Were GTA SA graphics considered bad when it came out?

yeah and they had load screens and corridors. SA had a free roam STATE.

I mean, you could upgrade them through mods

When i first saw SA i tought "what is this garbage?" But the game was good so i didnt mind the poor graphics.

I remember the scenery and sheer scale of it looking amazing, especially flying round during a sunset but the models always seemed a bit blocky. Was to be expected given the size.

>b-b-but

When it first launched on ps2 it was one of the ugliest games on the market, the later ports were significantly better, but the game was still considered ugly. The scope of the game and the involved mechanics really carried it for most people (though frankly I've always hated the game.)

Do you think PS2 held it back from it's true potential on PC?

Open world games are always behind in graphics

If you weren't playing it when it came out then get the fuck off Yea Forums.

Crysis?

I mean, maybe? the pc was getting the first batch of Direct X 9 games, half life 2 was the same year. But to say it was held back seems to imply that the game was designed for PC to begin with, Gta San Andreas was built from the ground up to be a playstation 2 game.

I did, but back then i didn't care about graphics because i was like 10

the og xbox and pc versions had fucked graphics though. on PS2 the cars had a glossy sheen, but shadows were just a blob. rockstar somehow fucked everything but proper shadows up in later ports

I don't think so, a lot PC ports of PS2 games were often graphically inferior whit stuff like gimped or removed effects.

Fuck yeah. It came out same year as HL2, DOOM3 and Far Cry and looked exactly the same as GTAIII from 3 years ago.

Attached: 14660083892490.jpg (354x364, 32K)

The engine was considered dated. Basically as a mildly upgraded GTA3.

The real reason people didn’t care back then wasn’t because the game had an open world, but because the game was an edgy criminal game and that forgave any fault in the eyes of edgy mid-00 teens.

Not bad but the upgrade in quality from Vice City wasn't all that perceptible. The world was significantly bigger and more varied though, so that was cool.
It looked like what you'd expect a GTA game to look back then.

yes, but the scope of the game gave it a pass.

GTA 3 graphics blew my mind as a kid

Attached: 44ZhJFHQQzHSt5HVA7tkNMOAWOnMhYhbpPEQvOZ7dDnVTM8-I-ai55B66mlH9IV_jw=h900.jpg (1280x720, 130K)

Because the time GTA SA was came out in October the next month Half-Life 2, Halo 2 and MGS3 Snake Eater were coming out which far surpassed SA graphics wise

gta 3 was closer to 5 years before SA

zoom zoom

Only Far Cry is a fair comparison since the others are far from open world. And yeah, FarCry does look better but it's not as varied and busy as GTA.
It looked significantly better than GTA III and it was also massively larger and more varied. They prioritized gameplay over graphix, I wish that were still true today.

Blame consoles.

Same. Then they did it again with GTA SA
And again with GTA4
And again with GTA5
Rockstar knows how to make a damn good looking games

Attached: Next-Gen-GTA-V-New-Screenshots-14[1].jpg (1920x1080, 940K)

I don't remember any criticism about its graphics. I do remember praise about the nice color effects though. It actually had average graphics compared to the rest of ps2 games released at the time so it didn't actually deserve criticism.

Good point

>GTA SA
>October 26, 2004

>Silent Hill 3
>May 23, 2003

Attached: Heather_smile.png (1394x865, 705K)

That's all PC releases though, back then there was far bigger gap between PC and console graphics so comparisons weren't directly made.

Nobody gave a fuck about the graphics

this

zoom zoom

it's less about the graphics and more about how ugly cutscenes looks with those faces, stiff animations and square fingers.

More like you're the zoom zoom larping as a boomer.

Bullshit, I remember all my irl friends laughed at character hands/fingers in cutscenes

I guess? Back then I wasn't much of an internet kid to know the general opinion (I would mostly just play videogames ) but I did often get comments from my parents that the game didn't quite look up to par with other games I had like Halo or MGS2. I guess if even they noticed that, it was really obvious

Dumb graphics fag.

>yeah
yeah

Fucking idiot. Even in the 8-bit era companies were openly shitposting on the graphics of their rival machines. It was a winning sales tactic.

