Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

GTA V VS GTA SA

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
142 replies to this topic
Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#31

Posted 02 May 2014 - 11:44 AM

GTA V. In terms of it's technical excellence, graphics, and not having a wimpy little bitch as the main protagonist, certainly. 

 

SA was fun, but it really hasn't aged well. That giant breast they refer to as a mountain is a complete joke. And SF feels completely unfinished to me - like they realised they had one 3rd of the map they needed to fill and just put a bunch of straight-line streets up it. 

 

I have never played a game with a map as realistic as V's, and for me, the map is pretty much the main draw  - I'm an explorer. I booted up last night and spent an hour walking around before doing... anything. It's that good, in my opinion, that I could probably spend a 3-4 hour session just wandering around without doing anything. Listening to peds, hopping walls and fences and checking out the people by the pool, walking up and down the beach. It's glorious. 

 

In SA, I could probably manage an hour tops before I got bored. I replayed it in full just before V was released and it was fun, but ultimately felt dated, empty and rather dull by comparison. 

  • xXGst0395Xx and InTheShadowsSince04 like this

JoeM
  • JoeM

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2005

#32

Posted 02 May 2014 - 12:27 PM Edited by JoeM, 02 May 2014 - 12:31 PM.

SA was for more fun, with better replay value.

 

V has so many annoying things that stop you enjoying the game as much as you should, it really could have been the best GTA of all time, but for some reason R* felt the need to lock the game down.The stupid exploding car crash thing is so annoying.

 

V's map is vast but somehow feels smaller than SA.

 

So many things but I dont have time to list them.

  • B Dawg, Official General and jeanrjm like this

Chair
  • Chair

    Skilled & Thrilled

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2014
  • Canada

#33

Posted 02 May 2014 - 12:29 PM

I personally like GTA SA because of SAMP. But if we're talking about graphics and HDness, GTA V wins.


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#34

Posted 02 May 2014 - 12:53 PM Edited by Official General, 02 May 2014 - 12:54 PM.

San Andreas was PACKED with content and safehouses but I simply could not stand cj and his gangsta story. GTA 5's Story and Protagonists absolutely destroy san andreas "hood" theme! Michael with his far higher intelligence and marksmanship would easily put cj and his 2 bit crew away in no time.

 

Now if GTA 5 single-player had the same content that online mode has there wouldn't even be any discussions about it!

 

You don't like the gangsta stuff, that's fine it's your opinion and that has to be respected. But you know something ? I equally could not stand that FIB/government agent story in GTA V, it was just so boring and such a pile of bullsh*t that felt like it had very little to do with the game's overall theme of "pursuing dollars". While I liked Franklin and Michael, I thought Trevor was the worst GTA protagonist ever, and very sadly, Franklin was so underdeveloped.

 

I can agree with you on the point of GTA V SP having much more things to do and more content - if V had as much content as SA had (better map and a decent story), then I'd not be having this discussion myself. I'd have crowned V the winner easily, but as things stand now, to me SA still stands tall over V after 9 years.

  • A.O.D.88 likes this

Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

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

#35

Posted 02 May 2014 - 01:05 PM

V's map is vast but somehow feels smaller than SA..


This I why I feel SA's map is designed better. Even though it's technically smaller it feels bigger than it is while GTA V is the opposite. Before GTA V's release it didn't bother me only having one city, but after playing it I think another city even if smaller than LS would've done wonders.

The map while beautiful feels weird having LS squashed at the bottom and the rest being countryside. I'm not too familiar with the geography that GTA V is based on, but Malibu and the San Fernando Valley could've fit in couldn't they?
  • The Odyssey, Tikhung, Khan96 and 3 others like this

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#36

Posted 02 May 2014 - 01:37 PM Edited by Official General, 02 May 2014 - 03:10 PM.

 

V's map is vast but somehow feels smaller than SA..


This I why I feel SA's map is designed better. Even though it's technically smaller it feels bigger than it is while GTA V is the opposite. Before GTA V's release it didn't bother me only having one city, but after playing it I think another city even if smaller than LS would've done wonders.

