Things That Make SA Better Than V

[Mersay]

yeah the gang turfs is what i really loved about this game,

[Haha365]

To put it simply, it offered a lot more choice.

[PhillBellic]

A more thoroughly satisfying completion to the story. I am not counting any future story DLC fot V.

[ten-a-penny]

The soundtrack is IMO the only thing I find better in SA compared to V.

In GTAV I'm limited to Radio Mirror Park ad Los Santos Rock Radio. All the others are sh*t. But in SA the only radio I don't like is K-rose if I can remember them.

 

Also FCR900.

 

who needs desert, and for what actually? so people can perform some stunts with vehicles? did r* went totally moron? until a decent episode or dlc with a really big map addition comes along, v never get my interest in it..

FYI stunters existed since Vice City thanks to the bike physics. Why do you think half the fanbase gone crazy in V when Rockstar changed the bike physics?

[SAVILLAIN]

its not a Hipster game

[Haha365]

its not a Hipster game

Well, I didn't see that coming. Please do explain.

[ten-a-penny]

 

its not a Hipster game

Well, I didn't see that coming. Please do explain.

You're a hipster if you like what I hate or you hate what I like! -Everyone in the GTAV and Online section.

[Kalerney]

Incredibly well designed map with three totally different cities, hundreds of fun and diverse side activities, useful rewards, 100 % singleplayer oriented ... I could write about San Andreas for hours. It's, by far, the most complete game I've ever played, and I highly doubt R* will produce such an ambitious game again.

 

GTA V could have easily be built in the San Andreas scope, but R* choose to focus way too much on the Online mode, leaving us a shockingly half assed SP.

 

It's quite ironical to see that R* set the level of San Andreas so high, that they can't reach it anymore, even eleven years after its release !

[lil weasel]

I fear that Rockstar is going the route that Lord British went. Ultima was a great series especially Ultima 7 a & b.

But, by moving the game to online multi-player game they were able to control Pirates and not have distribution problems,

If Rockstar moves on-line and drops the solo games they will also curtail the piracy that is running wild.

Just look at all the Version One gamers seeking help. There cannot be that many surviving v1 DVDs in circulation.

Also, the revenue generated by monthly subscriptions without the need of packaging and brick and mortar distribution will certainly put more profit in the stockholders pockets.

 

Now, if only they can get the game back to gamers, stop all the mini-movies...

[The Dedito Gae]

It's quite ironical to see that R* set the level of San Andreas so high, that they can't reach it anymore, even eleven years after its release !

IV surpassed SA, it's better in almost every detail.

[PhillBellic]

 

It's quite ironical to see that R* set the level of San Andreas so high, that they can't reach it anymore, even eleven years after its release !

IV surpassed SA, it's better in almost every detail.

 

That it did. However, I feel that both SA, and IV, still surpass V and will continue to, for the forseeable future.

[Kalerney]

IV didn't surpassed SA in every detail. Such a statement only means that you're drunk, blind, extremely stupid or have never played the game.

I like IV, played it a lot, and still play it sometimes. But except graphically and with the background details, everything is far better in SA.

 

Fun : SA > IV

Mission diversity : SA > IV

Map : SA > IV

Things to do : SA > IV

Soundtrack : SA > IV

Side activities : SA > IV

etc ...

 

However :

Environment details : IV > SA

Boring storyline : IV

...

 

GTA IV fanboys reputation as narrow minded is definitely true.

[Naruko]

It doesn't make better but featured.

[Haha365]

 

It's quite ironical to see that R* set the level of San Andreas so high, that they can't reach it anymore, even eleven years after its release !

IV surpassed SA, it's better in almost every detail.

 

Uhhhhhh......

[The Dedito Gae]

IV didn't surpassed SA in every detail.

that's why i said"almost every detail", SA just has vehicle/weapon/mission/map variety over IV and IV doesn't need those to be better,it also has a better fighting sistem but that's it,is really hard to enjoy such a great game with a weak lead/history.

[Haha365]

 

IV didn't surpassed SA in every detail.

that's why i said"almost every detail", SA just has vehicle/weapon/mission/map variety over IV and IV doesn't need those to be better,it also has a better fighting sistem but that's it,is really hard to enjoy such a great game with a weak lead/history.

 

Unless you prioritize the variety of gameplay options and fun sandbox experience, over the stroy.

[Osho]

IV was built using the newer engine called RAGE while SA used RenderWare. So, technically IV is going to be better in - open world details, graphics, and other such advances in tech using the power of the seventh generation of console systems.

This is the only "prime reason" why IV has stayed successful at receiving all the advantages over SA.

