I still don't understand your point. What in your opinion should've Grand Theft Auto San Andreas been? A Character study? These games are literally just straight foward action movies in game form and i think expecting something deeper than that is silly.
What does being outdated has to do with being a soulless cashgrab? Or being a satire of early 90s and not being story focused? By your logic most PS2 games would be soulless cashgrabs then. And even then, San Andreas does have its fair share of themes and socio-political commentary along the way, its just not in this linear narrative way you expect it to be, there's a reason people still remember its characters and story while most can't remember a thing of the story of recent AAA slop.
it is just a fact that the game is outdated. so much so that it affects criteria for what is good if you ask me. the game has a story and it does "focus" your attention on it and i do not know how you thought this game was being satirical. it has its own humor, but it is not like the entire game is filled with satire.
i do not know how you came to that conclusion.
it is just a milestone for some people. it is cinematic, has an over-arching plot, numerous characters, inter-city politics, natural dialogue. it is impressive stuff, leaves a mark on you, it did on me. but past that the game is an imitation of already existing depictions of 90s urban culture and problems. but how would you know what i would expect from this game's story?
But it is. And widely regarded as such.
With main arguments like "its dated" and "its story doesn't say anything meaningful" what other conclusion you can reach?
You made your expectations very clear in your previous comments. Also most games take heavy inspiration in other stuff, so idk what you are on about
according to whom? and if it is a satire, then it must have a story to tell. this will contradict your earlier claim that the game is not story focused, meaning the story of the game is of secondary importance. if it is of secondary importance, to what is it secondary? if it is the gameplay, how could it be? the gameplay advances with the game's story.
but those are just factual statements for "San Andreas". since i was talking about it specifically, why would you relate it to other games on the PS2? some games on the system make it a priority to try and tell you something, others like "San Andreas" do not.
what are you talking about, dude?
the fact that the game is derivative to a fault is its main selling point, it is aspirational commercialism at its most basic form. this is what the game is saying: "you know those ghetto gangsters from the movies? you can be like them". it is not a problem, since the game does sell you a fantasy of being a movie gangster in a fictionalised environment. to think it is a carefully constructed work, however, is stretching it. it is just a playground.
Most people in the internet, reviewers, rockstar themselves.
Not really, unless your concept of satire is especially narrow. It can have a story to tell and that still be a secondary thing, games have to sacrifice story for gameplay reasons all the time. Like sacrificing realism for the sake of making the game more fun. Or make cutscenes shorter to not bore the player.
Because most time storytelling consists of 1~2min comedic cutscenes at the beginning of the missions and some dialogues here and there.
Because most PS2 games aren't story focused at all, principally compared to the PS3 era and later.
Honestly that's a very reductive take. Would past and future GTA games also fall into this for you? What about mafia or yakuza series?
aha
as opposed to being extremely wide, so that the mildest comment on consumerist America made by the game can pass as satire.
of course the game has to have its resources focused on other things other than "story". that is normal.
why are you telling me this?
the game is story is played straight.
but i am not talking about them, why did you bring them up? please do not make this any more confusing to me than it already is. previously you said that my analysis was terrible, but you did not even explain why. your other comment then focused on my word "dated" for some reason. i am busting my head trying to figure out how to make sense of your replies.
why do you think so? games are narrowly-focused products made to be fun.
yes, of course.
Yeah me too and honestly I've already made my point, if I continued I would just be repeating myself. I can't even tell if you are for real or just trolling tbh, but probably I should have organized better my thoughts from the get-go. Have a good day!
