Which is better? GTA V or San Andreas

[CH328]

I have seen this fight between so many of you on this forum for a while now. So time to vote.

Here is why I chose GTA V and didn't choose GTA San Andreas:

 

- GTA V can't even be compared to SA in many cases. They are years apart.

- Graphics, duh.

- One city, yes I said one city. I'll take a highly detailed beautiful city than a 3D one any day

- Three characters, I mean c'mon! It's a first for GTA but such an awesome feature

- An amazing parody of the city I live in, and the 21 century.

 

I didn't choose GTA SA because:

- Graphics, duh.

- Although a stepping stone that made GTA V possible, it's outdated now and let it rest in peace.

- Three cities that were not even close to detailing life in them. But that's ok because it's an old game.

- GTA SA was one of my favorite titles of the franchise, I bash it because it's old. Not because it wasn't fun!

 

Tell me why you voted for the game you did. I apologize if this thread has already been done, I don't read through every page on this forum. Shoot me.

Edited December 10, 2014 by CH328

[matajuegos01]

GTA SA even though doesn't have the best graphics nor the biggest map it feels more complete, each area has a meaning within the story, not to mention the useful weapons that we may find, every city feels unique and the myths that arose from it are very interesting, and kept us playing over and over again.

Edited December 10, 2014 by matajuegos01

[Frito-Man]

I never liked SA

[I was a Junk]

Except for setting I pretty much prefer everything about san andreas to Gta 5 for some reason(also you can't blame it on nostalgia due to the fact that I just started playing san andreas about a year ago).

[CH328]

GTA SA even though doesn't have the best graphics nor the biggest map it feels more complete, each area has a meaning within the story, not to mention the useful weapons that we may find, every city feels unique and the myths that arose from it are very interesting, and kept us playing over and over again.

 

I'm going to agree with you on this even though I chose GTA V. In ways it does feel complete in areas that GTA V does not, and damn the myths are amazing and still live on.

[American Viking]

I chose San Andreas. Here was a GTA game, like so many before it, that had a fun factor that is severely lacking in GTA V. Let me put it this way: I had more fun flying the jetpack and stealing the "green goo" in SA than I did with any heist in GTA V, and that's saying something since the heist were a major selling point of the game. San Andreas just did everything better. The characters were more interesting and I connected to them better. Take Big Smoke for example: I was actually shocked and angry when he betrayed CJ and Grove St. and became the secondary antagonist. I never saw it coming, whereas on GTA V, I kind of figured that Trevor would discover what happened to Brad, it was merely a matter of time and they still beat around the bush the entire game.

 

When it comes to the setting, SA takes it there as well. Each city (Los Santos, Las Venturas, San Fierro) felt unique and had it's own vibe. The little towns and desolate places in the game gave off an eery feeling of seclusion. You try walking through the woods at dark and you'll see. You'll really start to question those Bigfoot myths. In GTA V, Los Santos had a bit of a different vibe than Blaine County, but not so much where I felt I was away from civilization. The country folks and rednecks driving around in golf carts was a nice touch though. The forest in GTA V was laughable. It's a little better on next gen bc now grass and bushes have textures and lifelike qualities, but hardly enough for that abysmal hunting mini game which brings me to my next point...

 

Minigames and side activities. San Andreas had pool, weightlifting, cardio training, martial arts, dancing, lowrider challenges, casino games, arcade games, basketball, robberies, import/export vehicles, driving school, flight school, Beat the Cock (basically a triathlon with a chicken in it), etc. I'm probably missing a few. GTA V on the other hand blessed us with yoga (which I actually enjoy although it's rather pointless since the benefit is minimal and his form never gets better), golf, darts (in one location!), parachuting, and a few others. Needless to say San Andreas definitely had the mini games and side activities down.