The map while beautiful feels weird having LS squashed at the bottom and the rest being countryside. I'm not too familiar with the geography that GTA V is based on, but Malibu and the San Fernando Valley could've fit in couldn't they?

 

 

I totally agree with you both. SA's map just felt much bigger and more vast to me, and the multiple cities feature made it much more varied and fun to explore. The multiple cities feature contributed a lot to SA's map feeling superior to GTA V's map. V's map could have really done with one other major city at least. I would not have minded there being one city in V and the map being the way it is, if Los Santos was very big and very detailed with many interiors, and the natural habitat was laid out better. That would have been fine with me, but :

 

* Los Santos had quite a low number of interiors for it's size, making it a less immersive and engaging place to be.

* Los Santos  was a decent size, but should have been designed to be bigger with more sprawl, and spread out on the map, instead it was clustered into one space.

* The open countryside was not varied enough, too much mountains and rocky areas, not enough dense forests, open plains or desert.

* There was very little to see or do in the countrsyide apart from looking at the beautiful scenery. 

  • UAL likes this

UAL
  • UAL

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#37

Posted 02 May 2014 - 01:59 PM

Yep, SA's map >>>>>>>>>> GTA V's map

 

Mainly because the country side and desert regions served more of a purpose, I liked having to travel through them to get to the other cities. I also liked how we could have properties out in the wilderness where we could store vehicles and such. Also I liked how certain parts of the map felt really isolated. I remember before GTA V came out I got a quad bike and was darting around the Back O Beyond area, was so fun feeling like you're in the middle of nowhere tearing up the countryside on an ATV.

 

Unfortunately the countryside/wilderness in GTA V was pathetic. I mentioned in a thread the other day that it's more or less pointless. Theres literally nothing to do out there, just one big road that goes round the map and comes back to LS. No vehicle storage (which quite frankly is criminal), no unique points of interest or shops (everything in Blaine County is present in LS). It just doesn't have any character and seems 1 dimensional. 


Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

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

#38

Posted 02 May 2014 - 02:06 PM Edited by SonOfLiberty, 02 May 2014 - 02:06 PM.

Yep, SA's map >>>>>>>>>> GTA V's map
 
Mainly because the country side and desert regions served more of a purpose, I liked having to travel through them to get to the other cities. I also liked how we could have properties out in the wilderness where we could store vehicles and such. Also I liked how certain parts of the map felt really isolated. I remember before GTA V came out I got a quad bike and was darting around the Back O Beyond area, was so fun feeling like you're in the middle of nowhere tearing up the countryside on an ATV.
 
Unfortunately the countryside/wilderness in GTA V was pathetic. I mentioned in a thread the other day that it's more or less pointless. Theres literally nothing to do out there, just one big road that goes round the map and comes back to LS. No vehicle storage (which quite frankly is criminal), no unique points of interest or shops (everything in Blaine County is present in LS). It just doesn't have any character and seems 1 dimensional.

It would've been better if there were some unique incentive. There's really no need to visit Chumush, Paleto Bay etc as everything they contain can be found else where in the city. At least with SA's towns most of them feature unique aspects like mostly having safehouses to store vehicles in.

GTA Vs map really needed at least another city IMO. LS itself leaves a lot to be desired for, but another city may have balanced out the flaws with LS.
  • Official General likes this

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#39

Posted 02 May 2014 - 03:49 PM

It would've been better if there were some unique incentive. There's really no need to visit Chumush, Paleto Bay etc as everything they contain can be found else where in the city. At least with SA's towns most of them feature unique aspects like mostly having safehouses to store vehicles in.


GTA Vs map really needed at least another city IMO. LS itself leaves a lot to be desired for, but another city may have balanced out the flaws with LS.

 

Indeed  :^:

 

Those were was my main issues with V's map. 


