Good atmosphere but everyone was aware that the finesse of the graphics was low to focus on the open world part.
And some games tried to ape GTA with very impressive graphics for the time ( true crime 2 on PS2 fricks San Andreas raw in the ass regarding graphics ) but weren't as fun or as well made, inferior driving models, not as much freedom, lot of repitition etc ...
>true crime 2 on PS2
The graphics on GTA 3 and True crimme have aged but the True Rime voice acting is fricking amazing Gary Oldman & Christopher Walken
https://i.imgur.com/JQTzOyy.png
Did people think the older GTA's had good graphics when they came out?
GTAs graphics only started to come on target with GTA IV and v is decent
Not just good graphics but some of the best and most advanced at the time.
Yes.
But it was compared to reality.
We basically admired the achievement of simulating a fairly accurate city compared to what existed before.
Imagine you went to Mars and lived in a metal box for a few months and though it was the coolest shit because nobody has done it before and then 50 years later some zZz-oomer lborn in a Martian city asks you why you enjoyed living in a metal box
Halo was out basically at the same time as GTA3. FFX was out before GTA3 and San Andreas barely improved the graphical quality after 3 years. Compare Halo 2 to GTA:SA.
>and San Andreas barely improved the graphical quality after 3 years
Honestly it was inferior in some ways. The price paid for the sheer quantity of content.
Not really, games like FF9 and X had much better graphics but GTA was a lot more fun/long lasting. The games always looked like shit, especially since they never really improved from 3 to SA - i remember laughing at CJ's action figure hands when i first played it, wondering how the frick they didnt make that better
Yes.
But it was compared to reality.
We basically admired the achievement of simulating a fairly accurate city compared to what existed before.
Imagine you went to Mars and lived in a metal box for a few months and though it was the coolest shit because nobody has done it before and then 50 years later some zZz-oomer lborn in a Martian city asks you why you enjoyed living in a metal box
gta 3 yes. people got used to it by vice city. san andreas amazed with it's "complex gameplay" (weight change, clothes change, etc) but not really graphics.
The graphics were about what everyone expected from a game of that scale. Old GTA looks ugly but you aren't looking at the graphics when there's forty cop cars trying to ram you off the road.
>Did people think the older GTA's had good graphics when they came out?
It's funny to see zoomers in this thread saying that OF COURSE THEY WEREN'T GRAPHICALLY IMPRESSIVE, when all they're really talking about is San Andreas, which looked like shit on release because it literally ran on the GTA3 engine even though the world already had Half-Life 2, Doom 3 and Far Cry (and Silent Hill 3 which I haven't played)
GTA 3 was impressive in the sense that it was an actual open world 3D game, which was unheard of at the time. The best alternative was Driver, which looked like shit.
And if you actually remember what GTA 2 and 1 looked like (no one in this thread has played them except me), then it was even more mindblowing at the time.
No, it was considered very cartoony and stylized, in terms of graphical fidelity it was about middle of the road. What they did right was design, it was cohesive and had a particular aesthetic which they perfected with Vice City.
Final Fantasy X and Gran Turismo 3 was considered to have great graphics at the time and was a selling point.
No. It was more about the scope then the graphics than anything. Rockstar didn't really become known for graphics until GTAIV and even that was more that the graphics were decent, but it was decent with everything else going on with the open world.
No I remember stuff like MGS2, Onimusha, Dark Cloud, Devil may Cry, Jlonoa 2, Ico, Silent Hill 2 and FF10 came out around the same time no one praised GTA for the graphics but for being the first big 3d open world game.
thats because GRAPHICS doesn't mean "literally the best ever" it means aesthetically pleasing, looking good. despite the npcs being pretty ugly morrowind was gorgeous to me when it came out because the world had its own aesthetic and it all looked good together. graphicsgays only care about how realistic something looks
No, they were just kind of standard or even below average PS2 graphics, the world and reactivity was what people jerked off.
GTA4 was the first time it was even really in the conversation for presentation beyond the world simulation, rockstar was already the biggest thing in the world at that point so where game journalist hype started and where it was legit good looking I can't remember
>No, they were just kind of standard or even below average PS2 graphics, the world and reactivity was what people jerked off.
This, games like black and killzone, devil may cry and god of war ace combat, king kong annd especially return of the king and two towers etc were pushing graphics on the ps2 even sh 2 not gta 3 gta was the open world revolution which a lot of people did not get and still don't much
I still can't believe how much people overrated that slop GTA4 it's still like the third hughest rated fame ever or some shit even though it's so boring and empty but the all kept killing it a blowjob with non stop 10/10's.
It's the exact moment I realised game journos could not be trusted.
unironically when GTA III came out (and I mean 3, not VC or SA) I remember people saying how life like it looked and how soon we wouldn't be able to tell vidya from reality.
Really seems quite laughable now but that was what people were saying.
No the GTA games have always been known to be graphics deficient. Up until GTAIV
For the scale of the game, yes. If you're comparing to god of war or something then no
Good atmosphere but everyone was aware that the finesse of the graphics was low to focus on the open world part.
And some games tried to ape GTA with very impressive graphics for the time ( true crime 2 on PS2 fricks San Andreas raw in the ass regarding graphics ) but weren't as fun or as well made, inferior driving models, not as much freedom, lot of repitition etc ...
>true crime 2 on PS2
The graphics on GTA 3 and True crimme have aged but the True Rime voice acting is fricking amazing Gary Oldman & Christopher Walken
GTAs graphics only started to come on target with GTA IV and v is decent
>True crimme have aged but the True Rime voice acting is fricking amazing Gary Oldman & Christopher Walken
?feature=shared&t=165
yes
Halo was out basically at the same time as GTA3. FFX was out before GTA3 and San Andreas barely improved the graphical quality after 3 years. Compare Halo 2 to GTA:SA.
