Anyone buy the GTA pack for XBox yet?

[iliketurtles 0]

I saw the commercial for it and it said it was out...anyone buy it yet for specificially XBox...and how much?

[Karnage 0]

I saw it at Future Shop for 64.99 (CAD) and it looks to be two green cases in one silver slip cover so it isn't two games on a disc like that Sega GT/Jet Set Radio Future disc that came free with the XBOX last year.

[Agent_Bond34 0]

I saw the commercial for it and it said it was out...anyone buy it yet for specificially XBox...and how much?

It's $49.99

[Nevermortal 0]

Yeah, I bought it.

 

Marvelous packaging, plus you get two free maps of each city (Vice & Liberty), and a Rockstar Games Logo Sticker.

 

2 games for 50 bucks is a helluva bargain and since I've never played either game that much, it was a no brainer to buy the 2-pack.

[iliketurtles 0]

Where did you buy it, Nevermortal?

 

And is there anything different about it than the PS2 or does it play just as good?

[tpww7 0]

Custom Soundtracks and better graphics, thats about it, but its worth it.

[Red Baron 0]

the major difference is the custom sountrack, which putting almost all of my 80's CD's on the X-Box, and listening it to GTA Vice City...its amazing.

[iliketurtles 0]

I'm game...I'll buy it next weekend.

[tpww7 0]

Prepare to spend alot and I mean alot of time with the games.

[Nevermortal 0]

I bought it at my store, Game Stop.

 

The graphics are much, much better. Plus the soundtrack really helps on GTA3, where the original track kinda sucks.

[iliketurtles 0]

Just went out to Best Buy and picked it up for $49.99 and tax. Packing as you said is really, really nice and it comes off very professional. The manuals inside were wrinked but I'm sure someone most of bought this already and had taken it back...no biggie.

 

Won't be able to play it this weekend but I'm sure by Sunday night or so I'll be back letting you know how I think of the game. Looks great.

[Guest Kamui]

No. GTA sucked on PS2, and I doubt prettier graphics and custom soundtracks is going to result in any better of a result on the Box.

 

-Duo

[Nevermortal 0]

No. GTA sucked on PS2, and I doubt prettier graphics and custom soundtracks is going to result in any better of a result on the Box.

 

-Duo

Are you shitting me? This is the most fun I've had in a video game in a long while, maybe since No Mercy.

[Guest Kamui]

No. GTA sucked on PS2, and I doubt prettier graphics and custom soundtracks is going to result in any better of a result on the Box.

 

-Duo

Are you shitting me? This is the most fun I've had in a video game in a long while, maybe since No Mercy.

It's fun for 10 minutes, yes, until you realize that:

 

1) The setting is stupid gangster crap.

 

2) The missions are boring and it's more fun to just run around running things over.

 

3) Once you get out of the car, your control FUCKING SUCKS. Wanna aim at that hooker? Good luck.

 

I had fun with it for a little while too, in that perverse sort of way, but after a while (doesn't matter how long, this varies) eventually fucking with everyone will get boring and you realize how much this game would suck if you were in any other setting but this one.

 

I wouldn't have such a strong hate for the game if the gaming press hadn't made such a big deal about it. GTA3 was fun, fine, but was it "BEST GAME EVAR~!!" like everyone made it out to be (in a year where two LEGITIMATE game-of-the-year-candidates were competing against each other- Halo and FFX)? Hell no. It's just annoying to be a hardcore gamer and hear constantly from everyone that the GTA series is the best of all time- it really, really isn't, sorry.

 

-Duo

[Nevermortal 0]

It's fun for 10 minutes, yes

 

I've been playing it pretty much every day for a few hours since I got the two pack last week.

 

The setting is stupid gangster crap.

 

Well what do you expect? Do you think criminals go around, pick flowers, and give each other fashion tips? Or did you just want a game where all you had to do is hijack cars? That'd be boring as shit.

 

The missions are boring and it's more fun to just run around running things over.

 

Yeah, no. The missions are downright cool; and I like the way you have different ways to do each one. Sometimes I can be subtle, sometimes I can blast the fuck out of the targets. Though I will give you that some of the missions go from super easy to wicked hard in an instant.

 

Once you get out of the car, your control FUCKING SUCKS. Wanna aim at that hooker? Good luck.

 

All you have to do is hold the L trigger and it automatically targets them.