Sting4S
  • Sting4S

    I have no patience for you V section lurkers

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#40

Posted 02 May 2014 - 04:21 PM

I'm not going to lie, GTA V wasn't a bad game but SA was better than V as a new game. The music, the cars, the layout, the vibe... I know SA looks primitive and sh*t now but when it was new to me, I viewed it higher than V. V's map got old really fast too. SA's map is still fun to cruise around occassionally. However, I would take IV over both of them but we're not going to talk about that.
  • Miamivicecity, Official General, xXGst0395Xx and 1 other like this

Khan96
  • Khan96

    Mafia Never Forgets

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2013
  • None

#41

Posted 02 May 2014 - 07:50 PM

GTA V is much more detailed and good looking in every aspects but GTA SA has 3 cities and focused only one character, CJ. Also GTA SA was an amazing and perfect game for 2004. Well GTA V is a very good game for 2013 but actually it is not amazing and incredible game for its year like San Andreas. GTA San Andreas is a classic and legend.

GTA V is also emotinal very good sandbox and probably become a legend to but it can't reach GTA SA's cult/classic legend position.
  • gunziness, lol232 and IDAS Leader like this

A.O.D.88
  • A.O.D.88

    SP Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014
  • United-States

#42

Posted 03 May 2014 - 03:49 AM

 

San Andreas was PACKED with content and safehouses but I simply could not stand cj and his gangsta story. GTA 5's Story and Protagonists absolutely destroy san andreas "hood" theme! Michael with his far higher intelligence and marksmanship would easily put cj and his 2 bit crew away in no time.

 

Now if GTA 5 single-player had the same content that online mode has there wouldn't even be any discussions about it!

 

You don't like the gangsta stuff, that's fine it's your opinion and that has to be respected. But you know something ? I equally could not stand that FIB/government agent story in GTA V, it was just so boring and such a pile of bullsh*t that felt like it had very little to do with the game's overall theme of "pursuing dollars". While I liked Franklin and Michael, I thought Trevor was the worst GTA protagonist ever, and very sadly, Franklin was so underdeveloped.

 

I can agree with you on the point of GTA V SP having much more things to do and more content - if V had as much content as SA had (better map and a decent story), then I'd not be having this discussion myself. I'd have crowned V the winner easily, but as things stand now, to me SA still stands tall over V after 9 years.

 

Good Post, I  agree! Michael and Franklin were my favorite characters too and Trevor was simply a psychopath in need of a straight jacket. I think the reason Franklin's story was so underdeveloped was due to rockstar's massive gutting of Single-Player in favor of "online"

 

I must admit that I like Franklin much much more than cj and I think he has alot more intelligence and morals than cj ever did!

  • Official General likes this

PsychoGamer3
  • PsychoGamer3

    The End Times Prophet

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#43

Posted 04 May 2014 - 03:30 PM

Oh gosh, really? Do we really need another debate that'll turn into a monstrous argument with fanboys?


fnxrak
  • fnxrak

    "Does the Pope sh*t in the Woods?"

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2012
  • Portugal

#44

Posted 04 May 2014 - 05:18 PM

There's no comparison possible in a game that has 10 years of gameplay with one that doesn't even got 10 months, of course V will be a lot better in some ways like graphics and even in some cases missions and all that but or else it would definetily be bad, but It will take 10 years to see if any game is as fun and challenging as San Andreas was and will be. So there's no point on doing this debate at this point!!!! The real question is was any GTA game ever bad in the real way of being awfull??? To me No so thank you R* for making this past 16-17 years great.


IDAS Leader
  • IDAS Leader

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#45

Posted 06 May 2014 - 03:41 PM

GTA V. Why? The game play enough said.


IDAS Leader
  • IDAS Leader

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#46

Posted 06 May 2014 - 03:46 PM

GTA SA reason

1. Gangs accually do what gangs go fight/kill each other when seened in other's terrority they also do random drive by on each other

 

2. Had mutiple cities to explore

 

3.GTA V Did not invest thier time in Franklin anything gang related everything is about heists stupid michaels family and etc Seriously GTA V had the worst story line ever and Gang Factions with dumber gang mechanics then GTA SA's

"GTA V had the worst story line ever and Gang Factions with dumber gang mechanics then GTA SA's"

 

This is total garbage. The story may have been short but it was good, and the gangs for GTA SA looked stupid. All they did was move their hands for 5 minutes when saw you, say where " You from home boy"over and over, than they shoot you stupidly. 

