GTA III is better looking than Vice City and San Andreas. Let me tell you a little story. When I first got GTA VC (I was way too young but that's how it went.) and put it in my PS2, I noticed that the graphics were crappy on the very first day. At eight years old I could tell the graphics were a step down. It doesn't have the smoothness of III's graphics and everything is blockier and chunkier. San Andreas is arguably even worse because it's even more blocky and choppy. As the worlds got bigger, the graphics got more and more ugly. III was a couple of years ahead of its time for 2001. All three look old now but that was last decade. Technically, Vice City didn't improve on much of anything over III. The cars handle the same and the combat is pretty much identical. SA improved on the driving and the combat and still has the best hand to hand system of any of the games.
its your opinion I guess, but most of what you said is just not true, you need to replay these games
>GTA III is better looking than Vice City and San Andreas
>VC doesn't have the smoothness of III's graphics and everything is blockier and chunkier
>Technically, Vice City didn't improve on much of anything over III
>The cars handle the same in III and VC
>SA improved on the driving
GTA III was more blocky and blurry than VC and even more than SA,
you can easily see the difference by looking at the characters. III was literally blocky
VC did improve in many ways over III, even though most of the changes were pretty minor (VC was released just a year later) they did refined physics (cars had more weight, body roll and just handled better in general) no more light weighted crazy arcade driving, so cars didnt handle the same.
And later SA kinda screw it up, cars didn't handle as smooth and were too stiff I never really liked it.