Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

GTA SA vs GTA V?

180 replies to this topic

Poll: GTA SA vs. GTA V (260 member(s) have cast votes)

Which GTA is Better?

  1. GTA V (85 votes [31.02%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.02%

  2. GTA San Andreas (189 votes [68.98%])

    Percentage of vote: 68.98%

Vote Guests cannot vote
MrDeSanta
  • MrDeSanta

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2014
  • Italy

#31

Posted 11 December 2014 - 03:35 PM

Little offtopic but I just pluged my SA/PS2 on 1080p and wow it looks like complete crap, it is literally unplayable.

But once i`ve repluged it back on 25 old CRTV it looked decent again.

 

Perhaps because it`s not made for HD it looks even worse?

 

I was wonder how SA looks on PS3 remake? Anyone played it?


RedDagger
  • RedDagger

    Crash test dummy

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Best Ledby 2016
    Most Helpful 2016
    Quotable Notable Post of the Year 2016 ["sup"]
    Best Crew 2016 [The Daily Globe]
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2016
    Draw Contest Grand Prize 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Best General Topic 2015 [GTAForums Newbie Guide 2.0]
    Helpfulness Award

#32

Posted 11 December 2014 - 04:53 PM

Weak argument. "Many people love movies darts and tennis!" Who? No body play them in GTAO and theyre boring as sh*t.

 I'm assuming you've been noting what everyones in every GTAO lobby you've played in has been doing at every moment to know that...except people have played them, and they enjoyed them. No, they don't play them as often as normal GTA gameplay, no, they don't have to be playing them in GTAO, but you get lots of people who played them for .

And that whole button mashing thing that you brought up just shows how wrong you are. Its not just button mashing and theres a result and reward for completing them. Getting built af.

If it's not just button mashing, what is it?
You get a result in V as well, y'know - not that that has anything to do with what the activity itself is.

And the draw distance sh*t, I never said they deliberately lowered it. Thats just your up-n-arms ignorance. Im saying R* had priorities that were extremely ambitious and they were thinking fun first. And they used the low draw distance to make the world feel huge.

I never said you said that...at least read what I'm writing. I said they took advantage of it, Jesus.

No, they didn't use the low draw distance to make it feel larger, the world felt larger because of the small draw distance. They couldn't have decided to just increase it a notable amount, they didn't use it for anything - they just had to work with it. It's not a clever design decision.

EDIT: And whats so challenging and fun about tennis and golf? LOL. I think the sims may be the game for you or kinect sports. And watching the 3 sh*tty cringeworthy movies? You're really throwing a jab at yourself by saying yoga, tennis, golf, movies, darts > working out, basketball, gang control, gambling, house robberies

You said SA ones were challenging, I just thought that was stupid because of weightlifting. I didn't say V ones were challenging, and they don't have to be to be worthwhile.

I like how you throw yoga in that comparison when I said it was bad, I feel like you really properly read what I wrote. And anyway, working out (as I said) is barely interactive, and isn't worthwhile for anything other than the result. That makes it bad as a standalone activity. Gang control is often said to be ones of the worse parts of SA because of the fact attack can happen whenever you least want them to, and it got repetitive having to drive on down to LS to do a bit of wave-defense - i.e. V's survivals are more preferred.

So...yes, I still think V is better on this front. That may not be saying much, but I still think that.


Ducard
  • Ducard

    Spectre

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2014
  • India
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#33

Posted 11 December 2014 - 05:06 PM

Dagger, there is no use arguing with someone who actually regularly plays and enjoys the game. He is just a troll jumping on the bandwagon, ignore him.

MrDeSanta
  • MrDeSanta

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2014
  • Italy

#34

Posted 11 December 2014 - 05:37 PM

That`s interesting how IV fans suddenly all love SA when it comes to V/SA comparison but if the word is about SA/IV comparison then they can`t find a good word for SA.

  • Gummy  likes this

Son of Zeus
  • Son of Zeus

    Still King

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2014
  • Australia

#35

Posted 11 December 2014 - 06:30 PM

Dagger, there is no use arguing with someone who actually regularly plays and enjoys the game. He is just a troll jumping on the bandwagon, ignore him.