Its only when you look at the core game that has nothing to do with the advances in the gaming technology but more importantly to improve upon the way SA set a benchmark to let the players free roam the sandbox with the amount of choices, diversity and freedom - IV comes across considerably worse than SA. It accomplished nothing special outside simply an HD overhaul of the game on the technical front. Its greater emphasis on realism laid the foundation for an entirely new kind of direction for the series killing the days of more accessible and "truly sandbox" experience.

It become more boring than ever. It offered less incentive to continue playing the game compared to SA.

Activities like bowling, darts, offer nothing sort of rewarding or satisfying experience nor hanging out with friends. Its feels more like a chore compared to San Andreas challenges and variety of events.

In short, IV is just a boring real life simulator wrapped in a linear, scripted story campaign, and extremely limited sandbox world at the expense of the ability for the player to have more choices and freedom to influence the highly detailed yet an empty shell of an open world that Rockstar has designed for us.

And, again history repeats itself with V.

Remember technology always advances. So, those things don't matter a lot when it comes to what makes a game truly great and a classic. Anything can beat IVs details but no GTA has yet been successful to surpass let alone improve upon what makes SA truly great for many fans who don't think that simply having realistic driving/physics, and graphical details alone can beat the spirit of the SAs open world gameplay in the GTA series.

Bullsh*t.

First try to succeed upon challenging on that spirit, take it further by improving it, then we will talk!

[Algonquin Assassin]

it,is really hard to enjoy such a great game with a weak lead/history.

 

 

I'm curious, but why do you always describe story as "history"?

[Jioyt 123]

N/A

Edited November 28, 2017 by Jioyt 123

[lastmanonearth]

Let me make a shorter post by restructuring the question, if I may.

 

"What are the things that DON`T make SA better than V?"

 

The graphics, the physics... ...........

 

...............

 

 

No that`s just about it right there.

 

 

 

 

I'm curious, but why do you always describe story as "history"?

Must be his phone`s damn auto-correct, happens to me too.

Edited April 9, 2015 by bored_killed

[The Dedito Gae]

 

I'm curious, but why do you always describe story as "history"?

poor english skills. Edited April 9, 2015 by Midnight Hitman

[lol232]

Vending machines.

-

Car customizers, and taxi mission.

Have you even played V? V does have these.

 

 

Download

GTA V HUD BY DK22Pac

MAS (Michael edition)(Master Animation System=MAS)

GTA ViSA

GTA SA GTA V CARS PACK v2 on GameModding

GTA V Peds for GTA SA

Mods are irrelevant in this discussion.

You could do that to any GTA game if you wanted to make it more like a newer one.

 

IMO, SA isn't better than V, but I liked the soundtrack and having more interiors a lot better.

Edited April 9, 2015 by lol232

[ten-a-penny]

IV didn't surpassed SA in every detail. Such a statement only means that you're drunk, blind, extremely stupid or have never played the game.

I like IV, played it a lot, and still play it sometimes. But except graphically and with the background details, everything is far better in SA.

 

Fun : SA > IV

Mission diversity : SA > IV

Map : SA > IV

Things to do : SA > IV

Soundtrack : SA > IV

Side activities : SA > IV

etc ...

 

However :

Environment details : IV > SA

Boring storyline : IV

...

 

GTA IV fanboys reputation as narrow minded is definitely true.

GG. Like I though, the SA and V fanboys can't handle the fact that others can have a different opinions than them.

So what if somebody prefers IV and find it more fun? In His Opinion (surely nobody heard that word) he find IV had more replay value than SA.

 

IV had boring storyline? Topkek. I though that was SA with its story that don't make sense. Final Doom: The Plutonia Experiment (a f*cking 20 years old game, mind you) had a better storyline than this game. IN MY OPINION.

[lol232]

IV didn't surpassed SA in every detail. Such a statement only means that you're drunk, blind, extremely stupid or have never played the game.

I like IV, played it a lot, and still play it sometimes. But except graphically and with the background details, everything is far better in SA.

 

Fun : SA > IV

Mission diversity : SA > IV

Map : SA > IV

Things to do : SA > IV

Soundtrack : SA > IV

Side activities : SA > IV

etc ...

 

However :

Environment details : IV > SA

Boring storyline : IV

...

 

GTA IV fanboys reputation as narrow minded is definitely true.

I'm late, but;

 

GTA SA's fanboys are as narrow minded as IV fanboys any other fanboys. Get over it.

Edited April 10, 2015 by lol232

[ten-a-penny]

^ Actually I find SA and V fanboys the most narrow-minded. If other franchises' count, then BMFM 1993's fantards are the worst, then SA and finally V.

