do you think gta vice ctiy has aged badly

[LorshZontek]

in my opinon somethings have aged badly but alot of other things haven't, anyway i want to know what you think 

Edited December 20, 2018 by LorshZontek
add more to it

[Algonquin Assassin]

No. Sure some of the mechanics feel a bit limited because they've been developd further with newer games like shooting, crouching, lack of swimming etc, but on a whole for a 16 year old game it's aged like a fine wine IMO. Even the graphics have held up considering R* were hardly about graphics during the 3D era.

[mde2]

OP are you going to explain and elaborate on your own stance on this question or?

Regardless, no. I don't think it's aged badly. Mechanically it still works and is good compared to todays standards, music is timeless, graphics have that comfy poly style which I appreciate out of old games and story still works as a classic gangster narrative.

[watersgta3]

Obviously, the graphics aged poorly, but the mechanics, story, music, theme, and characters still hold up as of today.

Edited December 20, 2018 by watersgta3

[Jack Lupino]

Compared to San Andreas i have to say yes GTA VC (also III) has aged badly.

Not talking about graphics but gameplay mechanics like swimming,aiming,shooting ,climbing on ledges  etc. which is absent in both games.

But the music,the atmosphere,the content and the storyline still holds up pretty well.

 

 

 

 

[universetwisters]

The map has. Everything else, not for me.

[TheSantader25]

Nope. It hasn't. If anything SA and VC only get better as we go on because they represent older times. 

[Hmmm nice bike]

I don't think Vice City has aged badly at all. The graphics are obviously outdated by today's standards, but I think the game still holds up very well today. The controls don't feel clunky, the Miami Vice-meets-Scarface style story is memorable, and the overall 1980s feeling was captured wonderfully all throughout the game. It still feels like 1986 (and part of me wonders if the outdated graphics have sort-of aided in the vintage feeling that the game was trying to capture, giving it a new type of old feeling to it over time). Most of the voice acting was also top-notch for its time, and even the cheesier or dumber lines out of the NPCs that aren't part of the main cast were still funny and memorable.

 

Simply put, I'd rather play GTA Vice City again instead of playing something that came out later like Saints Row IV.

[Rhoda]

The thing about Vice City is it's intentionally dated. Everything from the loading screen to the music creates a snapshot of the very era that drives the game. It's deliberately old in theme. That being said, I do thing it's aged a little, but only like most games of the PlayStation 2 era have. The gameplay works great even still, it controls well and the graphics are up to snuff with what you'd expect from a game that came out in 2002. However, the game is a little lacking in the map department as has already been said. It feels like a step backwards almost.

 

For perspective, we're as close to Vice City's release as Vice City was to the release of the original Legend Of Zelda title on the Famicom. It has nothing to do with the discussion, I just thought it was a humbling thought at how far we've come.

[Sharkayy]

Nope. It still keeps up with the newer games. It's even more fun than like 99% of the new games. But yeah, imo it hasn't aged that badly.

[Ehrmantraut]

Some gameplay aspects has aged (like "you move the camera, you move the character together", and also the shooting and driving controls, compared to GTA IV and V) but overall the game hold up pretty well, the story, characters, missions, side-missions..

 It still is a enjoyable game. Same for all 3D era games.

Edited December 24, 2018 by Mafia Assassin®

[ChpokXxX]

Nope. when i got bored from bad games these days, i am going back to VC, and sometimes to III.

[FadeAway]

I've kept Vice City for 16 years in a baggie.  I got a PS2 for Christmas. When I turned it on and played it, it was exactly like how it was in 2002. It has held up well and some aspects in the older games have obviously improved since.

[leaflinks]

I only got the PC copy after the console versions simply to mod, but yes certainly it is a classic game that still is more prominent today in location and graphics compared to 3 and SA. Certainly SA is better in function.

 

I only have vc on the PC. I used to have an xbox copy, but I got rid of that years ago. I did have a PS2 copy, but I traded that away a long time ago. I do have a PS2, but that was after the last one had too much dust inside where the laser wouldn't read discs. I do have SA on the PS2, and Xbox, and PC, but don't play them much.

 

 

 

 

[Lioshenka]

I think it aged rather quickly rather badly, but then it stopped and hasn't really aged since.

 

Compared to 3 it didn't offer much of a difference - in fact it lacked some features, had smaller map, less complex handling physics. It was really was just a new map for those who got tired with 3, and it did a good job of filling that gap between 3 and SA.

 

After SA release it became obvious how low quality the map was, how bad was the handling etc - but the gameplay and the overall quality of the game made up for it. I don't think many people would say that VC was a bad game, because we are judging the product as a whole. It is still almost as enjoyable as SA, but of course if you look at each individual feature they are old and horrible.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Lioshenka

[Palacios007]

I think every game ages badly (grapichs, mechanics, etc).