 

Halo may have been better than GTA, but I would never, ever call a FF game good at all. They're just flat-out boring as shit.

 

I wouldn't call GTA the best series of all time but these two games are damned good and I can't wait until the next installment.

[Guest Kamui]

I've been playing it pretty much every day for a few hours since I got the two pack last week.

 

Just don't get near me with a gun, then.

 

 

Well what do you expect? Do you think criminals go around, pick flowers, and give each other fashion tips? Or did you just want a game where all you had to do is hijack cars? That'd be boring as shit.

 

My complaint was more that I can't stand realistic gangster crap. I'm more of a fantasy/sci-fi person. But yeah, also complaining because the setting is NOT ORIGINAL. In any way.

 

Like someone else, GTA:VC is just GTA: Scarface. Even if I liked gangster settings, I'd be pissed at the lack of originality.

 

 

Yeah, no. The missions are downright cool; and I like the way you have different ways to do each one. Sometimes I can be subtle, sometimes I can blast the fuck out of the targets.

 

Welcome to the world of videogames, Nevermortal. This is not a revolutionary concept, in the slightest.

 

And the missions ARE boring, for the most part. There are a FEW good ones, but they are few and far between.

 

 

Though I will give you that some of the missions go from super easy to wicked hard in an instant.

 

One more reason why it sucks.

 

 

All you have to do is hold the L trigger and it automatically targets them.

 

Uh, ever try doing that when you've got more than one enemy on your ass? Or when you've gotta shoot something that's NOT a person? Yeah. The targeting sucks.

 

 

Halo may have been better than GTA,

 

Very good, that's a start.

 

 

but I would never, ever call a FF game good at all. They're just flat-out boring as shit.

 

Yeah, damn that strategic battle system and deep story! I'd rather run around running people over instead!

 

 

I wouldn't call GTA the best series of all time

 

Well, that puts you one above most of the current gaming landscape as far as intelligence goes, anyway.

 

 

but these two games are damned good and I can't wait until the next installment.

 

What I think you mean to say is "this one game that's been shamelessly copied into a second one with a different setting and more story elements (only, well, they suck) are damned good", actually. And the reason why Rockstar will keep getting away with this cookie-cutter style of games is because of guys like you. But hey, can't wait for that GTA Vegas game!

 

-Duo

[Damaramu 0]

I had fun with it. That's all I can say. And I really don't think that you can change my opinion. Just because your bent out of shape that people actually like the game when you don't.

[Guest Kamui]

I had fun with it. That's all I can say. And I really don't think that you can change my opinion. Just because your bent out of shape that people actually like the game when you don't.

Hi, do you actually READ posts before you reply to them.

 

I SAID I HAD FUN WITH IT TOO (for a little while, anyway).

 

What I SAID was that I was annoyed with were the throngs and throngs of fanboys who proclaim it to be something that it's not- it's a decent diversion. That's it. It's not game of the year, it's not game of the century, IT'S JUST A FUCKING GAME WHERE YOU RUN THINGS OVER.

 

That was my point.

 

-Duo

[Damaramu 0]

I had fun with it. That's all I can say. And I really don't think that you can change my opinion. Just because your bent out of shape that people actually like the game when you don't.

Hi, do you actually READ posts before you reply to them.

 

I SAID I HAD FUN WITH IT TOO (for a little while, anyway).

 

What I SAID was that I was annoyed with were the throngs and throngs of fanboys who proclaim it to be something that it's not- it's a decent diversion. That's it. It's not game of the year, it's not game of the century, IT'S JUST A FUCKING GAME WHERE YOU RUN THINGS OVER.

 

That was my point.

 

-Duo

Yet how can you make that call? Because you didn't think it was the game of the century? I agree that it's not the game of the century. But fact is I see more people playing this game and having more fun with it than any other game. That says something about the game.

[Nevermortal 0]

My complaint was more that I can't stand realistic gangster crap. I'm more of a fantasy/sci-fi person. But yeah, also complaining because the setting is NOT ORIGINAL. In any way.

 

I'd rather be blowing up Yakuza then dicking around with Yuna & Sakura and their merry journeys.

 

Welcome to the world of videogames, Nevermortal. This is not a revolutionary concept, in the slightest.