[Jabalous]

Other. It's not better at all, at least technically. 2004's San Andreas stand out simply because it was a game that no one has seen or heard of before. There was nothing like it out there in the market. It came out of nowhere, saturated with contents from every genre, all packed into an action-themed game with a story that spans across a big map of three cities and enough countryside to keep you exploring for years, hunting for secrets and myths.

 

From a time perspective, I think that Grand Theft Auto San Andreas was and is Rockstar's most ambitious project. From a technical perspective, Grand Theft Auto V is their most ambitious project to date. It's much better than SA in all technical aspects that you can think of, unless you let nostalgia gets over you.

 

 

[MetroFloaty]

 

IV didn't surpassed SA in every detail. Such a statement only means that you're drunk, blind, extremely stupid or have never played the game.

I like IV, played it a lot, and still play it sometimes. But except graphically and with the background details, everything is far better in SA.

 

Fun : SA > IV

Mission diversity : SA > IV

Map : SA > IV

Things to do : SA > IV

Soundtrack : SA > IV

Side activities : SA > IV

etc ...

 

However :

Environment details : IV > SA

Boring storyline : IV

...

 

GTA IV fanboys reputation as narrow minded is definitely true.

GG. Like I though, the SA and V fanboys can't handle the fact that others can have a different opinions than them.

So what if somebody prefers IV and find it more fun? In His Opinion (surely nobody heard that word) he find IV had more replay value than SA.

 

IV had boring storyline? Topkek. I though that was SA with its story that don't make sense. Final Doom: The Plutonia Experiment (a f*cking 20 years old game, mind you) had a better storyline than this game. IN MY OPINION.

 

This. I mean the first arc of the story in Los Santos was pretty good as it made sense, given that it was all about the gangbanging and nothing too fancy, but later on it was just... i don't know. What kind of missions do we get? Playing with toy airplanes and cars to help a nerd? Flying with a jetpack into area 69 to give some middle-aged stoner hippie some alien goo artifact? Stealing a jet from a top-notch military boat protected by dozens of soldiers?

What the f*ck is that, does that sound like something a ghetto gangster would do? Even Vice City had a better, more realistic storyline than that of San Andreas. Don't get me wrong, they were fun, but why the f*ck would a government agent hire some ghetto gangbanger to do some 007-tier work when he could choose more experienced people? I think V realized what was up with that and chose the unnecessary weirdo missions and put them as side quests. Let's be honest, are Zero's or The Truth's missions relevant to San Andreas's storyline? I think Carl could have gotten his brother out of jail even without playing with toy airplanes or burning plantations for hippies. They could have been side missions in San Andreas, too. No wonder V has only 69 main missions. It's so that its storyline can make more sense than that poor excuse of a storyline that San Andreas had. At least the characters were pretty charming, i guess.

[ten-a-penny]

^ The only thing that saves SA's storyline is the characters. It started as a ghetto thug coming back from another city/state to see his mother's funeral and ended up as a superstar 007 James Bond Mission Impossible type of guy hijacking Sea Harriers and stealing alien goo while piloting a f*cking Jetpack. Not even the Doom franchise is as unrealistic as SA.

[MetroFloaty]

I also don't see why people are bashing on V for being too shallow. I mean, look around you. What do you see? Life. The amount of detail and work is simply astonishing. You can get into someone's property and you'll see them get mad at you after they were interrupted from the chat they were having besides their pool with their friends, or you can start up a conversation with some random person on the street and see how they respond to you, you can shoot someone and see them aimlessly waving their gun at you while miserably laying on their tummy, saying their last words right after, you can plow a cow into someone's car with a bulldozer, you can push construction workers off of high construction site floors. The possibilities are endless, and the immersion increases them. San Andreas was incredibly rich and detailed for its time, and it's richer even than some current gen games (*cough* Watch Dogs *cough*), but when you aren't playing a submission or a main mission it just feels empty. Sure, you can go on a rampage and kill people with dildos or whatever the f*ck your brain comes up with, but you'll never get reactions that are as lifelike as GTA 5's. Hell, people in GTA 5 can report you to the police, film you with their phones and send their videos to news agencies that are going to show the very footage the witnesses took of you committing the crime ON THE GAME'S TV. How the f*ck does San Andreas even begin to compete with that? GTA V's strongest point is immersion and realism. You just have to use your fantasy; you don't have to rely on scripted submissions to have fun...

[Haha365]

From a time perspective, I think that Grand Theft Auto San Andreas was and is Rockstar's most ambitious project. From a technical perspective, Grand Theft Auto V is their most ambitious project to date. It's much better than SA in all technical aspects that you can think of, unless you let nostalgia gets over you.

 

 

I could agree with this. Though I would replace "time" with "content".