You're referring to Raiden, right? I too think he actually likes the game but just jumps in to bash V and get attention.
  • Ducard likes this

BabeRuth
  • BabeRuth

    Bronx Bombers Stadium

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2010
  • None

#36

Posted 11 December 2014 - 07:00 PM

Reason I chose V because:
- Graphics, duh.

I didn't choose GTA SA because:
- Graphics, duh.


I find it extremely pathetic that graphics matter to make a good game now-a-days. It just makes me want to cry.

I'll take the older Resident Evils, Call Of Duties, Final Fantasy over the new ones theses days.

For COD: I stopped after Modern Warfare 2, stories just get lamer and lamer. Multiplayer is frustratingly annoying.
RE: Jump scares, environment, enemies, story turned to s+*t once 4 came out.
Final Fantasy: oh boy... Where do I start.

All these games are fun in a form of a way, but in other ways it gets annoying glitching, abusing, etc....

I choose SA because it reminds me of what I grew up in, the setting, I can relate to CJ loosing a family member, watching over your sister, it goes on.

SA had...
(1) Better Radio Stations.
(2) better vehicle handling.
(3) BETTER JET/PLANE/HELICOPTER HANDLING.
(4) Story.
(5) Gang Territory.(Sure some people may not have found this fun but I did)
  • B Dawg likes this

Octavio89
  • Octavio89

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2014
  • North-Korea

#37

Posted 11 December 2014 - 07:18 PM

San Andreas.

 

 

Better map

Better story

Better mission

More missions

Better Music

More sidemissions


Flesh-n-Bone
  • Flesh-n-Bone

    OG

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2008
  • Sweden

#38

Posted 11 December 2014 - 07:22 PM

That`s interesting how IV fans suddenly all love SA when it comes to V/SA comparison but if the word is about SA/IV comparison then they can`t find a good word for SA.

Lol, it's funny to see all these "rivalries" when opinions suddenly change based on the games being compared. I have noticed a much more favorable tone towards SA from much of the forum now V is the game to hate on.

 

Side note: Of all the side activities in V, I'm disappointed that you can't play pool even though the table is there at the bar.

  • MrDeSanta likes this

AdusPL
  • AdusPL

    obrzygane rzygi

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2013
  • Poland

#39

Posted 11 December 2014 - 08:07 PM

SA. f*ck graphics y'know.
  • universetwisters, Octane and IceColdBaby like this

(Ambient)
  • (Ambient)

    The Golden Void speaks to me...

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • Poland

#40

Posted 11 December 2014 - 08:16 PM

Definitely San Andreas. That was a great video game. It had good story, three cities, fantastic soundtrack, gym and great weapons.

MrDeSanta
  • MrDeSanta

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2014
  • Italy

#41

Posted 11 December 2014 - 08:44 PM

 

Reason I chose V because:
- Graphics, duh.

I didn't choose GTA SA because:
- Graphics, duh.


I find it extremely pathetic that graphics matter to make a good game now-a-days. It just makes me want to cry.

I'll take the older Resident Evils, Call Of Duties, Final Fantasy over the new ones theses days.

For COD: I stopped after Modern Warfare 2, stories just get lamer and lamer. Multiplayer is frustratingly annoying.
RE: Jump scares, environment, enemies, story turned to s+*t once 4 came out.
Final Fantasy: oh boy... Where do I start.

All these games are fun in a form of a way, but in other ways it gets annoying glitching, abusing, etc....

I choose SA because it reminds me of what I grew up in, the setting, I can relate to CJ loosing a family member, watching over your sister, it goes on.

SA had...
(1) Better Radio Stations.
(2) better vehicle handling.
(3) BETTER JET/PLANE/HELICOPTER HANDLING.
(4) Story.
(5) Gang Territory.(Sure some people may not have found this fun but I did)

 

 

The story was a totaly an utter sh*t in SA. It isn`t exactly briliant in V neither but it has far more sense at least.

If you prefer those child`s toys of planes and helicopters in SA to the realistic looking and handling aircrafts in V then i must say you`ve got really weird taste.

