Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

My Final Thoughts on GTA V

208 replies to this topic
Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#121

Posted 12 March 2014 - 11:13 AM

I cannot believe that some people on this thread have the audacity to play down what Vice City  brought to the table for the entire GTA series. 

 

We all know what VC brought, but it didn't actually bring that much. Considering most of what it brought has been systematically NOT IMPLEMENTED in later games, I think that's a fair indication of how much worth Rockstar thought those features had. 

 

Much audacious, so disappoint.


Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#122

Posted 12 March 2014 - 11:19 AM Edited by Official General, 12 March 2014 - 11:34 AM.

 

I cannot believe that some people on this thread have the audacity to play down what Vice City  brought to the table for the entire GTA series. 

 

We all know what VC brought, but it didn't actually bring that much. Considering most of what it brought has been systematically NOT IMPLEMENTED in later games, I think that's a fair indication of how much worth Rockstar thought those features had. 

 

Much audacious, so disappoint.

 

 

If you think that fine. I think that's bullsh*t coming from you especially. I could give a whole list of what VC brought to the table for the entire GTA series, but I'm not going to. This should be known already by people who are very much into GTA. If they still choose to disagree then fine, I just think it's pure ignorance, and a severely distorted viewpoint, and you fall into that category.

 

I'm almost certain that not many GTA fans would agree with you on that.


Algonquin Assassin
  • Algonquin Assassin

    We're all looking for that special someone

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Most Obsessive Name Changer 2016 (My unofficial GTAF annual award)
    Biggest Fanboy 2013, 2014, 2015
    Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#123

Posted 12 March 2014 - 11:21 AM Edited by SonOfLiberty, 12 March 2014 - 11:27 AM.

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. Hell it's still the only GTA with an airport interior and functioning shopping mall.

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.
  • Official General and MorsPrincipiumEst like this

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#124

Posted 12 March 2014 - 11:27 AM Edited by Official General, 12 March 2014 - 11:28 AM.

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. 


MorsPrincipiumEst
  • MorsPrincipiumEst

    GTA Series Special Vehicle Collector

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2013
  • United-States
  • The collector [Amazing work on the Special Vehicle Guide!]

#125

Posted 12 March 2014 - 11:31 AM

^^^ Yeah, it's more of less what I said back on the previous page.

 

People hate VC cuz they are spoiled over SA, IV, and V.  Before any of those games came out, VC was way ahead of it's time and still to this day, I love it.  In 10 years, what will people say about SA, IV, and V?  No sh*t graphics will improve, map size, etc.  VC still owns for various reasons other than the ones most people against VC are saying, lol

  • Official General likes this

HaythamKenway
  • HaythamKenway

    Scavenger

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2012
  • Czech-Republic

#126

Posted 12 March 2014 - 11:36 AM

GTA III was R*'s first foray.

 

Vice City was when they hit it big.

 

Talking protagonist, better and more complex story, fully licenced soundtrack full of 80's hits, map twice as big as Liberty City, bikes, planes, helicopters, assets, much bigger variety of weapons etc. It was unlucky, because after it came San Andreas, which, once again was a bigger game, so VC's accomplishments were forgotten. But like I said, bigger =/= better. I think it was just as important to the franchise as San Andreas, EfLC or V. Only III and IV really turned the series around, which is logical, because they are reboots. That doesn't make other GTAs any worse or even pointless. You can't start from scratch and build a whole new game every time.

  • Official General and MorsPrincipiumEst like this

MorsPrincipiumEst
  • MorsPrincipiumEst

    GTA Series Special Vehicle Collector

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2013
  • United-States
  • The collector [Amazing work on the Special Vehicle Guide!]

#127

Posted 12 March 2014 - 11:40 AM

GTA III was R*'s first foray.

 

Vice City was when they hit it big.

 

Talking protagonist, better and more complex story, fully licenced soundtrack full of 80's hits, map twice as big as Liberty City, bikes, planes, helicopters, assets, much bigger variety of weapons etc. It was unlucky, because after it came San Andreas, which, once again was a bigger game, so VC's accomplishments were forgotten. But like I said, bigger =/= better. I think it was just as important to the franchise as San Andreas, EfLC or V. Only III and IV really turned the series around, which is logical, because they are reboots. That doesn't make other GTAs any worse or even pointless. You can't start from scratch and build a whole new game every time.