 

I'm grateful that they brought customization back in GTA 5 but it's dismissible when compared to San Andreas. For one thing, the tattoos look like they were drawn on with a sharpy which should not be the case in an HD era game. In San Andreas that was okay bc the characters and the world were cartoony looking anyway. Why is it that Franklin has over 15 hairstyles to choose from while the other two only have a few. I never understood that. Half of Franklin's hairstyles look like R* just wanted to draw on his head. What really sets SA apart from V in the customization department is the body modifications. Gaining fat, muscle, or not eating and being a stick and all of this effected the world around CJ. Some of his gfs were chubby chasers, for example.

 

Anyway, I don't want to write a blow by blow of every detail so I can pretty much sum this up by saying the only thing GTA 5 does better than San Andreas is graphics and realism, both of which are expected given the tech.

Edited December 11, 2014 by American Alpha

[PhillBellic]

SA wins for me. Additionally I'd be more likely to play SA than V. V disappointed me to be honest.

[Son of Zeus]

I doubt if 10 years later people will think about V and say 'Damn man that mission was f*cking annoying!' or 'Man we had tons of fun, oh man that nostalgia....'

 

Seriously doubt it.

[PhillBellic]

I doubt if 10 years later people will think about V and say 'Damn man that mission was f*cking annoying!' or 'Man we had tons of fun, oh man that nostalgia....'

 

Seriously doubt it.

True. I doubt that V will have that same impact on my life as was the case with IV. At the moment V is the only GTA game that I just cannot go back to.

[Osho]

Like Son of Zeus pretty much nailed it. I'll always hold GTA SA in high regard as it easily gives me a strong nostalgic and great memories of everything that made SA such an awesome game, whenever it comes to mind.

GTA V does improve the classic GTA SA in some ways, but that can be considered largely important due to the developments made on technical grounds. It is severely lacking on the grounds of the kind of exciting, fun filled ride, which left an impact on the player in a way that consumed countless hours of GTA SA after release.

In fact, GTA V makes me question where Rockstars' priorities are actually when they gave the players an incomplete and limited sand-box experience unlike the incredibly well done GTA SA. It felt more like saying the fans that wanted another great and robust single-player experience, to kindly adapt to the changed direction by taking your time grinding online and enjoy being with the new baby called GTA:O.

How can I give a warm welcome to GTA:O with open arms when I had the years of joy of being able to play GTA as a single-player?

GTA V is completely devoid of the many great single-player experiences of the past.

GTA SA was a much more single-player focused game than GTA V.

That's all there's to it.

[Tikhung]

San Andreas. Despite how hard I've been on it over the years credit is given where it's due. Looking back I thought it was more impressive for its time than GTA V is.

 

This. At least San Andreas didn't have a "omg swag yolo xD" ending despite it's one of the most ridiculous GTA's.

[Loc14]

 

I doubt if 10 years later people will think about V and say 'Damn man that mission was f*cking annoying!' or 'Man we had tons of fun, oh man that nostalgia....'

 

Seriously doubt it.

True. I doubt that V will have that same impact on my life as was the case with IV. At the moment V is the only GTA game that I just cannot go back to.

 

The topic is about SA vs V, where in the hell did you see IV? You people will do anything to sneak IV into a discussion.

And i'm pretty sure he was referring to that "all you had to do was follow the damn train" mission as beign annoying.

 

For me SA and V are both awesome and way better than IV where all i did was finish the story and never will have a reason to play it again.

[AnDReJ98]

SA. I already stated why before.

[r3h4n786]

Id say SA too, the hobbies you can do there are just awesome, id take gang wars and very long races through cities, destruction derby events over yoga, racing on small circuits, golf etc anyday. You could also store the many cars we loved in the garages, here its too limited unfortunately, GTA V does alot of things better than SA definitely, but not everything. Perhaps on PC it would be closer cos even today I give all gangs different weapons (GSF get miniguns, obviously ), do gang members everywhere cheat and let battles

 

Graphically GTA V is obviously gonna be better since they're about 10 years apart, but thats do to with consoles at that time so not including that in my opinion

Edited December 10, 2014 by r3h4n786

[CarnageRacing00]

V is a much better game IMO. Maybe it lacks some of the finer customization option ms, but I really don't care. I enjoyed it more than any GTA before it and will continue to do so.