 

What's your point, man? Did I say it was a revolutionary concept? I merely said I LIKED the methods of approaching a target, much like I loved the similiar concept in Hitman 2, Splinter Cell, or to a lesser extent, Max Payne.

 

Uh, ever try doing that when you've got more than one enemy on your ass? Or when you've gotta shoot something that's NOT a person? Yeah. The targeting sucks.

 

Simple....kill them fast, get to some cover, or *gasp* use that 'revolutionary' concept above!I wasn't aware that the game had a gun that could spray lead in 15 different directions at once. As for shooting something that's not a person, there's many guns that have a sight (the sniper rifle, the other automatics). Line it up and fire. Its not that hard.

 

Yeah, damn that strategic battle system and deep story! I'd rather run around running people over instead!

 

I'd rather be running people over then sitting through seemingly 3 hours of boring ass back story. Notice the cinemas in GTA? Quick, dirty, and it gets you back to playing, or killing, or racking up wanted stars.

 

What I think you mean to say is "this one game that's been shamelessly copied into a second one with a different setting and more story elements (only, well, they suck) are damned good", actually.

 

Vice City was never meant to be a sequel to GTA3; it was merely another installment. And yeah, a "damned good one". NAY, A GOD DAMNED GOOD ONE.

 

And the reason why Rockstar will keep getting away with this cookie-cutter style of games is because of guys like you.

 

Yeah, me and the millions of people worldwide who've bought either game. But we're all stupid morons, according to you, that is.

 

But hey, can't wait for that GTA Vegas game!

 

Well, at least we agree on something.

[Detective Comics 0]

GTA 3 and Vice City are teh best games EVAR~!!

 

Running over hookers is da r0x0rs

 

Rockstar Games Ownz jews

[Guest Kamui]

I had fun with it. That's all I can say. And I really don't think that you can change my opinion. Just because your bent out of shape that people actually like the game when you don't.

Hi, do you actually READ posts before you reply to them.

 

I SAID I HAD FUN WITH IT TOO (for a little while, anyway).

 

What I SAID was that I was annoyed with were the throngs and throngs of fanboys who proclaim it to be something that it's not- it's a decent diversion. That's it. It's not game of the year, it's not game of the century, IT'S JUST A FUCKING GAME WHERE YOU RUN THINGS OVER.

 

That was my point.

 

-Duo

Yet how can you make that call? Because you didn't think it was the game of the century? I agree that it's not the game of the century. But fact is I see more people playing this game and having more fun with it than any other game. That says something about the game.

Anyone with half a brain playing GTA3 and, say, NEARLY ANYTHING ELSE would come to the conclusion that GTA3 is NOT the "Game of the Century".

 

kthxbye

 

-Duo

[Guest Kamui]

I'd rather be blowing up Yakuza then dicking around with Yuna & Sakura and their merry journeys.

 

Yeah, there's nothing more merry than Final Fantasy games. I mean, when Tidus died at the end of FFX and he and Yuna lost their only chance at love, I had a BIG FUCKING SMILE ON MY FACE, baby!

 

Actually, the reason why those "merry journeys" are suprerior is because they're able to invoke emotions other than "wow, it was cool when I ran that guy over".

 

 

What's your point, man? Did I say it was a revolutionary concept? I merely said I LIKED the methods of approaching a target, much like I loved the similiar concept in Hitman 2, Splinter Cell, or to a lesser extent, Max Payne.

 

Try in RPGs, where it's been around since the 'early 90s. See that group of monsters over there? If you'd like to cast sleep on them then slash the shit out of them, be my guest. If you'd like to cast some giant elemental attack with one character and kill them all in one shot, go right ahead. If you don't feel like fighting and want to run away, GO YOU~!!!

 

These games just took the concept and put it into a more retarded setting.

 

 

Simple....kill them fast, get to some cover, or *gasp* use that 'revolutionary' concept above!I wasn't aware that the game had a gun that could spray lead in 15 different directions at once. As for shooting something that's not a person, there's many guns that have a sight (the sniper rifle, the other automatics). Line it up and fire. Its not that hard.

 

It's kinda hard to line up and fire at something when people are shooting you in the ass. You're just making lots of excuses for a combat system that's fundementally broken and, worse still, uninteresting, I'm sorry to say.

 

 

I'd rather be running people over then sitting through seemingly 3 hours of boring ass back story. Notice the cinemas in GTA? Quick, dirty, and it gets you back to playing, or killing, or racking up wanted stars.

