GTA SA and GTA V [comparison]

[PhillBellic]

Ah, the childhood memories of seeing the other islands from a distance hoping I could get to them one day....And no, not with flying cars cheats, LOL

That was one thing I liked about those Games.

 

Let's say that the next Games Map was fully unlocked from the start, however they did not want you Exploring it all early, How do you think there could be restrictions applied in regards to the Map?

[SuperGTFan]

Ah, the childhood memories of seeing the other islands from a distance hoping I could get to them one day....And no, not with flying cars cheats, LOL

Don't try to leave town, you hear me? We're watching you! Edited July 1, 2015 by SuperGTFan

[Trevorchumash]

Andd to be honest, the graphics in V are pretty sh*tty.

f*ck, watch dogs on last gen has more vegetation than V on CG.

Saying 'I don't like V' is okay, but straight up trolling is pathetic.

Watch Dogs has more vegetation? LMAO. Get your eyes checked ASAP and go play the two games again.

Welll it does. Tough luck sunshine..

And if anything a joke it's your argument that GTA V's better based on graphics. I don't think anyone would deny GTA V looks great because it does, but it sums up my feelings perfectly that it's mostly eye candy. In SA's defense of course it lacks the graphical and world detail that GTA V does. It's an 11 year old game that was made two console generations ago for god's sake.

I know that, honey, but fact is fact. SA was good for its time, but today it looks like crap and plays like crap. Good god, I nearly for an eye sore when I tried playing it again after playing V.

And go ahead and call me a 'graphic whore'. It doesn't change the fact that graphics are one of the most important parts of gaming. If it wasn't then we'll still be getting PS2 type graphic today.

Fact is that SA can't compare to V. Past is past. V is better, on many other grounds, not just graphics.

Saying SA is better is like saying a 2000 PC is better than a 2015 PC.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Trevorchumash

[Lethal Vaccine]

Let's say that the next Games Map was fully unlocked from the start, however they did not want you Exploring it all early, How do you think there could be restrictions applied in regards to the Map?

 

Good question, but if it's unlocked from the start, there probably wouldn't be restrictions.

but today it looks like crap and plays like crap. Good god, I nearly for an eye sore when I tried playing it again after playing V.

And go ahead and call me a 'graphic whore'. It doesn't change the fact that graphics are one of the most important parts of gaming. If it wasn't then we'll still be getting PS2 type graphic today.

Fact is that SA can't compare to V. Past is past. V is better, on many other grounds, not just graphics.

 

I don't like dumb people. I really don't.

 

Now, in 2025 will GTA V look like sh*t? You better believe it. GTA V's Graphics will be what you use to wipe your ass with in 2025. Cuz guess what? Technology advances and more rapidly than you can imagine. PS2 Graphics in 2015? Um...no, cuz technology advances. PS4? It's obsolete as they are probably already working on the next Playstation. iPhone 6? Old news. The next one will be soon made. Once something hits the shelves it's outdated as the next "big thing" is being worked on.

 

V is better............................................................................Yet no explanations as to why. It just is.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Militia

[Algonquin Assassin]

I know that, honey, but fact is fact. SA was good for its time, but today it looks like crap and plays like crap. Good god, I nearly for an eye sore when I tried playing it again after playing V.

And go ahead and call me a 'graphic whore'. It doesn't change the fact that graphics are one of the most important parts of gaming. If it wasn't then we'll still be getting PS2 type graphic today.

Fact is that SA can't compare to V. Past is past. V is better, on many other grounds, not just graphics.

Saying SA is better is like saying a 2000 PC is better than a 2015 PC.

The fact you don't have the balls to dive into the gameplay elements of both games says everything.

 

You keep harping on about the graphics because that's all you have honey bun.

[SuperGTFan]

 

I know that, honey, but fact is fact. SA was good for its time, but today it looks like crap and plays like crap. Good god, I nearly for an eye sore when I tried playing it again after playing V.

And go ahead and call me a 'graphic whore'. It doesn't change the fact that graphics are one of the most important parts of gaming. If it wasn't then we'll still be getting PS2 type graphic today.

Fact is that SA can't compare to V. Past is past. V is better, on many other grounds, not just graphics.

Saying SA is better is like saying a 2000 PC is better than a 2015 PC.

The fact you don't have the balls to dive into the gameplay elements of both games says everything.

 

You keep harping on about the graphics because that's all you have honey bun.

"Graphics whore" definition:

 

(Urban Dictionary's Style)

 

Basically someone who likes the video game for the graphics, not the gameplay. Usually refuses to play older games on any console besides Newer-generation consoles.

 

Johnny: Hey, George, do you wanna play some Grand Theft Auto: Vice City?

 

George: No way! Those graphics suck ass, Grand Theft Auto 4's are better!

