Is Vice City Stories a good Ending for the 3rd era

[GtaIIIFanBoy]

i thought it was good but still not the ending i would have liked to have seen.

[GTASAddict]

In terms of release date, it goes: GTA III, Vice City, San Andreas, Liberty City Stories then Vice City Stories; In terms of set date, it goes: Vice City Stories, Vice City, San Andreas, Liberty City Stories, GTA III. You see what I'm hinting? Inconsistencies regarding release dates & set dates doesn't constitute a "good" ending.

Edited May 11, 2013 by GTASAddict

[OmeXr]

you have missed gta advance, which solves a lot of plot holes from gta3, like why 8 ball's hands got injured etc.

[Tycek]

GTA: Advance made even fore plot holes. One of them is in fact the reason why 8-ball hands are messed up, because GTA III gives totally different one.

[G D]

Gonna sound like Carl CJ Johnson Brother Brian lol (No offence dude, you're just awesome! )

 

GTA III was released in 2001, then GTA VC released in 2002, and both GTA Advance and SA were released in 2004, after that GTA LCS was released in 2005 (06 PS2), finally GTA VCS was released in 2006 (07 PS2) thus 'ending' the III-Era GTAs.

 

 

But the actual timeline of the games goes like this:

- VCS, 1984.

- VC, 1986.

- SA, 1992.

- LCS, 1998.

- Advance, 2000.

- III, 2001.

 

So, that means all the III-Era Games (GTAs, Manhunt, Bully) were actually a prequel to GTA III.

 

 

Why i said Manhunt and Bully? Alot of reasons, but in short both games have fictional cities which fit in the fictional GTA world and Manhunt was mentioned in one of the GTAs.

Midnight club doesn't because real cities, 'nough said.

[Leone Sentinel]

Vice City Stories was an amazing way to finish the GTA 3 era! It's still my favourite GTA game to this day.

 

 

GTA: Advance made even fore plot holes. One of them is in fact the reason why 8-ball hands are messed up, because GTA III gives totally different one.

 

I don't remember GTA 3 giving an explanation for what happened to 8-Ball's hands, when was this?

Edited May 11, 2013 by Leone Sentinel

[universetwisters]

In terms of release date, it goes: Vice City, GTA III, San Andreas, Liberty City Stories then Vice City Stories;

wat

 

III came out before Vice City

[Andreas]

I haven't played Vice City Stories that much to be honest, only played it a few times and it was not bad. I don't know it good enough though to say if it was a good end for the 3D era.

 

 

In terms of release date, it goes: Vice City, GTA III

That's incorrect. GTA III was released in October 2001 and Vice City exactly one year later. Not related to your post but; Vice City was actually supposed to be a DLC for Rockstars first 3D GTA but they realized how limited the engine was which was the reason why they decided to make Vice City its own game. It definitely was worth it, it's still famous and it sold very well.

 

 

Gonna sound like Carl CJ Johnson Brother Brian lol (No offence dude, you're just awesome! )

[GTASAddict]

Didn't realize I blundered, my bad.

 

While Vice City Stories was a splendid game, it wasn't what I would have expected for an "End of the Era" sort. Due to the set date (1984), it basically initiates a new beginning for the series. I would've preferred a sequel to San Andreas (set sometime around GTA IV) considering the other games (Vice City, GTA III) have a prequel.

[Algonquin Assassin]

VCS was a good game, but there still should've been a SAS IMO. The GTA III era in its current state feels like a jigsaw puzzle with a piece missing.

[Tycek]

I don't like being on the opposite sides with you MVC, but I strongly disagree here. One of the reason why SAS was never made is the fact that whole story had been told. What piece is missing in your opinion? Everything that wasn't clear in SA was set in The Introduction and even if some small thread slipped thru...it wasn't important enought to justify new game.

[OmeXr]

it would be great if original SA was released after LCS and VCS. Those two great games would get the true credit they deserve. Releasing anything lower after SA was a failure at the first place, and a great game like VCS never had the fanbase it deserved.

 

I have an idea for Advance too; if it was released between GTA2 and III, just think of the sales! Also they could do a trilogy like, Advance, III and LCS. When people would get bored with LC, they would go for VC and VCS, and then the final with SA..

Edited May 11, 2013 by OmeXr

[GtaIIIFanBoy]

Gonna sound like Carl CJ Johnson Brother Brian lol (No offence dude, you're just awesome! )

 

GTA III was released in 2001, then GTA VC released in 2002, and both GTA Advance and SA were released in 2004, after that GTA LCS was released in 2005 (06 PS2), finally GTA VCS was released in 2006 (07 PS2) thus 'ending' the III-Era GTAs.

 

 

But the actual timeline of the games goes like this:

- VCS, 1984.

- VC, 1986.

- SA, 1992.

- LCS, 1998.

- Advance, 2000.

- III, 2001.

 

So, that means all the III-Era Games (GTAs, Manhunt, Bully) were actually a prequel to GTA III.

 

 

Why i said Manhunt and Bully? Alot of reasons, but in short both games have fictional cities which fit in the fictional GTA world and Manhunt was mentioned in one of the GTAs.

Midnight club doesn't because real cities, 'nough said.

yes i know but i was talking about when the games were released not the time periods in which they were set in.

[CryptReaperDorian]

GTA VCS is a great game, and it's probably my second favorite game in the GTA III era (just behind GTA SA). However, I might also love the original GTA VC just as much due to nostalgia (GTA VCS has better gameplay mechanics though).

 

I still think a GTA SAS would have been awesome though. Yeah, GTA SA has next to no plotholes in its story, but I'm sure there are a few characters in the game that could have had their prior lives explained even more. R* scrapped such an idea though probably due to PSP limitations, time limitations (putting full work into GTA IV), and the relatively poor sales of GTA VCS (compared to many other GTA titles).

[Mr_Leone]

It is one of the best GTA games of all time.

[ViceCityMobster86]

While VCS was a good still would have been interesting to see the aftermath of the events of GTA 3. Kind of ironic the last game of the GTA 3 era released took place at the start of the continuity.

[The Notorious MOB]

Gonna sound like Carl CJ Johnson Brother Brian lol (No offence dude, you're just awesome! )

 

GTA III was released in 2001, then GTA VC released in 2002, and both GTA Advance and SA were released in 2004, after that GTA LCS was released in 2005 (06 PS2), finally GTA VCS was released in 2006 (07 PS2) thus 'ending' the III-Era GTAs.

 

 

But the actual timeline of the games goes like this:

- VCS, 1984.

- VC, 1986.

- SA, 1992.

- LCS, 1998.

- Advance, 2000.

- III, 2001.

 

So, that means all the III-Era Games (GTAs, Manhunt, Bully) were actually a prequel to GTA III.

 

 

Why i said Manhunt and Bully? Alot of reasons, but in short both games have fictional cities which fit in the fictional GTA world and Manhunt was mentioned in one of the GTAs.

Midnight club doesn't because real cities, 'nough said.

Yeah pretty much.. except for the Manhunt and Bully thing (same universe, different series')

 

I think it was good to have the last game in the 3D era be the first game in the era chronologically rather than have the era end on a game that takes place after the game that started it all.

[Flesh-n-Bone]

I absolutely love it. Great game although I wish there was more for the III era.