 

This is spot on, as well.

 

Each game is more or less the same, some bad points, some good points.  But at the end of the day each game to me is pretty much equal for some reason or another.  I basically like III, VC, SA, IV, and V for lets say 10 reasons, and 10 bad points.  All the games are pretty much equal to me.

  • HaythamKenway likes this

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#128

Posted 12 March 2014 - 11:44 AM Edited by Official General, 12 March 2014 - 11:52 AM.

GTA III was R*'s first foray.

 

Vice City was when they hit it big.

 

Talking protagonist, better and more complex story, fully licenced soundtrack full of 80's hits, map twice as big as Liberty City, bikes, planes, helicopters, assets, much bigger variety of weapons etc. It was unlucky, because after it came San Andreas, which, once again was a bigger game, so VC's accomplishments were forgotten. But like I said, bigger =/= better. I think it was just as important to the franchise as San Andreas, EfLC or V. Only III and IV really turned the series around, which is logical, because they are reboots. That doesn't make other GTAs any worse or even pointless. You can't start from scratch and build a whole new game every time.

 

 You even forgot to mention VC being the first GTA ever to have property and business asset/criminal empire building features. 

 

But according to Fuzz, despite all that you mentioned, VC still did not bring much to the table :sarcasm:


Algonquin Assassin
  • Algonquin Assassin

    We're all looking for that special someone

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Most Obsessive Name Changer 2016 (My unofficial GTAF annual award)
    Biggest Fanboy 2013, 2014, 2015
    Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#129

Posted 12 March 2014 - 11:53 AM

Speaking of which it baffles me as to how R* can f*ck up a concept (properties) in GTA V that was done so well in VC 11 years prior.
  • MorsPrincipiumEst likes this

John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • None

#130

Posted 12 March 2014 - 11:54 AM

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me V's highly complex multiple-protagonist system was much more revolutionary than VC's talking protagonist and mall/airport interior - and yes, I'm taking their respective release dates into account.

 

 

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

 

You'll just never learn, will you...

  • The Odyssey likes this

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#131

Posted 12 March 2014 - 11:57 AM

Speaking of which it baffles me as to how R* can f*ck up a concept (properties) in GTA V that was done so well in VC 11 years prior.

 

Me too bro, me too. I cannot get my head around it, I just don't get what Rockstar were thinking or doing when making GTA V. 

 

@ Lucheese

 

No I will not. But like I said, please keep following my posts and increasing my fame !!


Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#132

Posted 12 March 2014 - 12:02 PM Edited by Xerukal, 12 March 2014 - 12:03 PM.

Why the f*ck do you care about fame on a GTA fan forum anyway? Why would you use the fact that your "fame" is increasing as a argument counter-point to begin with, if you didn't have so much faith in this  artificial, irrelevant "fame" you're gaining? 

 

I honestly think you two should take the rivalry elsewhere.  I keep seeing it pop up in quite a few threads. 

 

Just what I think, though. 

  • John Smith and Captain Arthur like this

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#133

Posted 12 March 2014 - 12:07 PM

Why the f*ck do you care about fame on a GTA fan forum anyway? Why would you use the fact that your "fame" is increasing as a argument counter-point to begin with, if you didn't have so much faith in this  artificial, irrelevant "fame" you're gaining? 

 

I honestly think you two should take the rivalry elsewhere.  I keep seeing it pop up in quite a few threads. 

 

Just what I think, though. 

 

Lool this sh*t is funny  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

However for real, I'm gonna ignore that guy for now, and stay on topic, he just pops up looking for attention from me now and then. Gotta stop being so generous. 


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#134

Posted 12 March 2014 - 12:21 PM Edited by gtaxpert, 12 March 2014 - 12:40 PM.

It's funny how my comments are now misread by so much people in a row. I never even considered what Vice City 'meant for the series'. That is not how I judged it. I'm not judging it in it's historical context.

 

It's funny how double the standards of the VC fans are. If we talk about VC we should all be nice about it because it is old, but when they judge SA they don't consider that at all. Judgements based on nostalgia...

 

I'm just judging how well it stands up against other GTA's regardless of when they came out. And if you judge it like that the conslusion comes quite easily that there is not as much content as in any of the GTA's that came after it. I agree it was pretty much a perfect game back then, but after that they made a big leap forward if you ask me.

 

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.

 

Yeah, because everything other than features was so much better in VC than in SA... I just really don't think so.

