Why San An Was The GOAT GTA & IV sucked

[Official General]

 

I don't think there's really a lot to do in New York itself, and tbh a lot of the activities from San Andreas just didn't make sense even then and certainly wouldn't have in IV.

You must be joking. GTA IV could have had a lot more things for the player to do within Liberty City, at least within the context of the criminal underworld, which would have been more relevant to the game anyway.

 

* Illegal gambling activities. Yeah we had the cage fighting in TBOGT, but some form of illegal gambling should have been in the original IV game. Backroom poker and roulette games like the ones Roman would go to, dice games on the street corner in the projects, horse-race betting, and other stuff.

 

* Robbing stores and small banks in armed hold-ups.

 

* Drug-dealing and trafficking on larger, bigger scale.

 

* Hijacking goods trucks

 

* Buying business and properties.

 

* Stocks and shares investments.

[-inVADER-]

First off. If it wasn't V wouldn't have taken the form it has if it wasn't

 

IV was more of a tech demo. R* getting their feet wet with the new engine (and as a result was a major step down, understandable but I didn't like it at all, it was as dull as ditch water away from the story).

 

And It makes sense that they would choose LC for IV since III was the next leap in the series back on the PS2 from the top down PS1 titles. It was more a symbolic choice more than anything else.

 

This 1 is the legit GTA Sequel they were aiming for back when we switched gen and San An left the people asking for more.

 

They could have, but they didn't choose Vice City. Why is that? because GTA San An was and still is the GOAT GTA. the setting and the features back in San An are what the majority of the fans want...And are ultimately getting on Sep 17, from the customization to the sense of getting lost in the sticks and thinking you might stumble across leatherface or Sasquatch, breaking onto area 51, finding an alien, the gang turfs/rivalries and drive by's in the city. Thats what they are trying to recapture because it was the Ultimate GTA. no if's and's but's or maybe's.

No-No-No!

[Sirens]

Ive just read and tried to understand the first line...... and feel as if my mind has been raped....

[98 in 1]

I don't think there's really a lot to do in New York itself, and tbh a lot of the activities from San Andreas just didn't make sense even then and certainly wouldn't have in IV.

You must be joking. GTA IV could have had a lot more things for the player to do within Liberty City, at least within the context of the criminal underworld, which would have been more relevant to the game anyway.

 

* Illegal gambling activities. Yeah we had the cage fighting in TBOGT, but some form of illegal gambling should have been in the original IV game. Backroom poker and roulette games like the ones Roman would go to, dice games on the street corner in the projects, horse-race betting, and other stuff.

 

* Robbing stores and small banks in armed hold-ups.

 

* Drug-dealing and trafficking on larger, bigger scale.

 

* Hijacking goods trucks

 

* Buying business and properties.

 

* Stocks and shares investments.

I agree with everything you've mentioned OG except for the buying of properties and/or stocks. I can't imagine Johnny, Niko, or Luis doing these things in their respective stories. Sure, neither of the three are idiots, but the way they earn their living for the most part is killing others and being in the drug trade.

 

I think another feature that could have been in IV is car modding. Hell, Bruce owns an auto shop so his friend perk could have been discounts on modifications. It also would have been cool if you could have been a LC taxi driver instead of only being able to do 10 taxi fares for Roman before his depot gets burnt down. IIRC VCS had the most fleshed out Taxi side mission where some passengers would ask you to kill certain people or tail other vehicles, which made for more interesting gameplay than "drive to X as fast as you can for a cash bonus".

[Official General]

I don't think there's really a lot to do in New York itself, and tbh a lot of the activities from San Andreas just didn't make sense even then and certainly wouldn't have in IV.

You must be joking. GTA IV could have had a lot more things for the player to do within Liberty City, at least within the context of the criminal underworld, which would have been more relevant to the game anyway.

 

* Illegal gambling activities. Yeah we had the cage fighting in TBOGT, but some form of illegal gambling should have been in the original IV game. Backroom poker and roulette games like the ones Roman would go to, dice games on the street corner in the projects, horse-race betting, and other stuff.

