Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Why is V not better than IV or San Andreas?

141 replies to this topic
hflgk
  • hflgk

    gtaforums.com

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2002

#91

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:18 PM Edited by hflgk, 23 October 2013 - 04:21 PM.


I'm beginning to think many insult V because it surpasses San Andreas in every aspect except mainly side activities. It basically renders every other aspect of SA obsolete. And gamers hate that.

Gamers know the graphics are better. The mechanics are better. The game is more polished overall. It blows SA out of the water. But yet people are still clinging to SA like a baby blankie.

Yes, GTA V causes SA to look like a classic turd, but don't hate V for that.

 
This post is funny because everything he mentioned that blows SA out of the water revolves around the technical aspects of the game, which are expected to be improved as time moves forward.
At least you can acknowledge they have been improved.

I think GTA V takes the majority of the good things in GTA San Andreas and improves upon them. We have total command of the air, as in SA (helicopters, planes, jets, parachutes, even blimp), total command of land as in SA (cars, trucks, ATVs, buggies, bikes, motorcycles) and total command of the water as in SA - yet better (boats, submersible, diving gear). And all this with greatly improved graphics, motion and mechanics.

Sure, San Andreas allowed CJ to get fat, or the favored athletic physique, but it was all limited to the single, thugged-out CJ. GTA V offers 3 characters, with 3 different personalities and settings, still with clothing options and other customizable features - except weight gain/etc. Not too shabby in my opinion. That trumps the single, less dynamic thugged out single protagonist system of San Andreas.

ColdHearted
  • ColdHearted

    Nascar isn't a sport

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2013

#92

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:32 PM

It's better than IV but thats not exactly a compliment, that game was pure f*cking trash, one of the worst games you'll ever come across but as for San Andreas ha, no f*cking way, SA is still unfortunatly the greatest GTA of all time even though it came out 9 YEARS AGO on an inferior console. If GTA V was a person there would be over 20 million people called GTA V hanging from various trees around the world due to suicide, its a disgrace.

  • PkUnzipper likes this

FranklinDeRoosevelt
  • FranklinDeRoosevelt

    32nd President of Los Santos

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2013

#93

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:35 PM

^

 

I stopped reading after the IV insult. SA is one of the best games in history, but so is IV. It's based in a dark, and grey city called Liberty City (New York) just like in real life. The story is very good and free roam is very good. One of the best on the current gen. In some ways, it's a massive step up from SA, especially the physics.


Immigration
  • Immigration

    420 Warrior

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2012

#94

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:36 PM

Lettuce be real here , GTA;SA is the GOAT GTA game besides Vice City.

 

9 times out of 10 ,when someone says they didnt like Gta:SA is because:

 

A) CJ was Black.

 

B) Storyline was too "Urban" for their taste. 

 

C) Their closeted racist.  

 

D) All of the above.

 

The Houser brothers themselves would tell you that San Andreas is the best Gta game R* ever created, im srs.

 

If CJ was a white kid from Blaine County cooking meth in the backwoods with his biker gang.

It would be undisputed, that SA is the best in the gta series. 

 

 

  • PkUnzipper likes this

hflgk
  • hflgk

    gtaforums.com

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2002

#95

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:45 PM

Lettuce be real here , GTA;SA is the GOAT GTA game besides Vice City.
 
9 times out of 10 ,when someone says they didnt like Gta:SA is because:
 
A) CJ was Black.
 
B) Storyline was too "Urban" for their taste. 
 
C) Their closeted racist.  
 
D) All of the above.
 
The Houser brothers themselves would tell you that San Andreas is the best Gta game R* ever created, im srs.
 
If CJ was a white kid from Blaine County cooking meth in the backwoods with his biker gang.
It would be undisputed, that SA is the best in the gta series. 
 
 

Who's making it a race thing?

Having 3 individual personalities/protagonists as opposed to 1 personality/protagonist offers more variety and depth overall.