 

 In 10 years, what will people say about SA, IV, and V?  No sh*t graphics will improve, map size, etc.  VC still owns for various reasons other than the ones most people against VC are saying, lol

Forgetting about graphics for a sec, because those in SA are actually good enough for me... SA map size doesn't need to be bigger. Maps might get bigger but it won't really improve games that much (imo). VC then again was really small. And in 10 years I guess it will still be small as hell. lol


John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • None

#135

Posted 12 March 2014 - 12:34 PM Edited by Lucchese, 12 March 2014 - 12:35 PM.

Why the f*ck do you care about fame on a GTA fan forum anyway? Why would you use the fact that your "fame" is increasing as a argument counter-point to begin with, if you didn't have so much faith in this  artificial, irrelevant "fame" you're gaining? 

 

I honestly think you two should take the rivalry elsewhere.  I keep seeing it pop up in quite a few threads. 

 

Just what I think, though. 

The very fact he finds his apparent "fame" on a gaming forum to be some kind of an accomplishment speaks volumes in itself. And you don't need to worry about the "rivalry" keeping on popping up in threads, I rarely post in the V section these days as it's just the same old rinse-and-repeat whining from the same old people. Sometimes I can't help myself from putting General back in his place from time to time - or as he sees it..."contributing to his fame".

 

 

Why the f*ck do you care about fame on a GTA fan forum anyway? Why would you use the fact that your "fame" is increasing as a argument counter-point to begin with, if you didn't have so much faith in this  artificial, irrelevant "fame" you're gaining? 

 

I honestly think you two should take the rivalry elsewhere.  I keep seeing it pop up in quite a few threads. 

 

Just what I think, though. 

 

Lool this sh*t is funny  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

However for real, I'm gonna ignore that guy for now, and stay on topic, he just pops up looking for attention from me now and then. Gotta stop being so generous. 

 

See, this "fame" has now infiltrated his ego!


redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#136

Posted 12 March 2014 - 12:43 PM

 

Gotta to agree that Vice City is highly overrated. 

 

Most people only like it cause of the 80's vibe. Have you guys went back and played it? I have and reached 100% for the first time for that game and I can tell you that

 

- Maps sucks ( Too flat and roads should not start at one side of the map and end at the other side. Not to mention that useless beach to take up half a island )

- Guns are decent ( SA fixed the targeting system for the 3D era for consoles )

- Gameplay feels the same as III

- Still can't swim but they made a huge beach 

 

Only good things are the businesses and python. Sure they added planes but they were no where as good as SA planes. 

 

I can't agree with that. And I cannot believe that some people on this thread have the audacity to play down what Vice City  brought to the table for the entire GTA series. VC was groundbreaking and revolutionary for it's time. Very much so. VC set the template for SA to become technically the best GTA feature-wise to date (excluding HD graphics and effects). 

 

Vice City did do lots of good things too.

 

- Good Story

- Scarface type land ( aka their own version of Miami )

- Colors

- Good music

- crouching

- Python ( I still feel this is one of the best guns in GTA )

- Business feature

 

 

Since you like Vice City so much what do you feel it added to the gameplay of GTA? The only thing Vice City added to me was a great 80's vibe. 


Algonquin Assassin
  • Algonquin Assassin

    We're all looking for that special someone

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Most Obsessive Name Changer 2016 (My unofficial GTAF annual award)
    Biggest Fanboy 2013, 2014, 2015
    Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#137

Posted 12 March 2014 - 12:51 PM Edited by SonOfLiberty, 12 March 2014 - 12:53 PM.

 
It's funny how double the standards of the VC fans are. If we talk about VC we should all be nice about it because it is old, but when they judge SA they don't consider that at all. Judgements based on nostalgia...
 

Who are these VC fans showing double standards? Even if you're just speaking generally I don't see what it has to do with this thread. You're the one who called it overrated to start with.
  • MorsPrincipiumEst likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#138

Posted 12 March 2014 - 01:00 PM Edited by gtaxpert, 12 March 2014 - 01:03 PM.

 

 
It's funny how double the standards of the VC fans are. If we talk about VC we should all be nice about it because it is old, but when they judge SA they don't consider that at all. Judgements based on nostalgia...
 

Who are these VC fans showing double standards? Even if you're just speaking generally I don't see what it has to do with this thread. You're the one who called it overrated to start with.