 

* Robbing stores and small banks in armed hold-ups.

 

* Drug-dealing and trafficking on larger, bigger scale.

 

* Hijacking goods trucks

 

* Buying business and properties.

 

* Stocks and shares investments.

I agree with everything you've mentioned OG except for the buying of properties and/or stocks. I can't imagine Johnny, Niko, or Luis doing these things in their respective stories. Sure, neither of the three are idiots, but the way they earn their living for the most part is killing others and being in the drug trade.

 

I think another feature that could have been in IV is car modding. Hell, Bruce owns an auto shop so his friend perk could have been discounts on modifications. It also would have been cool if you could have been a LC taxi driver instead of only being able to do 10 taxi fares for Roman before his depot gets burnt down. IIRC VCS had the most fleshed out Taxi side mission where some passengers would ask you to kill certain people or tail other vehicles, which made for more interesting gameplay than "drive to X as fast as you can for a cash bonus".

The buying business and stocks/shares was more for Niko. He's a European immigrant coming to America to try and make it in a prosperous way, and I am sure he would welcome more ways to make a lot of money than just killing people. Stocks and shares would be a brilliant idea for him, besides it's LC, based on NYC, the Wall Street thing would have been done very well.

 

 

[Eutyphro]

The buying business and stocks/shares was more for Niko. He's a European immigrant coming to America to try and make it in a prosperous way, and I am sure he would welcome more ways to make a lot of money than just killing people. Stocks and shares would be a brilliant idea for him, besides it's LC, based on NYC, the Wall Street thing would have been done very well.

Too bad there were hardly any ways to spend money in GTA IV, so there wouldn't be any inclination to go make more money.

[98 in 1]

The buying business and stocks/shares was more for Niko. He's a European immigrant coming to America to try and make it in a prosperous way, and I am sure he would welcome more ways to make a lot of money than just killing people. Stocks and shares would be a brilliant idea for him, besides it's LC, based on NYC, the Wall Street thing would have been done very well.

Too bad there were hardly any ways to spend money in GTA IV, so there wouldn't be any inclination to go make more money.

That's another thing. I don't understand why R* took the time to make an in game internet and the only things you can purchase on it are ringtones. At the very least we should have been able to buy cars on Autoeroticar.

 

Maybe it's just me but Niko doesn't strike me as the kind of man who would dabble in buying and selling stocks.

[zuckmeslow]

What's funny about your argument is that you're actually defending GTA IV's flaws without realizing it.

Not really. I just didn't go into detail about the flaws. If you mean the story was the downside of the game compared to the other's I think most would disagree.

 

Reason I didn't like IV was because there is only so much messing around an empty city making my own game before it gets stale. Especially after San An offered so much

 

The graphics were atrocious. even for back then (I get there are reasons for that but it doesn't change the fact) it had this horrible haze effect and washed out look going on.

 

You had people phoning you up every 2 minutes to go bowling

 

The only thing it had going for outside the story was the driving mechanics and rag doll.

wait, you say IV felt empty? man what the hell are you smoking?

When I said empty I was referring to the lack of activities on offer in comparison to S.A

I don't think there's really a lot to do in New York itself.

There isn't a lot to do in New York?

I'm not sure, I've never been, but seeing as it's mainly a metropolitan area, I'm guessing you can shop, visit Central Park and probably catch a show. You could do all of those things, be it at a limit, on IV so I'm not complaining.

Listen dude. You have never been to new york. But there are endless things to do here ok, this is one of the most entertaining cities so please dont say that nyc is as boring as liberty city.

 

What you mentioned doesnt even scratch the surface.

 

 

 

[kj2022]

What's funny about your argument is that you're actually defending GTA IV's flaws without realizing it.

Not really. I just didn't go into detail about the flaws. If you mean the story was the downside of the game compared to the other's I think most would disagree.

 

Reason I didn't like IV was because there is only so much messing around an empty city making my own game before it gets stale. Especially after San An offered so much

 

The graphics were atrocious. even for back then (I get there are reasons for that but it doesn't change the fact) it had this horrible haze effect and washed out look going on.

