on the PC -- which sounds doubtful, from what I've read -- I'll buy it in a heartbeat, but I don't have a PS2, and probably won't buy one, even for GTA3. But, if I ever buy one -- or if a rich relative wills me one or something -- this is one of the first games I'll buy.

Can you believe how bad the review at IGN was though? I sat there wondering if Doug Perry had recently experienced a stroke... I gather he liked the game, but it felt like I was proofreading a paper written by an 8th grader. I never noticed his stuff being bad in the past, but that was a poorly written review.

Brad Grenz

GTA was one of my favourite ever games, I must have blasted through that a couple of times on the playstation. I think I played it a lot while blasted too. It was the open-endedness of it that I loved, it didn't matter what state of mind you were in you could have fun with it. If the missions got boring, and you tired of cruising the sidewalks crushing people in the pickup, you could always try cop baiting. My favourite form of showboating was to tempt the cop into getting out of the car, and while he was running round the back of the pickup to nab me, slide across the roof and steal his wheels. Never forgetting to reverse over him before driving off, of course.

Some of the missions just had me incapacitated with laughter, like where you had to scream from street corner to street corner slapping your bitches. And then there was the visceral glee felt when finding those blasted hari krishnas and pile driving them all for a bonus. Even when all else failed you could always start a fist fight if you got frustrated at having died for the nth time in a row.

"You'll never take me alive copper!"

GTA2 was a let down for me, in comparison. It just seemed like a rehash of the original with some 30s style fantasy mod thrown over it. Perhaps I'd just burnt out on GTA1.

Tim (aka Gx_Farmer)
http://www.mrfixitonline.com

I never played the first one, which might explain my enthusiasm for GTA2. I'd certianly LOVE to get a full version for the PC of...well, any of them, quite frankly.

Wumpuss the looks of the PS2 aren't bad regardless of the resolution. Quite frankly GT3 is the most amazing game graphically I have ever seen bar none. It either looks good or doesn't and so far the PS2 games I have played look great.

BTW, if the looks bother you so much then either stop playing or shutup. Only a moron keeps doing things they don't like and only a bigger moron complains repeatedly about things that will never change.

GTA III - best game ever. The thrill of being chased by numerous cops, flipping your vehicle, running away, hearing cops yelling and shooting, hearing and feeling a chain reaction explosion of 5 cars, then silence. Your police problems are solved.

The game is nothing like GTA I or II. Sure the premise is the same but the gameplay is not comparable nor is the depth of the game. Steal a cop car, go on a vigilante mission. Steal a firetruck, put out a fire. The first section alone is huge.

Chet

Excellent thread of GTA3 experiences:

http://cgi.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.asp?board=31127&topic=1570695

What about the upcoming PC version? Can we expect it to be as good (or nearly as good) as the PS2 version?

Only if you run it on one of those amazing Pentium IV chips that make the internet run at the speed of light!

(Or so I gather from the commercials.)

"Wumpuss the looks of the PS2 aren't bad regardless of the resolution. Quite frankly GT3 is the most amazing game graphically I have ever seen bar none. It either looks good or doesn't and so far the PS2 games I have played look great."

Yeah, the graphics aren't bad, they're just incredibly low resolution. I suppose it depends how low your standards are. Most of us left 640x480 behind years ago, so to go back to something that is WAY lower resolution than that.. well, it's just painful.

I keep bringing it up because A) I've seen the dreamcast/xbox/gamecube and they are clearly running at higher resolutions, and B) I keep waiting for the magical PS2 game that actually does run at a decent resolution. Well. To make a long story short-- I'm still waiting.

I don't know why developers should really bother with anything beyond 640x480 for television game systems until HDTVs become mainstream. Television's resolution is more-or-less 480x440 @ 60 hz interlaced; is it really worth going to, say, 1024x768 internally? You more than double your processing time and memory usage, and you get.....somewhat better handling of aliasing for it. I'd rather use that 50% execution time elsewhere, myself.

>"I've seen the dreamcast/xbox/gamecube and they are clearly running at higher resolutions"

If you have they were captures off a dev system that don't represent what the game will actually look like on a TV. High resolution on a TV means 640x480 which is the standard resolution being used by the Xbox, Gamecube and newer PS2 games. Early PS2 games were frequently running at 640x240 (half verticle res) because it took a while for developers to get a handle on the 4MB vram situation. Ico, for example, runs at the lower resolution, but it's still beautiful. These days most have managed to bump their games up to 640x480.

Anyway, point is while you may have seen Xbox screens that were 1024x768 (Brute Force) or in the case of Halo, 1880x1440, these do not represent actual gameplay resolutions. In game you'll be looking at 640x480. Releasing unrealistically high resolution screen shots is kinda a dirty PR trick. HDTV support is a question mark. It remains to be seen how many games will actually support it. And in cases where it is supported, it's unlikely (read: impossible) playable frame rates can be acheived at a 1900x1190 resolution. More common (and realistic) would be 960x720 progressive.

Brad Grenz

I agree. 640x480 looks quite good on a television. TVs aren't really capable of anything higher than 640x480 anyway, unless you want to get into HDTV and so forth.

The problem is that the PS2 resolution is not even CLOSE to 640x480. If it looks grainy on the TV-- it's extremely low resolution indeed. Don't believe me? Drag your computer to your TV room and hook up the video-out on your video card.. then run Quake 3 (or whatever) at different resolutions.

I bet you $20 that you cannot make it look as grainy as the PS2 does, because most PC games don't support resolutions lower than 512x384. The 4mb of VRAM on the PS2 has its issues, folks, and #1 is LOW RESOLUTION. I mean painfully, egregiously low. Supposedly developers had "workarounds" for this problem but the three games I just purchased-- all brand new-- all suffer from the same exact low resolution problem.

Followup here:
http://ps2.ign.com/news/17813.html
or here:
http://www.consolewar.com/faceoff/threadtoc2.asp?page=1&topic=38

Of course standard disclaimers apply, graphics don't matter, only gameplay does, etc etc etc. However, I'd like to add that it's nearly impossible to make out the distant turns on the horizon in Gran Turismo 3 due to the low resolution-- and this definitely affects gameplay in my opinion. The problem has not gone away, despite the best wishful thinking the industry could produce.

Shrug.

"These days most have managed to bump their games up to 640x480."

Most? I have three new games here which are somehow immune to this fix. Try "none". The lie being perpetuated here is that the PS2 *has* a fix for this fundamental hardware design problem. It's been a year, and they don't.

There's no technical limitation preventing the PS2 from outputing at 640x480. Both the links you gave are talking about launch games. Yeah, I know those were pretty much all running at 640x240. But new games usually run higher then that. GT3, GTA3, Devil May Cry, MGS2, just to name high profil games, all run at 640x480.

Brad. Reality check, homey. I don't know what model PS2 you own, but mine does NOT run Gran Turismo 3 at 640x480. It's the good old jaggy version here at my casa.

It's a fantastic game, of course. But if you think new games "don't have this problem", well.. think again.

I just saw Ace Combat 04 last night on the PS2 and it has the same problems as GT3 wrt distance rendering.

--Dave

Just thought I'd mention something I saw on Ars. Amazon has a buy 2 PS2 games, get 1 free coupon that's good until tomorrow (10/27). It works for pre-orders as well. Enter the code 904494 when you go to checkout.

There's also a coupon for $10 off a $75 or greater purchase. Enter the code AMZNDSVRCARD.

Just in case anyone wanted to pick up GTA3. If I was single and had money, I'd be sorely tempted to go out this weekend and buy a PS2 to play GTA3. I love the original GTA.

-Trevor

Thanks for the tip, Trevor! But for some reason, I can't get GTA3. Amazon says it's out of stock and there's no option to add it to my shopping cart. Rats.

-Tom

Tom, you HAVE to get this for the next Shoot Club. No one will play anything else, and it's single player only, but just watching somebody else play this is more fun than other games right now.

Best. Game. Ever.

I had to take our departmental copy away today because we weren't getting any work done. At times we had 10 or more people watching the game, hooting and screaming and having a great time.

The Toys R Us flyer last Sunday was advertising the same buy two, get one free deal on PS2 games. I assume that runs all this week, but am not sure.

Wumpuss wrote:

---

Quote:

Brad. Reality check, homey. I don't know what model PS2 you own, but mine does NOT run Gran Turismo 3 at 640x480. It's the good old jaggy version here at my casa.

---

GT3 is a half-vertical res game I believe, meaning that it's essentially 640x240 and not 640x480. This creates that strange out of focus effect with a bad case of the jags that you see in many PS2 games. It IS a problem and the VRAM is the culprit as noted above. Sony's machine is very unconventional compared to ALL the other next gen platforms from Dreamcast to Gamecube to Xbox. That's why it has as distinct a renderer as the original Playstation did. It's all proprietary and in this case, it does have a definite downside.

This is one of the main reasons PCs will probably look better than any console by the middle of next year. We've got access to GOBS of RAM with more easily acquired. 64MB video cards will be standard by next Fall with at least 256MB of RAM standard also. Consoles won't be able to compete with all that RAM and a 1GHz processor as the standard for processing. The new DOOM is likely to be so stunning graphically that consoles with the power of Xbox will already be old hat.

--Dave

The PS2 may have a downside technically but visually they still pulled off an amazing display with GT3 (640x240 or whatever). GT3 looks amazing and compared with MSR or Test Drive LeMans for the DC it is superior visually.

"I had to take our departmental copy away today because we weren't getting any work done. At times we had 10 or more people watching the game, hooting and screaming and having a great time."

Wow.

"The Toys R Us flyer last Sunday was advertising the same buy two, get one free deal on PS2 games. I assume that runs all this week, but am not sure."

Now is definitely the time to take them up on that deal. There are some amazing PS2 games being released..

Well, I've always been a fan of the GTA series if a self-conscious one. I was worried that this iteration would be less free-form than the old titles I know and love what with it being all flashy and 3D. There was also alot of talk about mission structures and such.

But after reading the buzz here and checking out the site I'm definitely excited. I may hold off and get the PC version though later in 2002.

Looks like I'll be upgrading my PC after all. That was the last nudge I needed to shove me over the wall. GTA3 looks like the sort of game I've been evangelising for over the years. Freeform immersive world simulation. Kickass fun doesn't hurt either.

GTA3, the first 30 minute of it at least, were just insanely fun. Now that I've torn myself away from the AC expansion, back to GTA3 I go. I was just having a blast jackin' cars and causing huge, multi-vehicle explosions!

So is GTA3 an X-Box killer?

Well, I just got the game and my initial reaction is definitely positive, but not as glowing as many.

One question: has everyone writing these glowing reviews played Midtown Madness 1-2, Carmageddon 1-3, and Driver 1-2? Or even Interstate '76?

I worry that people are getting off on the "I just ran someone over!" and "Look at the giant accident I caused!" vehicular aspects of this game, which aren't particularly new to me. I'll grant you that GTA3 does it somewhat better than those older games-- and it has more depth with the on-foot component and open mission design. But a complete departure, it is not.

Another minor disappointment is the auto-target nature of the on-foot gunplay. Every weapon is spray n' pray. I think the auto-targetting prioritizes enemies with weapons, because I have no idea how I'd iterate through the half-dozen people on any given street in the game, and pick out the right ones to shoot.

Those are just my initial reactions to a few hours with the game. I need to spend more time with it before reaching any real conclusions.. but I'll definitely warn people who have played the games I listed above-- you may not fall immediately in love with this game, as promised by the glowing reviews.

Wumpuss - you forgot to add the part of your email where you admit you were unable to follow the directions on a mission so you became frustrated and cried like a little girl.

Yes, GTA does nothing new. No game does anything new. I myself now just play chess because every other game is really just chess. Quake? Chess in FP. Civilization? Chess with resource management. They are all just chess!

With the games you list, you are obviously a sophisticated, worldly gamer, I am sure you have played chess and just didn't use that as your example as to not embarrass the rest of us cretins. I thank you.

Chet

"Yes, GTA does nothing new. No game does anything new. I myself now just play chess because every other game is really just chess. Quake? Chess in FP. Civilization? Chess with resource management. They are all just chess!"

I just completed a mission in GTA3 where I had to.. race through a bunch of checkpoints. Against three other cars. In traffic. I already played that mission, Chet, and it's called MIDTOWN MADNESS. Read my (crappy) review of that game on FiringSquad if you want, and you can even read where I complained about the lack of a mission or career structure. Hey! Wait a second! GTA3 adds that!

Yes, there are other types of missions. And GTA3 definitely has a larger scope.

But a lot of the actual GAMEPLAY is the simple thrill of a high-speed automotive chase through a crowded city of ambient traffic. With cops chasing you. And other games have done that, some very well. The meat and potatoes of the gameplay has to be this mechanic of destructively racing around the streets, because what the hell else is there? The complex Tomb Raider style auto-aim gun combat? The sophisticated "hit the O button over and over" hand to hand combat? What? What else am I missing here that I didn't get with Carmageddon, Midtown Madness, or Driver?

GTA3's primary accomplishment is integrating missions/careers and a significant on-foot component (though, you'll note that Driver 2 had this) into this EXISTING genre. It's a very good game. But it is not the alpha and the omega of everything that a game can be, aka, Best. Game. Ever.

Or, stated another way, the 100th time you carjack someone isn't nearly as entertaining as the first ten times.

"Wumpuss - you forgot to add the part of your email where you admit you were unable to follow the directions on a mission so you became frustrated and cried like a little girl."

Just to defend my honor here. I did activate the carbomb by randomly pressing buttons-- but even though I did this with about 1 minute remaining, for some reason the mission timed out instead of proceeding. So sue me for being frustrated since I had no feedback on what went wrong. I parked the car properly, I didn't damage it, and I activated the bomb. There is nothing I dislike more than pointless repitition in gameplay. Bleh.

And since I'm ranting, the PS2 actually locked up on me once on one of the GTA3 loading screens. No shit! I think we have enough data now to declare an international conspiracy of PS2 failures. Oh wait, that was the FiXbox thread. ;)

Counterstike?

Disarm bombs?

Didn't I already do that in Kaboom?

Chet

Hmm... it took 18 months for the PS2 to get the kind of bad-ass games it has now. And after playing half a dozen pretty much complete Xbox games, I'm DAMN impressed with the overall quality of the launch lineup.

Now granted, there are quite a few turds in there, mostly from 3rd parties. But the overall quality of the launch titles might even surpass the Dreamcast's (I haven't played EA's stuff, nor Sega's, and they both have some hot titles).

Am I saying the Xbox will have more "absolutely great" five-star games this holiday? Nah... probably not. PS2 will have more. But the system will also expire at least a year earlier, and my mind just boggles over the potential quality of the 2nd generation of Xbox titles.

(I'm not intentionally ignoring Gamecube, by the way. I just don't have the hands-on experience to make a fair comparison yet.)

There will probably be a PS3 by the time the PS2 expires. That's the thing -- Sony has the lead with the current one and is already working on the next one.

If I was going to buy one this season, it would be the PS2 based on available games.