As far as San Andreas being too "Urban"... SA had lots of countryside area, yet it just wasn't "alive" and dynamic as V's. Plus there were no animals and detail was relatively bland.

Trevor_Philips_Enterprise
  • Trevor_Philips_Enterprise

    Crackhead

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2013

#96

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:53 PM Edited by Trevor_Philips_Enterprise, 23 October 2013 - 04:55 PM.

I don't get why people say IV was trash. It was a huge step forward in terms of physics and gameplay. And I personally LOVED the story and Liberty City's dark atmosphere (missed countryside though, but different people different opinions. But IV is FAR AWAY from trash. I actually think it feels more "complete" and "finished" than V. R*'s newest installment just feels quite rushed to me (still lovin' it and prefer it over IV).

 

In my opinion SA is the best game. Not in terms of gameplay or graphics (GTA V looks INCREDIBLE for current gen). But I loved SA's countryside. It has low draw-distance, but that's not the only reason why it feels massive. It's the whole map layout that allows you to feel "isolated" and "far away from civilization". When I first played the game and visited Back o' Beyond and all those areas of Flint County, I thought I am in the middle of f*ckin' nowhere. Also those little towns (yeah with copy/paste houses, but still loved them) gave the whole gameworld an incredible atmosphere, and I also think it's more diverse than V's countryside (of course not as beautiful as V since SA is nearly a decade older).

I miss places like that in V... places where you thought you're alone:

 

640px-Back_O%27Beyond.JPG

 

 

Possible_Bigfoot_location%5B1%5D.jpg

 

V's map is way bigger of course. But when you stand on top of vinewood tower and look north, you can see the whole flat desert, every mountain including the northest part of the map, which is Mt. Chiliad. That incredible draw distance plus the overall design (big and flat desert + lake in the middle which is sorrounded by mountains) kills the "wilderness" feeling for me. When Trevor told Franklin in a mission that Paleto is about 4 hours away from Los Santos I was laughing out loud.

When I'm at Paleto Forest I don't really think I'm in the middle of nowhere, I never get that feeling in V, doesn't matter where I am. That's kinda sad because I really was lookin' forward to that before release and map leak. You always know where you are, you can't get that feeling of getting lost like in old San Andreas. Maybe a bit nostalgia, but I think R* wasted potential with GTA V's map design. It's very beautiful, though.

 

Overall I love GTA V very much and you can see how much efford R* put in that game, it's brilliant. But I still prefer SA. Interiors, more towns, more appealing map design (to me), three cities (didn't need/miss SF + LV in V though), gang wars. But that's just my taste.

 

Sorry for me English, I'm from Germany. :)

  • Choco Taco, Neo Arcadia, Ermac. and 2 others like this

a3HeadedMonkey
  • a3HeadedMonkey

    People Smuggler

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2009

#97

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:57 PM Edited by a3HeadedMonkey, 23 October 2013 - 04:57 PM.

I own SA, IV & V. So I can play any one I want at any time. How f*cking awesome am I? Ikr?

  • gunziness and IDAS Leader like this

ColdHearted
  • ColdHearted

    Nascar isn't a sport

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2013

#98

Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:00 PM

Lettuce be real here , GTA;SA is the GOAT GTA game besides Vice City.

 

9 times out of 10 ,when someone says they didnt like Gta:SA is because:

 

A) CJ was Black.

 

B) Storyline was too "Urban" for their taste. 

 

C) Their closeted racist.  

 

D) All of the above.

 

The Houser brothers themselves would tell you that San Andreas is the best Gta game R* ever created, im srs.

 

If CJ was a white kid from Blaine County cooking meth in the backwoods with his biker gang.

It would be undisputed, that SA is the best in the gta series. 

 

 

I agree, even though San Andreas is the most popular and is the best selling GTA, I rarely hear people say they hated Vice City because it was too "italiany" or they "couldn't relate to the protag" or it was too "thuggish" and "urban" or "I couldnt understand what they were saying(but I bet they can understand what Wade says just fine)" I'm not saying SA has to be your favorite GTA but to say you hated the game for any of the aforementioned reasons obviously means it goes way deeper than just having a dislike for the story or the game in general.


