VC is more detailed than SA?

[Eminence E.]

Which one is more detailed?

[Username.gta]

R* spent a lot of time getting the vibrant look of 80's Miami right with VC.

 

Whereas in SA, Graphics took a backseat to Storyline and Gameplay, so had to be squeezed in at the end, looking horrible on the PS2.

[GoldenBlade]

Definetly VC. Lots of time was spent creating the vehicles, soundtracks, the storyline, and the city itself. It all fit perfectly for 80's Miami.

[BabeRuth]

SA.

[GoldenBlade]

SA is a great game and all, but the storyline didn't follow along too well. The places of San Andreas are the main thing that time was put into.

[Algonquin Assassin]

One thing I like about VC is that sparkle effect you get from cars on a bright and sunny day.

 

 

[H.I.M.]

One thing I like about VC is that sparkle effect you get from cars on a bright and sunny day.

This. And also the neon of the hotels. The sunshine and the beaches. Wow man!

[Andreas]

 

Definetly VC. Lots of time was spent creating the vehicles, soundtracks, the storyline, and the city itself.

 

R* spent a lot of time getting the vibrant look of 80's Miami right with VC.

We could argue about that. GTA Vice City was supposed to be a DLC for GTA III and Rockstar was already working on it. But they realized that the engine of their first 3D GTA was too limited, so they decided to create Vice City as a new standalone game. GTA III was released in October 2001, and Vice City exactly a year later. So from that point of view it took them less than a year to create the game, and it took them around two years to create GTA San Andreas. Regardless of that, the details of San Andreas are relatively good but it's far from being perfect. I think that Vice City had better details for its time.

[Theodore93]

Probably, yes. Vice City is a hell of a lot nicer to look at, that's for sure.

[Mitsuha]

VC=more detailed.

SA=more features.

[GoldenBlade]

VC=more detailed.

SA=more features.

This is the best way to put it.

[Taven Kraven]

SA gets my vote

[Eminence E.]

VC is more detailed in my opinion.

A simple example is the roofs of the houses in SA, they are just black, red, brown, etc. Without much of details... Where else in VC they are more detailed and bright.

Whenever i play SA i feel its little bit colorless but VC seems to be more colorful and bright.

[Mr_Leone]

R* spent a lot of time getting the vibrant look of 80's Miami right with VC.

 

Whereas in SA, Graphics took a backseat to Storyline and Gameplay, so had to be squeezed in at the end, looking horrible on the PS2.

That's absurd. SA's story is a dysfunctional wreck.

[the utah dude]

R* spent a lot of time getting the vibrant look of 80's Miami right with VC.

 

Whereas in SA, Graphics took a backseat to Storyline and Gameplay, so had to be squeezed in at the end, looking horrible on the PS2.

That's absurd. SA's story is a dysfunctional wreck.

Thanks for the laught.

 

 

How old are you and have you really played the game itself to have an dysfunctional opinion that really look like a wreck ?

 

 

 

Please ELABORATE.

 

 

 

[BabeRuth]

That's absurd. SA's story is a dysfunctional wreck.

You look dysfunctional.....

[Travís.]

I guess VC is more colourful.

 

but everything else in SA is more detailed.

 

both great games though!

[GoldenBlade]

That's absurd. SA's story is a dysfunctional wreck.

You look dysfunctional.....

Please explain how you know how he looks.

[Algonquin Assassin]

R* spent a lot of time getting the vibrant look of 80's Miami right with VC.

 

Whereas in SA, Graphics took a backseat to Storyline and Gameplay, so had to be squeezed in at the end, looking horrible on the PS2.

That's absurd. SA's story is a dysfunctional wreck.

Thanks for the laught.

 

 

How old are you and have you really played the game itself to have an dysfunctional opinion that really look like a wreck ?

 

 

 

Please ELABORATE.

He's right, but this thread isn't about SA's crap story.

[cj2000]

I don´t like the 80s aniway, so I prefer SA. SA has also much beter graphicks, biger map and a lot of new fetures. Not all the features were really useful for me, but sa is stil beter than VC.