Wumpus:

No, there is nothing new in the components of GTA3. Good driving, with strong physics and a detailed car damage model. Excellent mission design-- yes, some are simple, but many are not. Well-acted, interesting (if stereotypical) The ability to roam freely through a distinct world, taking missions or not as I like.

What GTA3 has that few other titles do is POLISH. The amount of detail is amazing. The mission designs are a testament to using a limited palette to its fullest extent. In fact, the whole game is a testament to that. Pick a few things, and do them all very well.

The exception to that is the crappy, crappy, crappy on-foot combat model. It's almost impossible to fight effectively, and the autotarget is nearly broken. Luckily, I've (so far) always been able to get back into a car and run over anyone I needed to.

The game really rewards exploration. There are powerups scattered about that link you to minigames -- like giving you a rocket launcher and giving you 60 seconds to destroy 15 cars. One minimission I really enjoy involves you controlling a tiny remote controlled explosive car. There are also ramps, each of which is a Unique Jump. You have to find the right car and the right speed to see what the Jump is.

I could go on. I say Best. Game. Ever. of course in mocking tones. But this game is a real incentive for those who don't have one to grab a PS2. I'm maybe 10 hours in and only 12% of the way through the game (with little frustrating replay, BTW). And progress through the game is based on missions, and I bet I could sit down and play the game for 10 hours right now, having a blast, without touching a mission, knowing that the missions are right there if I get bored.

Yes, wumpus, I've seen those other games and played some of them quite a bit. GTA3 does everything they do in a single package, and passes them in my estimation. Not arguing with you, just stating my thoughts.

"The exception to that is the crappy, crappy, crappy on-foot combat model. It's almost impossible to fight effectively, and the autotarget is nearly broken. Luckily, I've (so far) always been able to get back into a car and run over anyone I needed to."

The sniper rifle and the rocket laucher use a different targeting system,and both work great. And don't forget the intense satisfaction of performing slow speed drivebys with the uzi. The more long range, accuracy-forgiving area effect weapons such as molotov cocktails and grenades also work fine. As long as you're armed with something other than a pistol (which, for God's sake, you should be), you're often better off firing at a nearby vehicle until it bursts into flames, then running the hell away as it explodes and hopefully takes out a bunch of your pursuers. (The car explosions are really neat - all sorts of parts fly into the air, then come crashing to the ground. Yesterday, an angry mobster survived the explosion of a nearby van, but got creamed by a falling tire. It was an amazing moment.)

If Thief was the first "sneaker", I think gta3 is the seminal "retreater". It really captures the thrill of escape better than any game I've ever played.

Since no one else seems to have commented on it and in my experience very few gamers seem to have one so...

I have a 61' HDTV. Everything looks better. I was at a friends house and games look god awful. Even though the PS2 only puts out as a certain resolution, the TV makes it look better. I will say jaggies are MUCH more noticeable however.

Personally, one of the big reasons I am looking forward to the Xbox is its support of HDTV in games. I can't wait until I get HALO! *drooL*

moron

is Halo coming out on the PC?

It was at one time, which is the version I really want. I want to do PC multiplayer with a mouse and keyboard and not some split-screen stuff.

"The exception to that is the crappy, crappy, crappy on-foot combat model. It's almost impossible to fight effectively, and the autotarget is nearly broken. Luckily, I've (so far) always been able to get back into a car and run over anyone I needed to."

I think this is the crux of my disappointment with GTA3. I've already played a number of vehicle destruction sims that I felt were excellent; I was looking for something that would broaden the scope with a significant on-foot component. Instead, GTA3 is really a open-ended driving sim, with the ability to carjack anything.

"What GTA3 has that few other titles do is POLISH. The amount of detail is amazing. The mission designs are a testament to using a limited palette to its fullest extent. In fact, the whole game is a testament to that. Pick a few things, and do them all very well."

Yeah, there are a lot of nice details in the game. The radio is great, for example. But details just make it a better Carmageddon, or a better Midtown, or a better Driver. Wouldn't we expect this game to be more detailed, since it was released about two years later than all of those games? Shouldn't I expect Ghost Recon to be more detailed than Rainbow 6?

"The game really rewards exploration. There are powerups scattered about that link you to minigames -- like giving you a rocket launcher and giving you 60 seconds to destroy 15 cars. One minimission I really enjoy involves you controlling a tiny remote controlled explosive car. There are also ramps, each of which is a Unique Jump. You have to find the right car and the right speed to see what the Jump is."

Erik brought this up too, and I don't see it. Exploration in GTA3 is not integral to the gameplay the way it is in, say, Tony Hawk.. or Mario 64.. or even Carmageddon. It's merely a function of replay value-- like the Advance Wars coins. Great to have, but completely and utterly optional. All I need to do to proceed in GTA3 is drive to the marked spot on the map and complete the mission objectives.

For the exploration to be relevant, it has to be an integral part of the gameplay. That is, REQUIRED to proceed in some way. For example. The cab, police, ambulance, and fire mini games. They're cool and clever and everything, but they're .. completely irrelevant. It's only useful if you have a lot of time to kill or if you're a completist. They might as well have thrown in a Tetris game on the vehicle dashboard, while they were at it.

Also, why is it that I can run over sidewalks, through parks, batter down stoplights, smash fire hydrants, even run over people in cold blood (!) .. without the cops so much as batting an eye? This seems nonsensical. I've done all of the above with a cop car on-screen, and nothing happens. Of course, if I even TOUCH the cop car with my vehicle, it's a different story.

Well. I'll play some more tonight, but my advice is-- wait for the PC version.

"The game really rewards exploration. There are powerups scattered about that link you to minigames -- like giving you a rocket launcher and giving you 60 seconds to destroy 15 cars. One minimission I really enjoy involves you controlling a tiny remote controlled explosive car." - Kevin Perry

Those missions have been lifted straight from the original GTA.

"Also, why is it that I can run over sidewalks, through parks, batter down stoplights, smash fire hydrants, even run over people in cold blood (!) .. without the cops so much as batting an eye? This seems nonsensical. I've done all of the above with a cop car on-screen, and nothing happens. Of course, if I even TOUCH the cop car with my vehicle, it's a different story." - Wumpus

That's *exactly* how it was in the original GTA...

Is this game just GTA-3D?

---

Quote:

Is this game just GTA-3D?

---

Well, I've just found this thread, so let me try and catch up a little...

"One question: has everyone writing these glowing reviews played Midtown Madness 1-2, Carmageddon 1-3, and Driver 1-2? Or even Interstate '76?

I worry that people are getting off on the "I just ran someone over!" and "Look at the giant accident I caused!" vehicular aspects of this game, which aren't particularly new to me. I'll grant you that GTA3 does it somewhat better than those older games-- and it has more depth with the on-foot component and open mission design. But a complete departure, it is not."

First off, I worked on the Interstate franchise, including the ill-fated Interstate '82, in which we attempted to combine auto combat with third-person on-foot combat. I can tell you it's a pretty difficult balancing act to pull off. The control scheme one employees to navigate a car through a city street at 60-80 mph is like night and day, when compared to steering a pedestrian through those same environs. I think GTA3 has pulled this off admirably. I wouldn't categorize the on-foot gameplay as being up there with ICO or Soul Reaver, but it's an integral part of the game that stays within the flow of the gameplay and doesn't provide jarring transitions.

I'm not sure why people enjoying some aspects of the game over others is a cause of worry for you, but let me allay your fears. No one pays $50 for a game and plays it for more than a couple of hours if there isn't something of substance to it. I could play SSX by pointing my board straight down the mountain every time, but I played that game for a month solid because I was trying to master the tricks and find all the alternate routes, all of which were very detailed, well thought-out, and enhanced the gameplay significantly.

"For the exploration to be relevant, it has to be an integral part of the gameplay. That is, REQUIRED to proceed in some way. For example. The cab, police, ambulance, and fire mini games. They're cool and clever and everything, but they're .. completely irrelevant. It's only useful if you have a lot of time to kill or if you're a completist. They might as well have thrown in a Tetris game on the vehicle dashboard, while they were at it."

I disagree. You didn't have to shoot the UFO in Asteroids to clear a level (as I recall), but it was sure fun as hell to try. And even if I'm wrong about Asteroids, there are plenty of examples from the Golden Age of arcade games of the same idea.

GTA3 is, for all of its nominal story and characters, a fun arcade game. You don't make any moral choices, you don't alter the story (other than delaying it by exploring the worlds), you don't create anything like a city or whatever. It's just straight, shoot-em-up action. So, as long as you get the basic gameplay right (and I think they have), the more bells and whistles you hang on it, the better. Again, as long as they're well-executed. Which they are.

The triumph of GTA3 is that they set out to construct a fully-realized world with its own set of rules (including physics) and dynamic interactions. You can pick up a whore, drive into an alley, and watch your health increase as your money decreases. You can try to jack a cop, only to be shot dead. Or not.

I suppose you can argue that a world is more than the sum of a collection of details, but in this case I think that's a legitimate description. The game rewards exploration (with fun activities, discoveries, etc.) and that alone is worth taking the time to explore.

---

Quote:

I don't see it. Exploration in GTA3 is not integral to the gameplay the way it is in, say, Tony Hawk.. or Mario 64.. or even Carmageddon. It's merely a function of replay value-- like the Advance Wars coins. Great to have, but completely and utterly optional. All I need to do to proceed in GTA3 is drive to the marked spot on the map and complete the mission objectives.

---

"First off, I worked on the Interstate franchise, including the ill-fated Interstate '82, in which we attempted to combine auto combat with third-person on-foot combat. I can tell you it's a pretty difficult balancing act to pull off."

Oh. My. God. Shame on you. Interstate '82 was an absolute travesty of a game. You guys took a perfectly brilliant game concept in I'76 and intentionally flushed it down the toilet by dumbing it down to console levels. I'm sure it was an executive decision and not yours, personally. But that's what the Nazis said, too.

"The control scheme one employees to navigate a car through a city street at 60-80 mph is like night and day, when compared to steering a pedestrian through those same environs."

That's why you (gasp) switch control schemes. On foot, Quake. In car, Carmageddon. It's not exactly rocket science.

"I'm not sure why people enjoying some aspects of the game over others is a cause of worry for you, but let me allay your fears."

My concern is the same one Erik had when he critiqued all those Rune reviews. It's like these reviewers were all born yesterday-- this is not new gameplay. It's an improved version of that gameplay, yes, but it's not mana from friggin' heaven burned onto a DVD.

"I disagree. You didn't have to shoot the UFO in Asteroids to clear a level (as I recall), but it was sure fun as hell to try. And even if I'm wrong about Asteroids, there are plenty of examples from the Golden Age of arcade games of the same idea."

How about if you could hop into the UFO in asteroids, and then proceed to a bizarre mini-game only incidentally related to the main game? Hey, free copy of Crazy Taxi inside every GTA3 box! What's the point of doing this? Nobody knows. With any luck this will become a checkoff item for all future driving mayhem career games-- carjacking? check. whores? check. TAXI SIMULATION? well. Subtract one star from that score!

"But in a away i do agree. When I played quake i just ran thru each level with the axe. Who needs those other weapons and why explore? You would think it is a game or something. Its work, you should take the shortest most efficient route with trying for additional powerups or secrets."

I suppose easter egg hunts are the high point of your holiday calendar. Later we can go play hide and seek, Chet! Until then, have fun searching for 'powerups' here: http://www.treeloot.com .

Also, SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE! IT'S PEOPLE!!

"Yes, and Doom is just Berzerk-3D, and Castle Wolfenstein 3D is just Castle Wolfenstein-3D."

Well, Mr. Use Your Real Fucking Name For Once, Serious Sam is just Doom 3D. Compare with Mario 64, which was a complete departure from the 2D gameplay of previous Marios..

"complete departure from the 2D gameplay of previous Marios.."

How so?

>There will probably be a PS3 by the time the PS2 expires. That's the thing -- Sony has the lead with the current one and is already working on the next one.

Exactly my point...the PS2 is closer to being where the N64 is today, a dead system where all the "good stuff" is coming for the PS3. The head start is Sony's greatest strength AND greatest weakness. They're benefitting from the most mature software library, but any investment in the platform will run out of steam sooner.

Personally, if I were to only get one console system this holiday season (and I didn't have one), I don't know WHICH would be best. PS2 has the best games, but Xbox has some great ones and some of my favorite developers are working on stuff for it and it's new, so I think it has enough stuff for now and more of a "future." And Gamecube is, well, Nintendo, and it's cheaper.

I'm guessing Mr. Fucking Eyes was being sarcastic. Perhaps I should have worded my post more carefully, to avoid dislodging the rattles of the highly strung. What this non-GTA-3D enhanced guy wants to know, is what is the difference between this and the original, other than that it is in 3D?

"Exactly my point...the PS2 is closer to being where the N64 is today, a dead system where all the "good stuff" is coming for the PS3. The head start is Sony's greatest strength AND greatest weakness. They're benefitting from the most mature software library, but any investment in the platform will run out of steam sooner."

I, like you, am in love with the concept of the Xbox. But if you would choose Xbox in the face of this:

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/reviews/0,10867,2820972,00.html

Plus MGS2. Plus GT3. And the half-dozen other must have games.. then you're deluding yourself. Realistically, it doesn't matter because you own every game and every game system ever made. But it matters to us common folk.

That said, I would loooove to play Halo. I do believe this will be Bungie's magnum opus, and they're primed with enough solid experience for exactly that sort of event.

"How so?"

In that it wasn't a direct translation of the 2D scrolling gameplay-- it actually exploited 3D to do things unheard of in the series. Puzzles based on real physics, for one thing. Being shot from a cannon, dealing with water, becoming "heavy", floating and flying, slippery surfaces.. hell, you name it. One of the all-time great examples of how 3D, properly used, can redefine gameplay.

Since Jeff brought it up, why the hell does anyone like games about skateboarding? Why do all of them require the personal endorsement of a variety of incomplete teeth-set people? Wasn't skateboarding done to death with Skate or Die & 720?

Well, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3 scored 10. Grand Theft Auto 3 scored 9.6. THPS3 is approximately 5 percent better.

The interesting thing about THPS, from a game design perspective, is how it makes the entire level interactive. It's no longer mere "level geometry"-- you begin to see every nook and cranny of the level as a platform for intricate extended stunts. Eg, "hmm, if I jump from here to there, then grind across this, then olly off the wall.." It's not unusual to end up on rooftops, which is fucking incredible. It is absolutely no surprise to me that these guys turned around and did a Spiderman game.

And you'll find that with the right tricks, you can go damn near anywhere in the level-- that's the type of exploration that is integral to the gameplay, folks. Please make a note of it.

THPS (your pick, 1 or 2) is absolutely a gaming classic. No doubt about it. Avoid this game and you're just cheating yourself of one of the all time greats. Why do that?

Other than that, read the review, I guess.

"Oh. My. God. Shame on you. Interstate '82 was an absolute travesty of a game. You guys took a perfectly brilliant game concept in I'76 and intentionally flushed it down the toilet by dumbing it down to console levels. I'm sure it was an executive decision and not yours, personally. But that's what the Nazis said, too."