 

You had people phoning you up every 2 minutes to go bowling

 

The only thing it had going for outside the story was the driving mechanics and rag doll.

wait, you say IV felt empty? man what the hell are you smoking?

When I said empty I was referring to the lack of activities on offer in comparison to S.A

I don't think there's really a lot to do in New York itself.

There isn't a lot to do in New York?

I'm not sure, I've never been, but seeing as it's mainly a metropolitan area, I'm guessing you can shop, visit Central Park and probably catch a show. You could do all of those things, be it at a limit, on IV so I'm not complaining.

Listen dude. You have never been to new york. But there are endless things to do here ok, this is one of the most entertaining cities so please dont say that nyc is as boring as liberty city.

 

What you mentioned doesnt even scratch the surface.

I'm going off other metropolitan cities I've been to like London, Leeds, Orlando, Paris, and frankly, there's nothing there to do for me, in my opinion, that's all I could do in NY.

 

@official general: Yeah they could have put more in, and those would have fit, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

[SirTerning]

This has been discussed over and over again... Why can't you people just let it go, there is no way in hell that you can force people from thinking SA is the best or IV.

Like seriously why are some people so freaking stupid? Really just let it go... Besides this sub forum is for discussing GTAV and not why you think that San andreas or GTAIV is the best or the baddest...

[TheDeaconBosco]

The buying business and stocks/shares was more for Niko. He's a European immigrant coming to America to try and make it in a prosperous way, and I am sure he would welcome more ways to make a lot of money than just killing people. Stocks and shares would be a brilliant idea for him, besides it's LC, based on NYC, the Wall Street thing would have been done very well.

I usually agree with most of your points... This isn't the case now, as you didn't describe Niko, you've actually described Roman.

 

Niko derides America's capitalistic way of life and sees the endless pursuit of money as a chump's game, which is highlighted by his bufoonish cousin. While you may say that he was lured to LC by Roman's empty promises of "Penthouses, Sports cars and titties" The only real driving force behind his actions throughout the storyline is his pursuit of Darko, as highlighted throughout the optional phonecalls you can make to Roman throughout the game and the fact that he cuts his ties to the Pegorinos shrothly after being done with him.

 

I mean sure you can buy a 1000 $ Suit at Perseus and drive off in Turismos and Inferni but that's determined directly by YOU. Anyway I wouldn't have opposed stocks being in the game, but justify it by saying it's a fun thing to do rather than say "It fits the character" when it really doesn't.

[meson1]

It doesn't have to come down to an exclusive choice between SA and IV. SA was a great game. It was the right game for it's time. It will go down as an absolute undisputed classic. I loved it.

 

But that doesn't make GTA:IV a bad game. I do think too many people are a bit too quick to hate on IV. It's positives are greater than it's negatives and it's a solid game. It's great in it's own right. It isn't without it's flaws though and chief amongst those are the non-storyline activities, which seems to be the number one complaint levelled at IV. I think Rockstar ballsed up on this aspect. They knew they were reducing the number of side missions, but I think they thought that the multiplayer would fill that gap and provide the necessary ongoing replayability. They were wrong, of course.

 

But if you look at all the other aspects of GTA:IV, I think it is a triumph. The story, the atmosphere, the characters ... all so cinematic. For that it was brilliant and I feel deserves more recognition that it seems to get.

 

GTA:V looks like it ought to be SA+IV. All the diversity of SA plus all the best bits of IV. I just hope it works out that way when we finally have the game in our hands.

[zuckmeslow]

 

What's funny about your argument is that you're actually defending GTA IV's flaws without realizing it.

Not really. I just didn't go into detail about the flaws. If you mean the story was the downside of the game compared to the other's I think most would disagree.

 

Reason I didn't like IV was because there is only so much messing around an empty city making my own game before it gets stale. Especially after San An offered so much

 

The graphics were atrocious. even for back then (I get there are reasons for that but it doesn't change the fact) it had this horrible haze effect and washed out look going on.