 

And about the graphics, why does it sound so hypocritical when someone says they don`t care about the graphics?

It`s not an argue about how the graphic looks little worse than in V (compare IV/V) when it`s still playable. But when a 10 years old game like SA looks like a 30 years old street fighter on arcade machine compare to V, then we have a problem.

 

I just pluged my PS2 with SA in on my TV today, just for the feel. Needles to say i turned off after few minutes. Not only the game  looks like the worst sh*t but it`s also unplayable. Everything is so blurry, f*cking jaggies all over, the buildings seem like they have no textures at all, you can almost count the pixels, the draw distance is only few meters far, characters look worse than from every cartoon...

Jesus how can you play that sh*t? This isn`t about being a graphic whore, we are talking about how SA feels completely unplayable these days.

 

So don`t even get me started on the graphics. Oh of course graphics aren`t the only things that matters but when the game looks worse than 30 years old VCR movie then hell yeah it matters.

And besides it isn`t exactly like SA had so many other great things which could make us give bad graphics a pass. It ain`t got sh*t compared to V so i can`t see a goddamn reason for playing it again.

If you say you like it then good for you but i sense that you grow some unreasonable hate for V and that`s the reason you say that.

Oh yes of course we have a pink mohawk and a gimp suit wich V hasn`t. Lol

 

I don`t have any problems geting back on IV because it has at least great story and intense shootouts but SA is just a f*cking joke compare to V.


CH328
  • CH328

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2014
  • United-States

#42

Posted 11 December 2014 - 08:51 PM

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who expressed their views on which game they prefer. And that I'm not a graphics whore lol but it does make a difference for me personally. Some of you seriously make me want to play San Andreas again, you brought up it's best strong points! So anyways keep replying with your choice, but be respectful since everyone likes different things.


Flesh-n-Bone
  • Flesh-n-Bone

    OG

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2008
  • Sweden

#43

Posted 11 December 2014 - 09:42 PM

And about the graphics, why does it sound so hypocritical when someone says they don`t care about the graphics?

It`s not an argue about how the graphic looks little worse than in V (compare IV/V) when it`s still playable. But when a 10 years old game like SA looks like a 30 years old street fighter on arcade machine compare to V, then we have a problem.

 

I just pluged my PS2 with SA in on my TV today, just for the feel. Needles to say i turned off after few minutes. Not only the game  looks like the worst sh*t but it`s also unplayable. Everything is so blurry, f*cking jaggies all over, the buildings seem like they have no textures at all, you can almost count the pixels, the draw distance is only few meters far, characters look worse than from every cartoon...

Jesus how can you play that sh*t? This isn`t about being a graphic whore, we are talking about how SA feels completely unplayable these days.

 

Words of a graphic whore.

 

I can honestly say I don't care about graphics very much. SA is just as playable and enjoyable today for me as it was when I first played it. I've always viewed graphics as a bonus. I don't think I can even tell the difference between IV and V's graphics in terms of advancements made. Yet I've seen all over the internet people nitpick about IV's graphics going all the way back to when it first came out.


MrDeSanta
  • MrDeSanta

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2014
  • Italy

#44

Posted 11 December 2014 - 10:00 PM Edited by MrDeSanta, 11 December 2014 - 10:25 PM.

 

And about the graphics, why does it sound so hypocritical when someone says they don`t care about the graphics?

It`s not an argue about how the graphic looks little worse than in V (compare IV/V) when it`s still playable. But when a 10 years old game like SA looks like a 30 years old street fighter on arcade machine compare to V, then we have a problem.

 

I just pluged my PS2 with SA in on my TV today, just for the feel. Needles to say i turned off after few minutes. Not only the game  looks like the worst sh*t but it`s also unplayable. Everything is so blurry, f*cking jaggies all over, the buildings seem like they have no textures at all, you can almost count the pixels, the draw distance is only few meters far, characters look worse than from every cartoon...

Jesus how can you play that sh*t? This isn`t about being a graphic whore, we are talking about how SA feels completely unplayable these days.

 

Words of a graphic whore.