I'm a Nazi now? Who are you supposed to be in this scenario? A Jew? The Americans? I'm guessing the Swiss, because at least those other two groups got involved, somehow. Anyway, I'm not going to sit here on this board and defend the game, any more than I would ask you to defend whatever it is you do.

"That's why you (gasp) switch control schemes. On foot, Quake. In car, Carmageddon. It's not exactly rocket science."

Which is why you personally have done it successfully so many times. The trouble here is that if you simply switch control schemes without making it a seemingly effortless task to do so, you run the risk of disorienting the player so thoroughly that the running games seems impossibly slow and the driving game unbelievably fast. You give them no incentive to ever leave the car. GTA3 balances this very well. I never have a problem leaving my car, if for no other reason than to kick the crap out of some random pedestrians (oops, that didn't directly help me finish the level, I guess I shouldn't do that anymore).

Further, in city driving games, getting the right scale is a tricky proposition. Believe it or not, simply making, say, a door in a building the right size, proportionally, to a car driving by it doesn't always work out to that relationship being preserved when viewed by the player. Camera angle plays a lot into this, as does the legibility of features in the environment. This is exacerbated further when you add a pedestrian mode to the game, limiting your ability to "cheat" certain features to make them look more correct. GTA3 managed to get all of this right. It works. That's an accomplishment.

"How about if you could hop into the UFO in asteroids, and then proceed to a bizarre mini-game only incidentally related to the main game? Hey, free copy of Crazy Taxi inside every GTA3 box! What's the point of doing this? Nobody knows. With any luck this will become a checkoff item for all future driving mayhem career games-- carjacking? check. whores? check. TAXI SIMULATION? well. Subtract one star from that score!"

You're in danger here of losing the argument to yourself when you propose ways of making existing games more fun, then argue that in fact you are making them less fun. I think your contention is that all gameplay should have a point. That's preposterous. If you need a hint, it's the second part of the word "gameplay."

But more importantly, the various modes of gameplay within GTA3 DO have a point. They aid in what I think is the main objective of the game's creators, which is to construct a consistent world and inhabit it, as much as possible, with enough varied environments and characters (INCLUDING THE PLAYER) to make it seem alive.

---

Quote:

The interesting thing about THPS, from a game design perspective, is how it makes the entire level interactive. It's no longer mere "level geometry"-- you begin to see every nook and cranny of the level as a platform for intricate extended stunts. Eg, "hmm, if I jump from here to there, then grind across this, then olly off the wall.." It's not unusual to end up on rooftops, which is fucking incredible. It is absolutely no surprise to me that these guys turned around and did a Spiderman game.

---

"I'm a Nazi now? Who are you supposed to be in this scenario? A Jew? The Americans? I'm guessing the Swiss, because at least those other two groups got involved, somehow. Anyway, I'm not going to sit here on this board and defend the game, any more than I would ask you to defend whatever it is you do."

Sorry, I know it wasn't your fault. But humor me. As much as I absolutely adored I'76-- easily in my top 10 games ever-- I'82 was everything that was ever wrong with PC gaming jammed into a game box. It was the equivalent of getting a flaming bag of dogshit on your doorstep. I marvel at how Activision managed to utterly eviscerate I'76 and Battlezone-- two of their most critically acclaimed PC games to date, with the best potential franchises in the PC gaming industry at the time-- with not three, not two, but a SINGLE sequel. That takes a special kind of corporate genius. Anyway. Moving on.

"Which is why you personally have done it successfully so many times."

Ah, the great hubris of the game designer. Anyone who has not the wherewithal to create the games is clearly in no position to critique them.

"trouble here is that if you simply switch control schemes without making it a seemingly effortless task to do so, you run the risk of disorienting the player so thoroughly that the running games seems impossibly slow and the driving game unbelievably fast. You give them no incentive to ever leave the car."

Already done. Operation Flashpoint. Improve on it, and you've got a million seller. Definitely drop the ridiculous fixed-wing craft section though. Feel free to extrapolate along the axis of Carmageddon or Twisted Metal: Black instead of reality, as you see fit.

"GTA3 managed to get [the scale] right. It works. That's an accomplishment."

What is this, the special olympics? There is no reward for trying.

"I never have a problem leaving my car, if for no other reason than to kick the crap out of some random pedestrians (oops, that didn't directly help me finish the level, I guess I shouldn't do that anymore)."

I hear you say this, then I hear Kevin Perry say (this is a direct quote) that he could play 10 hours straight without ever accepting a mission. Try to keep the hyperbole machine in check, guys. I don't believe it, any more than I believe someone could play solitaire for 10 hours straight. There HAS to be some goal you're moving toward in any game! I have half a mind to take you up on that statement, Kevin. I'm driving over to the airport with a stopwatch, and some fast food from that Wendy's on the corner.

"You're in danger here of losing the argument to yourself when you propose ways of making existing games more fun, then argue that in fact you are making them less fun. I think your contention is that all gameplay should have a point. That's preposterous. If you need a hint, it's the second part of the word 'gameplay'"

No, I'm arguing that we make them COHERENT GAMES rather than a collection of marginally related mini-games. As with writing. If the sentence does not directly serve the purpose of your paragraph, it should be cut or changed. Any fool can write a thousand word essay that rambles on, or pack in a half-dozen useless weapons (NOLF's mechanical poodle), or meaningless, incidental mini-games.

"But more importantly, the various modes of gameplay within GTA3 DO have a point. They aid in what I think is the main objective of the game's creators, which is to construct a consistent world and inhabit it, as much as possible, with enough varied environments and characters (INCLUDING THE PLAYER) to make it seem alive."

And running someone over right in front of a cop, without provoking the slightest reaction.. how does this make the world seem alive? Or jacking the cop's car and then embarking on a nonsensical series of vigilante missions to combat the very crime world that I am a rising star in? Does that keep things nice and consistent? I would argue quite the opposite.

"And why is this bad in GTA3?"

Because it doesn't exist in GTA3?

"Did you ever get the score for a jump or a roll? Have you done enough taxi runs to get the improved taxis? How about find at least 10 secret packages to get a better base weapon?"

Did you get all 120 coins in Mario 64? Have you ever gotten the "cat and mouse" or "piledriver" bonuses in Carmageddon? Did you clear all the hidden gaps in THPS2 or get the secret tapes? Is there ever a point to anything you write?

"I know exploring a city so that you could find the firetruck and use that in a mission to block a street before you start the 'real mission' would suck. Or instead of going in guns blazing to kill a shop owner, you went on your own, turned his car into a bomb and then scared him to run to the car and blow himself up. That would suck."

You know what really sucks? Trying to go in on foot and realizing that the on-foot combat model is so painful and grotesque that vehicles are your only option. GTA is a pretty good vehicular carnage sim, though. I'll certainly give you that.

"Wumpuss I guess you are one of those people who do not have the imagination to solve a mission in a way other than the obvious way, you like your game on rails. What you should do next needs to be clearly defined for you. Now that I know that, I understand your hatred for GTA3."

Sure, solve it any way you like. As long as it involves a vehicle. Or having sex with a hooker. Speaking of which-- good god. Have you guys read the user reviews for this game?

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/products/readers/0,11103,466217,00.html

It's like an OMM article just waiting to happen.

Now that you have started contradicting yourself in every single post there is not much point in even replying - but then with you is there ever really a good reason except to feed a troll?

Open wide Wumpuss I have a cookie for you.

Chet

'THPS (your pick, 1 or 2) is absolutely a gaming classic. No doubt about it. Avoid this game and you're just cheating yourself of one of the all time greats. Why do that?

Other than that, read the review, I guess.'

You didn't answer my question, as "interacting with the surface of the entire world" is a nonsensical answer as to why it's *fun*. Moo2 is fun for strategic, zen-like button pushing, and genocidal reasons. RPGs are fun for for the eq

By contrast, I have no idea why Tony Hawk is supposed to be so great, beyond generic action-gaming puzzle solving reasons. It just looks like Mario 64 on skateboards.

Now that I think about it, the only other game that's completely confused me as to its popularity is the Resident Evil series. My theory there was "people are insane."

"Ah, the great hubris of the game designer. Anyone who has not the wherewithal to create the games is clearly in no position to critique them."

Too busy with your smug, prepared answer to not miss the point, I guess: I never said your not having made a game disqualifies you from critiquing them. However, it does impact the veracity of your assertations that balancing car and pedestrian modes of play is "not exactly rocket science."

Believe it or not (and this is an important life lesson, so pay attention), just because something LOOKS easy, doesn't mean it is.

"What is this, the special olympics? There is no reward for trying."

Who said they tried? They succeeded, Yoda. Don't believe me? Ask anyone who's played the game. Don't believe them? This seems to be the crux of your problem: you refuse to believe anyone could enjoy this game as more than a driving simulation.

"No, I'm arguing that we make them COHERENT GAMES rather than a collection of marginally related mini-games. As with writing. If the sentence does not directly serve the purpose of your paragraph, it should be cut or changed. Any fool can write a thousand word essay that rambles on, or pack in a half-dozen useless weapons (NOLF's mechanical poodle), or meaningless, incidental mini-games."

See, here's the thing: games don't have to subscribe to any sort of dogma to be good. They just have to be fun and engaging. GTA3 is both.

I've got a newsflash for you: the public isn't, it turns out, a bunch of idiots. They're smart enough to spend their own money, and smart enough to decide what they like and what they don't. The last thing needed is someone yelling from his made-up position on some ivory tower of gaming that games are too simplistic or nonsensical or whatever other hair has crawled up his ass. Just ask Wagner James Wagner Au - he's been doing that for years, and no one's listened to him yet.

Heh. I guess we found Wumpus's victim for this week...

Don't take it personally, man. He's just playing games...

Well Jason, I'll bite, THPS style games are fun because of creativity and control. Beyond the goals and such (which add replay value), it's really all about performing moves. Sort of like Street Fighter II's super moves but THPS adds a new dimension by making it all very freeform. You just try and string together all those difficult- to-perform finger gymnastics moves and try and land upright. The game looks great, the controls are wonderful, and, I'd imagine (I'm not very good at the THPS games) it's sort of like jamming on a harmonica. You just freeform the moves together, accumulate points, best yourself, impress yourself, etc.,

THPS is the freeform jazz of gaming.

Actually, I imagine it's sort of like real skateboarding... only those special moves are within reach and, um, it's sans pain.

-Andrew

Toutsuite, thanks for posting. I enjoyed reading your comments. Don't get sucked too far into the Wumpus game. Months from now he'll pop back up with an example of why he thinks you were wrong and post it long after the conversation has been dead and buried.

As to Tony Hawk, I'm with Jason. I've played Tony Hawk a bit and it never hooked me. I just don't care about scores or tricks or whatnot, so trying to do it better in the game, to execute better tricks, seems really dull. It's like trying to get a better score in Civ II. I don't care about my score -- I just want to get to Alpha Centauri first.

"Heh. I guess we found Wumpus's victim for this week..."

Actually, I think Wumpus has met his match:

"Who said they tried? They succeeded, Yoda."

That's my favorite response to Wumpus yet.

Those who don't like the Tony Hawk games are really missing out. The only console game I've ever enjoyed more than Tony Hawk Pro Skater was Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2.

-Ron

I apologize to everyone for attempting to engage in a discussion with wumpus on the merits.

But if you can clear 10 hours on my schedule, I'd be happy. I just opened the second island, which is very, very different from the first industrial section. It has all new vehicles, all new stunts, and I want to explore it for a while. The minimissions and rewards for exploring more than keep me busy until I want the plot again.

A while ago I started a forum to talk about "Guilty Pleasure" gaming. Alot of gaming geeks (me, at least) have pretty sharply defined tastes and issues with games. Arcade games shooting for high scores don't rank very highly on my potentialometer of game design. There are many more interesting concepts out there that have barely been scratched. And as much as it causes me both indigestion and heartburn, I have to agree with Wumpus' assessment of I-82 in comparison to I-76.

On the other hand, some games are just too much fun on their own terms to be held up to some abstract standards born of frustration with mediocrity. Zipping around in GTA2, or the original GTA was a blast. Sure it was unrealistic and laden with powerups and high scores but it was crunchy fun. If GTA had been a hardcore crime and get-away simulation I probably would have been bummed by a cheesier sequel. It wasn't, I'm not, and I'm looking forward to the same gameplay in a broader package now.

While it's true there's no real dynamic story or setting you can effect through missions or actions in GTA games there is an ecosystem of sorts that is fascinating. Cause and effect rules the streets. Learning to manipulate that, along with sussing out the secrets of the city in terms of powerups and other useful locations, is what the game is all about. Sure it's really just about a high score but getting there is the fun.

Maybe in GTA 4 we'll see real dynamic missions and the ability to affect, or invent, one's own story and affiliations. Missions generated on the fly, as in a dynamic campaign, rather than hardcoded for eternity.

For the time being, I'm happy to have a guilty pleasure or two along with the higher flown games that I really look for in the long run.

Free tank cheat:

When you're in the street, press the circle button six times, R1, L2, R1, triangle, circle, triangle, and a free tank will drop out of the sky.

Most of the fun of GTA was just seeing how many cop cars, ambulances, and fire trucks you could get hung up before you blew them to smithereens. That was hours of enjoyment. I laugh everytime I think of it. I will probably grab GTA3 here at some point. The simple pleasures of blowing things up in a free form environment are just too good to pass up.

I am still having a lot of fun with GTA2. It is one of the few games I can just fire up for a quick session and not get sick of it.

"Now that you have started contradicting yourself in every single post there is not much point in even replying - but then with you is there ever really a good reason except to feed a troll?"

No, exploration is not an essential gameplay element in GTA3. I can complete the entire game without deviating from an as-the-crow-flies route between the mission objectives. Try doing that in Tony Hawk, Carmageddon, or Mario 64. What I was pointing out was the distinction between "replay value" sideshow elements and integrating exploration into the flow of the gameplay. I dunno, maybe where you come from, the location of the hidden megahealth in Doom is brilliant game design.

We've established that you own http://www.daddyshand.com. Do you also own the http://www.treeloot.com domain?

"However, it does impact the veracity of your assertations that balancing car and pedestrian modes of play is "not exactly rocket science.""

Does this impact the veracity of your misquote? What I said was that switching control schemes between on foot and in vehicle wasn't rocket science. As for balancing on-foot and vehicles, I'll say it again since the first time didn't seem to take: just stop typing right now and go buy a copy of Operation Flashpoint.

"This seems to be the crux of your problem: you refuse to believe anyone could enjoy this game as more than a driving simulation."

The crux of my problem is that so many people playing GTA3 evidently never played Carmageddon. I could spend hours in Carmageddon crushing pedestrians in ever more gruesome ways, exploring the vast world map (for Chet's powerups), and evading or destroying the opposing vehicles-- including police cars and police APCs. You even get points for doing flips and stunts. Hell, just read Xaroc's post above. Been there, done that. We used to play Carmageddon multiplayer for HOURS in the office. If there's any justice in the world, whoever designed that Carma1 sumo map should receive the nobel prize for multiplayer gaming.

If Erik is pissed off that so many positive reviews of Rune seemed to exist in a vacuum, why shouldn't I be pissed that so many positive reviews of GTA3 *CLEARLY* exist in a vacuum?