Nasir_Jones
  • Nasir_Jones

    Gta V Mexican Cartel Member

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2012

#99

Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:09 PM Edited by XxGuapoBeanxX, 23 October 2013 - 05:10 PM.

I'm really gonna just lay down the hammer, besides the obvious upgrades Gta V has on SA, San Andreas is just so hard to beat due to everything you could do in that game. With Gta V I don't have that San Andreas feel, I don't even feel like I'm in L.A (Los Santos), in San Andreas I felt like I was in all three cities. The gangs were wack in Gta V! And for those saying, it's not about gangs, this ain't 95'! Gangs still play a big part in L.A and I was disappointed by the lack of gang activity. I'm just disappointed that my favorite city Gta has ever visited in game, didn't have me feeling I was there, maybe I'm just stuck on that SA nostalgia but R* should know that also a lot of people are and they need to bring that nostalgia to this game to make it enjoyable.

hflgk
  • hflgk

    gtaforums.com

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2002

#100

Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:19 PM


Lettuce be real here , GTA;SA is the GOAT GTA game besides Vice City.
 
9 times out of 10 ,when someone says they didnt like Gta:SA is because:
 
A) CJ was Black.
 
B) Storyline was too "Urban" for their taste. 
 
C) Their closeted racist.  
 
D) All of the above.
 
The Houser brothers themselves would tell you that San Andreas is the best Gta game R* ever created, im srs.
 
If CJ was a white kid from Blaine County cooking meth in the backwoods with his biker gang.
It would be undisputed, that SA is the best in the gta series. 
 
 

I agree, even though San Andreas is the most popular and is the best selling GTA, I rarely hear people say they hated Vice City because it was too "italiany" or they "couldn't relate to the protag" or it was too "thuggish" and "urban" or "I couldnt understand what they were saying(but I bet they can understand what Wade says just fine)"
"Thuggish" is not a race-specific term. Caucasian, Asian, Chinese, African, Japanese people can all be thugs.

I didn't like the Vice City protagonist myself.

WhatsStrength
  • WhatsStrength

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012
  • United-States

#101

Posted 24 October 2013 - 12:17 AM

Lettuce be real here , GTA;SA is the GOAT GTA game besides Vice City.

 

9 times out of 10 ,when someone says they didnt like Gta:SA is because:

 

A) CJ was Black.

 

B) Storyline was too "Urban" for their taste. 

 

C) Their closeted racist.  

 

D) All of the above.

 

The Houser brothers themselves would tell you that San Andreas is the best Gta game R* ever created, im srs.

 

If CJ was a white kid from Blaine County cooking meth in the backwoods with his biker gang.

It would be undisputed, that SA is the best in the gta series. 

 

 

Sounds like you're the one making race an issue here.

 

I didn't care for the game because it felt slightly rushed and not everything felt polished. I wasn't a fan of the shooting mechanics; although they were upgraded from Vice City, they were still horrid. A lot of the mini-games felt like things you'd try once and never play again. I didn't like the story either, but not because of the "urban" themes, but rather because it was so unfocused. Its by no means a bad game, just not the best.


GtaIvFanboy
  • GtaIvFanboy

    I Have a Foot Fetish

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2013

#102

Posted 24 October 2013 - 12:33 AM Edited by GtaIvFanboy, 24 October 2013 - 12:34 AM.

I would say the 3 main Reasons why i favour Iv Over v  would be 

 

 IV has a Far  more Focused/Engaging Storyline

 

 

a More Memorable and   Varied Cast Of Characters

 

Liberty City feels more Alive and Real  and has a Certain Soul about it  Los santos is pretty but lacks Something. 


hierbamala
  • hierbamala

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2013

#103

Posted 24 October 2013 - 12:39 AM

Gta iv beta is not better than gta v

G.S.T
  • G.S.T

    U WOT M8

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#104

Posted 24 October 2013 - 12:41 AM Edited by Gst0395, 24 October 2013 - 12:41 AM.