 

I can honestly say I don't care about graphics very much. SA is just as playable and enjoyable today for me as it was when I first played it. I've always viewed graphics as a bonus. I don't think I can even tell the difference between IV and V's graphics in terms of advancements made. Yet I've seen all over the internet people nitpick about IV's graphics going all the way back to when it first came out.

 

Ok, so be it. If you think that calling me a graphic whore is an insult to me then you`re wrong.

Others are just pretending themselves they don`t care about graphics but they care as much as some graphic whore. But they wont admit that. Why? Because they want to look better than other graphic whores, they want to give the false impression of how they care about content only.

 

Yeah right, seen this already at my friends.

 

Besides i`ve already said, this isn`t a nitpicking of how the graphics are just little worse but totaly justifiable complaint because the game itself is almost unplayable today. I haven`t played PS3 remake of SA yet so i don`t know if that is any better but after what i`ve seen today when trying to play SA on PS2 again....

 

I know that feeling when someone writes something good about game like SA and you`re sudenly reminded of good old days and you desperately want to play it again..but once you do play it you realize "wow i can`t believe how bad it looks now". Then you try to convince yourself that you`ll get used to it again and try to play it some more...and some more...

But it`s impossible, the good old feelings you had with the game are suddenly gone and you`re only few seconds away from puking. Terrible graphics, lags, jiggies, blurr, diferent controls, gameplay sucks, cars sucks, aiming sucks, everything f*cking sucks and you end up turning it off after few minutes.

 

I`ve been there, i`ve seen this. At least i ain`t trying to fool myself and others. Believe me what i just wrote concerns many people, many people feel that way but just wont admit it.

 

And one other thing which proves i`m not such a hardcore graphic whore after all; i still play IV often. Even now after i`ve played new gen V. Because IV hasn`t so much worse graphic that it would make it unplayable like SA and because it has to offer a good content- none of which SA can`t offer anymore.


B Dawg
  • B Dawg

    It was mine, Cactus Wine!

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

#45

Posted 11 December 2014 - 10:01 PM

I know that feeling when someone writes something good about game like SA and you`re sudenly reminded of good old days and you desperately want to play it again..but once you do play it you realize "wow i can`t believe how bad it looks now". Then you try to convince yourself that you`ll get used to it again and try to play it some more...and some more...

Not the case with me :lol:

  • BabeRuth likes this

Flesh-n-Bone
  • Flesh-n-Bone

    OG

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2008
  • Sweden

#46

Posted 11 December 2014 - 10:07 PM

I know that feeling when someone writes something good about game like SA and you`re sudenly reminded of good old days and you desperately want to play it again..but once you do play it you realize "wow i can`t believe how bad it looks now". Then you try to convince yourself that you`ll get used to it again and try to play it some more...and some more..

It really never happens with me. I enjoy playing it every time and I think I may have gotten past 100 playthroughs of the storyline by now. (okay, maybe >50 is more realistic).

 

You need to stop putting your shallow point of view on others and act as if everyone thinks the same as you because newsflash: we don't.

 

Unlike others you may argue with, I don't hate GTA V either. In fact, I love it and highly enjoy playing it but I can confidently say the graphics are not the reason why. IV had great graphics too and it's my least favorite game in the series (3D ones).

  • Captain Delitian likes this

MiamiViceCity
  • MiamiViceCity

    The Unforgiven

  • Moderator
  • 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

#47

Posted 11 December 2014 - 10:53 PM

That`s interesting how IV fans suddenly all love SA when it comes to V/SA comparison but if the word is about SA/IV comparison then they can`t find a good word for SA.

 

Not true. Well at least for me. I like GTA IV more, but most of my new found appreciation for SA comes from the fact I hadn't played it for about a year and a half. 

 

And if you read Son Of Zeus's signature when I was SonOfLiberty I did say I prefer SA's missions to GTA IV's and I still stand by that.

  • Son of Zeus likes this

mr quick
  • mr quick

    i've been on the run but i've done my time

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2008
  • England
  • Kenny G Enthusiast [All Time]
    Contribution [Music]

#48

Posted 11 December 2014 - 10:58 PM

Think about the context. The year is 2004. San Andreas blew minds in 2004, whereas V (in my circle  of friends) is just pretty cool.