Yeah but that's because it was so huge, Mafia and Max Payne 2 came earlier and looked much better but those were developed mainly for PC.

Attached: Mafia-The-City-of-Lost-Heaven-Setup-Free-Download.jpg (640x512, 268K)

>Mafia looked better
Maybe better than Vice City

The driving physics and details were way ahead of gta

Honestly, I'd say it was really this generation of consoles that really stopped caring about graphics, I can't remember the last game anyone gave a shit about as a technical showpiece, maybe the early frostbite games?

Not sure if it's thanks to diminishing returns on graphics in general, or if it's kids growing up on games like minecraft and fortnite, where the graphics are intentionally simplistic.

>blood and bullet holes
wtf i dont remember this. did i play some kind of gimped version on the old xbox?

>it's less about the graphics and more about how ugly the graphics were

Oh okay

"Mafia was ported to PlayStation 2 and Xbox in 2004. Illusion was not involved in porting the game. Some of the features of the PC version do not exist in the console port, such as police patrols around the city in Free Ride, and some aspects of the game's realism and graphics."

Via wikipedia.

Yeah, but because the world was so huge with so much to do and had a ton of story, people overlooked it

Graphics were worse than Ocarina of Time (N64) but game was massive so what gives.

Literally every console port pre-2013 is some kind of gimped version

>HL2
cinematic shooter
>DOOM3
corridor shooter
>Far Cry
a small island map with nothing to do in it
all pale in comparison with GTA SA interactibility and content

well shit looks like a PC playthrough is in order

>art design is graphics
oh, okay

Attached: 26841697413.jpg (1360x768, 187K)

Fuck off zoomer

Driving was ass and what details are you talking about? there was nothing to do in the city other than finding cars

Why are you trying to compare that to SA lol

SA had load screens too, lil zoom

He's dumb and is just sad he only got his discount GTA growing up

>no normal mapping
>no subsurface skin shaders
>still looks better than modern human models

Silent Hill 2 was the best looking PS2 game of that era. San Andreas looked like it was two generations late compared to it.

the later ports were significantly better
no, the later ports were progressively shittier and shittier culminating in the godawful mobile/360/ps3 port

the xbox/pc stencil shadows are really broken and worse than just using ps2 shadows

you played the ios port as a kid?
jesus christ i feel old

Only for cutscenes.

Yeah these days that's called muh art design, anybody who compares BOTW to RDR2 is a retard apparently because they were GoInG fOr DifFeReNt AeStHeTiCs, but we can compare 2 PS2 games for the same reason because hey, they're old!

SA literally looks worse than III and VC

Yes amazing. Half you fags probably weren't even alive.

No they didn't they looked basically the same, but the animations and gameplay was allot more janky in 3 and VC.

Isn't that Max Payne 3?

This but unironically

Of course. No rockstar game has ever looked good at launch. They only make console games.

I personally thought they were ok when they came out, however magazines (yes) criticized the graphics. I remembered one pointed out the "bread loaf hands" in cutscenes.

The only thing that I thought was shitty was the gun sounds.

SA looked worse than average but it was a concession everyone understood because the console was at its absolute limit in tech terms. Especially back then, games had harder memory budgets so you really had to pick and choose your battles. It was understood to be THE peak of the ps2 era in terms of open world. Games like Halo 2 were prettier, but few games other than Morrowind were competing in the console open world genre

yeah compared to something like half life 2 it was meh looking

yes

>driving was ass
Git gud
There was lot of detail and little things put into the game just look up some video
>discount GTA
Mafia has more soul than your cheap pastiche of hood culture

The graphics were still but ugly, we're not talking about the gameplay, which was, as you described, really good.

III has the grayness and cloudiness to cover up the bad textures and also had better lighting with more reflection. VC has more popping colors and lights and distract. SA has much more open environments with more plain lighting and as a result, looks worse.

>looked exactly the same as GTAIII

It absolutely did not. You are remembering wrong.

