Almost GTA:SA's 10 year anniversary. Did you like playing as CJ?
He was cool. I loved the cast of supporting characters in GTA SA as well. The only real problem with the game was that a lot of the stuff you did later on felt really disconnected from CJ's story (attack the fake Hoover Damn for James Woods' character for instance). This is where I think GTA V did a good job, because Michael and Franklin had good back stories, while Trevor doing completely insane nonsense on the side made perfect sense.
The ghetto O.G. thug life theme wasn't so predominant in the other games, so what about them?
BeatResetsTheWorld
Banned
Yo that Chinatown Wars drug game. I'd they ever made that a standalone smartphone game with an online market for prices and some sort of gps simulated location game (maybe countries) would buy it INSTANTLY
Sibersk Esto
Banned
Young Maylay's performance is really underrated. He did a fantastic job
D
Deleted member 284
Unconfirmed Member
A lot of you may not have been around when GTA: San Andreas was released, but some people had a lot of trouble playing as CJ. I remember a GAF thread that was pretty surprising, lots of people not wanting to play as him and instead would have preferred someone like Tommy Vercetti or Claude.
Did you enjoy GTA: San Andreas' story and characters? If not, why not?
**note: this is not about discussing the gameplay, strictly the story and characters.
GTA: SA reveal thread from 2004
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=820
Honestly, I prefer the EPIC bishoptl follow-up thread. I didn't care much for the gameplay (but I do love watching a good player tear through the story), but said thread bought me a copy.
Black Mantis
Member
Yeah, still my favourite GTA protagonist. A bit too easily led/swayed, but the way he interacted with those around him makes him my favourite.
Sibersk Esto
Banned
Between his family and gang issues, Tenpenny, Toreno, and The Mafia, CJ is definitely the GTA protagonist to have gone through the most shit.
bigboss370
Member
to date its still the best Grand Theft Auto game. It combined cinematic and grounded elements of a campaign (that actually had good story/characters) with an overabundance of fun and over the top gameplay/side activities.
Cyborg
Member
True, true!
Uno Venova
Banned
I found myself too intimidated by the main character to enjoy it, I would have preferred more of a 'tony soprano'-like protagonist.
Catalix
And on the sixth day the LORD David Bowie created man and woman in His image. And he saw that it was good. On the seventh day the LORD created videogames so that He might take the bloody day off for once.
"White america will find it hard to deal with the theme."
*becomes the highest selling GTA of all time (until V)*
*becomes the highest selling GTA of all time (until V)*
Deified Data
Banned
CJ is my second favorite protagonist after V's Trevor. They're the only two with any real personality.
Discotheque
Banned
michael had plenty of personality too.
Looking back, i was way too young to play it (13).
I remember it came out a few days before my 14th birthday and my dad wanted to keep it until my birthday but i kinda stole it when he was at work.
I didnt understood most because i didnt speak any english but it was great just playing it.
Ahh the good times
I remember it came out a few days before my 14th birthday and my dad wanted to keep it until my birthday but i kinda stole it when he was at work.
I didnt understood most because i didnt speak any english but it was great just playing it.
Ahh the good times
Great post, and one of the main reasons why I come back to SA at least once a year. That feeling of "bigness" hasn't been matched by any of the follow-ups, although V has its moments.
I TAKE THAT PAPER!
San Andreas is one of the best games of all time and some of my fondest gaming memories consist of it. I really liked CJ, although I honestly couldn't tell you why... like, I have no idea. I love the first "act" of SA in Los Santos, I was quite taken with the Grove Street Families story. The story has always kind of lost me after the Green Sabre mission, although the mission variety and design is still outstanding all the way to the end.
San Andreas is one of the best games of all time and some of my fondest gaming memories consist of it. I really liked CJ, although I honestly couldn't tell you why... like, I have no idea. I love the first "act" of SA in Los Santos, I was quite taken with the Grove Street Families story. The story has always kind of lost me after the Green Sabre mission, although the mission variety and design is still outstanding all the way to the end.