"I've got a newsflash for you: the public isn't, it turns out, a bunch of idiots. They're smart enough to spend their own money, and smart enough to decide what they like and what they don't."

This cuts both ways. The public wasn't smart enough to buy Battlezone, but they are smart enough to buy Myst? And while I'm at it, Resident Evil, since Jason brought it up?

I will definitely argue that there's a strong correlation between total play time (as measured in multiplayer games where we can get such metrics) and game quality, but there is far, far less correlation between box sales and game quality. This all goes back to my supposition that most games are played a few hours and then shelved.

"But if you can clear 10 hours on my schedule, I'd be happy. I just opened the second island, which is very, very different from the first industrial section. It has all new vehicles, all new stunts, and I want to explore it for a while. The minimissions and rewards for exploring more than keep me busy until I want the plot again. "

This is in no way meant to disparage people who think GTA3 is the Best. Game. Ever. If you're having fun with it, go for it. Hell, have more fun with it JUST TO SPITE ME. No extra charge.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to advise people to wait for the PC version which will inevitably be superior to the PS2 version. Or, if you really can't wait, just pick up a bargain bin copy of Carmageddon for 90 percent of the gameplay.

"By contrast, I have no idea why Tony Hawk is supposed to be so great, beyond generic action-gaming puzzle solving reasons. It just looks like Mario 64 on skateboards."

Between my response, Bub's well-written reply, Ron's remark, and the reviews... I think you should be all set. Trust me, we aren't all on the same crack pipe.

'THPS is the freeform jazz of gaming.'

That explains it. It still doesn't make me want to play it, but at least I don't look askance at people who buy the game.

Anyone want to take a shot at Resident Evil?

"Anyone want to take a shot at Resident Evil?"

I say it can't be done. Who's with me?

---

Quote:

If Erik is pissed off that so many positive reviews of Rune seemed to exist in a vacuum, why shouldn't I be pissed that so many positive reviews of GTA3 *CLEARLY* exist in a vacuum?

---

People love Resident Evil because they like combining herbs. Um... they love the voice acting? Um... because horror is so under-represented in gaming?

I'm going with the last one.

-Andrew

"It just looks like Mario 64 on skateboards."

Er, I don't see how this is a criticism.

Also:

"I'm happy to have a guilty pleasure or two along with the higher flown games that I really look for in the long run."

I don't understand this argument that somehow certain games are "guilty pleasures." Jumping on a dinosaur's head in order to collect a bauble is no less noble a feat than imaginarily conquering a pretend Aztec civilation. Seriously.

-Ron

Ha! Good one, Ron.

Come to think of it, I regard *all* gaming as a guilty pleasure!

-Tom

"That explains it. It still doesn't make me want to play it, but at least I don't look askance at people who buy the game."

I've got a better idea. Why don't you just play the game? Opinions are best formed from actual experience. THPS2 is out for the PC and is practically a bargain bin title at this point, for every platform..

Hey, I know! I'll bitch about every single little thing! Nothing will be good enough for me!
I plan on going around with my panties in a wad for the rest of my life because no one has made game yet that has the graphics of the FF movie, the intuitive control of Mario 64, the feel of Half-life, the coolness of MGS, and gives me felattio at the same time!

I just scanned this all the posts in this topic quickly and didn't take the time to get a true feel for all the posts, but I don't feel like I have to. It seems like it has degenerated into "Yo I'm more hardcore than you, so my opinion matters and yours doesn't pussy" thread.

Fucking grow up. People have different tastes in games just as people have different tastes in literature or in movies. If you disagree with someone, FINE. But don't start making antagonistic statement and derogatory commentary, merely list your likes & dislikes, & why.

Then everyone can read everyone else's opinons and thought and can make intelligent decisions based upon that. THe last thing that anyone needs is to come into a thread and see a bunch of people acting like kindagardeners.

"Here's a guess: because Carmageddon was a PC game and GTA3 is, as of today, a console game? So in a sense it does exist in a vacuum, at least for console gamers."

http://www.psxgamer.com/reviews/carmageddon.htm

It was also released for the N64. Not particularly great translations, granted, but Carma was a remarkably complex game for 1997.

"And whether it does or doesn't exist in a vacuum is irrelevant."

If you happened to fall off a turnip truck yesterday, then I suppose even "Mad Dog Mcree" is a new high water mark in gaming history.

'I've got a better idea. Why don't you just play the game?'

It looks boring? I don't like action games that much? I didn't like the 5 minutes I played of I or II on the PS?

I thought Carmageddon II was one of the Best Games Evar, though. Squashing moose and penguins (occasionally they do that "no, please don't hit me head-shaking thing") really made my day.

C'mon Ron, and Tom, there are games that engross and others that merely distract. Perhaps that's a fine line but it's a real one. If we toss standards out the window entirely, why bother having them at all? I like relativism as much as the next guy but I usually like games with designs I consider innovative, complex, and engaging much more than games I find shallow or predictable.

There are many film fans on these boards from the looks of it and my guess is that many of these folks here can talk a better game about story, acting, cinematography, aesthetics, styles and the qualitative differences between 'movies' and 'films' than they do games sometimes and do it with a much straighter face. ;)

"It looks boring? I don't like action games that much? I didn't like the 5 minutes I played of I or II on the PS?"

Oh, sorry, I thought your posts indicated you hadn't played it.

"I thought Carmageddon II was one of the Best Games Evar, though. Squashing moose and penguins (occasionally they do that "no, please don't hit me head-shaking thing") really made my day."

It is shocking to realize that Carma 1 was released WAYY back in 1997. So far ahead of its time.

http://www.3dgamers.com/games/carmageddon/

Carma 2 was one of my Most Anticipated Games Ever. Ultimately I was a bit disappointed with 2. It's too much like the original and some of the things they added really destroy the multiplayer aspect of the game, which was OUTSTANDING in Carma 1. I feel the original is better, though I am definitely partial to a lot of things they added in singleplayer for Carma2-- for example, polygonal peds, the ability to split the car in half (lengthwise or breadthwise), better car damage modelling, and the giant morningstar you could attach to the rear of your car as a powerup.

Note that with your car split in half, or bent, it is still (well, usually) drivable. Splitting your car in half lengthwise was the holy grail-- you had to ram into a pole or other sharp object at very high speeds, which always meant risking death. And the few times we got the car cut in half was a heavy broadside swipe from a large vehicle. Then you had a driver with his ass hanging out, attached to an engine and two wheels, with the middle of the car scraping along the road. Your lifespan wasn't too long at that point, but we were usually laughing too hard to car. It was hilarious to land really hard on the ground and your car is in a weird "U" shape that is marginally drivable. This is what happened in every episode of Dukes of Hazzard after those ridiculously impossible jumps where you can just about see the front tires ramming through the wheel wells. ;) Plus, you're really vulnerable to other cars at that point. Nothing was funnier than dramatically revving your engine while pushing an opponents "U" shaped car slowly but surely over the edge of a crevasse, as they watch helplessly.

And the bulldozer. Oh god, the fun we had with that. We would make one guy be the bulldozer and everyone else would just go for him. It was totally unfair any other way.

Polygonal peds were a blast, too. Running over a guy limping away on one leg was priceless, especially since he trailed blood the whole way. If you were very careful, you could actually knock off *all* the limbs so the ped was just a wriggling, bleeding torso. Then, slowly drive your car over and nudge the torso into the nearest lake. Does the hilarity ever end, I ask you?

All this in a real, live, functioning city with ambient traffic and plenty of shit to break or run over.

Both Carma1 and Carma2 are head and shoulders better than the abysmal TDR 3000 or whatever they called the third iteration. Stay far, far away from that pile of crap.

"The crux of my problem is that so many people playing GTA3 evidently never played Carmageddon. I could spend hours in Carmageddon crushing pedestrians in ever more gruesome ways, exploring the vast world map (for Chet's powerups), and evading or destroying the opposing vehicles-- including police cars and police APCs. You even get points for doing flips and stunts. Hell, just read Xaroc's post above. Been there, done that. We used to play Carmageddon multiplayer for HOURS in the office. If there's any justice in the world, whoever designed that Carma1 sumo map should receive the nobel prize for multiplayer gaming.

If Erik is pissed off that so many positive reviews of Rune seemed to exist in a vacuum, why shouldn't I be pissed that so many positive reviews of GTA3 *CLEARLY* exist in a vacuum?"

Because by and large, the gaming public didn't like Rune. People LOVE GTA3. More about this later.

"This cuts both ways. The public wasn't smart enough to buy Battlezone, but they are smart enough to buy Myst? And while I'm at it, Resident Evil, since Jason brought it up?

I will definitely argue that there's a strong correlation between total play time (as measured in multiplayer games where we can get such metrics) and game quality, but there is far, far less correlation between box sales and game quality. This all goes back to my supposition that most games are played a few hours and then shelved."

This must be in response to that post I made where I said box sales have a correlation to game quality. Oh wait, I never said that. In fact, I never mentioned box sales at all.

Want to know what has a direct correlation to game quality (and brace yourself, this is gonna knock your socks off)? PEOPLE'S ENJOYMENT OF THE GAME.

Yep, that's right. If lots and lots of people enjoy a game, enough to rush home every night to play it, only interrupting the game long enough to post their latest exploits on a message board, guess what? IT'S A GOOD GAME.

This is why you lost the fight the moment you picked it. Your point seems to be, "Everyone is saying this is a great game, and everyone is wrong." The problem here isn't everyone else, Grasshopper, the problem is you. Somehow, the developers managed to create the game they set out to make, including all the little bells and whistles they thought were cool, and somehow the gaming public took to it in big numbers, and LOVED it, and wrote about it on message boards, and called their friends over just watch them play it, and told their co-workers to go buy it, if they bought no other game this year, not even MGS2, somehow all of this happened, and because it's not the game YOU wanted it to be, everyone else is wrong.

That might be the case, but I'm pretty sure it's not, just as I'm pretty sure I'm not the one who should "stop typing."

"Yep, that's right. If lots and lots of people enjoy a game, enough to rush home every night to play it, only interrupting the game long enough to post their latest exploits on a message board, guess what? IT'S A GOOD GAME."

So if a lot of people rush home to listen to the latest Britney Spears album, stopping only to post about how much they're enjoying the song in an AOL chatroom, does that make Britney's latest A GOOD ALBUM?

I mean, come on. Look at the logic you're using. It doesn't make sense. We can name plenty of things that were critically acclaimed and sold poorly, or that sold great, were loved by millions yet considered crap by the critics.

"Want to know what has a direct correlation to game quality (and brace yourself, this is gonna knock your socks off)? PEOPLE'S ENJOYMENT OF THE GAME."

You mentioned gamers spending money. Just press CTRL+F and type in "money" then press enter three times. As in, money gamers use to PURCHASE GAME BOXES.

I believe the correlation between box sales and enjoyment is weak at best.

How do we objectively measure enjoyment? I think there's only one way: through measurements of actual play time. Assuming people aren't all closet masochists who force themselves to play games they don't enjoy. How can we measure actual play time? Right now, only in multiplayer games.

That's the only true metric available to us. Everything else is just wild, blue sky speculation. How many copies of Myst were sold, divided by the number of hours played? Who the hell knows? But if we went by money spent as our only metric.. well, Myst is automatically the best. game. ever.

"This is why you lost the fight the moment you picked it. Your point seems to be, "Everyone is saying this is a great game, and everyone is wrong.""

Totally not my point. But feel free to rage, rage against the dying of the light. Or against the machine. Or whatever it is you're doing.

More cheats from the gamefaqs message boards:

R2, R2, L1, R2, Up, Down, Up, Down, Up, Down = Lower Wanted Level Cheat

L1, L2, R1, R2, R2, R1, L2, Triangle = Clear Weather Cheat

L1, L2, R1, R2, R2, R1, L2, X = Fog Weather Cheat

L1, L2, R1, R2, R2, R1, L2, Square = Cloudy Weather Cheat

L1, L2, R1, R2, R2, R1, L2, Circle = Rainy Weather Cheat

Circle, Circle, Circle, Circle, Circle, Circle, R1, L2, L1, Triangle, Circle, Triangle = Tank Cheat

Circle, Circle, Circle, Square, Square, Square, Square, Square, L1, Triangle, Circle, Triangle = Faster Time Cheat

Right, Down, Left, Up, L1, L2, Up, Left, Down, Right = Wear Any Outfit Cheat

Down, Up, Left, Up, X, R1, R2, L2, L1 = Pedestrians Fight Each Other

Down, Up, Left, Up, X, R1, R2, L1, L2 = Pedestrians All Hate You

R2, R1, Triangle, X, L2, L1, Up, Down = Crazy Pedestrians

Right, R2, Circle, R1, L2, Down, L1, R1 = Peds Box Each Other

R1, L1, R2, L1, Left, R1, R1, Triangle = Great Handling In Car and horn button jumps

Square, L1, Circle, Down, L1, R1, Triangle, Right, L1, X = exploding limbs

R2, R2, L1, R2, Left, Right, Left, Right, Left, Right = Higher Wanted Level Cheat

"So if a lot of people rush home to listen to the latest Britney Spears album, stopping only to post about how much they're enjoying the song in an AOL chatroom, does that make Britney's latest A GOOD ALBUM?"

Man, you're so down, you've forgotten which way is up. Let me help you out, here...

The answer to that question is: YES. Is it a form of entertainment that people listen to more than once, don't regret purchasing, enjoy listening to, has some sort of relevance to their lives? YES? Then it's a "good" album.

"I mean, come on. Look at the logic you're using. It doesn't make sense. We can name plenty of things that were critically acclaimed and sold poorly, or that sold great, were loved by millions yet considered crap by the critics."

All that sense that isn't being made? That's your typing, friend. Who are "the critics?" I mean, is there a more pathetic job description (and better oxymoron) than "Game Critic?" What is it exactly they're commenting on? "All these people, enjoying themselves with popular entertainment? THEY'RE WRONG! It's too linear! It's not linear enough! Too many distractions! The animation isn't smooth enough! WAKE UP! I tell you, you've been swindled!" It kind of sounds a little sad, huh?

"You mentioned gamers spending money. Just press CTRL+F and type in "money" then press enter three times. As in, money gamers use to PURCHASE GAME BOXES."

Lots of people like to read the whole sentence. Some, the entire paragraph it's a part of. Since you're not one of them, let me just run that full sentence by you one more time: "They're smart enough to spend their own money, and smart enough to decide what they like and what they don't."

You see that? I never said they vote with their dollars. I say they get to decide what they like, not you. Not even me. I just happen to be right in this case.

Hold on, you only wade further into the weeds from here...

"How do we objectively measure enjoyment? I think there's only one way: through measurements of actual play time. Assuming people aren't all closet masochists who force themselves to play games they don't enjoy. How can we measure actual play time? Right now, only in multiplayer games."

You know what the great thing is? We don't have to measure enjoyment objectively. The people who enjoy things are more than happy to stand up and be counted, as I pointed out earlier. Besides, if you honestly don't get that people are loving the hell out of GTA3 by now, you're completely out of touch with the industry you've been trying to educate...