>Literally every console version is some kind of gimped version
ftfy

For comparison THUG 2 came out the same month, and it looks way better

>Git gud
fuck off
i play enough racing sims to know the difference between realistic driving and shit driving, Mafia just falls into shit
also you fail to mention what those ''details'' are

the only open world game that comes to mind that looked slightly better was True Crime Streets Of La if only the game itself was good

Attached: treucrime8.jpg (720x480, 45K)

you're retarded, TCSOLA is fucking ugly and the map is terrible. TC's copypasted barren city blocks had nothing on 3/VC/SA's handcrafted worlds

Attached: 1.jpg (800x600, 132K)

From my 11 year memories in 2004 GTASA had good graphics for what the map size was at the time.

It was not 10/10 but a solid 8/10 graphics wise when it came out.

yes
You have to be over 18 to post here

GTA3 is the only one that impressed. Even VC releasing one single year later, I've already seen much better looking PS2 games. I remember being about 11 when it came out, and my friends and I were commenting how weird the eyes in VC looked and how stiff the facial animations were. While San Andreas aged a lot better thanks to the 3D controlled camera and many of the controls, it was just understood that it looked worse than the majority of other PS2 games and excused for being an open world game, and a fantastic game in general.

On PS2 not at all.

I remember loving True Crime and had to be told later by the internet it was bad.

it was a pretty average open world game looking back on it
Sleeping Dogs was god tier tough

Pretty much every open world game at the time was a blurry mess but sa looks worse than vice city imo. Maybe it's the lack of 80's neon everywhere.

Attached: 1539413196822.jpg (1304x731, 80K)

I thought it was good. there was this one exit on the highway where you could get your car stuck in the wall and take off similarly to the swingset glitch in gta 4. I did that for literally hours.

I did accept more shit as a kid. Sleeping Dogs was really good though. It wasn't really ever a True Crime game though, Activision was just gonna rename the game that despite it not starting off as one.

I stumbled across some old forum posts many years ago, don't remember exactly how, but they considered the graphics to be 'acceptable'.
Of course, there were Vice City fanboys who complained that it played nothing like Vice City. Don't recall any racist posts.

Is sleeping dogs better with a controller? I tried it but the controls on keyboard were just fucking retarded and I gave up

Anyone who says no is kidding themselves. SA looked awful compared to other games that came out that year like Jak 3, Doom 3, Metroid Prime 2. SA was clearly severest years behind in terms of graphics

Also reminder that Yea Forumss opinion on GTA games are absolutely worthless because just about everybody in this thread has no idea on the actual engine and graphical differences between 3, VC, SA and its PC/Xbox/Mobile ports.

All you're getting here is some dumb faggots regurgitating what they read somewhere else and/or going off vague memories of playing SA at a friend's house 15 years ago.

VC just doesn’t look as “flat” or barren to me. Like San Fierro looks like absolute dogshit, and worse than VC.

SA looks best in the desert with the extreme color filters and heat haze. In the other areas where the game doesn’t have these effects as intensely, there isn’t much to hide the bad graphics.

>GoInG fOr DifFeReNt AeStHeTiCs
get out underage, it's not funny with any level of irony.

the question is about graphics, not graphics-with-design-caveats

Yes, yes they were. There is no discussion to that
>B-but muh open world
That's not what we talking about

yeah its much better with a controlle, dont understand why you would play it with a keyboard considering how small a roll shooting plays in the overal game

literally me. loved that fucking game so much; kids at school didn't believe me when I told them about the fucking dragon and zombies
sequel never ever though. Wonder what the True Crime HK version of Sleeping Dogs would have been like if it ever got finished

Attached: 1537971475122.jpg (1120x700, 104K)

how many people in this thread have played this gem
its Driver 3 but actually good

Attached: Driver-Parallel-Lines-PS2-Game.jpg (350x500, 56K)

I’m replaying the games on PS2 and VC absolutely does look better. Like, SA looks like a straight up downgrade. The animation in SA is better but everything else looks worse.

they're pretty similar graphically.

That's true, doesn't mean GTA SA graphics were considered bad or criticised.

San Andreas played like dogshit

They were absolutely criticised but on balance it wasn’t considered a major issue.

i wonder how Sleeping Dogs would have looked like if it had a extra year of dev time
we could have actually had a Triad branch in the story

Pretty sure he meant developed specifically for PC, not ported.

