I defintely agree with the substance over style statement. However, I think the GTA games are all substance. No game has made me rethink gaming the way GTA3 did. The storyline or violence didn't matter it was the gameplay that was so incredible. However, Rockstar backed up that great gameplay with incredible stories and music in all three games and almost unlimited play considering just how free you were and how much there is to do. When I thought they couldn't possible make the games better they found a way to top themselves big time with the next game.

A game hadn't changed my opinion of gaming that much since Mario 64 and Zelda OoT on the N64. Which for me defined what 3D gaming should be at its very best.

Now Halo 2 and Fable were disapointing not just because they couldn't live up to their hype, but also because neither one was really anything special. Fable was a mediocre RPG and Halo 2 was pretty much an expansion pack for the first one with a better online mode. It just didn't really seem to improve upon the first one which was a pretty special FPS in any other area but online play. If you are into online play then Halo 2 was great, but honestly if the game can't deliver a decent story or single player version I'm not going to buy it just for online deathmatches.

As far as the GTA series goes, the controls for GTA3 were a bit clunky, but the PC version was a lot more tolerable, with standard mouselook+WASD controls.

Anybody who says that every mission of GTA3 is the same hasn't played past the first group of them. There are a whole lot of basic missions in the beginning of the game, but during the middle and the end there's a lot more variety in what you have to do and a lot of the missions have several viable ways to complete them.

I haven't played Vice City, but San Andreas really improved on the GTA formula. The biggest draw to GTA, for me, is the sheer amount of stuff you can do in the game, along with really giving the impression of a coherent environment. I've never played a game that has as convincing of a gameworld as GTA:SA. You can drive from one corner of the gameworld to the other without a single load screen. The only time the game has to stop to load something is when you enter a building or start a mission. I've always hoped to see a similar approach taken by other genres. Having a Zelda game with a world as immersive as GTAs would be something special. GTA3 wasn't as convincing, as it was essentially three cities sitting on islands, the open areas of SA really helped bring it all together.

The sheer amount of extra stuff to do in a GTA game (especially SA) also holds a lot of draw for people. I've logged 70+ hours in SA, and I still find some new thing to do or see every time I sit down with it. The missions in SA also have a huge amount of variety to them, and the game controls quite well.

As far as Nintendo goes, I personally think that this has been their weakest generation by far. I loved all of Nintendo's past systems, and while I've enjoyed my Gamecube, the software put out by Nintendo hasn't been nearly as impressive as it used to be. I found Super Mario Sunshine and The Wind Waker to be the weakest entries in their respective series, by far. The new Zelda title, while it does have technically pretty graphics, doesn't seem to have the same charm of TWW. I'm just hoping that they'll do something different with the gameplay. I found TWW to be a little too similar to OoT as far as the combat and puzzles went, which was only the tip of the problems I had with the game. I did enjoy Pikmin (the original.. didn't care for the sequel nearly as much) and Cubivore, though.

I also can't really agree that there's more creativity coming from the Gamecube than the PS2. Sure, all of the more mainstream titles are on the PS2, as well as a lot of other shovelware, but that's what happens when a system has such a commanding lead. There's just so much more of a variety of stuff on the PS2 that really puts it ahead of the cube. Titles like DMC, Frequency, Amplitude, Rez, Ico, Katamari Damacy, and more are titles that you'd never see on the Cube.

Ok, I think I see the basic problem. You (and maybe some others in this thread) prefer cartoonish and/or fantasy world -type games to ones in a more realistic setting. There is nothing wrong with that. However, not everyone feels the same way.

Yes, there is a certain degree of repetiveness in GTA3 and Halo (1 more so than 2). Howevere, I think most would agree that real life is pretty repetitive. A game designer can't realistically introduce the same degree of fantastical uniqueness to at least the "look" of game set in a single city (GTA) or a few related areas on the same ring in space. Doing so would destroy the realistic continuity of the game (and yes, Halo is realistic in its own way, especially compared to Mario). This may not be everyone's cup of tea and certainly those games have room to improve in variety of missions; however, I don't think that means they weren't innovative.