 

Johnny: Yeah but, Vice City kicks 4's ass.

 

George: YES BUT THE GRAPHICS ARE BETTER

 

Johnny: ...Graphics whore...

 

George: AAAREGRK135KHJKJH4JKJFHEKRHRK !!!!!!!!!

[Aerovitia]

I have a serious eye problems then, since I like to play GTR 2 and NASCAR Racing 2003 more than Project CARS and NASCAR '15.

[PhillBellic]

 

 

 

I know that, honey, but fact is fact. SA was good for its time, but today it looks like crap and plays like crap. Good god, I nearly for an eye sore when I tried playing it again after playing V.

And go ahead and call me a 'graphic whore'. It doesn't change the fact that graphics are one of the most important parts of gaming. If it wasn't then we'll still be getting PS2 type graphic today.

Fact is that SA can't compare to V. Past is past. V is better, on many other grounds, not just graphics.

Saying SA is better is like saying a 2000 PC is better than a 2015 PC.

The fact you don't have the balls to dive into the gameplay elements of both games says everything.

 

You keep harping on about the graphics because that's all you have honey bun.

"Graphics whore" definition:

 

(Urban Dictionary's Style)

 

Basically someone who likes the video game for the graphics, not the gameplay. Usually refuses to play older games on any console besides Newer-generation consoles.

 

Johnny: Hey, George, do you wanna play some Grand Theft Auto: Vice City?

 

George: No way! Those graphics suck ass, Grand Theft Auto 4's are better!

 

Johnny: Yeah but, Vice City kicks 4's ass.

 

George: YES BUT THE GRAPHICS ARE BETTER

 

Johnny: ...Graphics whore...

 

George: AAAREGRK135KHJKJH4JKJFHEKRHRK !!!!!!!!!

 

 

It's like that the Games Themes, Story, Gameplay, and Soundtrack doesn't matter at all.

[SuperGTFan]

 

 

 

 

 

I know that, honey, but fact is fact. SA was good for its time, but today it looks like crap and plays like crap. Good god, I nearly for an eye sore when I tried playing it again after playing V.

And go ahead and call me a 'graphic whore'. It doesn't change the fact that graphics are one of the most important parts of gaming. If it wasn't then we'll still be getting PS2 type graphic today.

Fact is that SA can't compare to V. Past is past. V is better, on many other grounds, not just graphics.

Saying SA is better is like saying a 2000 PC is better than a 2015 PC.

The fact you don't have the balls to dive into the gameplay elements of both games says everything.

 

You keep harping on about the graphics because that's all you have honey bun.

"Graphics whore" definition:

 

(Urban Dictionary's Style)

 

Basically someone who likes the video game for the graphics, not the gameplay. Usually refuses to play older games on any console besides Newer-generation consoles.

 

Johnny: Hey, George, do you wanna play some Grand Theft Auto: Vice City?

 

George: No way! Those graphics suck ass, Grand Theft Auto 4's are better!

 

Johnny: Yeah but, Vice City kicks 4's ass.

 

George: YES BUT THE GRAPHICS ARE BETTER

 

Johnny: ...Graphics whore...

 

George: AAAREGRK135KHJKJH4JKJFHEKRHRK !!!!!!!!!

 

 

It's like that the Games Themes, Story, Gameplay, and Soundtrack doesn't matter at all. The shame of gaming in this new age. Edited July 1, 2015 by SuperGTFan

[Osho]

SA was good for its time, but today it looks like crap and plays like crap

Guys like you keep on comparing both games on technical grounds, because you have no better things to say in defense of V other than bitch about IVs lack of activities or pick on the graphical aspects of GTA SA.

It doesn't change the fact that graphics are one of the most important parts of gaming

Its indeed a part of the experience but the gameplay counts the most important thing when it comes to replayability, otherwise you are a graphics whore, quite simply.

Fact is that SA can't compare to V.

It depends on what you are comparing and how you analyze both games.

Fact is, the concept and gameplay design are two timeless aspects of any game. Technology helps to execute the ideas but the ideas themselves come with no expiry dates. It improves further, and further along with better advances in the technology.

Its here, I feel GTA SA beats GTA V by a huge margin.

*Concept wise* GTA SA managed to offer a LOT of better ideas, activities, and things to do than V. GTA SA executed them in a much simpler form with no fancy physics, nor other gaming effects or gimmicks as seen in modern games, but otherwise the concept was solid, relevant to the theme of the series' with little bullsh*t and forgettable stuff thrown in.

On the other hand, V repeats many things from SA but those are nowhere as fleshed out ( except customization ) and interesting as seen in SA.

> For a detailed comparisons look at 'B Dawg' post in this thread!

- Triathlons are a joke

- Collectibles are just time wasters with no interesting rewards

- So many mini games, again they are just timesink activities than any fun in the long run.

