Hot take about the Stories games and the 3D trilogy

[RomanusSolus]

I honestly think that LCS and VCS are better than (or equal to in the case of VC) VC and 3. I would say that GTA SA is more or less better but I think that VC is a bit overrated. LCS is a direct upgrade to 3 in my opinion and as for VCS, I'd say it's on par if not better than VC. It portrays the 80s vibes better with its colors and neons, the combat is at its peak as far as the 3D games go (you can run with all heavy weapons!) and the car selection in both games include super unique ones, most of which didn't make it anywhere else into the series. I would recommend watching the "Weird, Quirky and Cool Cars from GTA" series on Youtube by Rynan, it baffles me how some of those cars didn't make it anywhere else in the series in general. If I were to rate the 3D and HD era GTA games, it'd go like this:
5≤3<VC≤VCS<LCS<SA<4
What do you guys think? How would you rate the series in general? I love all of these games but definitely prefer some over the others.

[Silver]

Fair enough.

 

I think I'll always prefer III and VC over their Stories counterparts, mostly because of the overall experience that they offer. Maybe there's a bit of nostalgia at play but I never had the same excitement of replaying LCS or VCS over III and VC. I do think LCS and VCS are great games that deserve better than being the forgotten handheld titles that don't hold a candle to the big three. But at the same time I also prefer Claude and Tommy's journey, same goes for the things that contribute to the identity of both III and VC like the radio stations, the weather, the pedestrians and their funny dialogue, and the unique atmosphere in both games.

 

In a technical sense yeah, the Stories games introduced many QOL changes like the ability to run with heavy weapons, or to swim in VCS, bikes in LCS etc. And them being more modern releases, they were bound to feature some improvements over the originals. They improved on the originals in many ways but I wouldn't say the Stories games are instantly better because of these changes, maybe I'm biased.

As lacking as III may be compared to LCS, I'm fine with the lack of bikes, the smaller variety of weapons, or the inability to change clothes. I'm used to it and I still find the game to be a good experience regardless.

[cant remember]

III/VC will always have nostalgia going for them which holds a massive amount of weight for me but yeah if I never played any before I'm almost certain I would find the stories better in most aspects.

[E Revere]

I'd say that VCS is marginally better than SA but I also find it moot to try and grade III and VC to other GTA games in terms of superiority because of their limitations and design philosophy. VC was made within a very limited timespan, limited resources and wasn't intended to be as huge or polished as later titles so it needs to be analysed and critiqued with that in mind. Otherwise, one's critique would be flawed. III was also the first Renderware game to be made so it was a huge leap in terms of technology and development challenges. It's not fair to compare to later releases. LCS had more foundation to depend on than III did.

 

So, with that in mind, I wouldn't actually say that LCS was better than III tbh. They're about equal imo.

 

But I certainly would disagree that VCS is better than VC. Just like with III and LCS, VC had technical limitations despite which I think they managed to do way better with what they had in VC than with VCS. The assets were better than the empire building side-missions. And the game's atmosphere was more fun. I'm surprised you think otherwise because I never really felt like VCS explored the 80s that well. I mean, the aeshtetics were certainly there but VCS missed on some of the culture. In terms of writing quality, I wouldn't say one was better than the other. VC and VCS both had sorta crappy stories that worked fine for games their size.

Edited April 12 by E Revere

[cant remember]

2 hours ago, E Revere said:

I'd say that VCS is marginally better than SA but I also find it moot to try and grade III and VC to other GTA games in terms of superiority because of their limitations and design philosophy. VC was made within a very limited timespan, limited resources and wasn't intended to be as huge or polished as later titles so it needs to be analysed and critiqued with that in mind. Otherwise, one's critique would be flawed. III was also the first Renderware game to be made so it was a huge leap in terms of technology and development challenges. It's not fair to compare to later releases. LCS had more foundation to depend on than III did.

I sort of feel that way about Advance, it's got a rep as the worst GTA but can't forget that it came out in a time when up until then the only way to play GTA on road trips or during recess was the gameboy color versions.

[universetwisters]

On 3/23/2025 at 12:04 PM, RomanusSolus said:

it baffles me how some of those cars didn't make it anywhere else in the series in general

 

You could say the same about the LCS cars aswell. We never got a Miata-based Manana, Argento/Exsess, Hellenbach etc. We also didn't get a 70s Perennial either. I'm sure you could say the Regina is close enough but ehhhhh

 

OT - Idk, I really hated VCS relative to VC. Vic whined too much, the story was all for nothing (as I noted in this essay if yall got an hour to read), the music was kinda eh relative to VC, and the atmosphere, what the f*ck is this?

 

 

 

f*ckin goofy ass apocalyptic skies smh. I just cannot vibe with this when I know Vice City did it better. Even the LCS atmosphere relative to III's wasn't as egregious as this

[Sharp_shooter]

I would say LCS, in my opinion, is way better than III and VCS and VC are about equal