It was ok for 15yo me.

the only bad thing about SA is the shooting

Would've been the same game with a different name, likely. Just completed SD for the first time and damn, it gives me the feels.

You are mentally retarded. Go replay them and you will see how wrong you are.

Yes. I distinctly remember thinking that everything looked worse than Vice City did.

also between islands

Not at all. In fact I would argue SA looks worse than even THPS4.

>Would've been the same game with a different name, likely.
I think they would have had some form of multiple endings to be honest. At that point it was a series hallmark, and it might have used an early version of the cop/triad EXP as a proxy for the old good cop/bad cop stuff. That would have been the major difference, I feel.

Attached: FAMILIES4LIFE.jpg (2160x2160, 1.94M)

I did replay them and that’s why I’m more confident about this than ever. SA is the shittiest looking of the 3 easily. The other two games have superior lighting.

It was kinda trash, GTA has never been known for their graphics, more atmosphere and gameplay

Why did SA not have the trails effect of the other two games?

was anybody else influenced by the culture of the game and live a relatively low lifestyle for the aesthetics?

Yes, biggest reason sites like IGN and other shits removed points (or came up with reasons why the graphics didn't matter "this time" to give it a higher/highest score)

Xbox/pc launch helped a lot though.

Really showed how weak the consoles were. Still was an amazing game with endless amounts of discussion among friends. Really only Halo 2 was talked about as much.

baste famalam

Emulating these games in PS2 really reminds you how terrible the native res of the PS2 was

There no loading screen between island as far as I remember

>Really showed how weak the consoles were
Had more to do with Rockstar not being the juggernaut it is now and not having the resources to substantially improve the game engine while making a big open world game.

Black is a PS2 game (albeit one released two years later) and it barely looks worse than those 2004 PC games.

what trail effect do you mean?

8mile and GTA and then saints row were basically how I thought life was

motion blur filter thingy

I remember a lot of people I knew shat on SA graphics, it was one of it's worst aspects.
This was at a time when Doom 3 and HL2 were not only out but ported to Xbox as well.
But SA was in many ways a third release of GTA 3 featuring a lot more variety. Many overlooked the outdated visuals.

>pointing out ones probable 3rd hand answer equates to being underage

Yes, I played a lot of these games specifically because I thought the people were cool as fuck and I wanted to be like them.

Attached: 25_To_Life_Coverart.png (265x376, 177K)

Attached: 54635E91-D80E-431C-B983-A2DC4735FF6E.jpg (1024x576, 51K)

It definitely did at high speeds

No. You could just drive there seamlessly.
Maybe if you fast travel? Was there a fast travel option in that game?

Attached: 2013-08-04_00004.jpg (1680x1050, 469K)

Attached: D2F20EEC-2F2B-40E0-B2B9-EBCE4EED8A43.jpg (1024x576, 43K)

you dont know wtf yourre talking about
1 game doesnt invalidate the rest

no, they were OK, people were more happy that you could fly planes, bycicles, climb up stuff and the size of the map

no it didnt
HL2 and DOOM3 and FC Primal only came for xbox, not PS2, so anyone playing GTA SA would never think of compring it to those games
GTA SA came to xbox 1 or 2 years later after PS2 release and it had updated textures.
stop talking out of your ass.

There was loading screens in between islands, but it was random with how long it would be, and sometimes it wouldn't load at all. But there were definitely loading screens on the PS2 version at least

People rightfully expected open world games to look worse at the time. These days the limitations that existed then no longer do, open world games have no reason to not be as detailed as linear game - this problem was mostly solved during the 7th generation.

GTA SA was hit with some graphics controversy, namely how poor the PC and Xbox version looked in comparison to the PS2 original. The PS2 version is to this day the definitive version of the game.

woah

Vice City looked better by a country mile.

The game was trash and did not look bett
er in any way.