- S& F and RE are one time, seen all stuff. Zero replayability.

- Limited races compared to over 20 variety of races in SA

- Lastly, a long list of stuff that did not return in V nor replaced with anything new. In fact, some things became exclusives for the Online crowd.

- No rewards for a major portion of the things you do. Even 100% completion isn't actual 100% and got half assed as well.

There's nothing else *concept wise* that V does better or executes so brilliantly that will make me coming back for more, when the same things are still executed fine in GTA SA, if not brilliantly due to limitations.

In my case, graphics don't even count as the main selling point of the game but the gameplay and how they executed the concept counts as the decisive element to consider whether a game is worth playing or not, and Vs SP clearly isn't worth playing, at all, no matter how great are the graphics. PC version of SA offers great solutions to treat games' aging issues. I still love the cartoony appearance over fancy looks that anyways didn't help to hold my interest, so what's the use of all the eye candy when the gameplay sucks??

[SuperGTFan]

Trevorchumash is just a little troll after all.

Edited July 1, 2015 by SuperGTFan

[B Dawg]

Trevorchumash is Trevor, a f*cked up individual

[Trevorchumash]

Trevorchumash is just a little troll after all.

If you can't come up with decent posts, then shut up. Don't go around insulting others.

[SuperGTFan]

 

Trevorchumash is just a little troll after all.

If you can't come up with decent posts, then shut up. Don't go around insulting others.Says the guy who insults the IV people in every V thread.

[Trevorchumash]

 

Let's say that the next Games Map was fully unlocked from the start, however they did not want you Exploring it all early, How do you think there could be restrictions applied in regards to the Map?

Good question, but if it's unlocked from the start, there probably wouldn't be restrictions.

but today it looks like crap and plays like crap. Good god, I nearly for an eye sore when I tried playing it again after playing V.And go ahead and call me a 'graphic whore'. It doesn't change the fact that graphics are one of the most important parts of gaming. If it wasn't then we'll still be getting PS2 type graphic today.

Fact is that SA can't compare to V. Past is past. V is better, on many other grounds, not just graphics.

I don't like dumb people. I really don't.

 

Now, in 2025 will GTA V look like sh*t? You better believe it. GTA V's Graphics will be what you use to wipe your ass with in 2025. Cuz guess what? Technology advances and more rapidly than you can imagine. PS2 Graphics in 2015? Um...no, cuz technology advances. PS4? It's obsolete as they are probably already working on the next Playstation. iPhone 6? Old news. The next one will be soon made. Once something hits the shelves it's outdated as the next "big thing" is being worked on.

 

V is better............................................................................Yet no explanations as to why. It just is.

GTA V will look better in 2025 compared to how SA looks in 2015. You can bet on that. It won't look like crap, it will still be easy on the eye, unlike crude graphics of SA.

 

And anyway what's your problem if I like V better? Graphics are a huge part of gaming, like it or not. Your precious SA looks dirty, face it honey.

[SuperGTFan]

Well sugar, Gameplay comes first. That's the first rule of gaming.

Edited July 1, 2015 by SuperGTFan

[PhillBellic]

Well sugar, Gameplay comes first. That's the first rule of gaming.

Exactly. For me, Graphics are a Complimentary aspect of any Game. This means that the Story, Themes, and Soundtrack rate higher for me than Graphics.

[SuperGTFan]

 

Well sugar, Gameplay comes first. That's the first rule of gaming.

Exactly. For me, Graphics are a Complimentary aspect of any Game. This means that the Story, Themes, and Soundtrack rate higher for me than Graphics. Don't forget about the Cops category. Edited July 1, 2015 by SuperGTFan

[PhillBellic]

 

 

Well sugar, Gameplay comes first. That's the first rule of gaming.

Exactly. For me, Graphics are a Complimentary aspect of any Game. This means that the Story, Themes, and Soundtrack rate higher for me than Graphics.

Don't forget about the Cops category.

 

That would be in the Gameplay Category for me.

[Luna 51]

Nevermind.

Edited July 1, 2015 by s2n vaniish

[Nah nah nah Gta 6]

GTA San andreas on PS2 looked ugly as f*ck, PC version looks better IMO.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Stoney0503

[B Dawg]

GTA has seemingly come from a game that didn't have ground-breaking graphics but more than made up for it with content and gameplay... to a game that's slipping in game-play and is now graphically amazing. I don't know what to call that? AAA-Syndrome?

[MrDeSanta]

GTA San andreas on PS2 looked ugly as f*ck, PC version looks better IMO.

It`s pretty interesting that almost every V fanboy is a graphic whore.

"V has better graphics than SA"

 

Jesus you guys are unoriginal. Is the "graphics" really the only answer you can come up with when someone asks you to define why V is so superior over SA or other 3D games? Of course it is because graphics really is pretty much the only thing that V does better than other GTA games.

