Which is better? GTA V or San Andreas

[American Viking]

 

GTA: San Andreas was the last of the 3D era games, and because of that it will always have that nostalgic feeling of "this is what GTA is about." Personally, GTA IV is my favorite and I feel it's an authentic GTA but many people don't, and many more people think that GTA V barely resembles GTA and is heading in Saints Row territory. I agree. When ever I play GTA V, I feel like I'm playing a big, beautiful open world game but it doesn't feel like GTA to me, not with superpowers and limitations.

 

San Andreas will always be better then V, and I don't care how many updates Rockstar releases, they cannot fix the game's deep flaws by shoving shiny new cars down our throats. A few things about San Andreas, I really liked the body customization that we could give CJ. There was a wide variety of hairstyles, tattoos, and the ability to change his physique depending on eating habits and exercise habits, something that I think needs to be brought back. From a character and story standpoint, it is by no means a RDR or GTA IV but it still puts GTA V to shame. Many of the characters/personalities in the game were memorable and interesting, the story takes us around the map from a ghetto to small towns, deserts, to a stake in a casino on the strip, can't beat that. They game also had real antagonist...you know, the people who're supposed to drive you insane and put you through hell the entire game so at the end you get satisfaction from killing them, yeah them guys. As for the map, it wasn't massive by any means but it felt massive and ultimately that's what counts. Desert felt like a desert, woods like woods, and cities like cities. In closing, San Andreas was the real deal of the 3D universe.

Technically, Vice City Stories was the last of the 3D Era games, however I do wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your post.

 

I meant out of the main games. Thanks.

[PhillBellic]

 

 

 

GTA: San Andreas was the last of the 3D era games, and because of that it will always have that nostalgic feeling of "this is what GTA is about." Personally, GTA IV is my favorite and I feel it's an authentic GTA but many people don't, and many more people think that GTA V barely resembles GTA and is heading in Saints Row territory. I agree. When ever I play GTA V, I feel like I'm playing a big, beautiful open world game but it doesn't feel like GTA to me, not with superpowers and limitations.

 

San Andreas will always be better then V, and I don't care how many updates Rockstar releases, they cannot fix the game's deep flaws by shoving shiny new cars down our throats. A few things about San Andreas, I really liked the body customization that we could give CJ. There was a wide variety of hairstyles, tattoos, and the ability to change his physique depending on eating habits and exercise habits, something that I think needs to be brought back. From a character and story standpoint, it is by no means a RDR or GTA IV but it still puts GTA V to shame. Many of the characters/personalities in the game were memorable and interesting, the story takes us around the map from a ghetto to small towns, deserts, to a stake in a casino on the strip, can't beat that. They game also had real antagonist...you know, the people who're supposed to drive you insane and put you through hell the entire game so at the end you get satisfaction from killing them, yeah them guys. As for the map, it wasn't massive by any means but it felt massive and ultimately that's what counts. Desert felt like a desert, woods like woods, and cities like cities. In closing, San Andreas was the real deal of the 3D universe.

Technically, Vice City Stories was the last of the 3D Era games, however I do wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your post.

 

 

I meant out of the main games. Thanks.

 

Fair enough, Alpha.

[Mintal]

GTA: San Andreas was the last of the 3D era games, and because of that it will always have that nostalgic feeling of "this is what GTA is about." Personally, GTA IV is my favorite and I feel it's an authentic GTA but many people don't, and many more people think that GTA V barely resembles GTA and is heading in Saints Row territory. I agree. When ever I play GTA V, I feel like I'm playing a big, beautiful open world game but it doesn't feel like GTA to me, not with superpowers and limitations.

 

San Andreas will always be better then V, and I don't care how many updates Rockstar releases, they cannot fix the game's deep flaws by shoving shiny new cars down our throats. A few things about San Andreas, I really liked the body customization that we could give CJ. There was a wide variety of hairstyles, tattoos, and the ability to change his physique depending on eating habits and exercise habits, something that I think needs to be brought back. From a character and story standpoint, it is by no means a RDR or GTA IV but it still puts GTA V to shame. Many of the characters/personalities in the game were memorable and interesting, the story takes us around the map from a ghetto to small towns, deserts, to a stake in a casino on the strip, can't beat that. They game also had real antagonist...you know, the people who're supposed to drive you insane and put you through hell the entire game so at the end you get satisfaction from killing them, yeah them guys. As for the map, it wasn't massive by any means but it felt massive and ultimately that's what counts. Desert felt like a desert, woods like woods, and cities like cities. In closing, San Andreas was the real deal of the 3D universe.