The fact is that Halo set the standard for a console FPS, and GTA3 for free roam action games, just as much as Mario64 did for 3D platformers. Just because you don't like the former genres much doesn't make that untrue.

You're sure making a lot of assumptions about people's tastes just because they don't like GTA3 or don't feel it is the grand poopah some people believe it to be. I like all genres and like realistic in addition to fantasy, so don't assume people don't "get it" and only like games in one style.

I myself never said it wasn't a good game, and in fact I own it. I just said it wasn't innovative or revolutionary, because as compared to the previous two, there was not much in terms of basic gameplay that changed. That doesn't mean it didn't set standards either, as it certainly has established a mark others try to meet, because of its success. I had also said a highly regarded game like Zelda: OoT wasn't innovative in the same way GTA3 wasn't, so I'm not picking on GTA3 either.

As for your claims that a realistic setting has to be somewhat repetitive, I think that is hogwash. Last time I walked through many towns and cities, big and small, they were fairly diverse. If anything, hardware limitations play more of a role in limiting variety in a large world. A realistic looking world can still be very unique and have a large variety of things to look at. In a game mimicking a large city, I would expect a very diverse set of storefronts, people, etc. In a game like Halo, which is being built from the ground up, there is no excuse for largely repetitive areas except for laziness, time constraints, what-have-you, but never because it is too realistic. Even subtle changes can uniquely define one area from another, even if everything else is the same, and in a truly realistic setting, small differences would exist.

Yeah you know what my problem is? Real life is boring for me and I play videogames to escape. When games are realistic it doesn't mean that they should replicate the bad aspects of reality as well *cough*Shenmue*cough*. Metal Gear Solid 1/2/3 were realistic games in my opinion but at the same time didn't go so far as to make the game not fun anymore. You could still use health items and other traditional video-game fare, as well as having a healthy dose of fantasy in there too. The environments were also realistic but the designers didn't make them utterly repetitive and boring so that it made it easy to get lost. To me, the redundant settings in Halo and GTA weren't intentional but rather indicative of how lazy the programmers were in underdeveloping the game's environment.

Eh don't bag the shenmue... but anyway

It's a bit tough to be targeting halo for repetitive areas as that was clearly due to the need to make the launch date, and for many that was really the only flaw in a brilliant game. As for what was there, they were some of the most beautiful, immersive environments I got to play in around that time. Being able to see all the way to the horizon in the outdoor areas really made me feel I was standing on an alien landscape.

I'll have to agree with Gamespy's review, which is pretty much the only review of the game that I agree with. The beginning was great (first hour or so) then it all goes downhill.

Different strokes for different folks. It's a good thing we all didn't have the same opinion or the world would be a pretty boring place. Sounds like Nintendo games float your boat, that's cool, they aren't going away anytime soon. Why not focus on the good stuff out there? GTA won't be the hottest thing forever. Ebb and flow, right?

(probably a few too many cliches above but whatever)

And this is pretty much it. The OP just sounds like he doesn't like that the gaming industry's most popular games aren't the ones he lieks the best. Mature, kiddy, whatever, there are no specific trends. Otherwise things like Jax and Daxster wouldn't be big hits also. And games like Halo and GTA are hits not because of curse words or blood, but because people love them and think they're lots and lots of fun. As for people buying games because they're "mature," that's not really the case. Otherwise BMX XXX would've been a hit. The games that do seem to really succeed have the gameplay to back it up, though we cannot pretend that gameplay is the only element that is important to a game these days.

As I wrote, I don't buy into the GTA hype. I liked GTA3, hated Vice City, and passed on San Andreas. That doesn't stop me from recognizing that GTA3 was innovative. I'm not saying it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it *was* innovative. For me, this is coming from both my experience as a programmer and a long time gamer.

