VC done a lot more for the series than it's given credit for.
I mean yeah it didn't change a great deal from GTA III's core mechanics, but it was the first GTA to introduce the concept of empire building and has the best variety of melee weapons out of any GTA.
I may be a die hard GTA IV fan, but I have my roots as a VC lover. Hence my old username.
I guess one of the reasons I love VC and GTA IV is their immediate successors rely on map size and features which IMO isn't every that makes a game great.
You know, you'd think someone as intelligent as Fuzz would acknowledge and this fact for what it is, but for some bizarre reason he chooses to be incapable of that. Anyone can see that VC was a very revolutionary GTA title, it definitely deserves the praise and ratings it gets for it's achievements.
However, it's fine, it's his mind and his opinion that VC did not do much for GTA series. A bullsh*t opinion, but he's still entitled to it.
You've misinterpreted me. And I think you've chosen to do that deliberately, because it's me. I'm one of a few people you continue to pretend to politely disagree with, while not-so-subtly insulting me. I'm not sure why you haven't been warned or temped for it yet, to be honest. But go ahead, ignore me. That's a treat for me, to be honest.
I don't see making the map a bit bigger, or continuing to have a soundtrack, or having more cars than the previous game, or a few more melee weapons, as revolutionary. Oh, but giving the protagonist a voice... yeah, really changed the face of gaming and GTA as a whole. Yeah. Definitely.
It didn't change the formula of III. It was still a city with vehicles and a cool radio feature. III was revolutionary, bringing the game from 2D to 3D on fact, I would say, out of all the 3D GTAs, the ONLY revolutionary one was III. All the rest have been built on top of what it established, and allowed R* to enhance the experience they gave us with III.
You are blinded by nostalgia, this is clear - you have continually harked back to the same three or four reasons as to why you think GTA V sucks and why past games are better. It's really boring now. I have no problem with those that didn't enjoy V - quite the contrary, I like to understand why. But your consistent negativity and argumentative nature is really tedious.
Lol, how did I insult you ? Because I said I think your opinion is bullsh*t ? Sorry, but on this subject I think it is. That's not called an insult, it's called an expression of an opinion. If anyone else said it, I'd have said the same thing, it's not just about you.
I read clearly what you said bro. You said VC did not bring much to the table, I don't know how else I should read that. I'm not going into it, but VC paved the way for the progression of the GTA series in a major way, it's got f*ck all to do with nostalgia in my case. If you wanna believe that, then fine. I'm just gonna state my views as they are, you take them how you want.
Oh, you find my posts tedious ? Please just ignore them or don't reply to them, this should be second nature to you. But I'm guessing like certain others, because it's me, you just can't resist a counter reply. If you can't resist, then post, respond and engage in the debating warfare. If you really don't like my posts, then you have no reason to engage me in a debate at all, silence is the best remedy.
I have as much respect for SA's contribution to the GTA series as I do for Vice City. In my view, SA is still technically the best GTA game to date, especially in terms of the features, activities and map size. SA pretty much took GTA to it's highest level, and that is some serious acclaim for the game coming from me. But you cannot overlook the fact that VC was equally groundbreaking and revolutionary for GTA in it's own way - this has to be acknowledged, that's all I'm saying.