"Totally not my point. But feel free to rage, rage against the dying of the light. Or against the machine. Or whatever it is you're doing."

Actually, it's pretty clear to everyone that it is you, dead friend, who seems to be raging against something here. Wonder what it might be...

[Standing ovation.]

Toutsuite, I've never seen Wumpus handled so well!

He's always like this. He's trying it in the Civ 3 thread -- did you see it? He's really ticked off a lot of people. Kudos, man.

"I mean, is there a more pathetic job description (and better oxymoron) than "Game Critic?" What is it exactly they're commenting on? "All these people, enjoying themselves with popular entertainment? THEY'RE WRONG! It's too linear! It's not linear enough! Too many distractions! The animation isn't smooth enough! WAKE UP! I tell you, you've been swindled!" It kind of sounds a little sad, huh?"

HEY!

Come on, Bub. Surely you don't think of yourself as a "critic." I sort of agree with him -- though I'm not sure how complete that agreement is. It's one thing to write a review to inform the public. That's what you -- and so many others here -- do. It's another to take the angle that he's talking about -- which only Wumpus is known to do -- and tell the general gaming public (if there is such a thing) that they're idiots for liking a game, because of X, Y, and Z.

I'm sure he meant no offense to anyone here, except, of course, the one person with whom this debate has been waging...

"You see that? I never said they vote with their dollars. I say they get to decide what they like, not you. Not even me. I just happen to be right in this case."

Every time you spend money, you are indeed voting with your dollars. If something isn't profitable, it dies. I don't know what kind of transcendental socialist utopia you live in, but that's how it works down here.

"The answer to that question is: YES. Is it a form of entertainment that people listen to more than once, don't regret purchasing, enjoy listening to, has some sort of relevance to their lives? YES? Then it's a "good" album."

We have a limited amount of time for entertainment. People should seek out the highest quality entertainment available to them. Why bother with "good" when you can have "outstanding"? Which brings me to..

"Who are "the critics?" I mean, is there a more pathetic job description (and better oxymoron) than "Game Critic?" What is it exactly they're commenting on? "All these people, enjoying themselves with popular entertainment? THEY'RE WRONG! It's too linear! It's not linear enough! Too many distractions! The animation isn't smooth enough! WAKE UP! I tell you, you've been swindled!" It kind of sounds a little sad, huh?"

I love this paragraph, particularly for this audience.

All criticism is negated with a single mighty broadstroke of the "fun" sword. Heck, why publish reviews at all? We should just get a "fun-o-meter". I imagine it being sort of like those coin-operated love testers you see at movie theaters. A lot of flashing lights, then a readout.

"You know what the great thing is? We don't have to measure enjoyment objectively. The people who enjoy things are more than happy to stand up and be counted, as I pointed out earlier."

So only positive opinions are worth counting? I'll let you in on a little secret: you get a better picture of reality if you listen to both sides of the story.

"Actually, it's pretty clear to everyone that it is you, dead friend, who seems to be raging against something here. Wonder what it might be..."

Sentimental, overwrought new age kooks like yourself, apparently.

"and tell the general gaming public (if there is such a thing) that they're idiots for liking a game, because of X, Y, and Z."

I've never called anyone an idiot for liking anything. But there's no shortage of people hurling insults at me. People just don't like hearing opinions that differ from their own.

"He's always like this. He's trying it in the Civ 3 thread -- did you see it? He's really ticked off a lot of people."

How so? Civ 3 is annoyingly slow on a very fast PC, particularly when scrolling. It makes an already slow-paced game even more agonizing than it would normally be.

Allow me to quote Harry Truman: "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it is hell!"

"Come on, Bub. Surely you don't think of yourself as a "critic." I sort of agree with him... It's one thing to write a review to inform the public. That's what you -- and so many others here -- do. It's another to take the angle that he's talking about -- which only Wumpus is known to do -- and tell the general gaming public (if there is such a thing) that they're idiots for liking a game, because of X, Y, and Z."

Michael,
It's basically semantics but, sure, I would call myself a critic. I prefer reviewer, of course, but the definition of critic does indeed fit. I mean, I have taken a popular game I honestly disliked and told fans that they shouldn't like it because of X, Y, and Z. We're not beholden to public opinion, after all.

Tom's review of Deus Ex, Brett Todd's review of Vampire, my review of Klingon Academy, are all examples of good reviews that honestly went against the tide of popular (even editor) opinion (even if we didn't call fans "idiots.")

That's not to say I didn't enjoy the rest of his post or that I'm even "offended" by that paragraph. I'm not. In fact, I noticed he has a Sony Playstation email address, so I presume he's on the other side of the fence we, um, game critics are on and certainly entitled to his opinion.

But I probably should have put a ;) after that "HEY!" just to eliminate confusion.

-Andrew

Fair enough. And my apologies to any deserving - I meant no offense, to anyone.

(For what it's worth, I was fairly certain -- somewhere in the 95% range -- that you were joking..)

But, ultimately, as dangerous as the word is, fun is the bottom line, isn't it? I agree that in a review, there's really no place for it, but does that mean that someone should play a less fun game because it's more technically advanced, or better designed, or ________ (insert various other descriptors here) in favor of a more fun game that...well...isn't. I'm sure none of you would say yes to that. The fact remains that you can't qualify a game in degree of "funness" (I just made that word up) in a review, but the point stands...If 99.9% of the people asked (assuming you've asked enough people for the poll to be valid and all...Standard disclaimers apply) think a game is the most fun game they've ever played, then it deserves the highest honors anyone can bestow upon it.

I'm not refuting anyone's review of anything. I loved Tom's Deus Ex review, and personally agreed with every word of it, but I think most people praised it more for its hype than the game itself, though I could be wrong.

But, if the "general gaming public" found game X to be the most fun game released, but all the game reviewers found game Y to be superior in all ways but fun, which deserves the highest praise?

I suppose anyone who writes reviews is essentially a critic, though I don't typically think of it that way. I feel like a reviewer's goal is more to inform the public than critique the game, though I understand that he/she actually does both.

Anyway, I'm not making any significant points here, so I'll stop...

Well the "fun" argument is really about it not being quantified. No review should praise a game for being "fun" or condemn it for not being "fun" if the reviewer can't explain *why* it's fun or not.

As for Deus Ex, I'm not sure it was hype per se. I think it was the subject matter. Fans of the game seemed willing to forgive an awful lot to play in a conspiracy laden (X-Files-ish) world that uses RPG elements and is a shooter. It sort of tapped into something people wanted and weren't getting elsewhere. I didn't review it as harshly (or, let's face it, as eloquently) as Tom did but, probably because the setting wasn't so interesting to me, the flaws seemed all the more stark.

I found the same response to my Klingon Academy review, people who love Trek were so hungry for a decent Trek game they sort of ignored some of the serious flaws the game had. KA was a Trek game that did a lot of things people genuinely wanted a Trek game to do. I'm a Trek fan too but the flaws that they forgave in favor of simply having a decent Trek combat simulator only disappointed me more, and led to my savaging it at PCGamer.

-Andrew

'As for Deus Ex, I'm not sure it was hype per se. I think it was the subject matter. Fans of the game seemed willing to forgive an awful lot to play in a conspiracy laden (X-Files-ish) world that uses RPG elements and is a shooter. It sort of tapped into something people wanted and weren't getting elsewhere.'

Yep. I agreed with every point in Tom's infamous review, but I also thought the game was fun, mostly because of the kooky plot (bums in the subway mumbling "Majestic!" to themselves). It's not like I really like the X-File that much, though, so I'm not sure why I enjoyed playing it so much.

I agree 110% -- fun is not a word that belongs in a review -- at least, not very often, and not without a lot of misgivings and explanation on what makes it fun. But I think it's best not to use that word at all.

That said, if I buy a game, and it's fun...Well, then no one can say I'm wrong for liking that game.

Which is what it seems Wumpus is doing, and what Toutsuite is criticizing, and what I was agreeing with.

I don't know if anyone was offended by my comment, but I truly hope not. I have read reviews written by just about everyone here that writes, and think you all very deserving of the job, and very good at it.

Andrew S. Bub sez:

'other side of the fence'

HEY!

;)

Everyone is ignoring wumpus main point and I'm not sure why... if GTA3 really is simply GTA1 and 2 in 3D and even the mini-games are rehashes of the previous games, then why is it being scored so highly in reviews?

Wumpus pointed out those reader reviews at Gamespot so I went over there and took a look. Most telling was that the people who played the GTA games before 3 were much less excited about GTA3. Their scores were lower and their praise less gushing. So that DOES say something about this series of games at the very least...no one played it until it was in 3D. And really...there have been a lot of driving games like I'76, Midtown Madness, Carmageddon, etc. that are about fast driving with no regard for the law. So I really don't think this one could be some huge breath of fresh air as a lot of people in this thread and around the net have made it out to be.

I never played Redline, but wasn't that similar in that you could drive or get out of the car and kind of do anything you wanted to finish missions?

Is the execution in GTA3 really that good that it warrants overlooking all that came before it?

--Dave

---

Quote:

Wumpus pointed out those reader reviews at Gamespot so I went over there and took a look. Most telling was that the people who played the GTA games before 3 were much less excited about GTA3.

---

---

Quote:

This is the funnest game i've played in a long time...This is new and fresh and i have a feeling i'll be playing it more than i'll be playing Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3...Nobody should have their doubts about buying this game

---

---

Quote:

GTA3 combines and refines all the elements of the previous gta games, and adds a lot of new features to create a very entertaining and fun game.

---

---

Quote:

Overall - The best game ever behind Gran Turismo 3, buy it now. Gameplay is the best ever you will find!!!

---

---

Quote:

I give the game a 10

---

Kevin Perry blurted:

"HEY! ;)"

Don't worry Kevin, your side of the fence looks prettier. I can see waterfalls, foresty glens and... hey, are those nymphs?

-Andrew

http://www.oldmanmurray.com/longreviews/Rune/Runerebut2.shtml

Okay, I give up pretending I like these reviews. What the fuck is going through these people's minds? Even reviews that read as if the author doesn't like Rune (IGN for example) give it a 90. I don't get it. This review at 3D gaming daily just broke me. Is this his first review? He has all of 3 games to draw on for comparison.

Do you remember when you were in 10th grade and one of your friends asks you if you want to go to a Billy Squier show? You have no idea who this guy is because your entire musical taste is defined by your second oldest sister's music collection of Led Zepplin, Iggy Pop, David Bowie and the Ramones. So you say, "Yeah, Billy Squier rocks. I'll go." Then you go and it's your first show ever so you get caught up in it. By the time you're riding home you're thinking, "Billy fucking Squier Rocks! He's the rockest motherfucker ever!"

I had a revelation two days later when I saw Billy Squier's My Kinda Lover video on MTV. Not only did Billy Squier not rock, he made me feel like a fag for ever liking him in the first place. I can only hope that 3D Gaming Daily's Jared Taylor gets his revelation soon.

Furthermore, if we are using outside opinions (such as gamespot user reviews) as a metric, gamerankings.com rates Grand Theft Auto 3 the third best game across all platforms, just behind Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Half Life.

If the gamerankings position is calculated using reader - rather than editorial - opinions, Grand Theft Auto 3 rises to the second best game ever rated, just behind Phantasy Star Online.

As a control, Rune does not make it into the top 400 using either of the two available ranking systems.

-> Not only did Billy Squier not rock, he made me feel like a fag for ever liking him in the first place. <-

Didn't you say this about something else a few months ago?

Toutsuite:
All that sense that isn't being made? That's your typing, friend. Who are "the critics?" I mean, is there a more pathetic job description (and better oxymoron) than "Game Critic?" What is it exactly they're commenting on? "All these people, enjoying themselves with popular entertainment? THEY'RE WRONG! It's too linear! It's not linear enough! Too many distractions! The animation isn't smooth enough! WAKE UP! I tell you, you've been swindled!" It kind of sounds a little sad, huh?

Why do we have music critics? Movie critics? Theatre critics? Food critics? After all, the point of ALL of these is to enjoy the experience, right?

I think shunting games into the 'mindless entertainment for the proletariat' category (as movies were, for much of their early existence) is the wrong thing to do. Game criticism is a Good and Necessary Thing (tm), even if it is still in an embryonic state.

"Tom's review of Deus Ex, Brett Todd's review of Vampire, my review of Klingon Academy, are all examples of good reviews "

I think you mean "good examples of blown reviews" that were utterly ridiculed.

Furthermore, if we are using outside opinions (such as gamespot user reviews) as a metric, gamerankings.com rates Grand Theft Auto 3 the third best game across all platforms, just behind Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Half Life.

If the gamerankings position is calculated using reader - rather than editorial - opinions, Grand Theft Auto 3 rises to the second best game ever rated, just behind Phantasy Star Online.

As a control, Rune does not make it into the top 400 using either of the two available ranking systems.


The phenomenon at work here is the same one that makes seemingly "normal" (i.e. not spectacular) movies appear as "Best. Movie. EVAR." wherever reader polls are taken. Lack of perspective and lack of a critical eye are really to blame.

Now, while I don't think that gaming is a snobby high-art form, I don't think that most people have the broad exposure to games of all platforms (and genres, and years) that a lot of reviewers do...hence, I tend to trust well-known critics more than Joe Six-Pack. But even they can be overzealous at times.


(Now what I'm sure this discussion will wind up turning into is a flame-fest of "Oh yeah??? Well, I've been playing games for a ZILLION years, so I'm right and you're wrong about game X! Raaah raaah raaaah!!!!")

"Didn't you say this about something else a few months ago?"

Well, I should clarify. That is not my text, it's a quote from the OMM URL above.

"Furthermore, if we are using outside opinions (such as gamespot user reviews) as a metric, gamerankings.com rates Grand Theft Auto 3 the third best game across all platforms, just behind Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Half Life."

This is a reasonable metric. I browsed the top 50 by PC and top 50 by all platforms, and it certainly looks sensible. However, let's see how the game fares when it has more than 10 reviews. I'd tend to drop games with less than 10 reviews from the results entirely-- and it seems unfair to compare games with a high average in 60 reviews, compared with a game that has a high average with 5 reviews. They need to weight that better.

And again, not that GTA3 is a bad game (except for the on-foot mechanics, which suck), it's just that I feel like I've already played the best element of the game, namely, the vehicular rampage part.. three times over. Which is inevitably what all the user reviews end up raving about. See my Carmageddon 2 description above for details then just substitute "GTA3!!@21!" as necessary. I'd like to award myself a cunning stunt bonus, while I'm at it.

---

Quote:

Everyone is ignoring wumpus main point and I'm not sure why... if GTA3 really is simply GTA1 and 2 in 3D and even the mini-games are rehashes of the previous games, then why is it being scored so highly in reviews?