  • medodido likes this

APersonThatJoined
  • APersonThatJoined

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2014
  • United-States

#47

Posted 26 June 2014 - 12:08 AM

GTA 5 might be bigger than San Andreas but the countryside is just filler. The mountains look nice from the road but they aren't very fun to explore unless you enjoy getting wrecked by mountain lions every five minutes. There are three mountains and lots of hills/cliffs which are all relatively the same. Mt. Chiliad is fine but the rest are really pointless. The Mt. Gordo ghost was cool but think of how many times you have re climbed that mountain, I'm guessing a lot people would say they haven't.
Almost all of the non mountain countryside is covered with roads leaving only a small portion that is explorable without pretending their isn't any traffic directly behind you. The Paleto Bay forest is just a highway with some trees on the sides. The larger part of the "forest" is just a bunch of roads and a logging building. The quarry and airstrip make the desert feel small. The Alamo Sea should have been a lake so that the desert could have been larger. Yes I realize that the cargo plane crashes there but a lake would be big enough to fit it. The Chiliad State Forest and Raton Canyon are the only redeeming areas.
 
As for the story, I felt more attached to CJ even though I wasn't into the whole gang bang theme. With 5 you are constantly switching between three characters which made me care a whole lot less about them and made it hard to follow their individual stories.

 

To be honest, the only thing 5 has on San Andreas is the engine and the graphics.

  • jeanrjm likes this

jeanrjm
  • jeanrjm

    Tactical

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#48

Posted 26 June 2014 - 03:02 AM Edited by jeanrjm, 26 June 2014 - 03:04 AM.

I disliked V the first time I played it. It's so basic, so simplistic in everything that SA and other GTAs done amazingly before.
Biggest complaints being the short campaign (where buying masks is considered a mission), stupid story and lack of things to do (which is clearly a way to make people move to online, where you play with annoying kids).

SAN ANDREAS is still the best.

1. SA
2. IV
3. VC
4. EFLC
5. III/VCS/V
6. CW/LCS
7. GTA/2

iam2fresh
  • iam2fresh

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2014
  • United-States

#49

Posted 26 June 2014 - 03:48 AM

gta san andreas hasn't aged well imo 

gang wars are incredibly boring

the story is trash after you leave los santos

cj is the biggest bitch in gta history

the world feels incredibly dead

the gameplay is average at best

and a lot of the missions are either super f*cking hard because of controls or just plain boring.

i still like gta sa it just hasn't aged well gta 5 is better

  • xXGst0395Xx likes this

TheMcSame
  • TheMcSame

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#50

Posted 05 July 2014 - 04:31 PM

GTA V simply because GTA SA has very little going for it. Everything apart from some of the missions in LS, some characters, radio and certain parts of the map were pretty poor. Sure GTA V doesn't have much going for it either but it has enough to be better than SA. I mean, It's not hard to have more going for modern game compared to something that's like 10 years old considering a good chunk of "gamers" seem to care about graphics, resolution and 60FPS. For a chunk of PC "gamers" it's just graphics, graphics and more graphics.

 

Obviously there's gamers out there that couldn't care less about what resolution it is or how it looks but it seems like all people are about now is graphics.

 

Well, that went a bit off topic.

 

OT: SA felt kinda dead and the story just seemed to die off outside of LS. Sure GTA SA is great but there's very little going for it, it only does certain things better but it doesn't really stand a chance, two completely different GTA eras and it was originally developed for a completely different console generation.


IDAS Leader
  • IDAS Leader

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#51

Posted 05 July 2014 - 05:43 PM

GTA SA reason

1. Gangs accually do what gangs go fight/kill each other when seened in other's terrority they also do random drive by on each other

 

2. Had mutiple cities to explore

 

3.GTA V Did not invest thier time in Franklin anything gang related everything is about heists stupid michaels family and etc Seriously GTA V had the worst story line ever and Gang Factions with dumber gang mechanics then GTA SA's

1. GTA V's gangs are way better. You can't just waltz on to a gangs block and not get shot. In SA you have to provoke a gang to start a war. In actual gangs if you're not from their block they'll kill you. So GTA V has the best gang mechanics.