I agree with this to a certain extent. What I am saying is that a realistic game can't really have the variety and diversity of levels to the extreme that a game set in a completely fantastical world such as Mario 64 (etc.) can. Realism requires a certain continuity. For example, in Halo and Halo 2, you are often fighting within a single building/structure. Yes, within that building, a lot of things are going to look the same on a macro scale, but I think that is true to life. Certainly, your point about having a better variety of small details (and the reasons this often doesn't happen) is valid and will improve in the next gen I'm sure.

Was GTA 3 "revolutionary" or "innovative"? I don't know, those words have no meaning to me. Was it "fun"? Hell yes. I don't log 40+ hours on a game just because it seems to be a crowd favorite, I play it because it is fun.

For the record I also attack the Mario, Zelda, and Metroid games with as much fervor because they are fun as well. There's a wide spectrum of entertainment out there for each of the game consoles. Thank god that there is that much choice out there.

Yeah, I don't see how one can say GTA3 wasn't innovative.

And I hated the game and haven't bothered with the sequels.

I like straight forward linear games, and prefereably non-violent ones. Thus GTA3 just wasn't my cup of tea at all.

Perhaps it is just what someone defines innovative in the gaming world as? As gamers, I am sure we all have our own definition of this and therefore label different games with the title.

What I find interesting is how some people say they don't give a rat's about gaming anymore yet they spend a considerable amount of their time in this very forum... talking about how not interested they are in games... hmm...

I'm still very much interested in gaming although I've been taking a break from it which is why I haven't been spending as much time here talking about it as I used to. Just finished Republic Commando and thought it was allright - and I'm now playing Metal Arms - it's allright I guess, it's kinda like Jak 3 in terms of gameplay - sort of. Lately I've been feeling like gaming is something I have to make time for...

I guess. Innovative is a pretty cut and dry term though. Any game that introduces a type of gameplay we haven't seen before can be termed innovative, and GTA3 was unlike anything I'd ever played, eventhough I loathed it.

As long as they keep making Zelda, Metroid, Castlevania and Mario games, I'm cool. I enjoyed "Celda" a lot, and I'm looking forward to the new ZELDA. Probably the only reason I'm keeping my GC still. Same with my PS2 and the Castlevania game that is coming out later this year. Nothing else coming out that I'm interested in.

On the PC front, I do lament that no new create-your-own-party/single player RPGs are on the horizon (Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale/Wizardy/etc.). Everything's MMORPG now with sub-par one player campaigns.

I found GTA 3 pretty innovative. It's open ended gameplay was very unique, you could spend hours never even doing a single mission in the game, and still having a ton of fun IMO. However the controls are just plain horrid, a terrible aiming/targetting system, combined with overall clunky awkward controls. I would give it high marks for innovation and low marks for controls. For me, it set the standard for the 3d action game, much like Mario 64 did for 3d platformers, and Zelda OOT did for 3d adventure games.

I have yet to find the innovation in Halo, I think it is a polished FPS, and it is a good game, but innovative....? I think Goldeneye already showed a FPS could be done well on a console. I don't think Halo really brought anything new to the table.

But I agree with the OP in the direction video games are going. One only needs to look at the transition from POP1 to POP2 to see exactly what is wrong with the industry. The prince's "baditude", the skimpy women's outfits, added gore all really took away the charm of the predecessor in order to get the "more adult" game that sells. It is sad to see what is peddled to the pre-pubescent teens.

I didn't view it as Superboy was criticizing the gameplay of M rated games but rather their tone, which can border on the obnoxious sometimes.

Yes, no one denies that GTA set a standard for open ended gameplay in the 3D arena. It did back it's hype up with the gameplay (though after a while I did get bored with each installment and is why I've never bothered owning any). As mentioned previously, they must have done something right for even games like Jak II feeling the need to imitate it.

Maybe I'm wrong but I though the OP was refering to the same sense of "forced cool" being discussed in the Devil May Cry 3 thread. This can be a major problem for some gamers.