---

---

Quote:

Note that with your car split in half, or bent, it is still (well, usually) drivable. Splitting your car in half lengthwise was the holy grail-- you had to ram into a pole or other sharp object at very high speeds, which always meant risking death. And the few times we got the car cut in half was a heavy broadside swipe from a large vehicle. Then you had a driver with his ass hanging out, attached to an engine and two wheels, with the middle of the car scraping along the road. Your lifespan wasn't too long at that point, but we were usually laughing too hard to car. It was hilarious to land really hard on the ground and your car is in a weird "U" shape that is marginally drivable. This is what happened in every episode of Dukes of Hazzard after those ridiculously impossible jumps where you can just about see the front tires ramming through the wheel wells. ;) Plus, you're really vulnerable to other cars at that point. Nothing was funnier than dramatically revving your engine while pushing an opponents "U" shaped car slowly but surely over the edge of a crevasse, as they watch helplessly.

Polygonal peds were a blast, too. Running over a guy limping away on one leg was priceless, especially since he trailed blood the whole way. If you were very careful, you could actually knock off *all* the limbs so the ped was just a wriggling, bleeding torso. Then, slowly drive your car over and nudge the torso into the nearest lake. Does the hilarity ever end, I ask you?

---

Andrew saw, through misty eyes:

'Don't worry Kevin, your side of the fence looks prettier. I can see waterfalls, foresty glens and... hey, are those nymphs?'

Well, sure, but it's Halloween.

Tomorrow they'll be back to QA guys.

I'm glad someone knows how to debate the merits without descending into ridiculous platitudes about "fun" (eg, ToutSuite).

"more varied goals, a more open-ended campaign structure"

This I will give you. It is something that Carma, Midtown et al needed BADLY. And it is done well in GTA3. However, you may want to subtract some points for the developers duplicating missions in previous GTA games byte-for-byte.

"It features bigger, more interesting environments, a larger selection of cars"

Why do we award bonus points for a game released in 2001 having enhanced versions of the same gameplay elements we saw in 1997? Quake 3 isn't better than Quake 2 for this very reason. Unreal Tournament, on the other hand is better than Quake 2. That's because they didn't just "supersize" the elements of previous FPS games-- they elaborated and riffed on them.

"better damage modeling on the cars, an extremely satisfying physics model"

Debatable. If I can bend the cars in Carma 1, split them in half in Carma 2.. I agree that it's on par with the best physics and damage modelling we've seen, but it is not superior or breaking ground here.

"and an arguably flawed but nonetheless perfectly acceptable "on foot" mode (which still represents the genre's best implementation of this feature to date - most of GTA 3's competitors don't even attempt it.)"

Maybe this is where we disagree. Not about the fact that the on-foot game mechanics suck, because they unquestionably do. They're servicable, barely, but they're a pale shadow of the vehicular game. What we may disagree about is the relative importance of a viable on-foot game WRT the evolution of this genre. Go way, way back and read my very first post in this thread.

"On top of all this, it's much richer in the "extras" (both overt and intangible) that can elevate a good game to the status of great. For instance - although Wumpus has managed to somehow use this feature to condemn GTA 3 - it includes an almost fully implemented version of Crazy Taxi."

For these extras to elevate the game as specified, they must be integrated into the flow of the game. Otherwise they're just part of that giant nebulous cloud of "replay value". These things are desirable, to be sure, but as you said-- this is the difference between good and great.

For example. Getting in a cop car, and embarking on a series of vigilante missions against the very crime syndicate that I am a part of. How is that integrated into the gameplay? What motivation do I have to hop into a fire truck and put out a fire, or deliver patients in an ambulance? It's just random as hell.

"So you may also want to disregard his assertion that, in order to be relevant, all features must be "REQUIRED to proceed in some way.""

I am not arguing that this Carmageddon model of random, unstructured mayhem is the only desirable gameplay paradigm. In fact, one of the weaknesses of Carma was that.. well, that's pretty much all there was to the game. So I find it amusing that people are celebrating this EXACT gameplay paradigm in GTA3 (look how many cars I blowed up! I just beat up a ped! watch me explore the city and find a power up! I can shoot anyone!) when it's NOT REALLY GAMEPLAY. It's just futzing around. Yes, it's fun. But it's been done to death-- literally.

If you want to talk about that stuff in the context of solving a problem on a mission, fine. But most user reviews aren't doing that. They're celebrating.. carmageddon.

"If the small advancements to the Civ2/Alpha Centauri formula implemented in Civ 3 are compelling enough to cause Wumpus to purchase the ***tin box collector's edition***, then you may want to take his condemnation of GTA 3's "originality" with a grain of salt."

Yeah, but I hate that game too. Haven't you read the other thread?

Note: I'm kidding.

I think it would be okay if the Internet crashed today, for good -- as long as it meant I wouldn't have to read a message like this one ^^^ from wumpus EVER AGAIN.

Just like the rest of us who post with some sort of identification wished the Internet crashed today, for good -- as long as it meant we wouldn't have to read anonymous posts like this one ^^^ EVER AGAIN.

--Dave

Wumpuss - so that I am not missing anything - you dislike GTA3 because it does not have enough story for you?

Ummm okay. I agree. Same reason I dislike Counter-strike. What is my motivation for placing my bomb in the middle of an open area? Why aren't I attaching it to a car? A building? Where are the innocent people? Who am I protecting or fighting against? Why can't I put my gun down and walk away, leaving behind this violent society I am part of.

I can only imagine you just read some CS Fan fiction to get your through.

I did not realize CS was so deep:

---

Quote:

This small tale by Poyfather epotimizes the true pinnacle of Fan Fiction. Imagine if you will the Ulysses of Counter-Strike Fan Fiction. A spurning story of a young man struggling to find his identity in a world that highlights the importance of autonomy. What James Joyce was to modern literature, is what Poyfather is to Counter-Strike Fan Fiction.

---

Ah, this is a great thread. Really. The most hilarious part of it is Wumpus prancing around like the Quality Snob Art Critic with a jester's hat on, and for some reason he can't see the floppy ends or hear the bells ringing, but everyone else can.

Keep it up, dude. This is the best laugh I've had in a long, long time.

By the way, a Quick Fact: It's impossible to benchmark a game for "fun", yet that sole factor sells more games than anything you could ever possibly and objectively quantify.

Doesn't that just piss you off?

And a truism for you, toutsuite: The biggest problem with stupid people is they're too stupid to ever realize they're stupid, and they're too stupid to have their stupidity explained to them. Pointless exercise. I will say I've appreciated some of the zings, though--nicely done. Almost well-done enough to forgive you for I82. ;)

"Just like the rest of us who post with some sort of identification wished the Internet crashed
today, for good -- as long as it meant we wouldn't have to read anonymous posts like this one
^^^ EVER AGAIN."

Keep defending him, numbnuts. Buy a few dozen $9 Dreamcast games while you're at it.

"C'mon Ron, and Tom, there are games that engross and others that merely distract."

Sure, but that has little to do with my original point. Great games are great games, and the idea that certain great games are less great because of their genre or platform makes no sense to me.

I was only using the excerpt from your post to back up the statement before, which attempted to dismiss the Tony Hawk games by comparing them to Mario 64 - implying that a game that requires manual dexterity as a part of its problem-solving is somehow a lesser game. Mario 64 was a stunning game, both in its scope and its design. To use it as some benchmark for dismissal is baffling to me.

Final Fantasy Tactics is a console game. It is also a great turn-based, squad-level strategy game. Is it less good than Jagged Alliance simply because it is a PlayStation game? Or because you control little guys with big heads and swords instead of tough-talking mercenaries with NATO pact arms? I'll give you a hint: No. And Mario 64 is no less good than Operation Flashpoint just because the thing you are pretending to be is a plumber who saves a princess instead of a soldier who fights a Nazi. Or whatever you do in Operation Flashpoint.

TomChick made a good point when he said that he considers all games to be guilty pleasures. Tell me, naysayers: Is that the reason for such disdain for certain genres? That you want to make sure people know you aren't playing the silly kind of games? You play games, but you play dignified games. You don't have time for kids' stuff like trying to make that kickflip indy into a 720 madonna - you're in a space race with the Babylonians!

-Ron

Game snobbery is something that's always irritated me. You will see this often when people dismiss RTS games as clickfests, as if playing turn-based strat means they are mentally superior.

You also get this a lot with RPGs. Players who like to play the min/max game are called "munchkins" and are looked down upon by the players who like to pretend that they are elves when they play. It is to laugh.

Okay, I knew that paragraph would probably cause a little grumbling. First off, I am fully aware that we are currently living in the Age of Criticism (as far as literature goes), and that the Net seems to have turned this into a sort of full-time (if unpaid) pursuit for a lot of people.

Yes, I am on the "other side of the fence," in game production, but it's not like I don't have opinions, good and bad, about games. In fact, my degree is in Critical Studies from the most acclaimed film school in the US. Believe me, I know how valid and necessary criticism is as it applies to art and, to a certain extent, popular culture.

My point was (and is) this: this "Ideal" that some critics think every game (or any form of popular entertainment) should strive toward is a ridiculous concept. Have you noticed that all of the suggestions you've made for GTA3 have been borrowed from other games? There's no better way to squelch originality than to assign a strict set of rules for game design and judge all new games against it. GTA3 attempted to take the urban driving simulation and expand on it. More importantly, it is a reflection of what the designers consider to be fun gameplay. It's not the result of polls or sales figures from past games. It's an expression of a collection of programmers, artists, and designers of what they thought might be a great game. Of course, I'm sure they did some focus testing and so forth, to make sure the controls were tuned correctly.

Then the game comes out, and lots of people buy it. Further, lots of people enjoy it. This is clear. There�s no debating that people are loving GTA3, for many of the same reasons you deplore it. You can get out of your car. You can kick the shit out of anyone you see (or try, at least). You can solve the missions however you see fit, as long as you solve them.

Anyway, people enjoy it. To come prancing in after the fact and declare that everyone is wrong, that the game is bad because it doesn�t measure up to what it should have been ACCORDING TO YOU is not only an exercise in futility, but is endemic of the problem of all such criticism: it smacks of an elitism that by necessity relegates the tastes of the buying public to no more than the impulses of sheep, willing to buy anything thrown their way. Your example: Britney Spears. Now, I am quite positive you have never listened to an entire Britney Spears album. I�m sure your objections to it being considered �good� are that it�s massed-produced, market-researched, corporate music designed to appeal to a specific age and gender group. How could it possibly be good? That�s not ART, dammit.

I don�t think Britney is out to make art. She�s out to make albums that mean something to young girls, that teens can dance to, and that will sell a lot of copies. She�s done it. Whether it meets your requirement of �good� or not is irrelevant. It�s exactly what she wanted it to be, exactly what her audience wanted from her. Same as GTA3.

Does high-brow criticism of the sort you kind of aspire to have a place in gaming? Maybe. I kinda doubt it, though. Again. Wagner Au James has tried it for years, and failed pretty miserably. He now sounds kind of like a lunatic, screaming over and over, �But it�s not art! It�s not art!� while the rest of the gaming world shrugs and turns their attention back to important matters, like finding the power up and winning the level. That�s kind of how you sound, only more annoying, and also completely oblivious to the fact that you�re completely wrong in this case.

Finally, please stop switching back and forth in your arguments:

�there is far, far less correlation between box sales and game quality.�

Later:

�Every time you spend money, you are indeed voting with your dollars. �

Just pick a side, already. For the record (and I�ve had to say this to you, now, a total of three times): I DON�T think higher sales = higher quality, necessarily.

"TomChick made a good point when he said that he considers all games to be guilty pleasures. Tell me, naysayers: Is that the reason for such disdain for certain genres? That you want to make sure people know you aren't playing the silly kind of games? You play games, but you play dignified games. You don't have time for kids' stuff like trying to make that kickflip indy into a 720 madonna - you're in a space race with the Babylonians!"

Is this supposed to be a meta parody? I'd probably buy a console if I had time to play more games, but as it is I play the games I like most. Hmmm.

Must... stop... clicking... thread... title.

WRT the genre question, it's a good one. Here's a good exercise: walk down the top 50 PC games on the http://www.gamerankings.com site. There's bound to be a few games on that list that are extremely well-regarded by "most reviewers", but didn't work for you, for whatever reason. You'll find that this is usually a genre thing-- the vast majority of RPGs, for example, don't appeal to me.

I guess it's like sexual orientation. Either a genre works for you, or it doesn't. Impossible to explain or justify, but there it is, nonetheless.

All the more reason to print up those "Bruce Geryk is gay" Q23 T-shirts we were promised. It's a metaphor. Yeah, that's the ticket.

"I'm glad someone knows how to debate the merits without descending into ridiculous platitudes about "fun" (eg, ToutSuite)."

In a thread full of your idiotic statements, this may be the dumbest one yet. You've become so twisted around you forgot why people make and play games in the first place.

Did you buy the game called Grand Theft Auto 3 hoping for a life-changing experience? Something along the lines of reading a great book or staring at a great painting?

You're applying some sort of arbitrary culture scale to what is possibly the most pure form of popular entertainment on the planet. It doesn't get simpler than video games, pal. ESPECIALLY arcade shoot-em-ups like GTA3. To judge it by the same standards you might other, more complex games is like saying "This episode of 'Everybody Loves Raymond' doesn't work for me, because truly, family squabbles such as this could only be resolved through years of work with a trained therapist, not in thirty minutes of pratfalls and misunderstandings.'"

Ron: I would agree that just because a game belongs to a certain genre or is for a certain platform it by default shouldn't be considered inferior in some absolute sense. And I'd say that, of course, tastes of the individual will always influence what they consider 'good' or 'fun' and no outside standards will effect that by much in the short term.

We're so far off topic I'm tempted to let it slide but I do think that simulation-style games that deal with subjects I actually find interesting and delivered in a style that engages me as an adult will go farther with me than something aimed at my 11 year old cousin. Pretty colors and lots of sugar don't do for me now what they did a long time ago. I also think that we can look at games critically and taking them seriously, at least somewhat as seriously as we take movies, isn't going to hurt one bit. In fact, I think it's happening now - as we speak. GTA3 might be missing some things I'd like in an ideal world but what it does is in-your-face and as gritty a first person world simulation as we've ever seen. It's getting better all the time out there.

On that note, I should point out I've done what I've long stated flatly that I wouldn't and bought a PS2. Yes, just because GTA3 looks that good to me and I couldn't wait.

Sorry X-Box. I guess I'll wait and see with thee.

"And I'd say that, of course, tastes of the individual..."

and

"as it is I play the games I like most"

Well, sure. I was never implying that you don't have the right to dislike certain games or certain genres based on your personal interests. But that's only tangentially related to the posts I was arguing against, both of which implied certain types of games had less merit than others on some absolute scale of meaningfulness.

I can appreciate that the Jane's Longbow games are significant achievements while at the same time knowing that I don't want to play one ever again. I have no problem with people not liking platform jumping games, or skateboarding games, or carjacking games, or whatever. But there is a big difference between not liking something and taking some all-holy stand that somehow one type of problem solving is better than the other.

Likewise, Wumpus is just wrong. This is not subjective. His argument that somehow a game is not as good if it's already been done is ridiculous. Therefore, Doom is better than Half-Life. Which is simply untrue. Games are probably the only form of entertainment with built-in obsolence. Old movies? Great. Old records? Great. Old games? Mostly crap. Technological advancements actually make games better. Carmageddon is not a better game than GTA3 simply by virtue of the fact that it came before it.