I have to say that I like V on the same level as SA. They both have similar maps and things to do on different consoles, though SA feels a bit dated in comparison to V obviously. I do like V better than IV in terms of activity variety and gameplay mechanics, though IV's story felt more compelling and serious.

 

In my opinion...

 

Vice City > San Andreas/GTA V > Episodes from Liberty City > GTA IV > Vice City Stories > GTA III > Liberty City Stories > Chinatown Wars > GTA 2 > GTA 1 > London 1969

 

Keep in mind, I enjoy every single GTA game. They're all at least 7 or 8 out of 10 or higher.


vashts1985
  • vashts1985

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2009

#105

Posted 24 October 2013 - 12:52 AM Edited by vashts1985, 24 October 2013 - 12:52 AM.

from

 

 

to

 

 

to this.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8prb7OWnWr0

 

 

 

keeps going down hill.


Swifty101
  • Swifty101

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2013

#106

Posted 12 December 2013 - 11:24 PM

My favorite is GTA San Andreas. Many classic cars. Many sub missions. More ways to make money. Girl friends, gang wars, gang alliances. Even being able to engineer a train which GTA 5 is only one mission wise. Many ways to make money. Paramedic, 50 dollars per life saved, vigilante, 150 dollars per mission, firefighter, 500 dollars per level, and do like 12 in a row and you get benefits, and money was never a worry back in 1992. And most missions gave you money and respect. Unlike 5 where only the heist give you money. Which there are only 4 of them. San Andreas had like 32 safe houses. While 5 only has like one safe house per character while Trevor's trailer gets cut off by his mother. San Andreas had like only 10 glitches spread out in like 10,000 out of 50,000,000 copies of the game itself. While like all copies of 5 experience like say 500 to 15,000 glitches in every copy like garage glitches and glitches with saving vehicles in save house garages like with the crusader jeep and Barracks. Also all of the star power in San Andreas. Golden Globe actors like Samuel L Jackson, James Woods, MC Eiht, Ice T from Law and Order SVU. Many unique characters along the way. And many vehicles that could do many unique things. Crop Duster could spray out pesticides, a stunt biplane that sprayed red tail smoke, a classic P-40 Warhawk from WWII, even with a code breaker or game shark could spawn the Andromeda C-141 transport plane from Stoaway. And compared to GTA 5. They just made a few advancements to 4. Nothing really trumping San Andreas. Oh and there map is wrong. San Andreas, Red Dead Redemption, and GTA 4 combined are indeed bigger, oh and who wants to fly a Boeing B747-400 if there is a limitation boundary around the map. Yet if you get high enough up with a plane capable of hitting 20,000-30,000 feet high you can clearly see mountains beyond the ocean. Oh and a shark that I will kill like the warrior I am with my Navy Seals knife when I see it again, don't know if there is some kind of reward since a lot of people don't realize that you can pull a knife out and kill the Great White like they do in Hawaii. But I want to see how far out I can go and how many sharks I can kill before pushing the game to go kill screen before I bust the code on it which all games have a breaking point before the games nature breaks all will and gives up on killing you. Which I did it once and got a massive reward way on back in my past.
  • PkUnzipper likes this

IDAS Leader
  • IDAS Leader

    We're not strong, We're injustice strong !!!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#107

Posted 07 January 2014 - 11:26 PM

You're joking right?


grand theft auto san andreas is fun game just game grand theft auto 5 is fail realistic not fun parody

One who says, GTA 5 is too realistic has possibly never played it.