 

You had people phoning you up every 2 minutes to go bowling

 

The only thing it had going for outside the story was the driving mechanics and rag doll.

wait, you say IV felt empty? man what the hell are you smoking?

When I said empty I was referring to the lack of activities on offer in comparison to S.A

I don't think there's really a lot to do in New York itself.

There isn't a lot to do in New York?

I'm not sure, I've never been, but seeing as it's mainly a metropolitan area, I'm guessing you can shop, visit Central Park and probably catch a show. You could do all of those things, be it at a limit, on IV so I'm not complaining.

Listen dude. You have never been to new york. But there are endless things to do here ok, this is one of the most entertaining cities so please dont say that nyc is as boring as liberty city.

 

What you mentioned doesnt even scratch the surface.

I'm going off other metropolitan cities I've been to like London, Leeds, Orlando, Paris, and frankly, there's nothing there to do for me, in my opinion, that's all I could do in NY.

 

@official general: Yeah they could have put more in, and those would have fit, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

Well new york is nothing like the other metro cities. Theres always something to do here, things gta 4 didnt attempt to do. Its more than just shows and stores. We have beaches here, we have a theme park, we have an aircraft carrier meuseum, a world famous baseball team and stadium that wasnt even mentioned in gta 4. And lots more dude. And its not all metro, we have suburbs here with mansions and large parks and trailways. Nyc isnt just manhattan. Its bronx, brooklyn, queens and staten island too

Edited August 11, 2013 by zuckmeslow

[jamieleng]

 

IV was more of a tech demo. R* getting their feet wet with the new engine (and as a result was a major step down, understandable but I didn't like it at all, it was as dull as ditch water away from the story).

Why do you say that like it is fact? I suppose all the perfect score reviews were bought, or that they all had their noses in Rockstar's arse.

 

There was plenty to do in IV outside the missions & if you count EFLC, it is packed full of content compared to any other game in the same genre. You concede that Rockstar was basically starting from scratch but then compare it to SA. I'm glad they took the difficult route, creating a bespoke engine, implementing what is still the most advanced animation system in video games, upgrading the physics etc. I'm also glad they haven't put all their eggs in one basket (like Activision), which has paid off in RDR & to lesser extent LAN. We now have a GTA game that has the best parts of all previous RAGE games, from R* Table Tennis to Max Payne 3 (excluding LAN).

 

I appreciate every Rockstar developed game & the years they take to make, by playing them for years to come. Long may they continue doing what they have been doing.

[kj2022]

What's funny about your argument is that you're actually defending GTA IV's flaws without realizing it.

Not really. I just didn't go into detail about the flaws. If you mean the story was the downside of the game compared to the other's I think most would disagree.

 

Reason I didn't like IV was because there is only so much messing around an empty city making my own game before it gets stale. Especially after San An offered so much

 

The graphics were atrocious. even for back then (I get there are reasons for that but it doesn't change the fact) it had this horrible haze effect and washed out look going on.

 

You had people phoning you up every 2 minutes to go bowling

 

The only thing it had going for outside the story was the driving mechanics and rag doll.

wait, you say IV felt empty? man what the hell are you smoking?

When I said empty I was referring to the lack of activities on offer in comparison to S.A

I don't think there's really a lot to do in New York itself.

There isn't a lot to do in New York?

I'm not sure, I've never been, but seeing as it's mainly a metropolitan area, I'm guessing you can shop, visit Central Park and probably catch a show. You could do all of those things, be it at a limit, on IV so I'm not complaining.

Listen dude. You have never been to new york. But there are endless things to do here ok, this is one of the most entertaining cities so please dont say that nyc is as boring as liberty city.

 

What you mentioned doesnt even scratch the surface.

I'm going off other metropolitan cities I've been to like London, Leeds, Orlando, Paris, and frankly, there's nothing there to do for me, in my opinion, that's all I could do in NY.