 

2. Those cities were so small, that you could get out of them in 2 minutes, and they were poorly detailed. The new LS beats the pants off of all them. 

 

3. The game wasn't meant to be gang game. Franklin wanted to get out of the ghetto. For me the story was great and heist made the game story stand out from others. You just probably hate it because it had 69 missions.


IDAS Leader
  • IDAS Leader

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#52

Posted 05 July 2014 - 05:51 PM

San Andreas and GTA V can't be really compared you know.

Storyline, better in San Andreas. In GTA V, too overrated & too many characters to remember and work with.

In terms of map, I always loved exploring the countryside and unlocking new places in San Andreas. But, GTA V doesn't have much to enjoy about map, except roaming ofcourse.

Graphics, certainly GTA V wins over here. San Andreas wasn't a HD universe.

Players are much better in GTA V. CJ was lazy and whinny at times.

I disagree. The country side in GTA V was way better. It felt complete. I know SA had 3 cities but they're very small and poorly detailed. 


B Dawg
  • B Dawg

    Looks like the diversion worked!

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2008
  • Bosnia-and-Herzegovina

#53

Posted 05 July 2014 - 07:27 PM Edited by B Dawg, 05 July 2014 - 07:28 PM.

GTA SA has very little going for it. Everything apart from some of the missions in LS,...

It's after LS that all the sweet missions start coming up. Doing robberies with Catalina (they might not be high-class jewelry robberies or whatever, I guess you can call them heists), burning down weed with a flamethrower, stealing cars from a rival dealer to help your business, Casino Heist in Las Venturas with it's own preparations, etc... I can't remember them all, because currently I'm still in LS bringing up my 'People Killed By Others' stat with the help of my gang members.

 

Gameplay wise, SA is better, it didn't dumb down it's mechanics compared to the previous game like V did, the weapons have bulletspread, it doesn't force hit indicators or screen flashes upon you, the driving is on par with V if not better due to the lack of aiding mechanics and the cars have higher top speeds, dual wielding, far more and superior cheats, more and better rewarding side missions/activities, you can recruit people cheat or without so you don't always have to do the shooting, you could own a ton of properties (houses and businesses).

 

f*ck it, if you want more things on the list, ask Official General.

  • Official General and jeanrjm like this

IDAS Leader
  • IDAS Leader

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#54

Posted 06 July 2014 - 08:50 PM Edited by rahjee, 06 July 2014 - 08:48 PM.

 

GTA SA has very little going for it. Everything apart from some of the missions in LS,...

It's after LS that all the sweet missions start coming up. Doing robberies with Catalina (they might not be high-class jewelry robberies or whatever, I guess you can call them heists), burning down weed with a flamethrower, stealing cars from a rival dealer to help your business, Casino Heist in Las Venturas with it's own preparations, etc... I can't remember them all, because currently I'm still in LS bringing up my 'People Killed By Others' stat with the help of my gang members.

 

Gameplay wise, SA is better, it didn't dumb down it's mechanics compared to the previous game like V did, the weapons have bulletspread, it doesn't force hit indicators or screen flashes upon you, the driving is on par with V if not better due to the lack of aiding mechanics and the cars have higher top speeds, dual wielding, far more and superior cheats, more and better rewarding side missions/activities, you can recruit people cheat or without so you don't always have to do the shooting, you could own a ton of properties (houses and businesses).

 

f*ck it, if you want more things on the list, ask Official General.

 

Are trying to say SA had better car and gun physics/mechanics, because it's not true.

GTA SA had a lot properties. But most of them were just boring and overrated. I enjoyed GTA online houses why better, because you can do more stuff in them. In GTA V,  buying businesses is much better and more rewarding.

 

PS I could name a ton of things that V had that SA had.


