Creating a hallmark of Rockstar games as we know them, Grant Theft Auto: San Andreas would probably be a better game if they cut out all of the enjoyable and interesting sandbox-based exploration gameplay, the minigames and distractions, and instead forced you to do a whole bunch of dumb boring story missions in a row. Perhaps they could just do separate game modes. Or just like, a completely separate game? Hey Rockstar! You can do a Pokemon, people would love it. Anyways.
Look, people really like to toot their horns about ludonarrative dissonance. It has become a trite criticism and is kind of boring to point out at this point. Still, I think its worth bringing up in the context of this and other Rockstar games. I think San Andreas approaches ludonarrative incoherence. And even beyond dissonance; it broaches into narrative incoherence. I don't understand how missions start. Sometimes mission markers will just appear on your map, and you go there, and a cutscene will play. Carl walks up to an airfield and asks "Well now what the heck is this guy up to?" Carl walks into a random house, where Tenpenny is grilling food and gives you a mission. What is even happening there, is it his house, how does Carl know where to go, I, what? There are so many weird things in this game.
I think getting rid of the open world method of traversal, changing this into a linear story, would alleviate the confusion. I think it would obviate the incoherent mechanisms that Rockstar chooses to use in order to allow for an open world. It just doesn't work. I think we are supposed to fill in the blanks and imagine that the characters are like, living independent lives of their own accord and we don't see all of it. But it feels sloppy. If instead of open world, choose what you do when, you can link the cutscenes together in a more easily understandable way.
At a certain point I think they need to choose between these two incompatible gameplay types.
There's also a really fucking funny aspect to the narrative of this game, in that it imagines the protagonist as a Brave, Upstanding Gangster because he Won't Sell Drugs. Is that like, a kind of guy that exists? Obviously the story is one of the like "gangster with the heart of gold," you're supposed to be sympathetic to how he cares about family and his community and stuff. Sure, that's all well and good. But he draws the line at drugs? And I mean even then its like "go shoot the bad gangs who deal drugs;" it woulda been way more fun to pop a bunch of CIA agents in the heads, and they're the ones who really sold em anyway. Whatever.
I think people think of this as one of the "classic" GTA games. I remember a bunch of "grove street. home." and "just follow the train!" memes. Playing it to understand those, or to understand the game in the context of the series is probably worth it. Just as a game, generally, you can probably pass: but if you're looking to play a game in the GTA series there's not that big of a difference between this and GTA V. Maybe just randomly choose. Same shit different city.
Look, people really like to toot their horns about ludonarrative dissonance. It has become a trite criticism and is kind of boring to point out at this point. Still, I think its worth bringing up in the context of this and other Rockstar games. I think San Andreas approaches ludonarrative incoherence. And even beyond dissonance; it broaches into narrative incoherence. I don't understand how missions start. Sometimes mission markers will just appear on your map, and you go there, and a cutscene will play. Carl walks up to an airfield and asks "Well now what the heck is this guy up to?" Carl walks into a random house, where Tenpenny is grilling food and gives you a mission. What is even happening there, is it his house, how does Carl know where to go, I, what? There are so many weird things in this game.
I think getting rid of the open world method of traversal, changing this into a linear story, would alleviate the confusion. I think it would obviate the incoherent mechanisms that Rockstar chooses to use in order to allow for an open world. It just doesn't work. I think we are supposed to fill in the blanks and imagine that the characters are like, living independent lives of their own accord and we don't see all of it. But it feels sloppy. If instead of open world, choose what you do when, you can link the cutscenes together in a more easily understandable way.
At a certain point I think they need to choose between these two incompatible gameplay types.
There's also a really fucking funny aspect to the narrative of this game, in that it imagines the protagonist as a Brave, Upstanding Gangster because he Won't Sell Drugs. Is that like, a kind of guy that exists? Obviously the story is one of the like "gangster with the heart of gold," you're supposed to be sympathetic to how he cares about family and his community and stuff. Sure, that's all well and good. But he draws the line at drugs? And I mean even then its like "go shoot the bad gangs who deal drugs;" it woulda been way more fun to pop a bunch of CIA agents in the heads, and they're the ones who really sold em anyway. Whatever.
I think people think of this as one of the "classic" GTA games. I remember a bunch of "grove street. home." and "just follow the train!" memes. Playing it to understand those, or to understand the game in the context of the series is probably worth it. Just as a game, generally, you can probably pass: but if you're looking to play a game in the GTA series there's not that big of a difference between this and GTA V. Maybe just randomly choose. Same shit different city.