I cant understand how people can not rate GTA V solely based on it not being about gangs and hood sh*t. The game was never going to be about that, it was never advertised as being about the hood. Yeah its annoying that gangs dont shoot each other and that the ghetto region of the game is quite small....but to judge the whole game on that is silly. Gang wars? taking over territory? Recruiting people? sounds like people just wanted San Andreas 2.0

 

This is the best way I can put it.....San Andreas in 2004 is better than GTA V in 2013. GTA V doesnt have the magic that SA has....for the main reason that GTA/open world games have been around for such a long time, they're just not magical anymore. San Andreas was only the 3rd 3D era installment of the series, so the genre was still somewhat fresh. Also, in my opinion....in comparison to GTA 3, SA was no where near as magical. I think people are just getting tired of open world games. Having said that GTA V is still a fantastic game and technically the best in the series in terms of graphics, gameplay, missions and voice acting (the relationship/dialogue/scenes between Michael and Trevor are insanely well written).

 

It's only real flaws are the property aspect, lack of interiors, short story and lack of vehicle storage.

 

I can understand people saying SA is better than V, but saying IV is better than V doesnt make much sense. I loved IV and would always defend it when people said it was dogsh*t. But let's be real here, GTA V improved upon everything IV had to offer. If you disagree you're in denial.

 

Me personally I think GTA 3 is better than all of them.

You said, WHHHHAAAATTTTT?


IDAS Leader
  • IDAS Leader

    We're not strong, We're injustice strong !!!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#108

Posted 07 January 2014 - 11:33 PM

 

lol the driving was better in San Andreas????

 

I give up on this forum.

Damn right it was. It's more fun and more realistic.

 

Edited due to unfair bashing of another user. Apologies.

 

Maybe GTA 5's driving was arcadish, but no it wasn't at all. GTA SA driving was sh**. stop trolling


redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#109

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:03 AM

I don't get why people say IV was trash. It was a huge step forward in terms of physics and gameplay. And I personally LOVED the story and Liberty City's dark atmosphere (missed countryside though, but different people different opinions. But IV is FAR AWAY from trash. I actually think it feels more "complete" and "finished" than V. R*'s newest installment just feels quite rushed to me (still lovin' it and prefer it over IV).

 

In my opinion SA is the best game. Not in terms of gameplay or graphics (GTA V looks INCREDIBLE for current gen). But I loved SA's countryside. It has low draw-distance, but that's not the only reason why it feels massive. It's the whole map layout that allows you to feel "isolated" and "far away from civilization". When I first played the game and visited Back o' Beyond and all those areas of Flint County, I thought I am in the middle of f*ckin' nowhere. Also those little towns (yeah with copy/paste houses, but still loved them) gave the whole gameworld an incredible atmosphere, and I also think it's more diverse than V's countryside (of course not as beautiful as V since SA is nearly a decade older).

I miss places like that in V... places where you thought you're alone:

 

640px-Back_O%27Beyond.JPG

 

 

Possible_Bigfoot_location%5B1%5D.jpg

 

V's map is way bigger of course. But when you stand on top of vinewood tower and look north, you can see the whole flat desert, every mountain including the northest part of the map, which is Mt. Chiliad. That incredible draw distance plus the overall design (big and flat desert + lake in the middle which is sorrounded by mountains) kills the "wilderness" feeling for me. When Trevor told Franklin in a mission that Paleto is about 4 hours away from Los Santos I was laughing out loud.

When I'm at Paleto Forest I don't really think I'm in the middle of nowhere, I never get that feeling in V, doesn't matter where I am. That's kinda sad because I really was lookin' forward to that before release and map leak. You always know where you are, you can't get that feeling of getting lost like in old San Andreas. Maybe a bit nostalgia, but I think R* wasted potential with GTA V's map design. It's very beautiful, though.

 

Overall I love GTA V very much and you can see how much efford R* put in that game, it's brilliant. But I still prefer SA. Interiors, more towns, more appealing map design (to me), three cities (didn't need/miss SF + LV in V though), gang wars. But that's just my taste.

 

Sorry for me English, I'm from Germany. :)

That picture right there makes me love SA countryside more than V's. V countryside is a waste of space that doesn't really serve a purpose. Many people wanted a countryside so we can feel lost and away from everything. Well in V you still are close to everything. Even the little forest is ruin cause hikers and fisherman are all over the place. We need a place away from everything. That's why I hope they don't go to Vice City in the next GTA and continue with the west coast. 


Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#110

Posted 08 January 2014 - 02:24 AM


That picture right there makes me love SA countryside more than V's. V countryside is a waste of space that doesn't really serve a purpose. Many people wanted a countryside so we can feel lost and away from everything. Well in V you still are close to everything. Even the little forest is ruin cause hikers and fisherman are all over the place. We need a place away from everything. That's why I hope they don't go to Vice City in the next GTA and continue with the west coast. 

 

 

It's kind of ironic. Before GTA V released I always considered SA's countryside a boring wasteland due to the lack of animals and well anything really interesting ever happening.

 

Because GTA V is on superior hardware it's hindered it in a way. It has incredible draw distance, but makes the map seem smaller and the addition of peds hiking and such removes that feeling of isolation. The irony is what made SA's countryside weak is the exact opposite to what makes GTA V's.

 

I don't know, but I think they're both on a similar level.

 

Still neither is as impressive as what was in RDR. That's how wilderness should be done IMO.


MrSarif
  • MrSarif

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2014

#111

Posted 08 January 2014 - 02:28 AM

In my opinion it is better than IV. IV was not really to my liking but I know that many people think differently. SA had many features that should have been in V though. The only thing better about V when compared to SA was the graphics.

 

I agree with above that RDR is better than all of them.


fish61324
  • fish61324

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2013

#112

Posted 08 January 2014 - 04:01 AM

GTA V is much better than IV... a lot of games are better than IV. The only thing better about IV is the free roam.   IV is one of the most overrated game this gen.

 

As far as San Andreas goes.... a lot of people here played San Andreas when they were younger.... before any other game like it existed. We are much more impressionable when we are young. Plus since then, a lot of other free roam games have come out that have been awesome (saints row, Just cause,etc..). I those may have been out around the same time as San Andreas.... but they have improved a lot.   Plus with GTA V... it feels like R* left out A TON!!!! of stuff that was in San Andreas.... and all the new stuff they added to V that wasn't in San Andreas isn't that 'cool'.  

 

That's why some people think San Andreas is better. Plus for the people who like IV better.... it's all about the atmosphere of the map.


Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#113

Posted 08 January 2014 - 04:09 AM

. Plus for the people who like IV better.... it's all about the atmosphere of the map.


Yeah. I mean the only thing to like about GTA IV is the atmosphere. Nothing else at all.

*face palm*

Chinsei
  • Chinsei

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2014

#114

Posted 08 January 2014 - 04:42 AM Edited by Chinsei, 08 January 2014 - 04:44 AM.

Well i like all the games o.O i'm not sure what i'd call my favorite the one thing i miss about San Andreas that i wish were in more games , is the stats o.O an how they'd function if you didn't exercise you'd get fat, didn't work out you'd get weaker, to me it made it a bit more fun an gave me more things to do.  i wish there were more penalties for dieing, and killing people too o.O or the ability to pull over an just get a ticket without every minor accident resulting in the next bonnie and clyde run >.< 'accidentally backs into a police car that is either flying by in a pursuit, or that didn't get notied' 'cops start opening fire'.... i like GTA i like committing crimes an stuff but sometimes i just like to drive around.. >.< an not get shot at o.o but of course every illegal action seems destined to escalate into all out warfare.. unless you evade them quickly..if it were me an i backed into a police car criminal or not i'd just o.O ask for a ticket ...or atleast hope for one..it'd also be nice if there were more penalties for killing people online -comes out of house- -gets hit by some other player because said player is bored and wanting to be a jerk- ... o.O and nothing really hapens to them in the real world if  you kill someone, an the cops know about it , its not until your punished that they tend to stop pursueing you... you should have to get a new car change your look , something to eventualyl stop from being wanted'.

