1. The cities aren't detailed what so ever. Las Santos hardly resembles actual LA (I live in LA) besides the few landmark buildings like the Hollywood (VineWood) sign. Same goes for the other 2 cities.
2. Most of the buildings are copy/paste. Unlike GTA's this gen we have today where each building is unique, here you can see the blatant copy and pasting with few unique buildings in between.
3. It's all about the draw distance. The whole map isn't that big. It's probably the same size as Liberty City if not a tad smaller. What makes everything feel huge is that crappy draw distance they had to use with the ps2 tech.
4. The cities feel dead. Ghost towns at times, and the pedestrians are few variations and are brain dead.
5. CJ is very unlikeable IMO. It's NIGGA this, NIGGA that, and all of this gang stuff that makes everything feel to much like a "wanna be" than something that feels natural and realistic.
Well, you can not compare a game from the previous console generation with a current-gen one. It has been nine years since San Andreas was released, of course it has a lot of shortcomings if you compare it directly to a recent game. But it was a great game for its time for a lot of people, and it brought some improvements to the franchise, even if not everything about it was absolutely amazing.
Many parts of the map are just copies and pasted over and over again due the hardware limitations. This issue did not go away with the PS3 and X360, but it's just far less common nowadays. That's a good thing obviously since it can be immersion breaking, in my opinion. I do agree that the map isn't as big as it might feel like. The draw distance, plus the unrealistic acceleration of vehicles are two major points as to why the game feels so huge. It's not smaller than Liberty City, though. In fact, it's twice as big but far less detailed and, like you said, the buildings and various of other objects are copied over and over again.
The fact that cities and other areas are feeling dead is just another result of hardware limitations. There certainly would be more peds on screen if the PS2 was capable of it, which it clearly wasn't. And that is also the explanation why there only seems to be a few variations of peds. One thing I totally agree with is that they are feeling brain dead. The AI is pretty weak, I always thought so, even back in 2004/2005 when I played San Andreas for the first time. It is one of the biggest flaws this game has. It was acceptable in III and VC, given the time these games were coming out. But SA didn't really improve at all, in fact the AI felt even slightly worse, which was diappointing. I remember that I often bitched about how stupid NPCs acted.
As for your last point, this is what I'm agreeing with the most. CJ was not really a likeable character. He was just the typical gangsta stereotype and not special at all. It's not only him, but many of San Andreas' characters seem to have that problem. The story is not really anything new, and Carl just seems like another "playa in da hood", or however you want to call him.
I think you must be blind. I said in today's standards that Vice City is a DLC and its true. VC didn't improve nothing but added a city, new characters, and new story.
I'm really growing tired of your horrible posts.
1) You do understand the meaning of IMO right? Also you just justified my statement, you are blinded. The way your statement read, I can easily say that.
2) No, I like it because it's fun, great story, great characters, great theme, great missions, and pretty much everything about.
3) Where did I say that? No game is a full open-world game not even SA. Oh and if you still think that Vice was just a DLC you are blinded even further.
Story is opinion
Characters is opinion
Theme is opinion
Missions? SA blows it away
I see that you're a blind VC fanboy if you don't see how SA improve on it and why many love it. I see SA haters only hating on the game cause of the character CJ or the theme.
You just can not resist calling other people "blind" or a "fanboy" all the time for having a different opinion than you, can you? I'm not sure if it's because you're not able to comprehend that your opinion isn't necessarily the right way of thinking, or if it's because you are a troll.
Personally, I think that Vice City is the better game. The storyline is better, because it does not have a number of logical errors unlike San Andreas. It's not only that, but I think it was more interesting to follow. When I completed a mission, I started the next one because I wanted to know how things develop. I can not say about SA, because every time I finished a mission, I was either messing around in the middle of nowhere, or did some of the side activities that I growed tired of pretty fast since they were repetitve. The story lasted for a long time for sure, but it was just kind of boring. There were lots of missions that just didn't make sense in the grand scheme of things, they didn't add anything to the story as a whole and just derailed it in the end. At least that is how it felt like for me. It sometimes got interesting in-between, but it didn't take a long time until I realized again how flawed the missions and the storyline were, or how various of things you needed to do were completely unrelated.
Talking about characters, I think they were also better in Vice City. Of course, that's subjective, exactly like the entire discussion of which GTA game is the best according to each person's opinions and preferences. All characters are well developed, and seem to fit to the story. It's not like you ventured into the large world out there to do sh*t that has absolutely nothing to do with your target. Tommy's target was it to get back the money that got stolen at the very start of the game. Everything he did had something to do with it until it became clear that he stopped caring about Sonny and his money; in the end he was aiming to take over businesses, making money, and taking over the city. It all worked well together. It was relatively easy to follow, and the amount of missions was just about right. It was enough to guarantee many hours of fun, and it was 'short' enough to avoid any derailment.
There is not much to argue about when it comes to the theme of this game. GTA III was the first GTA in 3D and it revolutioned the industry with its freedom - it was something entirely new. Vice City expanded on that; it was the first game in the series that brought a proper theme and atmosphere into a game. It did a great job at representing Miami in the 1980s, and you can not deny that. The cars, the peds, the music, the colours, the atmosphere, simply everything is amazing. Maybe not for you, but that doesn't make it less of a great game. You probably didn't even play it; however, I could be wrong...
Each GTA game is some sort of revolution for the openworld genre, and perhaps even for the videogame industry as a whole. It's not any different with Vice City.