[Mister Pink]

I think San Andreas was more revolutionary at the time than V is now. First, I'd like to blame myself. Maybe my interest in GTA just peaked around the time of SA. Maybe SA came out when I was in the height of the honeymoon phase of my fondness for the series. I hate to be negative when talking about GTA's especially when some things come down to personal taste. All GTA's are essentially better than most games in terms of ambition, scope and re-playability but I have to say San Andreas was more exciting for me at the time than V is now. I'm not being nostalgic either.. I knew at the time that I loved this game.. it was always going to be hard to top it. That's why IV didn't favour well with me at the time even though I still loved it. The change was too dramatic for me. You'd think V would then revive me love? No.

 

Maybe I'm just being critical... but with GTA, I feel like I'm chasing the dragon. Chasing a high that San Andreas gave me. At times I get shimmering feelings of what I felt when playing San Andreas... when I see a beautiful sunset between the valley and the right song is on the radio. I think Vice City and San Andreas were just too perfect for me at the time. Anything different is not going to compete as well.

 

The 3 characters concept was interesting for me but now I've played the story twice and had all my fun, I really don't think it's anything special. Kudos for Rockstar for experimenting with this function but I feel the 3 characters' approach diluted the story. Something was sacrificed. What I liked about IV and EFLC with the fact that you play as the character and then you see the other playable characters in the cut-scene.. that works better for me.. I like the fact that the 3 characters paths crossed but I like the distance as well. I don't need to play with all 3 of them at the same time.

 

Another "flaw" symptom of playing with a guy who's earned his money before we even get to play with him (Michael) is that it takes any sense of achievement out of the game. I was excited for Michaels story but having an annoying family issues with an adulterous wife, a slutty daughter and a layabout kid does not really translate in to fun gaming for me. Yes, it works in TV and film as we passively watch but in a game where I want to feel like a boss, I doesn't really work for me. Am I the only one who feels this way? I don't know why I was cool with it in San Andreas.. I suppose I had nothing to begin (cash/clothes-wise) with and I wanted to prove to my brother I was back and working on my game and resurrecting the Grove St Familes.

 

For me V seemed a little formulaic or contrived to suit fans.. I know... a developer wanting to please fans?! What I mean is, I believe or at least it seems to me that they took this idea (heists) because everyone was banging on about how much they enjoyed 3-Leafed Clover. Lets make that the main theme of gameplay.. "the pursuit of the all-mighty dollar" with 6 main heists. But sure we never seen any of the cash til the end of the game practically. With this tag Meta made a cool topic of ideas about developing some economic system within the game to make it interesting but we didn't even have our beloved property purchases. Maybe they don't fit in well with a game like V but it sure would have been fun. Maybe if the game had more cities and a journey-story like SA, it would make sense to have safehouses across the map. And the 3 characters is like Rockstar trying to please all the fans with something for everyone. We'll have Michael for the older gamers that grew up with GTA.. Franklin for the young-uns and Trevor for the rampage heads. I'm probably just being very cycnical and I'm probably waaay off but it was just a thought.

 

Also, Franklin's story was a re-hashed story of Luis Lopez's. Young hood type tries to leave the hood and go in to bigger business but his old homies keeping him back. White crime is the way to go, heists on banks and union depositories - none of that black rap-crap crime. Sigh

 

Some of the features seemed tacked on at the end... Some amazing additions like the stock-market.. they were interesting... The details...amazing. You can really see the amount of love, sweat, polishing, detail that goes in to GTA V but the story (which sort of dictates a lot of the gameplay features and theme) lacks.