 

The "cinemas" of GTA3 border on pathetic. Nothing but a bunch of hackneyed cliches. Meanwhile, RPGs feature stories that are deep because they're a FUNDEMENTAL REASON WHY PEOPLE PLAY THE GAMES. "3 hours of backstory" is actually usually spaced up DURING combat and gameplay, not 3 hours of cinemas---------->some gameplay-------> more cinemas, like you're trying to make it out to be (well, unless you're playing Xenosaga, that is).

 

 

Vice City was never meant to be a sequel to GTA3; it was merely another installment. And yeah, a "damned good one". NAY, A GOD DAMNED GOOD ONE.

 

Whatever the fuck Vice City was meant to be, it's just GTA3 in a different setting. The graphics still blow, the story still sucks, and the gameplay's still broken. Not to mention the fact that the novelty of running random things over has lost its appeal long, long ago after you've already played around with GTA3.

 

It just brings nothing new to the table. And when a game brings nothing new to the table, it's just a game that was made for some quick cash, and would have been better off NOT being made.

 

 

Yeah, me and the millions of people worldwide who've bought either game. But we're all stupid morons, according to you, that is.

 

If you bought GTA3 and just played around with it without going on message boards and proclaiming it the best game ever, no.

 

If you did that, yes, you're morons.

 

If you bought Vice City AFTER playing through GTA3 and DIDN'T immeaditley return it upon discovering it was just GTA3 in a different setting, then yes, you're morons.

 

 

Well, at least we agree on something.

 

Originality is not your forte, is it? Well, at least you have something in common with your game series of choice.

 

-Duo

[Damaramu 0]

You guys are basically arguing your opinions here. One person has an opinion they like the game. The other doesn't. However it appears that the one that doesn't is looking down on those that do because he's somehow superior for not liking the game. Whatever.

[Guest Kamui]

You guys are basically arguing your opinions here. One person has an opinion they like the game. The other doesn't. However it appears that the one that doesn't is looking down on those that do because he's somehow superior for not liking the game. Whatever.

ONCE AGAIN- there's a diffrence between saying "I don't like the game" and "I thought the game was fun for a while but highly overrated by the press and most gamers."

 

Do I look down on people who like GTA3? Nope.

 

Do I look down on people who find it to be the game of the century? Yes, just like I would look down on someone who found Pit Fighters to be game of the century. If that makes me an EVIL PERSON~!!!, then so be it.

 

-Duo

[Damaramu 0]

You're basically arguing about why you don't like the game. Which is an opinion.

Then someone is arguing back about why they like the game. That is there opinion.

Then you are trying to convince somebody that there opinion is wrong because in your opinion the game isn't that great. Discount the fact that someone could've had TONS of fun playing it and loved it and thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread and find RPG's to be boring because they aren't there cup of tea.

Are they a moron for this? Nope. Open your mind a little bud.

[Guest Kamui]

So what exactly would you like discussions to break down to, then?

 

Person 1: I like GTA3.

 

Person 2: Well, that's wonderful man. I hope you live a long and happy life.

 

Person 1: Thanks.

 

 

Debating back-and-forth WHY we like/dislike a certain game is called "discussion", you might wanna look into it rather than just taking badly-veiled shots at another poster.

 

-Duo

[Damaramu 0]

So what exactly would you like discussions to break down to, then?

 

Person 1: I like GTA3.

 

Person 2: Well, that's wonderful man. I hope you live a long and happy life.

 

Person 1: Thanks.

 

 

Debating back-and-forth WHY we like/dislike a certain game is called "discussion", you might wanna look into it rather than just taking badly-veiled shots at another poster.

 

-Duo

Person 1: I like GTA3

 

Person 2: I don't here's why

 

Person 1: Oh well here's why I like it. It's the best game I've played IMO.

 

Person 2: Then you are a moron.

 

That's what this is like.

[Red Baron 0]

I'd rather be blowing up Yakuza then dicking around with Yuna & Sakura and their merry journeys.

 

Yeah, there's nothing more merry than Final Fantasy games. I mean, when Tidus died at the end of FFX and he and Yuna lost their only chance at love, I had a BIG FUCKING SMILE ON MY FACE, baby!

 

Actually, the reason why those "merry journeys" are suprerior is because they're able to invoke emotions other than "wow, it was cool when I ran that guy over".