  • Mister Pink and The Deadite like this

MrDeSanta
  • MrDeSanta

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2014
  • Italy

#49

Posted 11 December 2014 - 10:59 PM

 

That`s interesting how IV fans suddenly all love SA when it comes to V/SA comparison but if the word is about SA/IV comparison then they can`t find a good word for SA.

 

Not true. Well at least for me. I like GTA IV more, but most of my new found appreciation for SA comes from the fact I hadn't played it for about a year and a half. 

 

And if you read Son Of Zeus's signature when I was SonOfLiberty I did say I prefer SA's missions to GTA IV's and I still stand by that.

 

I can`t describe why i feel this way but i enjoy more when doing IV`s missions than SA`s. Altough IV`s are little too repetative but Niko somehow made it feel more intense, alive, more rewarding than whinny little bitch CJ.

But it`s just IMO.

  • MiamiViceCity likes this

turbocharger
  • turbocharger

    stisni pisni, pusti zviždi

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2014
  • Bosnia-and-Herzegovina
  • Best Total Overhaul 2016 [Shine o' Vice] [Contribution]

#50

Posted 11 December 2014 - 11:05 PM

I marked both.

 

 

Bruh.


Le zébu suintant
  • Le zébu suintant

    Iceland man

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2014
  • Iceland

#51

Posted 11 December 2014 - 11:16 PM

SA, nostalgic.

  • mr quick likes this

don ovdi' island
  • don ovdi' island

    Riding in my '85 tahoma

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2013
  • Ethiopia

#52

Posted 11 December 2014 - 11:31 PM

I doubt if 10 years later people will think about V and say 'Damn man that mission was f*cking annoying!' or 'Man we had tons of fun, oh man that nostalgia....'

Seriously doubt it.

 

So much this.  I'm not a SA "fanboy" before the SA haters start raging but i had so many great memories and fun on that game.  It was much more impressive than V for it's time as stated before.  The two player mode, while clunky, gave twice the enjoyment running around causing havoc; the cheats, everything.  it was great.  I loved GTA VC, SA, and IV.. but the more I play GTA V- the more i start to hate it.

 

honest, i start to hate GTA V the more I play it.  I started off loving it, but the story, characters, atmosphere, environment, NPCs are all incredibly dry; the glitches, problems, lack of content, activities, and extras, and also lack of care by R* is really starting to make me dislike R* as a company and question their ability to make a good game anymore.  Seriously, R*, the same company that made the incredibly brilliant GTA III, VC, SA, IV, Bully, and Red Dead Redemption, is starting to look like another generic, money hungry company in my eyes.

  • B Dawg and Son of Zeus like this

BabeRuth
  • BabeRuth

    Bronx Bombers Stadium

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2010
  • None

#53

Posted 12 December 2014 - 12:29 AM

 

 

 

If you prefer those child`s toys of planes and helicopters in SA to the realistic looking and handling aircrafts in V then i must say you`ve got really weird taste.

 

Jesus how can you play that sh*t? This isn`t about being a graphic whore, we are talking about how SA feels completely unplayable these days

 

I don`t have any problems geting back on IV because it has at least great story and intense shootouts but SA is just a f*cking joke compare to V.

 

I don't have weird taste the plane/jet/helicopter and car handling was utter S&%t in V , I'm pretty sure a lot of people agree with me.

 

Let me ask you a question. What is the oldest game YOU ever owned?

 

I'm not saying I don't like modern games, there are a lot I like, did you not see my avatar? I love all three of the Mass Effects, I love all the Gears Of War, Assassins Creed(s), Thief, Dishonored, I can go on.

 

There are some I was anticipating for Evil Within, Far Cry 3, Titanfall, Wolfenstein and I was pretty disappointed with them, still they were kinda fun.


MiamiViceCity
  • MiamiViceCity

    The Unforgiven

  • Moderator
  • 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

#54

Posted 12 December 2014 - 12:35 AM

 

 

That`s interesting how IV fans suddenly all love SA when it comes to V/SA comparison but if the word is about SA/IV comparison then they can`t find a good word for SA.