The Albatross
Member
I'm with you. I've replayed San Andreas so many times, and it's one of the few games that I get completely nostalgic about.
I was going to add to my previous post that the mission design also enhances the sense of scale to the map. Obviously, GTAV did not have much an interest in isolating the player, what with the ability to switch between characters so easily, and largely, this was a big improvement overall... But it did sacrifice a sense of enormity to the map.
One of the best moments in GTA:SA is when you get taken out to the middle of nowhere by Tenpenny and dropped off at that remote trailer park, with only a handgun, a camera, and a dirt bike. Not only are you physically removed from the rest of the world, but they smartly pack Los Santos with hostile gangs, making it much more difficult to go back. Another moment that is equally good but not quite as memorable is when you first open up Las Venturas and you're doing your first official Mike Toreno mission... But, of course, you don't know who the character is. Toreno takes you to that remote house just over the San Francisco bay bridge, and it's one of the first spots where you get a clear view of San Fierro because the San Fierro filter has been turned off and you have the desert filter of Las Venturas, but you're looking straight across the bay. It's another isolating and awesome moment in the game.
By the time you are in Las Venturas, CJ and the player are completely divorced from the gangland narrative of Los Santos. You've already established yourself in San Fierro, you've gotten a freaking airport, you're on your way to getting a jetpack, harrier jet, and a goddam casino, so it's like, Los Santos is the furthest thing on your mind. So, when Sweet gives CJ a hard time for losing track of his roots, it's fairly accurate. Of course, they reintroduce you to Los Santos by taking over MadDog's mansion, which is definitely the best property in the game, giving you a reason to want to be in Los Santos again.
Gamesadict
Member
The best GTA by far. There was just so much to do, while being actually entertaining. It's the only GTA game I have completed to 100%. Have it on Steam, and still have my PS2 disc from launch. Also have it on my Nexus 4, and I have considered getting it for PS3 on PSN lol.
I was so hyped for this game since its announcement. Maybe it was the most hyped I ever was for a game in my whole life.
The 90's feel was perfectly done, Los Santos was my favorite city, loved Radio Los Santos, the gang wars were awesome. Oh man.
I was so hyped for this game since its announcement. Maybe it was the most hyped I ever was for a game in my whole life.
The 90's feel was perfectly done, Los Santos was my favorite city, loved Radio Los Santos, the gang wars were awesome. Oh man.
KyanMehwulfe
Member
I've been around GAF since the beginning and I don't really remember any controversy about him... I think there was maybe some somewhere, though it could have been IGN or GameFAQs even because there was a perception he was a bit of a 'thug' and maybe some folks were cynical against 50cent and that sort of 'bling trend' that was really peaking around 2005. I don't think it was skin colour but more the type of character some may have viewed him to be. But I genuinely don't remember it on GAF.
That said, even if it was there, I think CJ became a loved character very fast because he less obviously less 2005 bling and much more 1995 chill, and obviously more based on drama like Boys in the Hood or comedy like Friday. Which should have been obvious to begin with. But either way, he's probably the most popular GTA character in my experience on GAF or GTA forums. IV and V seem pretty hit or miss with fans but I feel SA's charm is pretty universal.
Heck one of my favorite praises of CJ came from Will Wright during E3 where he was presenting an early demo of Spore and he began by talking about how you can make your game experience your own unique experience, and he did so with a description of his CJ. He was, at the very least even if some people like Niko, Michael, Franklin, or Trevor more.. probably the most attached and immersive character because of the charm but also the customization. And, of course, the world... Which has become a bit of a topic here to...
Great post but I think a lot of this is helped by the low fog and also the 'technical' standards we had back then. The game map is actually not all that big and especially if you pulled the game data or mod out the fog, it's pretty small or poorly designed compared to V's map. You remove the fog and it feels a lot smaller.
That said... I 100% agree with you that when we were in SA, because of the road design and map... damn did the map feel huge. I play GTA V a lot and even though I know it's bigger, when I'm trying around I feel it's a smaller location just because everything is realistically proportioned.