[Mitsuha]

 

I don´t like the 80s aniway, so I prefer SA. SA has also much beter graphicks, biger map and a lot of new fetures. Not all the features were really useful for me, but sa is stil beter than VC.

just going to give my 2 cents on this.

 

San Andreas has crappy graphicsand gun sounds,but that doesn't matter because the game has a very large "world" and some pcs can't handle the size of the map. That's why VC is much detailed.

 

Nevertheless, both games were good.

[Mister Pink]

SA's story was fun and seriously cool. It was huge as well and ended on a good note. Why people think, it's a 'dysfunctional wreck' is beyond me. This is coming from a writer (with writing and directing credits for video that was broadcast nationally in my country. I'm talking about writing alot during the weekdays)

 

Fair enough if you don't like it. Don't just say it's it's 'crap' or 'dysfunctional' without validating your points other than just it's your personal opinion.

 

I believe it was fantastic. There were great plot points that obviously incorporated the map and environment. The story was written for the map in mind. The antagonists (the cops, Tenpenny and Pulaski) were great. But did we see the antagonists, the betrayal that was going to come from our own friends? I loved finding out that Big Smoke controlled all the drugs in San Andreas. Big Smoke was the King of San Andreas and you knew nothing about it. The house he lived in was a left from his dead aunt, which is most likely a lie as it's just a cover up. CJ or someone else asks him why he doesn't live in the 'hood/Grove St and that was Big Smokes excuse.

 

Being exiled from Los Santos was fun. You had to live in the countryside. It was dangerous for you to go back there. I love danger in GTA's. Something I've missed since SA.

 

Anyway, my life has been crazy and some people wouldn't believe the stories I tell them. Maybe why thats' why I liked SA. But I think what I really liked as picking out all the cultural references. Finally a game that was made that wasn't directed at nerds and sci-fi freaks. A game where someone who has a huge passion for music and films can really get in to. Such a great and eclectic mix of music. Every time I played that game, I found something new. It was seemingly endless. Exploration of the highest order.

 

I was playing the Truth missions recently and I heard him reference DMT and then watched Tenpenny voiced by Samuel L. Jackson smoke a bong. I mean, it was f*cking ballsy. We were watching/playing Tarantino stuff in that story. Then I'm doing missions for FBI. And you know you may think it's OTT but CJ did as well. That was the point! It's was justified because even as a player, you might think it was OTT but it realised that and CJ thought it was crazy as well. It wasn't like they were asking you to swallow this huge unrealistic story so seriously. James Woods was amazing in it. f*ck, I even heard a lead singer from an awesome band do a voice in it. Oh yeah it was Shaun Ryder playing Maccer who was like a parody of himself. That's genius but I'm sure it went over the naysayers heads.

 

Anyway, I've gone off topic. If people are going to criticise and least put some effort in to it.

 

ON TOPIC: What does the question mean OP? You didn't specify. San Andreas can be more detailed. It has more of everything. Wait, you didn't specify. What a silly vague question. Are you talking about graphics?

 

If it's graphics, VC maybe. The style of making GTA games changed after III and VC. There were more light trails from cars lights etc. The textures seemed to change after VC as well. San Andreas had to use loading screens going in to buildings. VC had loading screens between sections of map but not interiors.

Edited March 19, 2013 by ThePinkFloydSound

[killdrivetheftvehicle]

 

VC had loading screens between sections of map but not interiors. SA had loading screens when entering buildings.

You're wrong. VC had loading screens between islands, and transition between exterior and interior had a black screen for a second with the name of the interior on bottom right corner in orage. SA did not have loading screens between islands, but there was the same black screen for a second, with the name of the interior on bottom right corner, only this time in white and with different font. So no loading screens during play, only at the beginning.

 

OT: I think that since the level of detail is almost equal both in VC and SA, and then SA is a whole lot bigger, then the amount of details is bigger in SA, and therefore SA has more detail in it.

Edited March 19, 2013 by killdrivetheftvehicle

[BabeRuth]

That's absurd. SA's story is a dysfunctional wreck.

You look dysfunctional.....

Please explain how you know how he looks.

You Ever heard of sarcasm? It's obvious you can't take a joke.