It'd also be nice if 'strength' , had any real effect aside from melee damage -also it'd be nice if 'passive' mode applied to bikes since there slow an indefensible..an walking is so slow! >.<

While also tedious i kinda miss the requirements to eat/drink..and it'd be nice if cars had gas o.O i think it'd add excitement/fun to the game if you were trying to out run the cops just to realize you were about to run out of gas o.O


GtaIvFanboy
  • GtaIvFanboy

    I Have a Foot Fetish

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2013

#115

Posted 08 January 2014 - 04:47 AM

IV > V > San Andreas 

 

  i think IV  And V Are both better than San Andreas the only thing San Andreas does  best is the Soundtrack but other than that its Inferior.

 

 

  • Miamivicecity likes this

Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#116

Posted 08 January 2014 - 05:26 AM

IV > V > San Andreas 

 

  i think IV  And V Are both better than San Andreas the only thing San Andreas does  best is the Soundtrack but other than that its Inferior.

 

 

 

I must give it props for its map though. Even if most of it is relatively dead even compared to GTA III and VC.

 

I agree though SA's soundtrack is great. Maybe not quite as great as VC, but great nonetheless.

 

Still I think the game is boring and not as amazing as it's always been made out to be. Sure it was fun in 2004, but I don't think the years have be too kind to it. The last time I tried playing SA I ended up turning it off after 10 minutes and haven't touched it since.

 

Playing it reminds me of how much CJ annoyed me and all of the "things to do" really are lame, shallow and boring.


PkUnzipper
  • PkUnzipper

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2013

#117

Posted 08 January 2014 - 05:51 AM Edited by PkUnzipper, 08 January 2014 - 05:55 AM.

 

I don't get why people say IV was trash. It was a huge step forward in terms of physics and gameplay. And I personally LOVED the story and Liberty City's dark atmosphere (missed countryside though, but different people different opinions. But IV is FAR AWAY from trash. I actually think it feels more "complete" and "finished" than V. R*'s newest installment just feels quite rushed to me (still lovin' it and prefer it over IV).

 

In my opinion SA is the best game. Not in terms of gameplay or graphics (GTA V looks INCREDIBLE for current gen). But I loved SA's countryside. It has low draw-distance, but that's not the only reason why it feels massive. It's the whole map layout that allows you to feel "isolated" and "far away from civilization". When I first played the game and visited Back o' Beyond and all those areas of Flint County, I thought I am in the middle of f*ckin' nowhere. Also those little towns (yeah with copy/paste houses, but still loved them) gave the whole gameworld an incredible atmosphere, and I also think it's more diverse than V's countryside (of course not as beautiful as V since SA is nearly a decade older).

I miss places like that in V... places where you thought you're alone:

 

640px-Back_O%27Beyond.JPG

 

 

Possible_Bigfoot_location%5B1%5D.jpg

 

V's map is way bigger of course. But when you stand on top of vinewood tower and look north, you can see the whole flat desert, every mountain including the northest part of the map, which is Mt. Chiliad. That incredible draw distance plus the overall design (big and flat desert + lake in the middle which is sorrounded by mountains) kills the "wilderness" feeling for me. When Trevor told Franklin in a mission that Paleto is about 4 hours away from Los Santos I was laughing out loud.

When I'm at Paleto Forest I don't really think I'm in the middle of nowhere, I never get that feeling in V, doesn't matter where I am. That's kinda sad because I really was lookin' forward to that before release and map leak. You always know where you are, you can't get that feeling of getting lost like in old San Andreas. Maybe a bit nostalgia, but I think R* wasted potential with GTA V's map design. It's very beautiful, though.

 

Overall I love GTA V very much and you can see how much efford R* put in that game, it's brilliant. But I still prefer SA. Interiors, more towns, more appealing map design (to me), three cities (didn't need/miss SF + LV in V though), gang wars. But that's just my taste.

 

Sorry for me English, I'm from Germany. :)

That picture right there makes me love SA countryside more than V's. V countryside is a waste of space that doesn't really serve a purpose. Many people wanted a countryside so we can feel lost and away from everything. Well in V you still are close to everything. Even the little forest is ruin cause hikers and fisherman are all over the place. We need a place away from everything. That's why I hope they don't go to Vice City in the next GTA and continue with the west coast. 