The getaway in oyher hands looked better and played better.
Also driv3r was better booking and had better graphics.
Just really bad in on foot controls and not much variety on vehices

it was bad

PC with mods is the definitive version

Attached: maxresdefault (6).jpg (1280x720, 193K)

>namely how poor the PC and Xbox version looked in comparison to the PS2 original. The PS2 version is to this day the definitive version of the game.
Why do you lie?

art style was far worse than the shitty visual fidelity

Dated. Scale and details were praiseworthy, but there's no hiding that engine was well past its prime at that point and needed replacement

pic related is game released between GTA 3 and Vice City

He’s sort of right. The Xbox and PC versions broke all of the game’s effects. Mods can fix them now, but that wasn’t the case before.

of course, I forgot to attach screenshot

Attached: mafia.jpg (1024x768, 129K)

Bad? No. Great? Also no. It was fine stylistically, and the lighting was a nice touch.

No, it still looks inferior.

>he doesn't know all the effects he's missing
>being a radio-less cuckster race

mods don't fix them actually.

I just replayed it on pc. What is broken?

renderware is still a fantastic engine

This is such weird bait. No one has ever considered the ps2 version as good as the xbox.

Custom tracks, 480p, higher LOD, further text engine, better culling, etc. Xbox version was years ahead. All while Xbox being way behind PC.

yes, but on PC.
car customization was way better than SA
Driver San Francisco was also pretty good

>using the steam version

>mods don't fix them actually.
What is still unfixed?

There isn't a single fucking thing missing from the superior pc and xbox versions. Stop with the autistic bait.

nothing

this game is fucking retarded because you "fail" whatever mission your faggot italian ass is roleplaying as whenever you run over a pedestrian. It was not fun

>The PS2 version is to this day the definitive version of the game.
>Xbox version looked worse
Wat

>VC looked better than SA

Attached: 1B06EA0D-F676-4059-ADBA-8945F0B3E979.png (1920x1080, 2.12M)

color filters, vehicle reflections, moon phases, heat waves, grass, to name just a few. The game is designed very much for the PS2, playing any other version is getting an inferior experience.

>There isn't a single fucking thing missing from the superior pc and xbox versions
this is a lie
youtube.com/watch?v=Kl_wN50HXjQ
PC version is inferior.

fuck I can't wait for GTA 6

Fucking idiot. The lighting was removed, just like in Vice City and III on PC you absolute baby.

>ENB cancer
god it's disgusting

LOL you're retarded. Leave this thread.

>photo of a CRT

post a PC screenshot you turbo pleb

No, but nothing spectacular
This

not him, but I recall some

shine on metal objects. It worked in 3, but was broken for VC and SA. Don't really like that effect, but it's supposed to be there, so yeah, broken feature.
other thing I remember were color filters that would for example make everything more reddish in evenings. Sort of like piss&shit filter in GTA IV, and sand filter in GTA V

This might be news to you guys but... more powerful hardware doesn’t automatically mean better.

The PS2 used very custom hardware. It wasn’t easy for developers to port over effects designed for PS2 straight to other platforms. Rockstar were lazy with porting SA and this is why

gta.rockstarvision.com/skygfx/skygfx.html

this, something other open world games never did right for some reason was actually give people freedom and not keep them chained to the character

b-b-bbbut muh effects to cover up color banding issues, interlacing stutter issues, and texture LOD issues!

Dumb fuck.

Next you will say that VHS was superior because it hid detail and had off colors that the BD versions of a movie have correct.

Attached: 1447959623662.png (1919x705, 1.53M)

>The other two games have superior lighting.
they all have the same lighting you retard

All "trails" meant was motion blur and colour filtering in 3/VC. SA has this by default. It has "trails" in the same way 3/VC did it just isn't an option in the menu.

PS2's res is fine. You've probably just got some shitty anti aliasing/bilinear filters which are destroying the image quality.

SA doesn't have islands. There's no loading screens in the overworld. Only for cutscenes and interiors.

That looks fucking dogshit, get your shitty descargar ENB off and stop stretching out your HUD

Stop emulating the PS2 version and use SkyGFX, retard

>The PS2 version is to this day the definitive version of the game
No it isn't. The PC version with silentpatch, SkyGFX and widescreen fix is the definitive version of SA.

Literal retard
Xbox/PC versions out of the gate were botched ports, with missing and badly converted effects, models and lighting. A few road textures were replaced and they stick out like a sore thumb when the vast majority of the game still used the PS2 textures.

