I cannot believe that they are still exclusively releasing GTA through the inferior PS2. An X-box or PC version better get announced; although I know it won't, at least not until PS2 gets it first.
Sony already paid for exclusivity. Besides, release it now, then on PC, then a few years later (perhaps a rerelease or a trilogy deal with 3 and VC) on X-Box, and maximize profits.
I'm actually interested. I'm hoping this game has better graphics than the series is known for, creates more interesting missions, and is still as big, if not bigger.
I wish they would do a release to Xbox and PS2 at the same time for the GTA series, even though I know it will probably never happen. I've found that usually when this is said the response is 'well how can you say that when Xbox holds Halo as an exclusive'. I would have no problem with Halo being released to PS2 or GCN. I wouldn't say anything about Halo being on PS2, but they should release multiplatform versions at the same time. I just think its a shame that they hold back a title from a superior console. And this is true for several reasons; Microsoft's backing power, and the simple fact that Xbox is a newer console.
Halo on PS2 would definitely suck. FPS on PS2 stinks, as do most games graphically on this console. Loading times are significantly longer as well. Look at any game released for both systems, heck even on the Nintendo GameCube, as you'll find it to look the worste on PS2 (see: Soul Calibre 2).
Neil, your "Halo on PS2" post showed up six times. Please only hit the Submit Reply button once even when the forum is acting funky.
That aside I don't see the need to introduce a PS2 bash (twice) in this thread. Suggesting that "most" games stink graphically on the PS2 is a bit of stretch as well.
Let's return to the regularly scheduled GTA:SA discussion.
Nope. I do believe that neither Vice City nor the new San Andreas even have the Grand Theft Auto 4 moniker. Last I had heard GTA4 is a completely different project that will supposedly not be released until the next generation of consoles. Even that is conjecture at this point.
Neither VC nor SA have a number in their names, nor is one mentioned at all, but I seem to remember something that the company did suggesting that VC was in fact GTA4. Oh well, I could be (and probably am) wrong.
As long as the gameplay is addicitive I'll bite. I was hoping there would be a new spin on it all rather than thuglife (ie- big CEO's dirty errand boy) but I have faith in Rockstar.
Does it really matter if it GTA 4: something something, or if its GTA : something something???? What difference does it make. I think most would agree GTA: VC was an 'expansion pack'. Not taking away from the game, it is a very good game but Liberty City dwarfs Vice City. I guess I don't see what difference it makes if the game has a number to it?? Its still going to be GTA. If its the case that no number = expansion pack, people won't be less likely to buy it.