 

I don't want to play as Michael, a guy who betrayed his friends, went in to the WPP.. I couldn't identify with him or I guess I didn't want to identify with him - a middle-aged bored shell of a man that sold his soul. He already has the mansion and the wife and kids... where's the hunger? Oh wait, no we just got fix a problem that involved our protag being a sly scumbag and now it's coming back to haunt him.

 

Franklin - gets a "mansion"/swank house for free practically early on. So now we have two characters with mansions and you're just like... OK... I don't feel like any of this is because of me (THE GAMER) making the right choices or doing some cool money making etc in the game.

 

 

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?

 

Again, 3 cities did it for me. Also as someone mentioned, the story took you around the map. First I'm in Los Santos, then I'm exiled to the Badlands, then business/The Truth takes me to San Fierro then to the desert and Las Venturas, only for the game to conclude again in Los Santos. Each part of the map felt like my characters home even if temporarily because the story made me have real history there. I loved doing that circular motion around the map and it only being unlocked as you progress through the story.

 

I'd even be a fan of having the map locked off again like all previous GTA that used that. It even forced the casual gamers to progress through a good story that they may have once ignored.

 

San Andreas, for me gave me that amazing sense of rags to riches of a long time. I started off with nothing. I used to drive by a see a buyable property... I'd go "damn...I want that place.." but I can't afford it. I'm gonna do some taxi-missions, kill some street dealers... I gonna work (have fun) and then I'll buy that place. Buy the property and if you had some left over cash you could kit out a car for the garage. Also I did the tags at the start giving me a constant supply of weapons at my house. I see it as payment for doing my bit for the family for tagging up turf all-city.

 

As the story progressed, I used to love gambling at the casino. It gave that feeling of danger and an acute awareness that I could easily lose all my money AND get in debt. I think San Andreas is more "pursuit of the almighty dollar" than V ever was. V's tagline should be more like "middle-aged white-guy problems with depressing amounts a big baby bickering."

 

I'd even be a fan of having the map locked off again like all previous GTA that used that. It even forced the casual gamers to progress through a good story that they may have once ignored.

 

 

So, for me, it's got to be SA.

Stronger theme and sense of identity

Greater gameplay, side missions, freedom (haircuts, clothes, combat and body modification)

Map utilised or designed better (almost like it was made with the story in mind or they made the story to fit the map.)

 

All in all, I'm lucky to be comparing two great games. It's like which gold is better? This gold or that gold?

Edited December 10, 2014 by Mister Pink

[Algonquin Assassin]

Mister Pink makes another quality post.

[Mister Pink]

Mister Pink makes another quality post.

 

Ah gee thanks, homie.

[Kuai Liang]

Groove street forever!!!

[Ducard]

@Pink:

 

I enjoyed your post but you missed the point of Michael's character. He is actually unique compared to the other protags. Rockstar intentionally wrote his character to be a bickering, depressed and hypocrite hitman. His character actually does show negative traits to a big extent while other protags don't.

 

Another thing is, he is already rich. That is another unique trait. Claude had to start from scratch after escaping a prison convoy, Tommy had to start from scratch after being released, CJ and Niko also had to start from scratch. Yes. it is not rewarding but it is unique for a GTA protag.

 

Does his hypocrisy and wealth make him a mediocre character? No. He is a really good protag in my eyes because of his negative traits. I actually like that he isn't perfect. He is a true professional. He is also similar to Niko. Both like their families despite their annoyances, both are hypocrites, both are professionals and both are depressed. I actually like to think that Michael is the rich version of Niko, and almost the character Niko would have been if Roman had actually made 'The American Dream.'

Edited December 10, 2014 by Ducard

[MrDeSanta]

It`s already been said in another thread that this comparison is totaly meaningless.

 

In short, SA did some things better in 2004 than V in 2013 but it doesn`t even come close to V. The main reason for SA`s succes is all the new features and it`s diverse map that brought after restricted 3 and VC. Who wasn`t happy when the map suddenly had a huge countryside and 3 cities instead of only one. Who wasn`t happy that you could modd your cars and your look all the sudden? Those features gave SA that unique feeling of open world freedom and that feeling was so unique and unforgetable.