>mods don't fix them
Mods fix and vastly improve on everything. Fuck off consolefag. I bet you're playing the shitty upressed PS4 emulation and you're trying to convince yourself you're not playing a worse version than PC with mods.

Get the FUCK OUT OF THIS THREAD
NONE OF YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT

READ THIS gta.rockstarvision.com/skygfx/skygfx.html
WATCH THIS youtu.be/YhA1rjd91p0
AND THEN FUCKING NECK YOURSELVES BEFORE I EVER FIND YOU IN A SAN ANDREAS THREAD EVER AGAIN

Attached: sazr3502.png (2043x768, 1.65M)

Mafia must be one of the most overrated games ever.

Graphics weren't anything that special. Horrible driving. Little variety of anything. Clunky gameplay. Really fucking boring with nothing to do despite open world. And let's not forget pic related.

I guess those reviewers never played a GTA game before hand that's why they were wowed by it.

Attached: maxresdefault (5).jpg (1280x720, 96K)

Yes. The game is fucking ugly and always was, just like Vice City and GTA 3. When those games first came out they looked behind in their visual quality compared to what some other games could do.

really? I completed the game and didn't notice that. I only fail that way during intro, when you're supposed to be law abiding citizen, so it makes sense

I REALLY hope it isn't in Vice City. Nobody gives a shit about 80s miami except boomers.

that's called chromatic aberration and it's an effect used in the game, dumb fuck

No it wasn't, but it also was only average. There were games with much better graphics even on PS2, and especially on PC.

I'm a zoomer and I just want the miami aesthetics in GTA's engine

>Horrible driving

Mafia 1 literally had fully integrated force feedback and was driving wheel compatible you absolute shitter

You serious? Black has prerendered shit everywhere and doesn't even look as good as Halo 2

Did you forget people in 2004 were running at 720p resolution on pc (1024x786 up to 1600x1200 at 80+hz)? Games like FarCry and the year after FEAR are leagues better than anything ps2 could dream of. UT03/04 and even fucking Quake 3 too.

the yellow haze in sa fills me with so much nostalgia
rain in the ps2 version was beautiful too

Man, SA looks like a totally different game on PS2. Far more atmospheric.

>Mods fix and vastly improve on everything
except when they don't. 99% of mods are awful and do more to hurt the experience than not.

>defending ENB cancer
shut the fuck up russian kiddie

Attached: what the fuck.png (1280x720, 1016K)

Mafia was very inspiring, you cared for the character. CJ was a nigger nuff said

When it came out on PC in 2005, the graphics were definetly considered to be dated. But it was considered to be an acceptable trade-off considering the size and detail of the map.

What does whatever shitty mod you posted have to do with the fantastic work that went into SkyGFX

Read this and fuck off
gta.rockstarvision.com/skygfx/skygfx.html

Halo 2 is a really impressive game. The in-engine cutscenes still look great, even if their tricks are a little obvious the craft put into them is worth appreciation alone.

No one is going to read this blogpost you snoy toddler.

The graphics might've been rough but the character customization and the changing body types thing was pretty ambitious. The game still looks miles better than fucking Morrowind.

>Black has prerendered shit everywhere
What the fuck do you mean by this? It’s a full 3D game, how can it have prerendered shit?

>Did you forget people in 2004 were running at 720p resolution on pc (1024x786 up to 1600x1200 at 80+hz
Resolution isn’t the sole measure of performance.

>draw distance
youtu.be/hNXTVUrCfZA

No GTA on ps2 had good graphics. they sacrificed that to have a good world

Man, PS2 version really is the best version.

I replayed Halo 2 a year ago on 360 and it still looks great

Remember the controversy when X-Play only gave it a 4/5

dude look up chromatic aberration, it's literally not ENB, please don't be retarded

Attached: s74b2166779d45e3032570b2698694b6a.jpg (640x480, 53K)

Morrowind came almost 3 years before GTASA

>he couldn't complete race mission
I admit, instant death if you rollover could get on one's nerve

Driving actually works fine, you can't expect much from 20-something HP engine

Attached: 16670204.jpg (404x480, 45K)

the graphics were dated when it came out, but it expanded a lot onto vice city gameplay and shit you could do and the sheer size of the world