 

 

It's pics like those, and that super creepy, rusty, bloodied wheel chair at Fisher's Lagoon. Places and objects like these put you into a super funky mood whenever you were in the vicinity of those areas.  It's these sort of nostalgic flash backs which made SA so memorable for me and made it the best of the series.

 

To this day, I still find that wheel chair unsettling. If that chair were a person in a former life, it would've been that evil little girl Samarra in The Ring.....  :blink:

 


EpiclyUber
  • EpiclyUber

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 May 2012

#118

Posted 08 January 2014 - 07:09 AM

I'm with you buddy, people only look at the good stuff about GTA SA, I for one, found it after the missions, incredibly boring. 

GTA SA DOES have the better length of missions. Nothing could beat 100+ missions. I was about to argue there isn't as much variety in GTA SA as there is in V but I'm wrong. Especially in Zero's missions, there was always variety which is lacking in GTA 4 but 4 will always be close to the heart as the first GTA to hold a HD world.

 

GTA V is amazing, i can play it over and over. People are saying there is way more longevity in GTA SA and the reason it is is because GTA SA was in the PS2 age where only a handful of games had some sort of online feature. People were creative and made their own ways to have fun in the single player, i myself as i said before, found it boring after missions. Only a good 5 minutes of roleplaying  piloting planes and i was already bored as hell, dead world.

GTA V only struggles more with the prospect of longevity since we live in a world of online gaming now, the game with the most interesting multiplayer or in rare cases of masterpiece single players (Skyrim, Borderlands, I'm looking at you!) it's hard to keep playing the same game for so long. I for one though, have only stopped to play different games 3 times (Forza Horizon, Black Ops 2, Sleeping Dogs haha) since GTA V has been released, and I ain't bored yet. And we ain't even got the good DLC yet! 

All ya'll are hating just cause you remember the funner stuff of GTA SA instead of the boring stuff, it all felt dead in the end.


geobst
  • geobst

    Midnight Toker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#119

Posted 08 January 2014 - 12:30 PM

In some ways I think that IV beats V by a long shot, but then I think about the smaller details and I begin to wonder. It may not seem, at first, like GTA V brought anything new to the table, but the fact is that it brought a whole lot to the table. The most obvious would be the multiple protagonists and SWITCH menu. The SWITCH menu and function was/is the most important thing that Rockstar had to implement into GTA V, if you ask me. No other game has ever had a function where you could SWITCH between three protagonists at any time (in real time) both in free roam and during missions at the level that GTA V had.

 

IV had a better storyline in my opinion. I got to know Niko more and I fell in love with him as a protagonist. I think the reason I prefer Niko over Michael, Franklin or Trevor is because GTA V had to focus on all three and therefore we saw more of Niko (story/missions wise) than we did either of the three protagonists in V (excluding free roam, obviously). I'm also a die hard fan of Liberty City.

 

San Andreas brought a lot to the table back when it was originally released. Hell, we haven't even seen some of the functions/physics that were implemented in GTA: SA in either IV or V. We all fell in love with CJ because we saw so much of him; I still think San Andreas had the longest storyline of all the games in the franchise. It was also fun as we had so many easter eggs to look for (Bigfoot, etc.) and we had Area 69 and the beloved jetpack to fool around with. 

 

So yeah, I wouldn't really say any of the games are better than the other. Each of the three brought new stuff to the table and each had things that we instantly fell in love with. 

 

 


GamerShotgun
  • GamerShotgun

    The main protagonist.

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Oct 2005

#120

Posted 08 January 2014 - 12:36 PM

Well,... one problem with V is that Rockstar is focusing on multiplayer which affects SP every f*cking time it receives an update...With the latest one, PS3 users and sometimes even Xb360 users can't even load a freakin' saved game, or GTA V will crash during loading. 

And I didn't mention that sometimes even starting a new game seems f*cked up.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users