 

 

I haven't seen anybody make the argument how much improvements San Andreas brought to the series. or how we should regard it higher because it did what it did so much years ago. The argument is only used for Vice City until now. Which is effectively a double standard, since the thesis was 'Vice City is overrated' which was in relation to San Andreas, IV and V.


Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#139

Posted 12 March 2014 - 01:03 PM

 

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. 

  • John Smith and Geralt of Rivia like this

MorsPrincipiumEst
  • MorsPrincipiumEst

    GTA Series Special Vehicle Collector

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2013
  • United-States
  • The collector [Amazing work on the Special Vehicle Guide!]

#140

Posted 12 March 2014 - 01:04 PM Edited by Militia, 12 March 2014 - 01:06 PM.

I haven't seen anybody make the argument how much improvements San Andreas brought to the series. or how we should regard it higher because it did what it did so much years ago. The argument is only used for Vice City until now. Which is effectively a double standard, since the thesis was 'overrated' which was in relation to San Andreas, IV and V.

 

 

Except me, back on page 4.  I said San Andreas is my best game, yet it scores a 9/10 (imo) the same score I rated Vice City.  There is VARIOUS reasons as to why I like these games and why I don't.  You keep leaving the point out about 10 year old software and technology to 10 years newer software/technology.  You refuse to take that into consideration.  Simply put, Vice City had tons to offer for it's time.

 

Idk who you're directing the whole "San Andreas better than all other GTA games" at, but all I know is SA is my favorite game to date.  But Vice City is a close second behind as is IV.  That is all I am saying, personally.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#141

Posted 12 March 2014 - 01:09 PM

Yeah, and I think San Andreas is way better and that the historical context is irrelevant. Yeah, pacman is as good as GTA V because it was the best game in the world when it came out. No, it's not...


MorsPrincipiumEst
  • MorsPrincipiumEst

    GTA Series Special Vehicle Collector

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2013
  • United-States
  • The collector [Amazing work on the Special Vehicle Guide!]

#142

Posted 12 March 2014 - 01:11 PM

Yeah, and I think San Andreas is way better and that the historical context is irrelevant. Yeah, pacman is as good as GTA V because it was the best game in the world when it came out. No, it's not...

 

You're still missing the point.  When Vice City came out, and there was no such thing as San Andreas, IV, or V...What would you have said then?

 

Again, this is the third or fourth time saying this - The people, like you, who are not into Vice City are "spoiled" because you have got the full taste and experience of SA, IV, and V.  Bigger map, revolutionary this and that, etc, etc, etc.  The point I am trying to make is that just cuz SA, IV, and V had more to offer, doesn't make Vice City in any way shape or form a bad game.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#143

Posted 12 March 2014 - 01:15 PM

 

Yeah, and I think San Andreas is way better and that the historical context is irrelevant. Yeah, pacman is as good as GTA V because it was the best game in the world when it came out. No, it's not...

 

You're still missing the point.  When Vice City came out, and there was no such thing as San Andreas, IV, or V...What would you have said then?

 

 What would you have said when Pacman came out? It's the best game there is right now.. And then there came games after it that were better. Same thing for Vice City.


Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#144

Posted 12 March 2014 - 01:18 PM

 

 

Yeah, and I think San Andreas is way better and that the historical context is irrelevant. Yeah, pacman is as good as GTA V because it was the best game in the world when it came out. No, it's not...

 

You're still missing the point.  When Vice City came out, and there was no such thing as San Andreas, IV, or V...What would you have said then?

 

 What would you have said when Pacman came out? It's the best game there is right now.. And then there came games after it that were better. Same thing for Vice City.

 

 

 

What is it with these really dumb logical leaps people are making today?

 

'I don't like Ice Cream'

'OMG YOU DON'T LIKE ICE CREAM? YOU PROBABLY HATE ICE AND COWS AS WELL, YOU'RE AWFUL.'

  • MorsPrincipiumEst likes this

MorsPrincipiumEst
  • MorsPrincipiumEst

    GTA Series Special Vehicle Collector

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2013
  • United-States
  • The collector [Amazing work on the Special Vehicle Guide!]

#145

Posted 12 March 2014 - 01:18 PM

 

 

Yeah, and I think San Andreas is way better and that the historical context is irrelevant. Yeah, pacman is as good as GTA V because it was the best game in the world when it came out. No, it's not...