When we were in SA, because the map and fog, it was almost like a maze where the walls give you the illusion of size. Of course if you fly above the above the maze it looks small, but when you're in it everything hallway (or road) feels like its own world. I think Minecraft is a good analogy: the claustrophobia of being underground can make a small area feel huge and endless. I think SA was the same in many regards.
GTA V may be bigger. One wilderness area of V likely has more unique art than all of SA, and just Chumash or Paleto alone probably have more unique buildings than all of SA's towns (not cities) combined. And V's sense of openess and scale is unmatched. But I don't think many games ever compare to that sense of 'world' that SA delivered. V sorely misses that.
That said, even if it was there, I think CJ became a loved character very fast because he less obviously less 2005 bling and much more 1995 chill, and obviously more based on drama like Boys in the Hood or comedy like Friday. Which should have been obvious to begin with. But either way, he's probably the most popular GTA character in my experience on GAF or GTA forums. IV and V seem pretty hit or miss with fans but I feel SA's charm is pretty universal.
Heck one of my favorite praises of CJ came from Will Wright during E3 where he was presenting an early demo of Spore and he began by talking about how you can make your game experience your own unique experience, and he did so with a description of his CJ. He was, at the very least even if some people like Niko, Michael, Franklin, or Trevor more.. probably the most attached and immersive character because of the charm but also the customization. And, of course, the world... Which has become a bit of a topic here to...
Great post but I think a lot of this is helped by the low fog and also the 'technical' standards we had back then. The game map is actually not all that big and especially if you pulled the game data or mod out the fog, it's pretty small or poorly designed compared to V's map. You remove the fog and it feels a lot smaller.
That said... I 100% agree with you that when we were in SA, because of the road design and map... damn did the map feel huge. I play GTA V a lot and even though I know it's bigger, when I'm trying around I feel it's a smaller location just because everything is realistically proportioned.
When we were in SA, because the map and fog, it was almost like a maze where the walls give you the illusion of size. Of course if you fly above the above the maze it looks small, but when you're in it everything hallway (or road) feels like its own world. I think Minecraft is a good analogy: the claustrophobia of being underground can make a small area feel huge and endless. I think SA was the same in many regards.
GTA V may be bigger. One wilderness area of V likely has more unique art than all of SA, and just Chumash or Paleto alone probably have more unique buildings than all of SA's towns (not cities) combined. And V's sense of openess and scale is unmatched. But I don't think many games ever compare to that sense of 'world' that SA delivered. V sorely misses that.
Maintenance
Member
I loved it, my second favorite GTA after VC. CJ was cool, but Tenpenny was awesome. I loved hating him.
Off topic:
Off topic:
Bish dropped some truth bombs in that 2004 topic, damn.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
He's my second favorite protag after Niko.
Hated the leads of 3 and Vice City. Just freaking awful characters, calling them characters is a stretch actually, completely useless avatars. Still haven't played V.
SA has the best story, and side characters are at least as fleshed out as IV's. With the most involved world by far for GTA. The freaking insane amount of activities SA gives you is mind breaking.
SA and IV I've beaten dozens of times. Both will likely get a few more playthroughs before I'm actually done done with them. I enjoyed III and VC when I played them, but they are really really hard to go back too. IV and SA I can go back to endlessly.
Hated the leads of 3 and Vice City. Just freaking awful characters, calling them characters is a stretch actually, completely useless avatars. Still haven't played V.
SA has the best story, and side characters are at least as fleshed out as IV's. With the most involved world by far for GTA. The freaking insane amount of activities SA gives you is mind breaking.
SA and IV I've beaten dozens of times. Both will likely get a few more playthroughs before I'm actually done done with them. I enjoyed III and VC when I played them, but they are really really hard to go back too. IV and SA I can go back to endlessly.
The Cool One
Member
that reveal thread tho! wow!
Buckethead
Banned
It's also that SA had 3 big cities and I think 5 towns mixed in there, each with a distinct vibe, and distinct story beat.