 

@official general: Yeah they could have put more in, and those would have fit, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

Well new york is nothing like the other metro cities. Theres always something to do here, things gta 4 didnt attempt to do. Its more than just shows and stores. We have beaches here, we have a theme park, we have an aircraft carrier meuseum, a world famous baseball team and stadium that wasnt even mentioned in gta 4. And lots more dude. And its not all metro, we have suburbs here with mansions and large parks and trailways. Nyc isnt just manhattan. Its bronx, brooklyn, queens and staten island too

that's true, I didn't mean to offend you man, NY is one of the places I'd love to visit, but I don't like beaches, or theme parks or sports, the only things i'd do from what you said is just visit the museums, so to me, it didn't make that much difference to me that GTA IV excluded such things.

[streetx1xracer]

as i own gta sa on ps3, i cant stand the story. Its so boring and it doesnt flow

[zuckmeslow]

What's funny about your argument is that you're actually defending GTA IV's flaws without realizing it.

Not really. I just didn't go into detail about the flaws. If you mean the story was the downside of the game compared to the other's I think most would disagree.

 

Reason I didn't like IV was because there is only so much messing around an empty city making my own game before it gets stale. Especially after San An offered so much

 

The graphics were atrocious. even for back then (I get there are reasons for that but it doesn't change the fact) it had this horrible haze effect and washed out look going on.

 

You had people phoning you up every 2 minutes to go bowling

 

The only thing it had going for outside the story was the driving mechanics and rag doll.

wait, you say IV felt empty? man what the hell are you smoking?

When I said empty I was referring to the lack of activities on offer in comparison to S.A

I don't think there's really a lot to do in New York itself.

There isn't a lot to do in New York?

I'm not sure, I've never been, but seeing as it's mainly a metropolitan area, I'm guessing you can shop, visit Central Park and probably catch a show. You could do all of those things, be it at a limit, on IV so I'm not complaining.

Listen dude. You have never been to new york. But there are endless things to do here ok, this is one of the most entertaining cities so please dont say that nyc is as boring as liberty city.

 

What you mentioned doesnt even scratch the surface.

I'm going off other metropolitan cities I've been to like London, Leeds, Orlando, Paris, and frankly, there's nothing there to do for me, in my opinion, that's all I could do in NY.

 

@official general: Yeah they could have put more in, and those would have fit, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

Well new york is nothing like the other metro cities. Theres always something to do here, things gta 4 didnt attempt to do. Its more than just shows and stores. We have beaches here, we have a theme park, we have an aircraft carrier meuseum, a world famous baseball team and stadium that wasnt even mentioned in gta 4. And lots more dude. And its not all metro, we have suburbs here with mansions and large parks and trailways. Nyc isnt just manhattan. Its bronx, brooklyn, queens and staten island too

that's true, I didn't mean to offend you man, NY is one of the places I'd love to visit, but I don't like beaches, or theme parks or sports, the only things i'd do from what you said is just visit the museums, so to me, it didn't make that much difference to me that GTA IV excluded such things.

no no prob, i didnt mean to come off rude. its just that some people tell me that liberty city is just like nyc and thats definitely not true, i would love for everyone who hasnt gone to new york city to actually go and experience it. but its a shame that liberty city couldnt have been better, theres an abandoned meuseum, an abandoned coney island. i wish it wasnt all abandoned in IV

[kj2022]

as i own gta sa on ps3, i cant stand the story. Its so boring and it doesnt flow

It's probably because it was wrote for multiple protagonists and they couldn't implement it.

[Algonquin Assassin]

ok im getting frustrated with all the people who like SA more than IV , but theres so many of you im willing to listen.

what is it that makes you think that SA is better than IV ? , im a freelance designer, graphics and physics impress me, i loved everything about IV, the little tilt to the walk, the way your feet hit every step on steps... the A.I everyone beefs about . is AMAZING compared to all other IVs . AMAZING, cops flank you, talk to you, talk to peds about you. cover each other.. yes SA did seem bigger to me, it was fun, custom cars was good, having hommies was good. i think it was the first time we had planes, pushbikes, yeah alot was good. but no way it stacks up to IV, even if IV is lacking some things...