>and San Andreas barely improved the graphical quality after 3 years
Honestly it was inferior in some ways. The price paid for the sheer quantity of content.
>Gaylo
you're a Black person
>technical limitations breed different art directions
shocker, have a day off zoomer
Not really, games like FF9 and X had much better graphics but GTA was a lot more fun/long lasting. The games always looked like shit, especially since they never really improved from 3 to SA - i remember laughing at CJ's action figure hands when i first played it, wondering how the frick they didnt make that better
Not just good graphics but some of the best and most advanced at the time.
The PS2 had less than 40MB of ram btw. Only 4MB of that memory was for video.
Yes.
But it was compared to reality.
We basically admired the achievement of simulating a fairly accurate city compared to what existed before.
Imagine you went to Mars and lived in a metal box for a few months and though it was the coolest shit because nobody has done it before and then 50 years later some zZz-oomer lborn in a Martian city asks you why you enjoyed living in a metal box
>But it was compared to reality
wasn't*
I was too busy soifacing over "YOU CAN EXPLORE THE WHOLE CITY??" to pay attention to the graphics.
Good enough for the scope.
No, they sacrificed graphics for number of active objects/npcs/cars and open world. They looked ugly even for PS2 games and everyone knew it.
gta 3 yes. people got used to it by vice city. san andreas amazed with it's "complex gameplay" (weight change, clothes change, etc) but not really graphics.
GTA games had worst graphics, but bigger scale.
Kid me thought True Crime looked better at least in cutscenes.
I'd argue Sleeping Dogs looks better than the 360 era games too.
No,not until GTA IV,it was the Crysis of open world tho.
San Andreas was laughed at because of its poor graphics but people loved it anyways.
The graphics were about what everyone expected from a game of that scale. Old GTA looks ugly but you aren't looking at the graphics when there's forty cop cars trying to ram you off the road.
>Did people think the older GTA's had good graphics when they came out?
It's funny to see zoomers in this thread saying that OF COURSE THEY WEREN'T GRAPHICALLY IMPRESSIVE, when all they're really talking about is San Andreas, which looked like shit on release because it literally ran on the GTA3 engine even though the world already had Half-Life 2, Doom 3 and Far Cry (and Silent Hill 3 which I haven't played)
GTA 3 was impressive in the sense that it was an actual open world 3D game, which was unheard of at the time. The best alternative was Driver, which looked like shit.
And if you actually remember what GTA 2 and 1 looked like (no one in this thread has played them except me), then it was even more mindblowing at the time.
GTA 1 and 2 remind me of Death Rally except you can get out of the car and beat and rob people. In that way it's fairly impressive for a DOS game.
Driver is held back by the PS1 being an underpowered piece of shit and deserved a better machine, its still a great playing game though.
No, it was considered very cartoony and stylized, in terms of graphical fidelity it was about middle of the road. What they did right was design, it was cohesive and had a particular aesthetic which they perfected with Vice City.
Final Fantasy X and Gran Turismo 3 was considered to have great graphics at the time and was a selling point.
No. It was more about the scope then the graphics than anything. Rockstar didn't really become known for graphics until GTAIV and even that was more that the graphics were decent, but it was decent with everything else going on with the open world.
No I remember stuff like MGS2, Onimusha, Dark Cloud, Devil may Cry, Jlonoa 2, Ico, Silent Hill 2 and FF10 came out around the same time no one praised GTA for the graphics but for being the first big 3d open world game.
i remember being impressed by the light reflections on the roads when it rained
Rockstar games never looked good until RDR2.
>t. wasn't born when GTA 4 came out
You missed all the fun, kid
Looked like actual dogpiss with the yellow filter and got BTFO by Crysis already.
>Looked like actual dogpiss with the yellow filter
>t. played it after GTA5
You have to realize that you don't have a say in this, kid
>DUDE
>TAA
makes me want to claw my eyes out
I didn't use to think that highly of the gta visuals until the remaster made them look worse.
God Rockstar is scummy.
thats because GRAPHICS doesn't mean "literally the best ever" it means aesthetically pleasing, looking good. despite the npcs being pretty ugly morrowind was gorgeous to me when it came out because the world had its own aesthetic and it all looked good together. graphicsgays only care about how realistic something looks
No, they were just kind of standard or even below average PS2 graphics, the world and reactivity was what people jerked off.
GTA4 was the first time it was even really in the conversation for presentation beyond the world simulation, rockstar was already the biggest thing in the world at that point so where game journalist hype started and where it was legit good looking I can't remember
>No, they were just kind of standard or even below average PS2 graphics, the world and reactivity was what people jerked off.
This, games like black and killzone, devil may cry and god of war ace combat, king kong annd especially return of the king and two towers etc were pushing graphics on the ps2 even sh 2 not gta 3 gta was the open world revolution which a lot of people did not get and still don't much
I still can't believe how much people overrated that slop GTA4 it's still like the third hughest rated fame ever or some shit even though it's so boring and empty but the all kept killing it a blowjob with non stop 10/10's.
It's the exact moment I realised game journos could not be trusted.
unironically when GTA III came out (and I mean 3, not VC or SA) I remember people saying how life like it looked and how soon we wouldn't be able to tell vidya from reality.
Really seems quite laughable now but that was what people were saying.
I loved gta but it was hard not to notice they were the worst visually of all the big games especially if you had an xbox