GTA V tries to emulate that but never really gets too settled.
In V I felt like "oh here's that 5 seconds where there's the pine trees".
It's too big, too empty, and too flat and simple.
Unfortunately i remember quite a few rants on certain websites about how Rockstar was 'ruining" the franchise turning it into "darkie hood rat fodder" i think was someone's exact words.
In the age before youtube, it seemed like a lot of that shit was more concentrated everywhere else.
In the age before youtube, it seemed like a lot of that shit was more concentrated everywhere else.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
ProfessorMoran
Member
Loved playing as CJ I was like yoyoyowassup and all that.A lot of you may not have been around when GTA: San Andreas was released, but some people had a lot of trouble playing as CJ. I remember a GAF thread that was pretty surprising, lots of people not wanting to play as him and instead would have preferred someone like Tommy Vercetti or Claude.
Did you enjoy GTA: San Andreas' story and characters? If not, why not?
**note: this is not about discussing the gameplay, strictly the story and characters.
GTA: SA reveal thread from 2004
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=820
KyanMehwulfe
Member
I would never understand that as a critique of V made in the context of SA. I mean, you can't hold it against SA because it's a PS2 game. And I also just finished praising SA for its atmosphere and sense of world. But it's a very bland and copy/paste world. In contrast, almost all of V is unique and hand crafted. I mean, obviously, a PS2 game looks like a PS2 game. SA looks amazing for a PS2 game. I can't stress that enough. SA's map is incredible. But V is clearly much more detailed and its world has far more art detail. I can't even begin to understand how it can be described as empty or flat when one of the biggest complaints on GTAForums is that V's map isn't open and empty enough or wastes too much space on big tall mountain ranges. I think sometimes maybe forget how much of an obviously PS2 limited world SA was. And, some people may not realize how well crafted V's world is because the gameplay often doesn't give you a hard reason to stop.
I wonder how many people realize that a huge number of V building's are actually based on real life locations.
http://gtaforums.com/topic/491242-mapping-los-santos-buildinglandmark-analysis/page-866
http://gtaforums.com/topic/491242-mapping-los-santos-buildinglandmark-analysis/page-865
Some of those are stretching but some of them do show evidence that Rockstar did spend 100 days photographing in LA as they had claimed. And even for the coincidences, it shows how realistic and believable the art of the game world is. Not many games really have so many believable and unique buildings. And it means a lot for the 'realism' of the game world -- that's another under-appreciated thing in V, and even a 'weakness' as we were talking about. V's world map is laid out and believable in terms of architecture and highways in pretty big strides over previous GTA's that were a civic nightmare.
Layout aside, the art too sometimes goes unnoticed. Not only that a lot of the buildings are based on real buildings in LA, but that almost every building in the game is unique. I mean, you can go out to Chumash on the beach and it probably has more unique hand-crafted detail most of SA's towns. Almost every corner of V is loaded with detail. Sometimes I'll hear people talk about how Sandy Shores desert is empty and yet if you stop and actually explore it, there's a huge number of unique landmarks -- it's empty of gameplay but not art. If you still have GTA V, give it a try. Go drive around the SS park and then the Harmony farms, and then Chumash and Paleto... and then go drive around any other open world game. The amount of unique detail that went into V is pretty crazy -- it's almost too much. They should have spent less time on world art and more time on the story or replayable gameplay modes or more heists lol.
http://gtaforums.com/topic/652898-professional-photographers-snapmatic/page-98
http://gtaforums.com/topic/652898-professional-photographers-snapmatic/page-99
The game does have a lot of amazing dioramas though and I think sometimes there's just no reason to stop and really appreciate it. I think it's mostly people that free roam in GTAO every day... you really get to appreciate and race/deathmatch in every nook and cranny and see just how unique or handcrafted every corner is.