 

(@ Miami)

It isn't about VC either.

[Patrizio]

Certain sections of SA were more detailed - such as LS being a lot more than SF.

 

One thing SA certainly has over VC is being more varied. VC was very flat.

[Mister Pink]

VC had loading screens between sections of map but not interiors. SA had loading screens when entering buildings.

You're wrong. VC had loading screens between islands, and transition between exterior and interior had a black screen for a second with the name of the interior on bottom right corner in orage. SA did not have loading screens between islands, but there was the same black screen for a second, with the name of the interior on bottom right corner, only this time in white and with different font. So no loading screens during play, only at the beginning.

 

OT: I think that since the level of detail is almost equal both in VC and SA, and then SA is a whole lot bigger, then the amount of details is bigger in SA, and therefore SA has more detail in it.

How am I wrong? I said sections of map. You said islands. It's the same thing. And look at this video...

 

 

 

How come I don't see any loading screens or black screen between exterior and interior. In fact you can auto-lock on to the shopkeeper from the exterior.

 

So, I was pointing out in SA, there's the triangular yellow icon which is indicative of a door to an interior with a loading/black screen. Any time there was an equivalent to that in VC, there was no loading screen/black screen.

 

Please don't be so quick to accuse me of being wrong in future, OK?

 

 

[Andreas]

 

How come I don't see any loading screens or black screen between exterior and interior. In fact you can auto-lock on to the shopkeeper from the exterior.

That is because the way the interior-system works in San Andreas, which is different than in GTA Vice City. There is no transition in Vice City between the interiors and exteriors, you literally go into the building. However, in San Andreas you have to go to a triangular yellow icon in front of a door, as you've already mentioned, and then you'll be spawned to an interior that is located under the map. If you watch the first trailer of GTA San Andreas, and take a look at the last scene where CJ is in Mullholland, then you'll notice that you can see the interior of the savehouse when you're outside of the building and the windows are transparent. The interior system apparently worked in the same way as in the GTA before. Rockstar changed that for whatever reason(s) in the last two months before the game was released in October 2004. The reason why Vice City shows load screens while it loads certain parts of the map is simple; that has something to do with the limited engine of the game.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian

[Mister Pink]

Thanks for the details but I was being rhetorical. I used to mess around in the blue hell

[killdrivetheftvehicle]

 

VC had loading screens between sections of map but not interiors. SA had loading screens when entering buildings.

You're wrong. VC had loading screens between islands, and transition between exterior and interior had a black screen for a second with the name of the interior on bottom right corner in orage. SA did not have loading screens between islands, but there was the same black screen for a second, with the name of the interior on bottom right corner, only this time in white and with different font. So no loading screens during play, only at the beginning.

 

OT: I think that since the level of detail is almost equal both in VC and SA, and then SA is a whole lot bigger, then the amount of details is bigger in SA, and therefore SA has more detail in it.

How am I wrong? I said sections of map. You said islands. It's the same thing. And look at this video...

 

 

 

How come I don't see any loading screens or black screen between exterior and interior. In fact you can auto-lock on to the shopkeeper from the exterior.

 

So, I was pointing out in SA, there's the triangular yellow icon which is indicative of a door to an interior with a loading/black screen. Any time there was an equivalent to that in VC, there was no loading screen/black screen.

 

Please don't be so quick to accuse me of being wrong in future, OK?

No, I was not referring to "sections". I was referring the whole text that I quoted. The difference between "sections" and "islands" is irrelevant in the context. What was relevant was that you said there were loading screens in SA. That was untrue by comparison to VC, which you said did not have loading screens between interiors. The video you are showing, shows "interiors", that are actually a part of the map, and therefore are infact exterior, regardless of what they appear to be. The real interiors, which aren't on the exterior map, like the Vercetti mansion, and the North Point Mall have that black screen. Check it out, if you don't want to take my word for it.

 

No need to get defensive about it. In the future I will be more specific, when commenting on your posts.

Edited March 19, 2013 by killdrivetheftvehicle

[MyDog]

The interiors are usually placed high in the sky of the map. In SA they are accessible from the Ganton Gym.