PC Gamers I need your HELP

[racketboy]

So anyway, Joystiq (the gaming blog from the people at Engadget) mention they were looking for bloggers to add to their staff.

I've been fooling around with blogging and thought it would be interesting.

After a number of days they said that they got over 200 applicants, but would like to get some additional writing sample from me.

Unfortuanately, they assigned me at least one story that I'm kinda clueless on:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/10/08/news_6110146.html

Fill me in on what all this means.

Also I'm not a big GTA expert, so if you could give me some pointers on the new installment, I'd appreciate it as well:

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/556/556064p1.html

Just need to be able to get some interesting info that I can turn into some interesting writeup.

Thanks!

 

[it290]

Not sure what you need to be filled in on, but SLI basically means you're running two (or more) video cards at once to get more performance. It was pretty common back in the Voodoo days, and now people are going to be doing it again thanks to the advent of PCI-E. Obviously, the test SLI systems they had set up did rather well on benchmarks, although there is no straightforward comparison in the article.

As for the new GTA game, it's basically going to be more of the same stuff, only...um, bigger. And set in California.

 

[racketboy]

ok cool -- I knew about that, but didn't connect it in my head, I guess.

So there's nothing else special about GTA:SA?

 

[Alexvrb]

I'd just like to note that Nvidia's take on "SLI" is more efficient than what 3dfx put together. But its still not what I'd consider cost efficient...

 

[it290]

So there's nothing else special about GTA:SA?

Well, as the article you linked to points out, it's supposed to be about 5 times bigger than VC (play area wise), and apparently there is some kind of stealth element involved. I think they may be expanding the indoor areas as well. But AFAIK, it's still pretty much the same game engine, gameplay style, etc. I'm sure it will be a fun game, but I think Rockstar is pretty much following the Tomb Raider formula with GTA games these days.

 

[mtxblau]

Was looking for an old post of mine, and lo here's an item to respond to.

As far as the GTA series goes, it appears they're remaking every map of GTA1 in 3D. First it was Liberty (level 1, NYC), next it was Vice City (level 3, FL), now it's San Andreas, the best map in all of GTA1.

So to me, hopefully they'll remake GTA: London, 1969 - one of the better GTAs, even though it was same old, same old (missions were a riot, and the cheat code enabled drive by added quite a bit to the game).

San Andreas is, from what I read, based on a new engine.

And as usual, Rockstar is outdoing themselves by making the map ridiculously huge (as previously mentioned), adding more weapons, more cars, and somewhat better physics (that has improved as the series has progressed, starting in GTA2 with more realistic handling - I mean, technically you can't jump a drawbridge in a semi...)

In any event, it looks like it'll be much better. Hopefully they'll make it less linear than the first two, but it'll still be fun nonetheless (hey, THPS made 5-6 iterations and that game has NO plot and very few additions - and those additions tend to make it easier to rack up the points anyway).

---

mountaindud, your improvement on the Help & FAQs section is amazing. Many, *many* kudos to you.

I'm not crazy about this new style of board, but it works.

And ah, good night.

 

[reX dart: eskimo spy]

You can also swim in SA.

And from what I heard, you can now customize your character to a greater extent with haircuts and whatnot. Um... You can steal bikes. And your character gains wait apparently, and can get fat if he eats too much junk food. But he can work that off by going to the gym.

It's strange that I know so much about the game. I don't even like GTA.

 

[CrazyGoon]

Originally posted by racketboy+Oct 14, 2004 @ 11:05 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(racketboy @ Oct 14, 2004 @ 11:05 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>So there's nothing else special about GTA:SA?

[post=121034]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

Does there need to be?

Originally posted by it290@Oct 14, 2004 @ 11:57 PM

I'm sure it will be a fun game, but I think Rockstar is pretty much following the Tomb Raider formula with GTA games these days.

[post=121034]Quoted post[/post]​

I'd just like to point out that just because a game has many sequels, or titles that prolong the series, doesn't mean the series is automatically "bad". It is just as easily possible to have a game as entertaining as the first (or more), than it is to have a dud. If a sequel is bad, and nothing much has changed from the original, then that is the result of crap design (excuse my language 😛). There is no reason for a game to be considerably worse than it's predecessor if it follows the design of the predecessor strongly.

<!--QuoteBegin-MTXBlau@Oct 15, 2004 @ 01:22 AM

Hopefully they'll make it less linear than the first two...

[post=121034]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]

Hey - what are you talking about? 😱 GTA is about as non-linear as you can get for an action game. You can choose the missions in any order, as opposed to most action games - which won't allow you to progress until you pass the current mission.

 

[axelblazeadam]

Originally posted by reX dart: eskimo spy@Oct 15, 2004 @ 03:07 PM



And your character gains wait apparently, and can get fat if he eats too much junk food. But he can work that off by going to the gym.

Am I the only person who think this is a really stupid addition. Most people will just want go around doing what they want, not having to think about what to eat and how much exercise they need.

 

[it290]

I'd just like to point out that just because a game has many sequels, or titles that prolong the series, doesn't mean the series is automatically "bad". It is just as easily possible to have a game as entertaining as the first (or more), than it is to have a dud. If a sequel is bad, and nothing much has changed from the original, then that is the result of crap design (excuse my language tongue.gif). There is no reason for a game to be considerably worse than it's predecessor if it follows the design of the predecessor strongly.

That's why I said 'I'm sure it'll be a fun game'. It's just not anything to get excited about, IMHO.

Hey - what are you talking about? ohmy.gif GTA is about as non-linear as you can get for an action game. You can choose the missions in any order, as opposed to most action games - which won't allow you to progress until you pass the current mission.

Not really. Well, GTA1 and 2 were pretty nonlinear, but once you accept a mission from a boss in GTA3 and VC, you always get the same missions in the same order from that boss. Also, you can't do certain missions for certain people until you have completed the missions of others.

 

[CrazyGoon]

Originally posted by it290@Oct 15, 2004 @ 02:12 PM

Well, GTA1 and 2 were pretty nonlinear, but once you accept a mission from a boss in GTA3 and VC, you always get the same missions in the same order from that boss. Also, you can't do certain missions for certain people until you have completed the missions of others.

[post=121063]Quoted post[/post]​

Ok, I didn't know about that. (I haven't played that much of it) But yeah, I had the original in mind when I said that it was non-linear and assumed that the whole 'pick any payphone for any mission' would have followed through in the PS2 titles 🙂 Thanks for bringing me up to date with things 🙂