I think that's a trend for GTA V as a whole. It's very under-utilized, maybe is the right description. For example, when the recent GTA V remaster trailer came out, so many gaffers talked about how they never saw any of the stuff before and were asking if it was new content. But there was nothing new in the trailer. It was all PS3 side-missions. I find this happens quite a lot with both content and art in GTA V -- for whatever reason, people just follow the waypoints and blindly go through the story 'dings' and never actually see half the trees in the forest, so to speak. That's certainly still the game's fault but, you know, the art assets are still there. I've beat the game 8 times and probably put over 1000 hours into free roaming and to this day I still find new details in the world, like an alleyway or parking lot or camping area in a park with unique or cool art detail. I think SA's world was more immersive but V's is such an example of being fully realized and believable civic diorama.
I have a feeling that in the future as people revisit GTA V on current gen, and maybe without a rush to 'finish the story waypoints' or no expectations, and the time to really just free roam for hours on end and appreciate the game world, that we're going to get a lot of RTTP type threads about its game world. It's one of those game worlds where sometimes I'm so bored in free roam -- I just drive around and I'm frustrated that there's nothing to do. But other times where I get inspired to just explore or have an idea of something I want to do like explore a certain place in a certain car, and I take the time to soak in the game world, and it just leaves me in awe how well crafted it is.
Buckethead
Banned
I'm not criticizing it in lieu of SA. I was stating a thing that SA did better that V didn't. And there are many more.
Personally, I don't care how big and well crafted it is. They spend X days photographing Miami for Vice City, that doesn't mean that the roads aren't insanely flat (just like they are in V).
In my opinion, bigger no matter how well executed =/= better.
Another comparison to SA is that it had unique things in each city, something V doesn't. It's another point docked for making the player feel like something is unique and crafted for them vs. realistic and true to life.
I don't play video games for that reason.
I could rant about the shortcomings of V for awhile but yes it's an excellent game, etc. etc.
KyanMehwulfe
Member
I suppose it depends on what you mean by unique. Visually, most of the SA towns are full of copy/paste, where as almost every single town in V is entirely unique. If we're talking unique things for CJ to do, however... it's harder to to measure because a lot of the repeatable content for V's map is in GTAO... resources that normally would have been spent adding gameplay content to the SP map (as was done with V) are seen instead in GTAO instead. Sort of like my trend above, I sometimes feel a lot of people don't realize how fun GTAO has become with its free-roam and all it's mode maps. I mean, GTAV's map technically has a full on editor.. you can enjoy fun player-made death matches and races that are new every day in GTAO, the community makes some pretty awesome stuff. There's a ton of Rockstar content, too. But how can you begin to compare that to GTA SA... doesn't really work. In some ways it's meaningless if you just want a single-player experience, and I think V cannot come close to how SA had interiors, more repeatable missions, restaurants and gyms, etc.
I'd say V had a far better world to look at, far more unique and handcrafted... And also a far better multiplayer map -- far more unique areas to race or deathmatch in. But SA's was much more fun for CJ to play in. A much more immersive and active world for CJ to play in.
I'd say V had a far better world to look at, far more unique and handcrafted... And also a far better multiplayer map -- far more unique areas to race or deathmatch in. But SA's was much more fun for CJ to play in. A much more immersive and active world for CJ to play in.
I don't remember direct references to skin color (not saying there weren't, just that I don't remember them) but there was a lot of complaints about not being able to relate to the main character. Which is silly considering the past two games had you control Mafia members. Same type of complaints popped up with Franklin, just with extra sprinkles of "we already went through this lifestyle, why do it again?"
"by far" "close second"
lmao. love that they can "relate" to serial killing mob members or a tony montana wannabe but not to a poor black guy in a bad neighbourhood.
Holy shit that thread was painful to read. Wow I didn't realize that was a controversy on GAF but tbh I am not surprised especially with the topics that goes around GAF dealing with issues like such. But I loved SA, Vice City use to be my favorite because the setting was based on my home city but SA was just a more compelling game imo.
Also it's funny seeing a few people from that thread that still posts today.
Also it's funny seeing a few people from that thread that still posts today.