Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 *refuses to eat the trollbait* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricMM 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Truth != trollbait Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 All I can say is they are too stupid to release their "Mature" games on the "kiddie" Nintendo GAMECUBE so screw them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndrewTS 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 All I can say is they are too stupid to release their "Mature" games on the "kiddie" Nintendo GAMECUBE so screw them. The "kiddie" Gamecube did get an uncensored BMX XXX, though. Which is great for the few idiots who bought that piece of crap. Yet another instance in which the Mature rating is very ironic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BorneAgain 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2004 I know this is a bit late, but its a rather interesting bit of news. Take-Two registers GTA: San Andreas Software publisher submits the now-likely title of next Grand Theft Auto game to the U.S. Trademark Office. Grand Theft Auto fans looking to shoot up Las Vegas are likely in for a disappointment. Two weeks before Amazon UK began taking pre-orders for Grand Theft Auto: Sin City--the Las Vegas-set title inspired by a 2003 April Fool's Day post on Shacknews.com--Take-Two quietly registered a different title. On December 17, 2003, Take-Two registered three titles--GTA: San Andreas, GTA 5, and GTA 6--with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Since Vice City was the fourth game in the Grand Theft Auto series* it would seem that the next installment in the series will be either called GTA 5 or GTA: San Andreas. (Vice City is technically the fifth game in the series, which includes the largely overlooked expansion to the original GTA, Grand Theft Auto: London, 1969.) While Take-Two referred to the next GTA as "Grand Theft Auto 5" in a conference call earlier this year, San Andreas is the more likely title. San Andreas, a hybrid of Los Angeles and San Francisco, is the only city featured in the original Grand Theft Auto yet to make an appearance in the next-generation game (Liberty City was in GTAIII and Vice City showed up in an eponymous game). The San Andreas theory is further backed up by the fact that Take-Two has not registered "GTA: Sin City" or "Grand Theft Auto: Sin City" with the Trademark Office. Interestingly, Take-Two registered only titles with the "GTA" acronym, and did not register "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas", "Grand Theft Auto 5," or "Grand Theft Auto 6." This indicates they may be following in the footsteps of KFC (nee Kentucky Fried Chicken) in using acronyms to make a potentially unpalatable product more easily consumable by the mainstream. Rockstar representatives had not responded to GameSpot inquiries as of press time. Credit: Gamespot.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Tino Standard 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2004 For the sake of recognizing the franchise's past, San Andreas sounds pretty cool, but man, Vegas would just kick ass. A city based in sin and corruption is just screaming for a GTA-type of game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2004 Wait? They're now considering Vice City the 4th game? But it was just an expansion! If London isn't considered a sequel then Vice City shouldn't either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Tino Standard 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2004 I believe the rationale was that Vice City was an extension of III, making it GTA: III-b. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2004 I believe the rationale was that Vice City was an extension of III, making it GTA: III-b. Yeah I know. But they're trying to promote San Andreas as the 5th one......when there hasn't even been an official 4th one! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYU 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2004 Why would Vice City be just an expansion? Entirely new characters in a new location with a new story set in a new location. Just because the gameplay is relatively the same doesn't make it an expansion. It was still a different game from the past one and should be looked at as one. Unofficially, GTA: Vice City is GTA IV. I don't see any problem with that at all, especially since Vice City built upon the previous game and, in various ways, was an improvement over GTA III Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2004 Why would Vice City be just an expansion? Entirely new characters in a new location with a new story set in a new location. Just because the gameplay is relatively the same doesn't make it an expansion. It was still a different game from the past one and should be looked at as one. Unofficially, GTA: Vice City is GTA IV. I don't see any problem with that at all, especially since Vice City built upon the previous game and, in various ways, was an improvement over GTA III Because just about everybody and there mother has called it nothing but an expansion or a directors cut. Nobody has officially declared it a sequel. It's the same thing as London and London wasn't called GTA II...there was a different game for that. Unless San Andreas is another expansion it should be called GTA IV: San Andreas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYU 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2004 Because just about everybody and there mother has called it nothing but an expansion or a directors cut. .....again, I don't see why. If the game after GTA III took place in Liberty City with the same guy and the same characters, with the story starting immediately following the ending of GTA III, then yes, I would agree that it would be an expansion. But how can you call an entirely NEW game - new characters, new location, new story.....just with the same gameplay - an expansion? I still look at it as its own game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2004 Because just about everybody and there mother has called it nothing but an expansion or a directors cut. .....again, I don't see why. If the game after GTA III took place in Liberty City with the same guy and the same characters, with the story starting immediately following the ending of GTA III, then yes, I would agree that it would be an expansion. But how can you call an entirely NEW game - new characters, new location, new story.....just with the same gameplay - an expansion? I still look at it as its own game. Because well it's the same damn game with different characters and a different setting. It really isn't anything new. Besides that's what I've always heard it called. I'm not going to disagree with the makers of the game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Tino Standard 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2004 Vice City was built on the same engine as III and was made as an extention of that story, only in a new locale. If San Andreas or Sin City does the same thing, I wouldn't label that one GTA IV either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DangerousDamon 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2004 So, by using this logic, Super Mario brothers 2,3 and Super mario World would just be expansions of Super Mario Brothers. If not, then i'm totally fuckin confused. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Amazing Rando 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2004 I don't really give a shit what they call it....as long as it's a good game... I don't care if it's called GTA-4000 Times The Square Root Of Orson Welles Green Peaness ...i just want a good damn gam. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
