Petition: Force Rockstar to put GTA:VC on X-Box - Page 6

Sputty · 2004-10-10, 12:41 PM

If MGS2's graphics were amazing for their time(They're still l33t) it would've been a horrible game with the dumbest story ever. Instead, it's a decent game, with good gameplay, great graphics and the dumbest story ever

ChewyLSB · 2004-10-10, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Dharkbayne

Not true. Graphics help tell a story. Alot of games wouldn't work with crappy graphics, as some rely on it for parts of their gameplay (Thief 3, Doom 3, Splinter Cell)

I didn't mean graphics don't mean anything. Obviously, some games do require a certain extent of graphics.

What I don't need are "flashy" graphics. For example, in some games, a lot of time and effort is put into making the water look pretty. Good job, how does this help the gameplay? None at all.

Some graphical effects are important, like footsteps in the snox, et cetera, but certain graphical improvements don't change the gameplay at all.

Dharkbayne · 2004-10-10, 12:57 PM

They help the setting. Imagine if games like Half Life 2 had only MIDI tracks for its music, or no music at all. Sure, music doesn't change the gameplay at all, but it DOES help the game.

ChewyLSB · 2004-10-10, 01:05 PM

Alright, I think maybe you misinterperted my post. I was overexaggerating when I said graphics mean absolutely nothing, but what I mean is that if a game has great gameplay but terrible graphics (RollerCoaster Tycoon 2), and another game had great graphics but terrible gameplay (DoA: Xtreme Beach Volleyball), I would MUCH rather choose the gameplay game.

Dharkbayne · 2004-10-10, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by ChewyLSB

and another game had great graphics but terrible graphics (DoA: Xtreme Beach Volleyball).

?

OfaLoaf · 2004-10-10, 01:10 PM

he meant terrible gameplay, methinks.

ChewyLSB · 2004-10-10, 01:10 PM

Yes, I did... damn typo's and diverted attention...

MrVicchio · 2004-10-10, 01:10 PM

Yes but we are talking about the same game, in this case the GTA Series III, VC and SA.

GTA III and VC PS2 Vs X-Box... X-Box was the better system

SA is comming out PS2 only, which SUCKS ASS, and we might see at least a PC version in the middle of 2005.

Thanks Rockstar, you asshats, for ignoring us

Dharkbayne · 2004-10-10, 01:12 PM

MrVicchio, don't be an idiot. They have a contract, barring them from releasing it on the Xbox at the same time, because that's one of the PS2's flagship games, and they don't want to lose it, because it will obviously play better on the Xbox.

JetRaiden · 2004-10-10, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

Yes but we are talking about the same game, in this case the GTA Series III, VC and SA.

GTA III and VC PS2 Vs X-Box... X-Box was the better system

SA is comming out PS2 only, which SUCKS ASS, and we might see at least a PC version in the middle of 2005.

Thanks Rockstar, you asshats, for ignoring us

Rockstar arent asshats. Sony is just really yanking their arm because the GTA series is the last great thing coming for the PS2.

There's a difference between moronic behavior and desperate marketing.

Baneblade · 2004-10-10, 06:38 PM

One day someone will figure out that a PC in a little black box is infinitely better than a traditional console.

Madcow · 2004-10-11, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

Yes but we are talking about the same game, in this case the GTA Series III, VC and SA.

GTA III and VC PS2 Vs X-Box... X-Box was the better system

SA is comming out PS2 only, which SUCKS ASS, and we might see at least a PC version in the middle of 2005.

Thanks Rockstar, you asshats, for ignoring us

Thanks Rockstar, you asshats, for honoring your contracts and continuing to put out some of the best games we could hope for.

The contract ends after this year, going off over and over about something they have no control over does nothing. Now if they sign a new contract with Sony, feel free to get pissed and knock yourself out with internet petitions. Sony would have to put together one sweet contract to pull that off this time, they won't get off as cheap as the first time.

ChewyLSB · 2004-10-11, 03:08 PM

Sony would probably have to pay RockStar assloads of money, and it would probably be worth it.

MrVicchio · 2004-10-11, 03:36 PM

You guys don't get it.

That Rockstar has an exclusive deal with Sony isn't the issue to me. I KNOW that even if I got 10 million gamers to sign a petition, the contract would stand. Thats that.

What I am trying to do, is in my own small way, perhaps add to the clamour of like minded gamers, that Rockstar is big enough now to forego such contracts in the future.

Yes, would I love to see an X-Box or PC version of SA come out this year... dude, don't get me started on the ways I wish that would happen. But I know it won't, period. But perhaps when GTA:VI releases, maybe they will realize the greater potential of releasing the game across multiplatforms instead of just a single one.

ChewyLSB · 2004-10-11, 04:15 PM

It all depends on whether or not RockStar decides to extend the contract.

At the end of the day, it makes very little difference to RockStar whether or not the contract is signed. At the end of the day, when a GTA game is out on both PS2 and XBox, no matter when they come out, and which one comes out first, RockStar will sell the same amount of consoles.

The deciding factor is how much money Sony is willing to pay RockStar, and honestly, Sony could pay a lot of money, assuming they find it profitable. And the fact of the matter is, it probably will be profitable, as a game coming out for the PS2 only for awhile, especially if it's as popular as GTA, will sell consoles.