Of course V has all that plus many more but still can`t beat SA`s unique originality back in 2004.

 

That feeling added that extra plus to SA`s map.

[RedDagger]

It`s already been said in another thread that this comparison is totaly meaningless.

Except it was also said in the other thread that you can't just throw away the comparison because you think it's an obvious choice.

 

Lots of people directly prefer SA, even taking into account the technical differences between the games. Since that's not an uncommon opinion, the comparison can be made.

 

Anyway, personally the aiming/shooting in SA made it a lot worse for me - it made lots of parts just not as fun. V has its mechanics down fairly well, although I'm in the camp of 'easier driving isn't more fun', but apart from that, V wins it for me.

[Raiden1018]

Well you cant compare graphics, even though graphics doesnt automatically equal great game. Thats R*s new philosophy: graphics> fun R*s old philosophy: Fun > graphics.

 

As evidenced by f*cking yoga tennis, movie theatres and all that other boring sh*t. Half assed hunting thats barely useful, and completely irrelevant mountains. Whereas to SA, tons of activities that were actually fun and relevant and some challenging, every location serves a purpose and has a different vibe, and how R* used limited tech as an advantage ( small draw distance made the world feel HUGE! well that + the scope of it)

 

*sheds solitary tear* This..*sniff*..sh*t RIGHT HERE!

[RedDagger]

As evidenced by f*cking yoga tennis, movie theatres and all that other boring sh*t. Half assed hunting thats barely useful, and completely irrelevant mountains. Whereas to SA, tons of activities that were actually fun and relevant and some challenging...

Yes, V has a nice selection of activities that it could do without (yoga, triathlon) but plenty of people enjoy the tennis, golf, darts and liked the movies. It would be nice if you said the activities in SA to compare - what, the many gym activities which are just button mashing for a few minutes? Challenging?

every location serves a purpose and has a different vibe, and how R* used limited tech as an advantage ( small draw distance made the world feel HUGE! well that + the scope of it)

I'd say it'd be more accurate that they took advantage of the small draw distance that they had, not specifically explicitly saying 'hey, we should have low draw distance for x and y!'.

 

Though yeah, it definitely hit for having all the locations have a different vibe - the non-city areas were done wonderfully. Meanwhile, in GTA V, we have lots of mountains taking up what could've been used far better. It's still pretty diverse (even different parts of the city feel distinctly different), just the mountains are boring filler that we could really do without.

[Raiden1018]

 

As evidenced by f*cking yoga tennis, movie theatres and all that other boring sh*t. Half assed hunting thats barely useful, and completely irrelevant mountains. Whereas to SA, tons of activities that were actually fun and relevant and some challenging...

Yes, V has a nice selection of activities that it could do without (yoga, triathlon) but plenty of people enjoy the tennis, golf, darts and liked the movies. It would be nice if you said the activities in SA to compare - what, the many gym activities which are just button mashing for a few minutes? Challenging?

every location serves a purpose and has a different vibe, and how R* used limited tech as an advantage ( small draw distance made the world feel HUGE! well that + the scope of it)

I'd say it'd be more accurate that they took advantage of the small draw distance that they had, not specifically explicitly saying 'hey, we should have low draw distance for x and y!'.

 

Though yeah, it definitely hit for having all the locations have a different vibe - the non-city areas were done wonderfully. Meanwhile, in GTA V, we have lots of mountains taking up what could've been used far better. It's still pretty diverse (even different parts of the city feel distinctly different), just the mountains are boring filler that we could really do without.