I didn't care about graphics back then
Now I use a couple of HD hud mods for PC but otherwise vanilla

I want gta 3, gta vice city, gta san andreas, gta liberty city stories, gta 4 (and gay tony and lost and damned), and gta v ported to nintendo switch. I brought saints row 3 but it would be nice to have those games as well.

yeah, it looks awful compared to PS2 games. Morrowind was definitely hideous at launch and it's not even a proper open world game. Every chunk is segmented into different maps.

not GTA 3. It wasn't Max Payne, sure, but it definitely didn't look bad for its time

Dunno, I played it as a kid and graphics literally never came into the discussion when talking about the game with my friends. Well I guess we made fun of the mitt hands everyone had but other than that, no.

Heh, the worst thing about Morrowind is even if you owned the top PC of 2002, the year it was released, you’d only get 10-15 FPS performance with the (unmodded) draw distance slider at max.

Absolutely pathetic.

/thread

They were serviceable.

not bad but stylistically ugly with that orange/brown filter over everything

autism

>you’d only get 10-15 FPS performance with the (unmodded) draw distance slider at max.
and it still looked horrendous. Bethesda is peak jank.

I wouldn't say bad but they were definitely mediocre the GTA games of that era were never praised for their visuals. People usually just accepted it as a necessity because the size of the world was massive by standards of the time.

SkyGFX doesn’t capture the PS2 effects 100% you retard.

but muh mods are perfect muhfugga

Name one missing or incorrect effect.

You can't.

>99% of mods are awful and do more to hurt the experience than not.

You're an idiot.

VC had this "trails" option you could turn on or off that made it look blurry but more colorful it looks like it's on there

>prerendering is bad
I guess you called Donkey Kong Country shit when it came out

It just doesn’t look the same. I have used skygfx and had the ps2 version in at the same time out of curiosity. It looks different, in fact skygfx actually overdoes some of the effect. SA on PS2 wasn’t actually awash in that orange at all times, it was mostly just dawn and evening.

Ayo anyone know where I can get an SA 1.0 exe. I don’t wanna use that dumb downgrader thing

mods are shit son.

Attached: emu1.png (641x478, 647K)

>it just doesn't look the same
>it looks different
It looks EXACTLY the same. The reflections, lighting, colour filter, sun size are identical. Your issue comes from a problem on your end. If the colours are wrong it's because YOU configured it wrong.

Name ONE actual difference. Show me a screenshot.

Found the retarded numale faggot queer sandnigger terrorist zoomer cunt.

I’m at work now so I can’t. Maybe later tonight I will do it if there is a thread

That's what I thought, retard.
Read this gta.rockstarvision.com/skygfx/skygfx.html and fuck off

If you are emulating PS2 that might be the problem. The emulator might not be rendering it correctly. On the actual console the lighting effects were indeed very dramatic.

It's shit. Last good driver game was the second.

Top of the line, indistinguishable from reality at the time.

Well I won’t do it if you have this retardedly hostile and bitchy attitude.

And it's only due to the improvement of the graphics in reality that the game looks old today.

I remember that on release of GTA3 I was impressed with the vehicle deformation: how doors would flap around and panels would get dented in. Even then the npc models were kinda ugly for the time but by the time SA came out the graphics started looking pretty fucking ropey.

Attached: jBlc1.jpg (423x640, 170K)

holy shit that image just gave me a SOUL overdose

nice argument faggatron

Attached: 1ac.jpg (512x512, 45K)

No.not particularly.
I remember it was rated 4.5/5 on psmania when it came out.
Graphics was the lowest score but still a solid 4 compensated by the ginormous scale of the world.

Driver San Francisco was the best in the series

It never looked like this on ps2

Source?

no, but they weren't an improvement of Vice City's either

Yes, they were an improvement on Vice City. Initially, Rockstar didn't want to improve the engine for SA but eventually they updated it during the development,

That image is clearly a modded pc image

>looked exactly the same as GTAIII from 3 years ago.
It looks far worse than GTA III and VC

And show me where exactly, other than resolution, where it looks different to PS2

Best clone
If you can even call it that

saints row was the real first clone, other games took inspiration but never really went for it as hard as saints row did. that pic is from a linear game about graffiti tagging