 

WHAT IS IT? TELL ME, WHAT DO YOU LIKE ABOUT SA SO MUCH, AND / OR HATE ABOUT IV?

There's really nothing wrong with people liking SA more, but these kind of threads always seem to be started by SA lovers egging on GTA IV lovers into an argument.

 

It rarely happens the other way around. It's one reason I don't like SA quite as much as I used to really.

[Eutyphro]

There's really nothing wrong with people liking SA more, but these kind of threads always seem to be started by SA lovers egging on GTA IV lovers into an argument.

 

It rarely happens the other way around. It's one reason I don't like SA quite as much as I used to really.

So you like SA less because the people who love it tend to start dumb topics about it? Don't you think that's a really stupid reason?

 

IMO GTA SA is a lot better than IV, but IV + the episodes comes close enough. I expect GTA V to be the greatest game of all time though.

[Killerdude]

I don't see how IV was a major step down..

 

Everything it did was miles ahead of anything SA could do. It was just missing a small handful of features, planes, car customization and RPG elements.

[Dope_0110]

There's really nothing wrong with people liking SA more, but these kind of threads always seem to be started by SA lovers egging on GTA IV lovers into an argument.

 

It rarely happens the other way around. It's one reason I don't like SA quite as much as I used to really.

So you like SA less because the people who love it tend to start dumb topics about it? Don't you think that's a really stupid reason?

 

IMO GTA SA is a lot better than IV, but IV + the episodes comes close enough. I expect GTA V to be the greatest game of all time though.

I believe that was kind of worded wrong. Here's how I feel about SA and it probably similar with Miamivicecity

 

I love SA, it's a great game, so many hours spent enjoying it were something that gave me a lot of joy and still does whenever I decide to reinstall. BUT.. the moment I enter a topic like this and read what OP wrote I HATE SA. I hate grove street, I hate CJ, I hate every single thing about the game...

 

Then I exit the topic, and I still love SA. It must be that I just hate the opinion of people who start topics like this one but it transfers to the whole game automatically when I'm in topics like this one.

[Eutyphro]

I believe that was kind of worded wrong. Here's how I feel about SA and it probably similar with Miamivicecity

 

I love SA, it's a great game, so many hours spent enjoying it were something that gave me a lot of joy and still does whenever I decide to reinstall. BUT.. the moment I enter a topic like this and read what OP wrote I HATE SA. I hate grove street, I hate CJ, I hate every single thing about the game...

 

Then I exit the topic, and I still love SA. It must be that I just hate the opinion of people who start topics like this one but it transfers to the whole game automatically when I'm in topics like this one.

I get it. For me it doesn't work that way lol. I got GTA SA when I was 12 and it was the original GTA experience for me. I was totally blown away by it. Nothing can ever make me hate it, though it's definitely not perfect and GTA V will be a lot better. Since then I played VCS LCS and IV and the episodes.

 

I do think GTA IV could have had some more to it. The town was indeed a bit empty, and I think Niko would have looked so bad ass with some fingerless gloves and a silenced pistol.. But the episodes made up for it. If they would've done the three protagonist thing with GTA IV and the episodes then it would've been as good as GTA San Andreas to me.

 

But its true that peoplewho say IV sucked are annoying c*nts. But so are people who hate on the hood element in GTA. Lots of those are people trying to troll anyone who is sensitive about racism

[latigreblue]

as i own gta sa on ps3, i cant stand the story. Its so boring and it doesnt flow

It's probably because it was wrote for multiple protagonists and they couldn't implement it.

I read that article and I think you need to find another reason for why you didn't understand the story. All the article said was that the idea of multiple protagonists was considered but was dismissed because of the hardware limitation. There is nothing in the story that indicates that other protagonists were cut out.

[Sept17th2013]

To be honest, GTA SA sucked comparing to GTA IV.

The story of SA is horrible comparing to IV, to be honest.

To be honest, play SA again, to be honest.

[da_KING]

To be honest, GTA SA sucked comparing to GTA IV.

The story of SA is horrible comparing to IV, to be honest.

To be honest, play SA again, to be honest.