Which is not so suprising if you look at the release date.

[Lethal Vaccine]

Exactly, I am playing III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS all on my PS2/3 and these are the best. I could careless of Graphics. I still play some N64 Games and even PS1 Games, too.

[Nah nah nah Gta 6]

 

GTA San andreas on PS2 looked ugly as f*ck, PC version looks better IMO.

It`s pretty interesting that almost every V fanboy is a graphic whore.

"V has better graphics than SA"

 

Well no sh*t V has better graphics, did you read my f*cking post? At all? I bet you only read "San andreas" and "looked ugly as f*ck"

 

I clearly stated here and multiple other threads that I prefer the graphics of the PC version, I never talk about the graphics that much in a GTA game but as soon as I do I get called a graphics whore, hell I didn't even compare V graphics to SA graphics.

I hate the PS2 graphics of San andreas, they look ugly, mainly because of the picture quality, the orange sky effect looked horrible and made everything darker, the PC version has much cleaner picture quality and the Blue sky effect doesn't make the entire city dark.

 

I have a bunch of reasons why I prefer V over SA, I won't list them all but if it shuts you up:

-V (and IV) has better gun sound effects, they were cancerous in SA.

-V (and IV) has better aiming controls, it felt very clunky and stiff in the PS2 version, mainly because you couldn't change the sensitivity, this wasn't a problem in the PC version.

-V has more guns, they also felt more balanced.

-V had 3 protagonists with their own personality and skills instead of trying to put it all in 1 character.

-V just has better controls overall

-V had a bigger map that wasn't rushed.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

And anyway what's your problem if I like V better?

 

 

No one has a problem if you like it more. It's just everything you're basing it off is graphics this and graphics that like it needs to made obvious SA doesn't look as good. People would respect your opinion more if it was more versatile than just focusing on both games' visuals.

[Nico]

Saying SA is better is like saying a 2000 PC is better than a 2015 PC.

Quite clever comparison, dude.

 

Quite clever.

[PhillBellic]

 

Saying SA is better is like saying a 2000 PC is better than a 2015 PC.

Quite clever comparison, dude.

 

Quite clever.

 

More like an Idiotic Comparison, if you ask me.

[Trevorchumash]

Haha, the fanbois are getting angry. Happens all the time. Like I said, saying that a 2000 mobile phone is better than a 2015 mobile phone is retarded.

 

Take off the nostalgia goggles and see which game is better.

 

V improves upon everything SA did.

 

-Graphics, duh.

-Customisation. You can even customise weapons.

-Better written story.

-Better missions.

-Better developed activities. Golf alone blows all GTA activities out the water. It's the most complex one till date.

 

-Animals. SA countryside was empty.

-Better water.

-More vehicles.

-Better characters.

-Better Online mode.

 

 

There are plenty more reasons, but this should be enough for you fanbois to see why V is a superior game.

 

Same goes for the black sheep, a.k.a. GTA IV. The sandbox game without sand.

[Osho]

Like I said, saying that a 2000 mobile phone is better than a 2015 mobile phone.

No. You said, "Saying SA is better is like saying a 2000 PC is better than a 2015 PC"

Anyways, both examples do not make much sense in case of using them as a base to prove the differences between two games, simply because, PC/mobiles are made with every day use in mind, and come with a variety of configurations, and upgrade specifics that cater to different consumer spending capacity at choosing the features that suit them best possible and from a lot of other competitive brands of the SAME product in the market.

Basically, old and outdated version gradually disappear from the market and get replaced with the better ones.

In case of games, GTA SA still sells. It won't disappear from the market. There are no different BRANDS selling different types of GTA SA/V at competitive rates and variety of features to choose the best gaming experience.

Its one BRAND; Rockstar, who sells the same game on different platforms without much differences in the concept of game and development, nor they continue spending R&D on just one setting "San Andreas" for all their future titles.

But, you will see many issues even in modern PCs with respect to drivers, software compatability, installation errors, etc no matter how great mobiles or PC run. Most importantly, PC and mobiles use different hardwares and software to execute the computing and phone tasks.

Rockstar doesn't sell hardware nor manufacture operating systems.

As Dan houser said, "The main thing is we are not... we are a third-party publisher. We're not Nintendo, we're not Sony, we're not Microsoft. We love all of them in different ways. But we can do what we want wherever there's the appropriate business opportunity and chance to find a market. If that's on Apple we put something on Apple. Wherever it might be. I think that's the fun in what we do. We see ourselves as a content company that uses technology. We don't make it; we use it to make the most fun stuff"

 

So yeah, that brings back to my previous post.

Concept is the key to Rockstars' success and development of the type of content they create.