GTA V simply because GTA SA has very little going for it. Everything apart from some of the missions in LS, some characters, radio and certain parts of the map were pretty poor. Sure GTA V doesn't have much going for it either but it has enough to be better than SA. I mean, It's not hard to have more going for modern game compared to something that's like 10 years old considering a good chunk of "gamers" seem to care about graphics, resolution and 60FPS. For a chunk of PC "gamers" it's just graphics, graphics and more graphics.

 

Obviously there's gamers out there that couldn't care less about what resolution it is or how it looks but it seems like all people are about now is graphics.

 

Well, that went a bit off topic.

 

OT: SA felt kinda dead and the story just seemed to die off outside of LS. Sure GTA SA is great but there's very little going for it, it only does certain things better but it doesn't really stand a chance, two completely different GTA eras and it was originally developed for a completely different console generation.

I'm going to have to disagree on what you said about the story.


stjimmy3
  • stjimmy3

    Hater of player haters

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2013
  • Canada

#55

Posted 06 July 2014 - 09:27 PM

Saints Row 3


Yolo Swaggins
  • Yolo Swaggins

    P.E.M.D.A.S.

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2008
  • United-States

#56

Posted 06 July 2014 - 09:54 PM

I love GTA:SA, but it hasn't aged well.

 

Not taking into account graphics, GTA V has better handling, random events and little things that keep the game interesting, crash dynamics, and RAGE/Euphoria.

 

GTA SA has a better soundtrack and a good story. If I had to pick, I would pick GTA V.


suicidehummer
  • suicidehummer

    This post will self destruct in 3... 2... 1...

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2011
  • None

#57

Posted 07 July 2014 - 04:17 AM

As for driving physics, SA was sadly better because the cars actually had suspensions and body roll, and it had believable damage that actually corresponded to the force of the impact. Oh, and oversteer was controllable.

 

The missions were mostly boring and totally hand-holding. For all their talk about being able to do missions many different ways, I feel like there was less freedom than any past GTA, except maybe IV.

 

The other thing I hated about V was the soundtrack. I knew every song by the second week in and hated most of them with a passion by the third. Now, I want to kill myself every time I hear "gabba gabba hey" or "gimme gimme". Not to mention the talk shows SUCKED. Even Danny McBride's show wasn't funny and the it seems like every show only had one or two skits that just looped. Remember Judge Grady? Now THAT was funny. I feel like very little effort was put into the radio and driving, resulting in a visually impressive game with shallow gameplay.

  • JoeM likes this

Mzeppelin
  • Mzeppelin

    The Don

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2005

#58

Posted 10 July 2014 - 04:01 PM

Considering San Andreas is more or less the greatest game ever made, I think it's safe to say San Andreas is better.

 

 

 

If we compared it to when I first played SA compared to when I first played V, I can tell you I had 100000x better time in SA. And still play it and run through its story TO THIS DAY, 10 yrs later.


temi4328
  • temi4328

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2013

#59

Posted 10 July 2014 - 05:16 PM

Reason why people think Gta v is sh*t

 

100% no Gang wars. People complain about recruiting and all that sh*t. Recruiting gang members is more or less useless.They die in seconds. Technically you can recruit micheal and trevor by hanging out which is much better than families members. Official general i would prefer a FIB story over the same hood like story like in Gta sa.


Aleph-Zero
  • Aleph-Zero

    ...

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2014
  • None

#60

Posted 10 July 2014 - 05:28 PM Edited by Aleph-Zero, 10 July 2014 - 05:29 PM.

You guys have to understand something. Technically EVERY new GTA is the best GTA ever made. This is not COD where it keeps getting worse.

 

Some think GTA SA is better because of Nostalgia or because it had a bigger impact when it was released. The fact is, since GTA I the franchise has only evolved. You have to leave the Nostalgia and the past impressions out of the equation. If you weigh everything fairly it's always gonna come out as: GTA V > IV > SA > VC > III > II > I

 

I for one LOVE GTA Vice City. I still play it today and it's the GTA i hold most dear, but i leave that out when someone asks me what is the best GTA. If you ask me what is the GTA i like the most then i'll have to say Vice City.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users