 

Not true. Well at least for me. I like GTA IV more, but most of my new found appreciation for SA comes from the fact I hadn't played it for about a year and a half. 

 

And if you read Son Of Zeus's signature when I was SonOfLiberty I did say I prefer SA's missions to GTA IV's and I still stand by that.

 

I can`t describe why i feel this way but i enjoy more when doing IV`s missions than SA`s. Altough IV`s are little too repetative but Niko somehow made it feel more intense, alive, more rewarding than whinny little bitch CJ.

But it`s just IMO.

 

 

Although some of the missions in SA can be described as being a bit silly (For example Zero's RC missions) generally I think they're pretty fun. Breaking The Bank At Caligula's is one of if not the tbest heists in the series IMO. Playing through the preparation for it makes me miss how each GTA used to have one epic heist.

 

The "planning" missions in GTA V are a joke quite frankly compared to the 3D era. Of course Three Leaf Clover had none at all, but that's because Niko's role was being a crew member so I understood why it didn't.

  • Raiden1018 likes this

The Deadite
  • The Deadite

    SPANK THAT MONKEY

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2014
  • None
  • Most Improved 2016
    Crew Poster Booby Prize 2016
    Most Unwanted Medal 2016
    Doggo-Chop Winner 2016

#55

Posted 12 December 2014 - 04:33 AM Edited by Midnight Hitman, 12 December 2014 - 03:19 PM.

The "planning" missions in GTA V are a joke quite frankly compared to the 3D era. Of course Three Leaf Clover had none at all, but that's because Niko's role was being a crew member so I understood why it didn't.

No offense dude, i really respect you, but really?
In 3 leaf clover, Niko (the player) didn't even got told that he was going to rob a bank, Packie just sends a message that says "get a fancy suit" and the mission is just some "run-shoot- run-shoot- drive- shoot" tired mission.
The heists in V are varied and good story wise and SA only has one heist that's no biggie, not that i'm expecting for you to put in some kind of positive light any aspect of V.
people criticize V mediocre history (rightfully) but SA has the worst history , it just a bunch of random cool missions that stretch the game's life, the history is a mess and exactly the opposite of IV, they are made for fun gameplay where IV is made for history purposes.

both V and SA have the same problem :
History length
SA is too long and V is too short, i remember playing it as a child and forgot what CJ was trying to acomplish, i never got why Smoke and Ryder betrayed CJ and how the f*ck a guy that murders half of the LCPD can't shake off two bent cops.

The graphics don't mean sh*t to me and i still ride in my ps2, i'm sorry for anyone that thinks is a valid reason to judge a game for his graphics.

I don't get R* logic, they made CJ the most human character but he turns out to be only a blank slate for the player to customize him, he even has different dialogue/personality according to his clothes, i'd rather use Niko with a heavily defined personality than some dude that lacks personality.

Let's recao what each game brings to the table :
- the HD version of Los Santos is huge and beatiful but it's just a beatiful looking empty shelf, San Andreas has very different 3 cities with actual activities but they are small and San Fierro is so boring that doesn't count as a city.
-V has a messy,short and poor developed history and SA has a really long history that doesn't make sense.
-the driving in San Andreas is excellent and in V is very cheap, even though it has some good things like phisics and plane handling.
-V has 3 very different customizable characters that include a CJ clone and SA has CJ (he appears again in V so no worries)
-SA wasted time in something so trivial ,stupid and deliberately controversial as the "hot coffe" and V wasted time in something so trivial, stupid and deliberately controversial as the "by the book" mission -both games have customization but V makes better use of it.

So i choose V j because i find boring CJ and his history and no amount of customization can make interesting.
  • mr quick and Payne Killer like this

B Dawg
  • B Dawg

    It was mine, Cactus Wine!

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

#56

Posted 12 December 2014 - 09:34 AM

The heists in V are varied and good story wise and SA only has one heist that's no biggie

SA is too long and V is too short

Nobody mentions Catalina's crazy robberies? :lol:

No game can ever be too long.

  • Mister Pink, Osho and Donut like this

BabeRuth
  • BabeRuth

    Bronx Bombers Stadium

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2010
  • None

#57

Posted 12 December 2014 - 12:52 PM

But once i`ve repluged it back on 25 old CRTV it looked decent again.
 