To be honest, missions in SA sucked after unlocking San Fierro, they didn't even fit in those 'GANSTA WORLD' everyone is moaning about because that is WORLD you play in SA. Also, to me that SA map was ugly as hell.

 

All missions in IV including EFLC were awesome to me. I really couldn't find any mission that sucked, because they really fit in those three storylines. And you gotta love LC, so realistic and everything, like real NYC.

 

To me, the almighty Driv3r (to many the worst game of 2005, also by many rated below 5/10) is better than SA.

 

Now, let's see how many of you will get pissed of by my post.

[Algonquin Assassin]

There's really nothing wrong with people liking SA more, but these kind of threads always seem to be started by SA lovers egging on GTA IV lovers into an argument.

 

It rarely happens the other way around. It's one reason I don't like SA quite as much as I used to really.

So you like SA less because the people who love it tend to start dumb topics about it? Don't you think that's a really stupid reason?

 

IMO GTA SA is a lot better than IV, but IV + the episodes comes close enough. I expect GTA V to be the greatest game of all time though.

I believe that was kind of worded wrong. Here's how I feel about SA and it probably similar with Miamivicecity

 

I love SA, it's a great game, so many hours spent enjoying it were something that gave me a lot of joy and still does whenever I decide to reinstall. BUT.. the moment I enter a topic like this and read what OP wrote I HATE SA. I hate grove street, I hate CJ, I hate every single thing about the game...

 

Then I exit the topic, and I still love SA. It must be that I just hate the opinion of people who start topics like this one but it transfers to the whole game automatically when I'm in topics like this one.

Yeah I guess that's the way to put it. I still like SA just not as much as I used to. GTA IV simply has more things I like about it.

 

Almost everything that gets bashed about GTA IV is exactly what I like about it. The "dull and grey concrete jungle" or however it's put is one of my favourite things about it.

 

Experiencing that and going back to a GTA III era GTA isn't the same. They were good for their time, but GTA IV showed how a city can actually feel like a real one. It's still impressive 5 and a 1/2 years down the line as far as I'm concerned.

 

The only thing I would SA does do better is its soundtrack as it's got a lot of good songs I remember from growing up whereas GTA IV's while it's not bad isn't as memorable.

 

[kramerica]

In my opinion, Vice City was the only GTA to have a good story line so far. GTA IV was a flat out awful story line. I did not care much for San Andreas' CJ, but at least there were many other characters to get missions from. I didn't even really like any of GTA IV's characters. Tommy Vercetti was the only main character I have enjoyed playing as. I thought all the rest were kind of pussies.

[Official General]

 

The buying business and stocks/shares was more for Niko. He's a European immigrant coming to America to try and make it in a prosperous way, and I am sure he would welcome more ways to make a lot of money than just killing people. Stocks and shares would be a brilliant idea for him, besides it's LC, based on NYC, the Wall Street thing would have been done very well.

I usually agree with most of your points... This isn't the case now, as you didn't describe Niko, you've actually described Roman.

 

Niko derides America's capitalistic way of life and sees the endless pursuit of money as a chump's game, which is highlighted by his bufoonish cousin. While you may say that he was lured to LC by Roman's empty promises of "Penthouses, Sports cars and titties" The only real driving force behind his actions throughout the storyline is his pursuit of Darko, as highlighted throughout the optional phonecalls you can make to Roman throughout the game and the fact that he cuts his ties to the Pegorinos shrothly after being done with him.

 

I mean sure you can buy a 1000 $ Suit at Perseus and drive off in Turismos and Inferni but that's determined directly by YOU. Anyway I wouldn't have opposed stocks being in the game, but justify it by saying it's a fun thing to do rather than say "It fits the character" when it really doesn't.