[Evil empire]

Since the most recent games I've played are 10 years old I don't know if my post is relevant but I don't think GTA Vice City aged badly. Of course the graphics and animations clearly come from another time but they're still good in their vanilla shape. What's more many of the games' elements didn't age at all ; the road vehicles and helicos' handling is excellent, the radio stations offer a very good music, playing a badass character is still as enjoyable, the city is still very charming with its tropical summer holiday atmosphere, the scenario, length of life and replayability are still as good so no GTA VC didn't age badly IMO.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Evil empire

[SeanAlgerian]

I don't see problem with Rockstsr publishing VC in 2002, it's looks developed pretty fast and early after GTA III, which make the developers very happy to give a gift to their fans & support. The testers didn't test very properly which the glitches taked a sneaky way to appear to the players after repeating the game again and again all over for some Speed Runs or Chain Games to be noticed in the last moments.

 

So basically. Rockstar had the chance to publish the game worldwide in 2003, and they didn't do more patches after all....It's some a 40% of things aged badly and rest of 60% aged correctly. They used the correct chance to order the testers hard work and advantage on their test on SA, and that why SA is correct for patches and more joy than VC.

 

So take my advice, play the games only one time, if you get bored or something don't ever think playing single player mode than multiplayer. It's will just show up the bugs and glitches you never see in the game and destroy your peaceful rate of the game.

[Bryce Montrose]

I think GTA VC is still fine today, what I'm confused is why does GTA VC not have a customization clothing feature like GTA SA? even though in early 2000s WWE games already had quite high customization features

[Algonquin Assassin]

6 hours ago, Bryce Montrose said:

I think GTA VC is still fine today, what I'm confused is why does GTA VC not have a customization clothing feature like GTA SA? even though in early 2000s WWE games already had quite high customization features

I like the way Vice City handles clothing. San Andreas is a pain in the arse with that slow as f*ck wardrobe animation. I played it the other week and wanted to pull my hair out because of how bloody long it took to dress up CJ in a complete outfit. With Vice City you just walk into the icon and away you go.

 

It's simple and easy.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Miamivicecity said:

San Andreas is a pain in the arse with that slow as f*ck wardrobe animation.

I almost fell asleep on how long CJ takes to change his goddamn clothes. You go to the marker, you select which clothing you want, wait about 4 seconds for him to come out, takes 3 seconds for him to complete his getting out animation, you select it, and he takes ANOTHER 3 seconds to go back in his wardrobe. Which makes me think, what if you pick a clothing option on accident? Then you will have to wait for him to complete his slow animation and de-select his clothing. It is, in my opinion, one of the biggest flaws in San Andreas.

 

OT: No, Vice City hasn't aged badly. The graphics, animations, story, gameplay, even the soundtrack still holds up til this day. Did I forget to mention that this game was made in less than a year? Which still amazes me on how good this game turned out. Usually when games are rushed like that, (rushed is kind of a bad term to use), it turns out to be sh*t. Take Dead Rising 4 for example. But some of the mechanics are outdated, and the map is going to look too small if you try to play it today.

[Bryce Montrose]

8 hours ago, Miamivicecity said:

I like the way Vice City handles clothing. San Andreas is a pain in the arse with that slow as f*ck wardrobe animation. I played it the other week and wanted to pull my hair out because of how bloody long it took to dress up CJ in a complete outfit. With Vice City you just walk into the icon and away you go.

 

It's simple and easy.

You're right, I hate the wardrobe animation, it's too long, suddenly I become sleepy when changing CJ's clothes, from what I realized for a long time, almost all the clothes in GTA SA seemed worn, even the pedestrians clothes look better, that's why I love to download new clothes mods for CJ, I admit that the customization clothing in GTA SA is the best in the series, but this is also the worst because almost all the clothes in GTA SA seemed worn, Mr. Vercetti suit from VC was far better than any CJ's suit in GTA SA

[Striker02]

Apart the atmosphere and OST, i don't see how GTA Vice City aged well.

[Sunglasses]

As a guy who prefers GTA III, I think VC has aged better mechanically. Aesthetically, it is intentionally made to be dated because it is reflecting the 1980s, but I suppose the general graphics are dated - but that'll just be the case for a lot of games who will soon be approaching the 20 year old mark.

 

[GhettoJesus]

Not really. My only complaint is that the map feels small after you have played the game for so long but hey, they had a year to make it so I gotta let it slide. It still holds up.

[MyNameIsNotImportantBro]

Too much San Andreas 

[The BHD]

I think not but Idk how young people feel about the game. It has basic gameplay mechanics that have been an absolute requirement for years, like a good save game system (which is why I would say GTA 1 has aged badly for not having it, and GTA 2 for using that different saving method). The graphics look old and it's one of those games that can't be made to look realistic more closely to today's standards (as opposed to other old games like NFS Most Wanted) but they still look aesthetic despite being low poly. It's still playable on new computers with just small changes and still has a lot of people discussing it so I think it aged well. The trend of 80's nostalgia probably brought attention to it again and I didn't hear or read anything negative about the game when discussing it these last few years with different people, even people who started playing it again lately, but these were all 25+ year olds so Idk if younger people like Vice City.

Edited May 12, 2020 by No.