I wouldn't say that myself or anyone else bitching went as far as to say that we dont' give a rat's ass about gaming anymore.

It's more that we're just disappointed with the state of things and still holding out hope that our interest will rise again. There's still a few games a year I really love, but just not as many as in the past.

I have cut down my posting here of late, and have totally stopped going to any gaming exclusive sites. I just don't have that level of interest anymore.

I still visit here to keep up on things as I'm on this site every day anyway to keep up on DVD, Music and sports news, and I still enjoy games and like discussing the few I enjoy as well as discussing the state of the industry and my hopes for things to change.

Plus, my job's boring as hell and a lot of days I have nothing better to do.

My feeling though, was that the gameplay was similar to its previous versions, thus we didn't get something new (even if a large majority had not played the first two) only the game was on a "grander" scale (more violent, 3D, etc.). This is exactly why I said it wasn't innovative. Same applies to a series like Zelda, Metroid or Castlevania -- same style of gameplay all around. If some people think taking something and applying it on a grander scale is innovative, then that is why I said innovation may be a subjective term and defined by our own opinions. For me, that's not enough, but that doesn't mean the games are not good. So, I am not disagreeing with anyone who thinks the game was innovative or insisting I am right, just stating my opinion from the beginning.

I remember when I first played Grand Theft Auto III, it reminded me a whole lot of Driver 2 which came out a year before. In Driver 2 you could drive around a whole city, get out of cars, take practically any car you wanted, etc. I'm sure things are bigger and better in Grand Theft Auto but I view that third game more as a logical progression from pre-existing ideas. It never struck me as this "new kind of game." More recently, I played San Andreas and was almost shocked by how choppy it was. Clunky controls, dropped frames every 2 seconds. And I was keeping in mind how the average review score of this game is around a 9.9 out of 10. It was at that point that I realized that I simply don't look for the same things in a game that most gamers do. I'm with you, SuperBoy, but we just have to accept that we are in the minority and move on.

Halo was innovative in what it provided as a package IMO.

1) It had an engaging story in single player mode, which is a rarity for FPS. Usually, the story is just an afterthough in a FPS. I have played the original Halo all the way through at least 3 times, which I can't recall having done with any other game. I generally don't even like FPS games either.

2) It had vehicles, and they were useable and useful (in both single and multiplayer). I believe this was a first for a console FPS, at least to the extent that vehicles were used (and useable) in Halo.

3) It had massive and beautiful outdoor levels, instead of cramped, dark, dreary indoor hallways like Quake etc. In outdoor levels, you could see to the horizon and felt like you really were outside on an alien planet. The world around you felt real, not like just a confined level you had to get through.

4) It was the first console game in which you could link 4 consoles for 16-player LAN fun via 4-way split screen with no significant suffering of performance, graphics, etc. I regularly played 6-8 player Halo, and there isn't any FPS on a console that rivals it (with the possible exception of Halo 2, though IMO Halo is better).

5) It had other non-playable characters that were actually useful and felt like part of the game (e.g. the Marines). Again, rare for a FPS.

6) It had a slow, delibertate pace on some levels that I found very satisfying; but it also became frantic at times. Most FPS are twitch and shoot fragfests, which I HATE.

7) It is one of the first (if not the first) console games where the water, sand, and grass were very realistic. I remembermy friends and I just staring at the ground and saying, "Whoah!" There were a lot of little details that many FPS games just didn't bother with.

I could think of more things, but that's enough. To me, Halo crossed FPS boundaries into action-adventure genres. The way it did it as a whole was innovative, and there is a reason it has such a following even among people who don't usually like FPS games.

I have to add that no game has had better cop car chases since Driver 1 (ok, NFS Hot Pursuit 2's chases were also pretty excellent). I remember just driving just so I could get into chases. I really need to play through that game again.

Never played any of the Driver games. Well, I did play a bit of the third (which was terrible) but fans of the series told me it wasn't as good as the first two. What system were the first two for?

The first two Driver games were on the PSX (PSone).