 

You're still missing the point.  When Vice City came out, and there was no such thing as San Andreas, IV, or V...What would you have said then?

 

 What would you have said when Pacman came out? It's the best game there is right now.. And then there came games after it that were better. Same thing for Vice City.

 

 

Never played Pacman tbh, I only have 15 total games combined for PS1, 2, and 3.  I am not a serious gamer and all I really care for is the GTA games.

 

And nice job with not even answering my question, but instead avoiding it, and asking me a question, which again, I answered.  Meanwhile you don't answer mine.

 

Anyways, I won't reply anymore as nobody is getting the point, except for a few, who I already replied to, and liked their posts.

  • Fuzzknuckles likes this

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#146

Posted 12 March 2014 - 01:49 PM Edited by Official General, 12 March 2014 - 02:29 PM.

 

 

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. 

 

@ gtaxpert

 

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. 


Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I have moved to a new account.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#147

Posted 12 March 2014 - 02:09 PM Edited by AceKingston, 12 March 2014 - 02:12 PM.

I like to compare III and Vice City with Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas. Fallout 3 was the first 3D entry, Fallout: NV built on 3. In the same way for me III was revolutionary but VC improved on it. The shooting, the driving all feel like a big improvement from III IMO.

 

VC also had a brilliant atmosphere and an amazing soundtrack. And there was buying properties and business assets which was cool. And the story was an improvement from III.  So yes III improved everything from III while bringing in a few features of it's own.

 

My only gripe with it is that the beach took up way too much space in the map. But other than that I loved every thing about it.  It was the first GTA I played so yeah I'll admit it that partly had an influence on my liking for the game but for a game made in 9 months it really was an amazing game.

 

I definitely felt that VC and III are both perfect definitions of quality over quantity. SA meanwhile (for me atleast) felt otherwise Quantity over quality.

 

Don't get me wrong, SA is a great game. Yes it introduced new features but I felt quite a few of them were useless. Like the freight train missions which were horribly done or even the courier missions.

 

I also disliked the story. It was consistent for the starting points of the game but lost steam later and left behind a trail of glaring plotholes.

 

But I did like the mission variety in the game, that was definitely better than VC. I also liked the character developing system alot.

 

SA is a fine game but another partly influence for me being the fact that it gets overrated by some of it's fans. It's a great game but it does feel like it's putting quantity over quality sometimes.

 

In conclusion: Yes I do prefer VC and IV over SA and I consider III to be the most revolutionary moments not only in GTA but also gaming history. However I do not consider VC to be a revolutionary game but I consider it to be a very memorable game.

  • MorsPrincipiumEst likes this

Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#148

Posted 12 March 2014 - 02:23 PM

ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra

 

I'd be neglecting my duties as a ledby if I ignored your posts. 

 

Repeatedly calling my opinions bullsh*t is insulting. Have a think before you post. 


Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#149

Posted 12 March 2014 - 02:29 PM

 

ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra

 

I'd be neglecting my duties as a ledby if I ignored your posts. 

 

Repeatedly calling my opinions bullsh*t is insulting. Have a think before you post. 

 

 

I don't say that about all your posts. I say that about certain ones if I really feel they are. This is the first time I've called your posts bullsh*t in a long while, I really think this one is. For you to say that VC did not bring much to the GTA series deserves to be labelled so in my books. If someone felt the same way about my comments, then I'd have to accept their views on that. 


Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#150

Posted 12 March 2014 - 02:50 PM Edited by Fuzzknuckles, 12 March 2014 - 02:50 PM.

 

 

ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra

 

I'd be neglecting my duties as a ledby if I ignored your posts. 

 

Repeatedly calling my opinions bullsh*t is insulting. Have a think before you post. 

 

 

I don't say that about all your posts. I say that about certain ones if I really feel they are. This is the first time I've called your posts bullsh*t in a long while, I really think this one is. For you to say that VC did not bring much to the GTA series deserves to be labelled so in my books. If someone felt the same way about my comments, then I'd have to accept their views on that. 

 

 

I'll say it again, just to be clear. III was the only revolutionary GTA to date. It did more to further the GTA franchise than VC did. Adding more content is not revolutionary. Changing the style of the game completely and adding an extra dimension, is. 

 

Most of the things you say about VC, and what it brought to the table, were arguably brought by III first, and then some. 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users