@ Deacon Bosco

 

I don't agree with you at all on this. I don't think you fully remember the background to Niko's story. If you remember towards the end of the first GTA IV trailer when you see Niko arrive in Liberty City for the first time, Niko's voice speaks about all the troubles and hardships he has been through before coming to America and he ends it with, "perhaps here, things will be different." This statement clearly shows the idea behind Niko's story - he initially came to America to carve out a better life for himself, not just to kill Darko. In fact, Niko ONLY became interested in killing Darko once he learned that Darko was still alive and living in LC, and that was halfway into the game - this fact further proves that Niko was not even thinking about getting revenge on Darko when he first came to LC (because he did not know where Darko was, or if he was alive), so your reasoning is clearly wrong. You yourself just said that Niko was lured to LC by Roman's promises of a luxury life, so I don't really see how you can say that attaining wealth and prosperity in life was not even a factor for Niko's decision to come to America. The Darko part was just a major change in direction of Niko's agenda and interests as part of the storyline's progression. Did you actually follow the storyline properly ? I'm not so sure you did.

 

As for the stocks and shares idea ? I disagree with you again, and furthermore I did not say it "fits in with Niko (the character)" and Niko's reasons for coming to LC is irrelevant to this idea anyway. What I meant was that I definitely believe it would have naturally fitted in with the LC setting of IV. LC is based on New York City as you know, and NYC is the financial capital of the world with the biggest stock exchange in the world, which I assume you know. To have a stocks/shares system to make money in LC would have greatly complimented this. I can imagine Niko going to invest his hard-earned money in stocks and shares in the Exchange Quarter in downtown Algonquin, that definitely would fit in the game. You have your opinion and I respect it, but you cannot tell me to see it your way, because I do not. I justified my viewpoint by saying "it fits with setting" and I did so because that is what I believe.

 

@ Miamivicecity and Dope_1010

 

Sorry, but I just don't get your reasoning. Just because SA fans bash GTA IV and criticize it a lot, it makes you hate SA more ?? How dumb is that ?? I don't really see why SA fans bashing IV should even affect you to that point that you must hate SA. Many GTA fans genuinely do believe that SA is better than IV with good reason. SA simply offered a lot more popular in-game content and features than IV did, and it just had a much greater impact and left a greater legacy than IV did too. I cannot see what the problem is if they bash IV at the same too, it's how they feel. If you personally believe that IV is better than SA, then that is all that should matter, but for you to hate SA more ? That's very strange and bizarre, in addition to being very stupid.

 

I personally think that SA is still a better game than GTA IV, but SA is not my favorite GTA, that goes to Vice City. However, IV is still a great game, I still like it alot as I've said many times already. As for those bashing IV, well, there is good reasons for that. IV simply was a letdown and disappointment for many GTA fans for reasons discussed many times already, regardless of how great others think it is. It is clear to see this. However this does not mean certain people should always be excessively and overly critical about IV in a bad way, because it's still clearly a great game. But if that is what certain people think of IV then it is what it is, I don't see why you should hate SA more because of it.

 

This not directed at you two, but I think many of the people on here who keep hating on SA and expressing it just have a very hard time accepting that SA is still regarded as the greatest GTA game in the series, simply because they said they couldn't relate to to rap music, the hood, black gangsta stuff, or they did not want to play as a black protagonist. Many just don't like the fact that a great many other GTA fans think that all that stuff is cool to see in the game. It is clear to see that SA still remains the most popular GTA, and it is still the best-selling one too, but it's just too hard a fact for many SA haters to accept, so all they do is keep expressing their hate for it, and heavily criticizing those who are big SA fans. Here is an example below, a statement by ItsClipZz :

 

 

WHAT IS IT? TELL ME, WHAT DO YOU LIKE ABOUT SA SO MUCH, AND / OR HATE ABOUT IV?

 

Now why does he have to ask such a question ? Why does it bother him so much that so many people like SA ? Why did he not say "why do many people love VC and hate IV ?", why not that ? He clearly has a personal issue with SA and the people that love it so much.

 

I really just don't get it.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Official General

[Eutyphro]

Lots of people have a hard time relating to someone from an African American background and to the urban culture that comes along with a character living in the ghetto, and it prevents them from understanding why GTA SA is still the best GTA. Because gameplay wise it just is.

 

So I fully agree with Official General on what he says about San Andreas.