 

Anybody that have some kind of emotional breakdown in an RPG game or any other game (minus sports games with friends), unless they think something happened was cool or unexpecting, is not normal. The story might be interesting, and has your attention, but you shouldn't get too attatch to the game.

 

What's your point, man? Did I say it was a revolutionary concept? I merely said I LIKED the methods of approaching a target, much like I loved the similiar concept in Hitman 2, Splinter Cell, or to a lesser extent, Max Payne.

 

Try in RPGs, where it's been around since the 'early 90s. See that group of monsters over there? If you'd like to cast sleep on them then slash the shit out of them, be my guest. If you'd like to cast some giant elemental attack with one character and kill them all in one shot, go right ahead. If you don't feel like fighting and want to run away, GO YOU~!!!

 

These games just took the concept and put it into a more retarded setting.

 

Isn't it the same thing. GTA you kill people by running them over with a car, use a gun, some kind of hand held weapon, or your fists. Much like RPG, you can do spells, basic attacks, advance attacks, and both of them can run if they want.

 

Retarded settings? How so? One is located in New York, and Miami Beach, the other is located in a far fantasy location/city, and taking the same concept over and over.

 

 

 

Simple....kill them fast, get to some cover, or *gasp* use that 'revolutionary' concept above!I wasn't aware that the game had a gun that could spray lead in 15 different directions at once. As for shooting something that's not a person, there's many guns that have a sight (the sniper rifle, the other automatics). Line it up and fire. Its not that hard.

 

It's kinda hard to line up and fire at something when people are shooting you in the ass. You're just making lots of excuses for a combat system that's fundementally broken and, worse still, uninteresting, I'm sorry to say.

 

The targeting has a steep learning curve, I'd admit, and its really like Syphon Filter, when compared.

 

 

I'd rather be running people over then sitting through seemingly 3 hours of boring ass back story. Notice the cinemas in GTA? Quick, dirty, and it gets you back to playing, or killing, or racking up wanted stars.

 

The "cinemas" of GTA3 border on pathetic. Nothing but a bunch of hackneyed cliches. Meanwhile, RPGs feature stories that are deep because they're a FUNDEMENTAL REASON WHY PEOPLE PLAY THE GAMES. "3 hours of backstory" is actually usually spaced up DURING combat and gameplay, not 3 hours of cinemas---------->some gameplay-------> more cinemas, like you're trying to make it out to be (well, unless you're playing Xenosaga, that is).

 

Pathetic to RPG players, yes. GTA is not a game with a very emotional back story. GTA is meant to be mafia related, and they do a damn well job of incorporating it. What do you want? Oscar calibar scripts?

 

Vice City was never meant to be a sequel to GTA3; it was merely another installment. And yeah, a "damned good one". NAY, A GOD DAMNED GOOD ONE.

 

Whatever the fuck Vice City was meant to be, it's just GTA3 in a different setting. The graphics still blow, the story still sucks, and the gameplay's still broken. Not to mention the fact that the novelty of running random things over has lost its appeal long, long ago after you've already played around with GTA3.

 

It just brings nothing new to the table. And when a game brings nothing new to the table, it's just a game that was made for some quick cash, and would have been better off NOT being made.

 

What do you call Final Fantasy then? After VII it should have stopped (i do like VIII though), and it went for the worst. Instead of improving gameplay, they thought "Hey...CGI are amazing. More of them, land half-assed gameplay" If something works, and works well, they should not fix it. Final Fantasy should took that concept, but didn't. GTA knew what they were doin when makin Vice City

 

Yeah, me and the millions of people worldwide who've bought either game. But we're all stupid morons, according to you, that is.

 

If you bought GTA3 and just played around with it without going on message boards and proclaiming it the best game ever, no.

 

If you did that, yes, you're morons.

 

If you bought Vice City AFTER playing through GTA3 and DIDN'T immeaditley return it upon discovering it was just GTA3 in a different setting, then yes, you're morons.

 

What about all the other RPG games...aren't they the same thing with their sequels?

[Nevermortal 0]

This argument's point is still lost on me.

 

So, because you guys say GTA sucks, it sucks?

 

No.

 

Just like when I say FF sucked, it sucks?

 

No.

 

Its just people being assholes for the sake of being assholes.

 

So, shall we continue this neverending argument?