 

Weak argument. "Many people love movies darts and tennis!" Who? No body play them in GTAO and theyre boring as sh*t. And that whole button mashing thing that you brought up just shows how wrong you are. Its not just button mashing and theres a result and reward for completing them. Getting built af. And the draw distance sh*t, I never said they deliberately lowered it. Thats just your up-n-arms ignorance. Im saying R* had priorities that were extremely ambitious and they were thinking fun first. And they used the low draw distance to make the world feel huge. With ACTUAL different places and not just irrelevant mountains and a ,so called, dessert. and a huge pointless sea

 

EDIT: And whats so challenging and fun about tennis and golf? LOL. I think the sims may be the game for you or kinect sports. And watching the 3 sh*tty cringeworthy movies? You're really throwing a jab at yourself by saying yoga, tennis, golf, movies, darts > working out, basketball, gang control, gambling, house robberies

Edited December 10, 2014 by Raiden1018

[Drunken Cowboy]

San Andreas.

It never gets up its own ass.

"Here we're having you break into a government facility where you can wear your underwear and Groucho glasses. How do you like that?!"

"Here we have you agreeing to rob a casino for no reason with night vision and roof parachuting. How do you like that?!"

 

Where as in GTA V

"Here's some deliberate torture controversy to get people talking about the game but OH MAN THE PREACHY MESSAGES TORTURE IS BAD MKAY"

"Here we see a raging cannibal rapist badass drug addict wipe out a biker gang because they all use drugs and DRUGS ARE BAD MKAY!"

"Here we see Michael and Trevor having some really deep exchange before and after running Lazlow off the road in his stupid hybrid for no reason."

 

Neither of these games were really "GTA" games to me by my definition, but at least I had fun in San Andreas far more consistently than in GTA V, not to mention it seemed a lot more revolutionary for its time. The only reason GTA V still has some momentum are because of its two separate re-releases. Like any triple A title, the triple A review companies are suckered onto its ass upon launch and so is the tasteless squealer and casual consumer base. I definitely can't foresee GTA V being anywhere near as remembered as San Andreas in ten years.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Drunken Cowboy

[Flesh-n-Bone]

Like most here, I'll go with San Andreas. And unlike a lot of you, I didn't even feel disappointed by V. It's just that no other game will ever capture the great feeling of playing SA for me. Everything about that game is just awesome to me and I love it. Great soundtrack, setting, missions, map, customization options, characters and I loved the story too. V perfected what was missing with IV when they made the transition to PS3/X360 (except cops are too annoying and it takes too long for the wanted level to go away) but it also failed on other levels like not using the map for more city instead of wasting so much on countryside and deserts as well as flawed storyline with a rushed and not so well thought out ending. It is lots of fun for what it is and I enjoy some of the new side activities like hunting but nothing will recapture the magic of SA for me. I look at SA how most of VC fanboys from way back in 2002 look at it. My nostalgic "home" is the west coast in the early 90s with all the great golden age rap music and gangs.

[Mister Pink]

@Pink:

 

I enjoyed your post but you missed the point of Michael's character. He is actually unique compared to the other protags. Rockstar intentionally wrote his character to be a bickering, depressed and hypocrite hitman. His character actually does show negative traits to a big extent while other protags don't.

 

Another thing is, he is already rich. That is another unique trait. Claude had to start from scratch after escaping a prison convoy, Tommy had to start from scratch after being released, CJ and Niko also had to start from scratch. Yes. it is not rewarding but it is unique for a GTA protag.

 

Does his hypocrisy and wealth make him a mediocre character? No. He is a really good protag in my eyes because of his negative traits. I actually like that he isn't perfect. He is a true professional. He is also similar to Niko. Both like their families despite their annoyances, both are hypocrites, both are professionals and both are depressed. I actually like to think that Michael is the rich version of Niko, and almost the character Niko would have been if Roman had actually made 'The American Dream.'

 

Thanks for your response.