I can't believe anyone is arguing the critical merits of GTA3 with someone who liked Tresspasser.

-Ron

"I was only using the excerpt from your post to back up the statement before, which attempted to dismiss the Tony Hawk games by comparing them to Mario 64 - implying that a game that requires manual dexterity as a part of its problem-solving is somehow a lesser game. Mario 64 was a stunning game, both in its scope and its design. To use it as some benchmark for dismissal is baffling to me."

Actually, I compared TH3 to Mario 64 because that was the closet gameplay analogy I could think of. Mario was pretty fun, but I certainly wouldn't rate it with a friggin' 10. Ergo, my confusion over the 10 rating for TH3.

"To come prancing in after the fact and declare that everyone is wrong, that the game is bad because it doesn�t measure up to what it should have been ACCORDING TO YOU is not only an exercise in futility, but is endemic of the problem of all such criticism:"

Sorry, the game is perfect. It is beyond reproach. Clearly criticism of any kind is useless in the face of such blinding perfection.

"Did you buy the game called Grand Theft Auto 3 hoping for a life-changing experience? Something along the lines of reading a great book or staring at a great painting?"

Hey, man-- I was told it was the Best Game Ever. No, really. I was. And it is, if you've never played any of the games that it's based on. Then it's just an incremental improvement to the genre with a lot of polish and one semi-serious flaw.

"Now, I am quite positive you have never listened to an entire Britney Spears album."

Survey says... BZZT. Had the MP3s for her first album since 1999. I even have a Britney Spears notebook here at work that I use to take notes in meetings. Hell, just ask my co-workers if you don't believe me.

"His argument that somehow a game is not as good if it's already been done is ridiculous."

Would Serious Sam be a better game if they spent more time thinking about gameplay and less time painstakingly recreating Doom in fabulous, breathtaking, lens-flared 3D? I dunno. You tell me. This criticism isn't incompatible with calling Serious Sam a "good" game. It certainly is. But it's a fraction of the game it could have been, because y'know what? I'VE ALREADY PLAYED IT ONCE. Speaking of which, my GBA Doom better be here today, or I'm going over to the UPS office and personally kicking some brown butt.

Kevin Perry probably nailed this better than anyone else so far. GTA3 doesn't really do anything new, so it's a question of how much you think they brought to the table with the integration and the mission structure.

Personally, I wish the dev team had spent more time integrating the gameplay elements-- particularly the nearly useless on-foot stuff, and the random "mini-games". Instead of duplicating Carmageddon, Driver, and hell, even themselves with GTA1 and GTA2.

Also-- go straight to the top of this thread, and you'll find my expectations for the game before I even owned it. Note that "on foot" was one of the primary items I was looking for in this game.

'Would Serious Sam be a better game if they spent more time thinking about gameplay and less time painstakingly recreating Doom in fabulous, breathtaking, lens-flared 3D? I dunno. You tell me. This criticism isn't incompatible with calling Serious Sam a "good" game. It certainly is. But it's a fraction of the game it could have been, because y'know what? I'VE ALREADY PLAYED IT ONCE. Speaking of which, my GBA Doom better be here today, or I'm going over to the UPS office and personally kicking some brown butt.'

Just because it's been done before doesn't make it unfun. Myself, I had a hell of a blast with SS on the hardest difficulty level (not the invisible monsters one); it was just an amusing variant of Doom.

'Would Serious Sam be a better game if they spent more time thinking about gameplay and less time painstakingly recreating Doom in fabulous, breathtaking, lens-flared 3D?'

Um, Serious Sam's gameplay was Doom's gameplay. It's not like they copied all of Doom but the fun.

>high-brow criticism ...Wagner Au James has tried it for years, and failed pretty miserably. He now sounds kind of like a lunatic�

Now? When didn't he? He's always come across as a pretentious, misplaced, first-year philosophy student bleating naive, or just nonsensical, mewings out of some misguided, ill-conceived sense of purpose. But that doesn't mean there's no place for detailed analysis, or evaluation/criticism, of games and the gaming industry.

Games are no more, or less, trivial than other forms of entertainment, and yet there seems to be a commonly held view that it's "embarrassing" to discuss or criticize them in any detail. Or that it's valueless (or impossible) to assess them other than based upon your subjective "fun" with the game.

I'm not sure that what I'm saying is inconsistent with anything you're saying, but I just want to highlight the point that it's equally valid when discussing games (or movies/books/music) to:

- not bother judging or evaluating them at all;
- judge them either solely based upon whether you thought it was fun or enjoyable (thumbs up/thumbs down), or aggregate the opinions of a bunch of people making similar opinions; or
- discuss them in more detail, and judge them based upon how various aspects (or the product as a whole) compare to those in other products of its type.

All valid, and which you prefer will depend upon your tastes (and, in the case of the second two examples, the perspective and analytical abilities of the commentator). But I don't think it's meaningless to opine upon a game's relative merits, for the simple reason that a lot of gamers (and movie fans, etc.) are interested in that sort of commentary.

Stefan

With the abundance of me too games, I can understand why Wumpus might have some backlash against GTA3, which he claims is nothing more than a slick re-hash of earlier games. Then again, I wouldn't mind a slick re-hash of, say, X-Com or Castles. (Speaking of which, is Stronghold anything like Castles? I'm thinking about picking up a copy.) I don't see anything wrong with a game that takes a known concept and implements it better. Would a GTA3 sequel be a better game if they souped up the graphics and the on-foot gameplay? You bet it would.

Wumpus, you make the complaint that playing a game once makes other similar games less entertaining. That assessment is fine from a personal value standpoint, but it doesn't mean the newer game is of poorer quality.

- Alan

---

Quote:

Hey, man-- I was told it was the Best Game Ever. No, really. I was. And it is, if you've never played any of the games that it's based on. Then it's just an incremental improvement to the genre with a lot of polish and one semi-serious flaw.

---

All tastes are relative and subjective, Ron, but I do think some folks, who don't necessarily agree on everything, might have qualitatively better taste in general than folks with a lesser range of knowledge about computer/video games. Or perhaps, life experience itself. Why else expect anything from reviewers that my 11 year old cousin couldn't make up? Besides the fact that he's a fictitious device.

It's absolutely true, though, that nothing totally original exists and all worthwhile games represent evolution and synthesis of earlier ideas - some inspired by previous computer games but others from other media or experiences. The first Atari games were invented by an engineer, and former carnival attendant, trying to reinvent carnival-style arcade games in a digital format. Wumpus might have had a point, at some point, but I'm not sure where he's going now.

I'm going to differ on a couple points. Old computer games are still some of the most creative in terms of gameplay because they had to be. There wasn't much else to work with besides raw gameplay. It may have leaned more on the imagination of the players than the graphical games today, not entirely a bad thing, but you can still hear the roll of classic games, often still played, in terms of DOS titles. Many of the 'best' games in strategy and wargaming are little more than evolutions, and in some cases oversimplifications, of older titles that reached a bit deeper than their contemporaries.

But I'm not going to get on the graphics suck bandwagon either. Combat Mission and GTA3 are proof positive, as if anyone needed it, that the same old gameplay packaged up with a strong visual presentation is more than the sum of its parts. Admittedly, Combat Mission uses a WeGo system and great AI but the individual battles unfold not that differently than its cousins Close Combat and Steel Panthers to the untrained eye.

Graphics are good. But pure gameplay and the power of imagination to build ephemerial associations that add resonance to a game's experience are magic. Listen to what people love about GTA3 at Gamespot. Freedom. Realism. Exploration. Possibilities. Not the cutscenes. Not the scripted missions. The elements folks love are those that fire the imagination. That's gameplay the way I like it and that's a better, holier, sort of problem-solving than the scripted puzzle or sidescroll hopping variety.

"Just because it's been done before doesn't make it unfun. Myself, I had a hell of a blast with SS on the hardest difficulty level (not the invisible monsters one); it was just an amusing variant of Doom."

Serious Sam is a fun game. But it's like eating a bag full of Snickers instead of a proper dinner-- once you finish the bag you're still hungry for something else.

"So the best game ever has to be completely original and have no parts from previous games? Any new madden/nfl2k etc must suck, its just the same old game? Do previous games really make you enjoy current games less? I could see your arguement if it did not improve on the previous games, but you even admit it does."

It depends on your definition of BGE, I suppose. I'm looking for something that breaks new ground in some way, and evolves the genre forward. What I am not looking for is a repackaging of cribbed gameplay elements in a random, helter-skelter all-you-can-eat buffet masquerading as "freedom".

I don't feel that GTA3 meets the BGE criteria for the reasons I've outlined ad nauseam in my posts to this thread. It is close enough to be an excellent game, but I just don't feel it deserves the BGE title. This is, as ever, just my opinion. Feel free to play the game and reach your own conclusions.

You can read the Op. Flashpoint thread to see why I feel that game does reach BGE levels. It's a gameplay experience unlike any I've played.. whereas I get heavy-duty, big-time Carmageddon/Driver/Midtown flashbacks playing GTA3. Shrug.

"Wumpus, you make the complaint that playing a game once makes other similar games less entertaining. That assessment is fine from a personal value standpoint, but it doesn't mean the newer game is of poorer quality."

It's all about evolution, ultimately.

Jeananne Garofalo said something in stand up that I've been searching for because I thought it'd make a great column starter. Here it is paraphrased:

"I truly envy people without taste. They don't care what goes in their ear hole, mouth hole, eye hole, whatever. Hootie & the Blowfish? Love it! Danielle Steele? Can't get enough! Lion King? Yes! Soundtrack? You betcha!"

I actually believe she is (just a bit) envious.

-Andrew

I just read through this whole thread, and now I don't like gaming anymore.

Of course, he doesn't like gaming any LESS, either...:-)

"it's like eating a bag full of Snickers instead of a proper dinner-- once you finish the bag you're still hungry for something else."

No, you're not. What the Hell is this supposed to mean? Jesus, these threads have gone crazy. And have given me a huge headache. LAST POST EVAR!!!

"Old computer games are still some of the most creative in terms of gameplay because they had to be."

This is a popular sentiment, but I'm not sure I buy it. There are a few really groundbreaking games that pretty much created computer gaming as we know it. But we just like to remember the good ones. Go back and play Empire or King's Bounty, then play Heroes III or Civ III. The latter two are better games because technology has allowed them to be.

It's not just graphics, which seems to be how you've interpreted "technology." You say yourself people love GTA3 because of the freedom to explore. How much freedom to expore did you have in Kabul Spy? The Wizard and the Princess? Technology has allowed games to become more creative.

"Freedom. Realism. Exploration. Possibilities... That's gameplay the way I like it and that's a better, holier, sort of problem-solving than the scripted puzzle or sidescroll hopping variety."

Er, no it's not. Rayman 2 and Klonoa are both amazing games, but by your criteria they are less so than games without side-scrolling or scripted puzzles. It's simply a different kind of problem solving. By your argument, Chess is worse than GTA3 because your moves are restricted. It's a strategy game on rails! Freedom is not always a good thing. Most people disliked Shenmue for that very reason.

You bring it back to my original point at the end. Judging from your post, your point is this: Some people have better taste in games, and they don't like side-scrollers.

Basically, we both wasted a lot of words to disagree on the relative merits of Donkey Kong Country and Kampfgruppe. And we're obviously going to disagree on that no matter what.

-Ron

I'm not sure you're following me and I don't entirely like the examples you're using but I can agree to disagree.

The problem with thinking back to the old computer games and judging them against the new computer games is the perspective with which we viewed them. Everything was so new and amazing to us back then that simple things created lasting impressions. Remember the snake in Wizard and the Princess? It was animated! After it was drawn on the screen, it's tongue flicked out and back - once. I remember calling my wife over and making her watch it, it was so amazing! The first time I entered the dungeon in Akalabeth (the prequel to Ultima) and realized I was in a three dimensional, line drawn dungeon, I thought that this was going to be impossible to top. Even though the monsters were static line drawings, and they advanced at about 1 frame per two seconds. The first time my plane lifted off of the black and white, 10 square by 10 square featureless ground in SubLogic's FS1, it took my breath away.

Were they BETTER games than todays'? Of course not. Did they plough a lot of unbroken ground? Sure (although don't forget that a majority of the gamnes those days were reproductions of coin op arcade games.) Most of today's games are no doubt better than most of yesterday's games. And my opinion is that there are just as many people making creative breakthroughs today as ever. Just look at games like Tomb Raider, Sim City and the Sims, Combat Mission, Red Baron2 3D, XCom, and I'm sure others can add to the list.

Jeananne Garofalo said something in stand up that I've been searching for because
"I thought it'd make a great column starter. Here it is paraphrased:

"I truly envy people without taste. They don't care what goes in their ear hole,
mouth hole, eye hole, whatever. Hootie & the Blowfish? Love it! Danielle Steele?
Can't get enough! Lion King? Yes! Soundtrack? You betcha!"

I actually believe she is (just a bit) envious."

I agree. I generally like Garafalo. She can be quite funny, but she, like so many Manhattanites that I lived among for a decade, often seems to equate cultural snobbery with taste. E.g., "I wouldn't be caught dead listening to a sound track or show tune." Well, Sondheim writes show tunes. There's a lot of Sondheim I like. Irving Berlin wrote show tunes. "Always" is a show tune. I like "Always." "As Time Goes By" is from a soundtrack. I like "As Time Goes By." So shoot me.

As an aside, the type of Manhattanite I describe above is almost invariably a Yankee fan. Which probably explains why I can't bring myself to root for the Yankees even it's the "patriotic" thing to do. And which is why I'm once again gnashing my teeth after last night. I just fucking KNEW that was going to happen.

I can see what you're saying about the little things that must have made that time so exciting. But I'm a relative newbie so I'm playing Darklands, Daggerfall, Elite, and X-Com for example, for the first time concurrently with contemporary games. There was vision, a scope, back then that we haven't really seen replicated in recent days for whatever reason.

You can call it what you like and perhaps what I'm seeing as the most powerful, imaginative, forms of computer gaming is just what I want to see. I could go on about why I feel the way I do and defend it rhetorically but, at this point, who cares? It's one thing to be right. It's another thing for that to matter.

What criteria are people using to decide on "best game ever?" I'm more in favor of Ron's balanced gameplay/technology view instead of Wumpus' "uniqueness of gameplay only" standpoint. Regardless, it seems like a big waste of time to argue over something so subjective. (...and here I am posting to this thread...again)

- Alan

I just want to know if it's possible to get a PS2 and Grand Theft Auto 3 for less than $320+!!! Geesh!!

Bub:

I can't believe you didn't link this article:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3737/refreshingly_naive.html

"Feel free to roll your eyes and cluck your tongue at me. But underneath all that contempt, I know you are mad with envy! Your suspicious nature restricts your possibilities in life and contorts you with fear... You'll never meet a bigger sap than me, but you'll never meet a more carefree one, either!"

Just to bring the conversation's level down a notch... From the end of FatBabies' story on the GTA "visit the hooker to increase health" feature:

"This is only the second time an act of fellatio for increased power has been noted in the world of video games. The first was when an ex-Doom-designer with illusions of grandeur interviewed Stevie Case at Ion Storm."