Perhaps because it`s not made for HD it looks even worse?
 
I was wonder how SA looks on PS3 remake? Anyone played it?


Why does age matter to you?

What!? The 360 VERSION is basically the HD Version.

Wow... Have you been living under a rock? They only made a 360 Remaster version.

Not trying to bash your comprehension but you need to learn the meaning between "Remake" and "Remastered".

MrDeSanta
  • MrDeSanta

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2014
  • Italy

#58

Posted 12 December 2014 - 01:08 PM

 

But once i`ve repluged it back on 25 old CRTV it looked decent again.
 
Perhaps because it`s not made for HD it looks even worse?
 
I was wonder how SA looks on PS3 remake? Anyone played it?


Why does age matter to you?

What!? The 360 VERSION is basically the HD Version.

Wow... Have you been living under a rock? They only made a 360 Remaster version.

Not trying to bash your comprehension but you need to learn the meaning between "Remake" and "Remastered".

 

I never payed much atention to SA`s remake or remaster or what ever it calls i really don`t give a damn.

I bet it still looks like crap on 360.

 

Once IV came out i stoped paying atention to SA because it lost all of it`s glory it used to have. SA is history and it has nothing more to offer except for reminding on the old days for nostalgic people such as yourself.


Son of Zeus
  • Son of Zeus

    Still King

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2014
  • Australia

#59

Posted 12 December 2014 - 01:26 PM

It's because of graphic whores like MrDeSanta that R* can get away after making an empty game like V.

Despite being the costliest game ever, it comes off as a half assed GTA, having less fun elements than a 10 year old game. Lame humor, a pathetic protag like Trevor(he represents that GTA has gone to sh*t), Michael, dishonest and lying, just wants money and Franklin who wants to get out of the hood but hangs out with Lamar. Lame attempts at satire, 12 year old level jokes, side activities like yoga, less interiors, a huge, pointlessly detailed ocean, over scripted missions, weird side characters, no fixed goal of the story('Hey, when you're feeling bored, just call me, we'll rob a bank!'), worst ending....

So many things wrong. But guys like MrDeSanta are happy if it has good graphics. And, to him, SA's story is sh*t, but V's makes sense. Sure, it's your opinion, but seriously? You care more about graphics?

No wonder people are concerned about GTA's future....
  • gunziness, Osho, Octavio89 and 1 other like this

MrDeSanta
  • MrDeSanta

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2014
  • Italy

#60

Posted 12 December 2014 - 01:36 PM

It's because of graphic whores like MrDeSanta that R* can get away after making an empty game like V.

Despite being the costliest game ever, it comes off as a half assed GTA, having less fun elements than a 10 year old game. Lame humor, a pathetic protag like Trevor(he represents that GTA has gone to sh*t), Michael, dishonest and lying, just wants money and Franklin who wants to get out of the hood but hangs out with Lamar. Lame attempts at satire, 12 year old level jokes, side activities like yoga, less interiors, a huge, pointlessly detailed ocean, over scripted missions, weird side characters, no fixed goal of the story('Hey, when you're feeling bored, just call me, we'll rob a bank!'), worst ending....

So many things wrong. But guys like MrDeSanta are happy if it has good graphics. And, to him, SA's story is sh*t, but V's makes sense. Sure, it's your opinion, but seriously? You care more about graphics?

No wonder people are concerned about GTA's future....

Don`t twist my words the way you like it because if i`d be such a graphic whore then i wouldn`t play IV would i? IV hasn`t exactly great graphics compare to V but i still like it because of content.

I can`t like SA with it`s content based on 10 years old wannabe gangsters who think they`re badass Compton gangsters for owning SA. Spraying tags and colecting oysters? Wow now that`s the fun i`m talking about. Fun, fun, fun. Spraying 100 of tags sprayed on non-textured buildings is what i live for.

SA sure has the most immature fanbase.

 

Besides what`s all the fuss, you all have Franklin- the generic clone of CJ so you should be happy that R* payed a respect to SA`s fanbase by puting HD CJ into V.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users