Because a lot of people keep saying here that SA was better than V in every way. I don't get that too!
Ok first off, these are the GTA V forums, not the San Andreas ones. I'm not sure if you are confused or did this on purpose because you know no one would probably read it in the SA sub forum.
Second, no one cares about your review of a game from 2004. San Andreas was amazing for it's time, and I have no idea why in Gods name you are comparing it to current gen GTA's? Are you f*cking mentally retarded? Wow the buildings in a 2004 game aren't all unique and varied as a game made in 2008-13. The map is small? Wow no f*cking sh*t it was made in 2004, what the f*ck am I reading. You are one kind of special retard that's for sure.
Try to look at it as how good SA was in 2004 compared to how good GTAV is in 2013, and then you'll understand why SA's goodness is (arguably) better than V's
I remember when SA was new and the first thing I thought when I played it? "This game looks worse than VC".
No joke that was my first impression.
Well what do you think?
A game that has more content, bigger maps, lots of cheats would have worst graphics. Graphics don't make a GTA game its what you do in the world that makes the game fun.
Vice City was just a DLC form of III with a new theme, city, Story, and characters with a bit more too do. Not by much.
Content doesn't matter at all.
It's the amount of time you get out of the game that does matter.
I spent more hours on Vice, I found myself getting bored of SA after the story.
Vice CIty kills SA in every department IMO and to only San Andreas fanboys like you the game feels like a III DLC, only those who aren't blinded like you, can appreciate that it is a classic on it's own.
Are you kidding me? SA blows VC a way in almost everything a open world game should.
You must only like Vice City for its theme and city.
I think you're blinded if you think in today's standards that Vice City would be a full game. Its just a DLC.