Heh.

I spent a few hours playing Tony Hawk 3 with a co-worker last night, and we cleared the first two levels (Forge and Canada). Incredibly fun!

But you know what? It's not B.G.E., despite the perfect 10 review on GameSpot.

The game plays identically to the two previous games. Sure, it's still fun and everything, but It'd be a struggle to justify ponying up $50 for this game instead of a cheaper copy of THPS2.

The only significant evolution is in the area of online play, which is of dubious benefit on a console. Especially one that doesn't have a built in modem or ethernet.. or hell, even an online strategy. In fact, #2 might have been a bigger evolutionary step than #3, since #2 introduced the wallride and manual. #3 just has.. the revert and online play.

The real B.G.E. here is the first Tony Hawk game you happen to play (mine was #2). You can think of the sequels as P.Diddy remixes of the original. More stylish. More up to date. Maybe a new funkier backbeat. But it's the same damn song underneath.


Another observation. THPS3 gameplay is rather twitchy. I could see people who aren't into the whole hand/eye coordination thing not getting into the game, as brilliant as it is.

"No, you're not. What the Hell is this supposed to mean?"

At the end of Serious Sam, I had all the satisfaction of a guy who spent the last 12 hours playing solitaire. Fun, but ultimately forgettable.

You'll remember great meals, but you won't remember eating a bag of snickers. No matter how delicious it may have seemed at the time.

Speaking of which. Leftover halloween candy, HERE I COME!

Well, I don't agree with your assessment of GTA3, but I think you're on the money with THPS 3. I'm about 6 levels in and I'm enjoying myself, but I can't shake the feeling that they're just going the yearly sports game route with this series, and don't really see how it gets a 10 from Gamespot. That said, I do think this is probably the best iteration so far. It seems a bit faster, and I dunno, "looser." I mean that in a good way.

I also REALLY appreciate that Neversoft said "Fuck it," showed some initiative, and put in (limited) support for USB networking instead of waiting for some nebulous network plan and peripheral from Sony. Can't comment on how it plays online though, as my USB network adaptor doesn't seem to be supported. Anyone tried it yet?

-Matthew

Wumpus, don't argue with Bruce. Your analogy didn't make sense, so don't try to change it now. If you ate a bag of Snickers, you wouldn't be hungry anymore. Unless it was a very small bag. In which case your analogy still didn't make sense.

-Ron

"Your analogy didn't make sense, so don't try to change it now. If you ate a bag of Snickers, you wouldn't be hungry anymore."

When I eat a lot of candy, I'm even more hungry for "real" food (eg, meat, bread, etc), though ostensibly full. Candy is great but it just isn't filling like a regular meal is. No matter how much of it you eat.

I'm not changing my analogy; it's been the same since I wrote it.. I was assuming the whole "hunger" and "food" thing worked the same way across other members of the species.

Bullshit Jeff. Snickers really satisfies. We all know it to be true.

-Andrew

Well, that's true. And Bruce isn't really a member of the same species as us, after all: he's gay.

'At the end of Serious Sam, I had all the satisfaction of a guy who spent the last 12 hours playing solitaire. Fun, but ultimately forgettable.'

Of course, the fact you think that's it forgettable makes it completely so, right? Even though other Uppity People here on this board liked it? Sheesh.

"you won't remember eating a bag of snickers"

Says you. In fact, that is the *only* reason I remember March 12th, 1992 even happening in the first place.

I'd probably remember the agony after eating an entire goddamn bag of snickers, too.

As to the original point of this thread. I'm playing GTA3 now. I wouldn't call it the best game ever but I would call it the best console game I've ever played (with Soul Calibur running a near second - but that's apples and oranges in terms of comparison). And it ranks pretty high among PC titles too.

GTA3 really has something for everyone and the ambitious nature of the design harkens back to the imaginative explorative nature of PC game designs past but with today's technology and a finely honed sense of style, and sick humor, backing the action and adventuring up. It's an arcade game, sure, but it's not. The level of realism in the setting, graphics and NPC behavior (as a whole) exceeds most 'serious' games but for very focused simulation-style titles. The open-ended style of exploration with multiple goals and methods surpasses most so-called RPGs. You can play this game any way you want. The copious stats tracked by the system allow a player to just riff on one particular aspect for improvement if he wants to. Or you can just wander and watch action, life on the streets, unfold. And it does put on a stunning show for a non-scripted game.

Crap. Maybe it is the best game evar?

http://www.elecplay.com/interview.html?article=7179

EP: We know all about the launch titles. What does the future of Xbox have to offer?

SB: What we're showing for next Christmas is out of control. I actually flew to Tokyo with one day's notice after I saw a video tape of a company in Japan called Bunkasha. I didn't believe it was real. I'm going to be showing it at Comdex. It's called Wreckless. It's a driving game in downtown Hong Kong at rush hour. You've seen the videos on the web, everybody's saying "It's not real." It's f***ing real. It's unbelievable. It's unstoppable. Driving a monster truck out of a second story window of a shopping mall, with products falling all over you, onto traffic, crushing cars, and people are running out of the way and the police are after you, it's nuts! It's so fun. And it's fundamentally a new kind of gameplay. Not only is it a driving game--we could have done Gran Turismo 3 with twice as many cars and turn the effects on all of the time, but why would you want to do that? You want to use the power to fundamentally change the coolness of games.

This is a sick game, and you are sick people for liking it. I saw it's sick capabilities on display last night at Auxiliary Shoot Club and I must say I was disturbed by its complete and utter moral bankruptednessissity.

Here's a question, though, a sort of "South Park: Bigger Longer Uncut"/MPAA ratings kind of question. Why is it that the game is happy to show us old women and cops being bludgeoned to death, is happy to show their blood pools and spatters as you gleefully relieve them of money and weapons, but it will not show what the hooker is doing to you when you pick her up and park in an alley?

And Europeans say we're immature about sex. Posh.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Amanpour

---

Quote:

Why is it that the game is happy to show us old women and cops being bludgeoned to death, is happy to show their blood pools and spatters as you gleefully relieve them of money and weapons, but it will not show what the hooker is doing to you when you pick her up and park in an alley?

And Europeans say we're immature about sex.

---

"You can play this game any way you want."

Try playing it on foot. G'wan. I dare you.

Try playing I76 with no weapons on your car. G'wan I dare you.

That's called "carmageddon". And it's nothing like the "fundamentally new kind of gameplay" that Seamus thatguywhoworkedontrespasser referenced, above.

No, it is called pulling out a stupid example no one would ever try in a lame attempt to disprove someone's point. My 13 year old does it all the time. It is easy to contradict almost anything anyone says if you don't limit yourself to reasonable responses (see your post at 4:12 above). My kid is 13 and in a phase, what is your excuse?

"No, it is called pulling out a stupid example no one would ever try"

See post #3 in this thread. On foot just doesn't work out for the problem solving approach to missions. That's the same experience I had on that mission, by the way. On foot is essentially broken. You must use vehicles. That tends to detract from the "play the game any way you want to" theme.

So.. what's your excuse?

The fact that all I had bothered to find up until that point was the 9mm, (really only good against 1-3 people)a shotgun with 5 shells, and no body armor was really the only reason I couldn't kill those bodyguards. If I had been exploring some of the alleys in St. Mark's more, I could have gone in there with at least an AK-47 and some armor, and dealt with the situation in a pretty straightforward manner. The guy still probably would have been to his car by the time I finished the guards, but that's to be expected.

Once I had the Uzi, or even more than 5-10 shells for my shotgun, I found the on-foot combat a lot easier to deal with. I couldn't go on endless sprees, but I could deal with a group of 5 and up (see some of the rampages). Besides, I love the feeling of "Oh shit, I'd better find a car and get the hell out of here" after getting into a firefight, pushing my luck a little too far, and having streams of police or rival gang members come after me.

-Matthew

"On foot is essentially broken. You must use vehicles."

and

"Another minor disappointment is the auto-target nature of the on-foot gunplay. Every weapon is spray n' pray. I think the auto-targetting prioritizes enemies with weapons, because I have no idea how I'd iterate through the half-dozen people on any given street in the game, and pick out the right ones to shoot."

Since the name of the game is Grand Theft Auto and not Grand Theft Reebok, I wasn't exactly shocked to see that the core gameplay didn't have much to do with on-foot combat. What I don't understand is why you think the on-foot elements that do exist are "broken." Hold down the L1 button when you walk, and the camera always points in the direction you are facing, making it easy to line up targets. Press L2 or R2 to cycle through those targets, and shoot. Simple as that.

These basic steps, coupled with tossing grenades and molotov cocktails from safe distances, make completing missions without using a vehicle pretty straightforward. Of course, you might want to explore the city first (God forbid!) to get some armor or plan an escape route that takes you through a couple of police bribes so you can get the heat off your back.

Foot combat is pretty bewildering the first time around. There's so much lead flying and there isn't much time for practice. You just have to figure it out as you go. There is a range behind AmmuNation which allows you to mess with the targeting controls and movement but it's easy to accidently lock-up a passing citizen out in the alley and if there's a cop around your practice may get cut drastically short.

My plan is to follow the advice of Matthew and Tracy. And practice. Exploring is my favorite part of the game at any rate so I've got a pretty good idea where several powerups are located. I've even found 14 of the 100 hidden packages. This might not sound like much but that alone took alot of footwork. It seems for each one you get about $2000 and for each ten you get a replentishing supply of one weapon and its ammunition at your home base. The first weapon is the automatic pistol. Dunno what else you get rewarded with later on but it could make kitting out for hits much easier.

Man, guys, quit it!! You're making me REALLY want to buy this game -- and a PS2 to play it on!!

When (if) it hits PC, though, this baby's mine!!

I forgot to mention that you also need to hold R1 to get the aim lock box to appear. Then you can press R2 and L2 to cycle targets left and right.

Wumpuss blindly missed the point and said:

---

Quote:

See post #3 in this thread. On foot just doesn't work out for the problem solving approach to missions. That's the same experience I had on that mission, by the way. On foot is essentially broken. You must use vehicles. That tends to detract from the "play the game any way you want to" theme.

So.. what's your excuse?

---

Flames, smoke, sirens, screaming tires, burnt rubber, wispy razors of bullets cutting through the night. Sparks leaping as the pickup screams along an alley wall. A body tumbles over the hood to vanish somewhere into history. Sweat, chaos, madness.

I reflect on this from the docks as the sun rises and opera fills the ruddy morning sky. A gull soars and clouds gently waft. Soon I'll be home. But not quite yet.

This game's attention to detail just blows my mind. Seriously, has anyone seen anything like this before? Shenmue was detailed but so limited in focus and freedom. The old GTAs had almost identical gameplay but is it just the 3D fleshed out world that makes the difference? I haven't played Midtown Madness or Driver but it's hard to imagine anything quite as open-ended and stylistically crafted as GTA3. I-76 is superior in vehicle physics and equal in classy design but, again, it's got nothing like the living world or attention to nuance here.

Am I nuts or is this thing beyond excellent?

BTW, after futzing around I've gotten pretty good on foot. As long as I look before I shoot and know where I'm going after the heat's on I'm fine.


Very important tips for foot soldiers: You can't sprint with large weapons like the baseball bat or the shotgun readied. Always be at full armor and health. Partying with a prostitute the night before (save game advances time) and getting that health bonus is really worth it. Have plenty of ammo. Learn to use the first person view and 'auto target' button to switch out of it and become comfortable with cycling targets. Also the R3 button, when pressed, glances behind without making you stop and go into 1st person view mode.

"Flames, smoke, sirens, screaming tires, burnt rubber, wispy razors of bullets cutting through the night. Sparks leaping as the pickup screams along an alley wall. A body tumbles over the hood to vanish somewhere into history. Sweat, chaos, madness."

Okay, Taurus. Someone's been pressing the "read poetry" key.*

"I haven't played Midtown Madness or Driver"

Let me guess. You haven't played Carmageddon either. Well then of course it's BGE. Tony Hawk 3 would be the BGE, too, if I hadn't ever played Tony Hawk 2. And it's a perfect 10, right?

Note that GTA3 is coming to both Xbox and PC. It runs under the third-party RenderWare engine, for ease of porting. Just hold on to your pennies, there are plenty of other games to enjoy this season while you wait for the inevitably superior Xbox and PC versions. That's my advice, anyway.. hell, that's my boilerplate advice for ANY game appearing on the PS2-- the PS2 version is guaranteed to be the worst among all next-gen platforms. Just look at THPS3 on GameCube for more proof.

* For those of you who didn't play I'76, shame on you, and yes, this is a real key in the game.

I was really excited to jump in on this thread. Or at least for some on-topic jumping-into. I got GTA3 and THPS3 in the mail on friday. And then the laser on my PS2 broke. It had been shaky already, but I thought I could get by with it.

And so I'd like to thank EBX, who not only told me that my pre-owned PS2 was still under Sony warranty (it's not because it's pre-owned), but who wouldn't let me exchange it when the problem first became apparent. I called 16 days after I bought the system, and they have a 15 day return policy. They didn't seem to care that I couldn't return it within 15 days because somebody decided it would be a good idea to crash a couple of jets into some national landmarks and thus shut down the skies and strand many people like me in places like Toronto.

So I check some California penal codes, and they have to give me sixty days on defective merchandise (with a few exceptions, but they don't apply here). By law! I call and tell them this, and they say they'll call me right back. But they don't. Today is day sixty-four.

I'm posting this so you'll know that the employees of EBX Embarcadero are not just scofflaws, but they also hate America!

-Ron

Ron,
If you check with your Better Business Bureau or a libraries' business registry you can find the name of the regional supervisor for that EBX. Contact him by certified mail and tell him your problem, remind him of the law, and you might get some help. When stymied, always go up to the next rung of the ladder. Local managers tend to handle these things poorly, HIS boss might be more on the ball.

Oh, feel free to drop the fact that you're a "journalist" in the electronics field, but don't make any threats.

-Andrew

"inevitably superior Xbox and PC versions."

Why will its superiority be inevitable? Driver wasn't any better on the PC than it was on the PSX.

---

Quote:

Why will its superiority be inevitable? Driver wasn't any better on the PC than it was on the PSX.

---

In Driver on the PSX, the fun 'Survival' mode (where you see how long you could escape the cops) would restart instantly with no load time. That was good because a round would often only last 30 seconds or so. For some reason, the PC version needed to reload the entire level every time you restarted the chase. So you'd play for twenty seconds, then load for fifteen seconds. It pretty much ruined what was one of the best parts of driver. So in that sense, the PC version was actually much worse.

Hey Ron, go back to that EB and tell them you'd like the number for the EB home office. You'll find a 1-800 number on the wall somewhere behind the counter. If you don't see it, just ask. Call that and explain your situation and how you were treated in that store. You can get the store's number off a receipt from that location too or just ask.

I can almost guarantee that when you ask for the 800 number, you'll send a chill up the spine of those working. One call to that number makes for big problems for that store. Their district manager will get involved or someone higher up the chain like a regional. You should then get the replacement PS2 you deserve.

--Dave