 

I totally understand the intention of Rockstar to make this guy like that. That's the problem. His story/life doesn't make well for my gameplay in a GTA. I don't dislike Michael as a character so much as I dislike hearing his ungrateful brat kids... the depressing tone and nature of his life. It's an interesting idea but I find it hard for him to be likeable in a Vercetti, Lopez or Johnson kind of way. The self-pity, the self-involvement, blame-everyone-else attitude Michael has is a little nauseating. I get that he's a human, he has flaws but those flaws don't make me want to identify with him. If he was a non-playable character and just a mission-giver, then I could get with it... some over-the-hill has-been in the WPP that f*cked over he mates to go live with his adulterous ex-stripper wife that lives in the hills that schools you on some heists... yeah.. OK. But having to play that guy... BE that guy in a game... nah. He even becomes a Hollywood prouducer perpetuation sh*t Hollywood/Vinewood films. He just isn't a guy I want to be. Not that I need to want to be like a GTA character but if I'm to go on the journey and to be sucked in to the fantasy of it all, I'd really like to like the person, even for his faults. I like his look and a lot of his clothes so I play as him a lot wearing the Jewellery heist outfit with the leather gloves. I love that but we're restricted to only a few haircuts and an extremely big beard to stubble. The options are bad customization.

 

One element I did enjoy was Michaels delving in to cults. This might be something someone would do in times of despair. But I disliked when Michael rescues his laughter from Fame or Shame... I think that sort of reality TV show was too easy and obvious a target. Instead of going "whoah, Rockstar are satirizing and mocking contest shows like Pop Idol and X Has Talent!" I was feeling more... "meh, now we have these annoying pop references in GTA.." It's like people that go on about a certain male Canadian pop singer. I believe I hear more from people talking sh*te about him that I do if they weren't talking sh*te about them. I think Rockstar were almost close to having a Canadian pop singer which would annoy me.. again, easy target... let it die. Know what I mean? Like... even if you are slagging a certain show or person that's genuinely bad you are sort of perpetuating their existence in the forefront of our minds. Maybe some satire on some less obvious things would be welcome. It would sort of give that Easter egg feel when you get who the joke is on. The humour which has generally been satire is sort of becoming commercial.. Fame Or Shame/Weazel News etc but I suppose that's what comes with a modern day set GTA in LA.

 

I've gone waaay off. I apologize.

 

To add, of course you can compare the two games... Both made by Rockstar, 2 games from the same series even set in the same state. Wow. You just have to think about it in relative terms. Yes one game was 10 years ago and one game is now.. Is V as good now as San Andreas was back then?

 

Someone mentioned lack of activities in V compared to SA. Yes, this irked me a little too. But this is because of GTAOnline. Why make so many side activities? Just go online. You see, I don't like that. I liked the many many side activities in SA.

 

I'll list a few for those who forget.

Vigilante Missions

Paramedic Missions

Firetruck Missions

Pimping Missions

Stadium Challenges (8-track, Blood-Bowl, Dirt Track, Kick Start)

Gym - also builds your strength and stamina and you can learn new combos (more than just button mashing)

Driving School

Boat School

Safe House Purchasing

BMX Challenge

NRG Challenge

Chilliad Challenge

Truck Courier Challenge

BMX Courier Challenge

Pool

 

They're just some of the side-missions and activities that are in SA and not in V.

 

Anyway, for all the negative I say about a GTA V there's usually twice as much more positives. But it's not as fun discussing all that's great and it doesn't make well for debate. I'm grateful for GTA V. I'm sure others enjoy it more than me but I when Rockstar do it well they do it great.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Mister Pink

[DaWiesel]

Voted for V because of following reasons:

 

- graphics and physics of course

- better storyline

- more car customization

- better map with a decent sized LS

- more vehicles

- Trevor

etc.

 

But SA has some things that V's hasn't like more side missions, more characters and three cities.

[MrDeSanta]

Little offtopic but I just pluged my SA/PS2 on 1080p and wow it looks like complete crap, it is literally unplayable.

But once i`ve repluged it back on 25 old CRTV it looked decent again.

 

Perhaps because it`s not made for HD it looks even worse?

 

I was wonder how SA looks on PS3 remake? Anyone played it?