 

That's exactly my opinion. Of course GTA V was never meant to be a SA 2.0. But people - including me - keep comparing these games. For a reason: R* missed the opportunity to create a game that's far superior than San Andreas in every aspect. They hyped the game, the map, the setting, everything, and we joined the hype train. All in all GTA V is far from being a bad game, but it fails in terms of being something special, something that is unforgettable.

 

I marked one sentence in your post. I fully agree with your map opinion. While SA isn't nearly as massive as GTA V, it actually feels bigger and that's what counts for me when I'm playing the game. Angel Pine may technically be close to San Fierro and Los Santos, but it feels "cut off from civilization", there are tons of those areas in Back O' Beyond, Shady Creek, Red County, Bone County, etc.

 

I absolutely love the tricks R* used to make the map feel bigger than it is. It's fun to me, and that's all that matters.

 

GTA V is very big, but technically the map focusses on a very, very small area of San Andreas. Half of the map is Los Santos and those Vinewood Hills. As I remember GTA V's map was meant to represent a re-imagined Southern California, yet it's more like Los Santos and some industrial surroundings. No real countryside feeling at all (in my opinion). Old School San Andreas had that countryside vibe, that "beeing in a state" feeling, although it was technically smaller. GTA V doesn't feel like a state to me, more like Los Santos and industrial outskirts.

 

The map is one of those things I think R* could have done miles better easily. Wasted potential in many aspects, the game feels rushed overall.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Mintal

[Shadowfennekin]

I enjoyed SA. But V is more fun to me, played the story a lot more than past GTAs and introduced the first MP I fell in love with.

[PhillBellic]

 

GTA: San Andreas was the last of the 3D era games, and because of that it will always have that nostalgic feeling of "this is what GTA is about." Personally, GTA IV is my favorite and I feel it's an authentic GTA but many people don't, and many more people think that GTA V barely resembles GTA and is heading in Saints Row territory. I agree. When ever I play GTA V, I feel like I'm playing a big, beautiful open world game but it doesn't feel like GTA to me, not with superpowers and limitations.

 

San Andreas will always be better then V, and I don't care how many updates Rockstar releases, they cannot fix the game's deep flaws by shoving shiny new cars down our throats. A few things about San Andreas, I really liked the body customization that we could give CJ. There was a wide variety of hairstyles, tattoos, and the ability to change his physique depending on eating habits and exercise habits, something that I think needs to be brought back. From a character and story standpoint, it is by no means a RDR or GTA IV but it still puts GTA V to shame. Many of the characters/personalities in the game were memorable and interesting, the story takes us around the map from a ghetto to small towns, deserts, to a stake in a casino on the strip, can't beat that. They game also had real antagonist...you know, the people who're supposed to drive you insane and put you through hell the entire game so at the end you get satisfaction from killing them, yeah them guys. As for the map, it wasn't massive by any means but it felt massive and ultimately that's what counts. Desert felt like a desert, woods like woods, and cities like cities. In closing, San Andreas was the real deal of the 3D universe.

 

That's exactly my opinion. Of course GTA V was never meant to be a SA 2.0. But people - including me - keep comparing these games. For a reason: R* missed the opportunity to create a game that's far superior than San Andreas in every aspect. They hyped the game, the map, the setting, everything, and we joined the hype train. All in all GTA V is far from being a bad game, but it fails in terms of being something special, something that is unforgettable.

 

I marked one sentence in your post. I fully agree with your map opinion. While SA isn't nearly as massive as GTA V, it actually feels bigger and that's what counts for me when I'm playing the game. Angel Pine may technically be close to San Fierro and Los Santos, but it feels "cut off from civilization", there are tons of those areas in Back O' Beyond, Shady Creek, Red County, Bone County, etc.

 

I absolutely love the tricks R* used to make the map feel bigger than it is. It's fun to me, and that's all that matters.

 

GTA V is very big, but technically the map focusses on a very, very small area of San Andreas. Half of the map is Los Santos and those Vinewood Hills. As I remember GTA V's map was meant to represent a re-imagined Southern California, yet it's more like Los Santos and some industrial surroundings. No real countryside feeling at all (in my opinion). Old School San Andreas had that countryside vibe, that "beeing in a state" feeling, although it was technically smaller. GTA V doesn't feel like a state to me, more like Los Santos and industrial outskirts.

 

The map is one of those things I think R* could have done miles better easily. Wasted potential in many aspects, the game feels rushed overall.

 

I have stated similar things in the past regarding SA's map.

[Xing of Virtue]

I'll say V. I like the bit of realism in it, as well as the dynamic scores and the challenging wanted system.

[combustion]

How in the world could GTA:SA be better than GTAV? V is better than GTASA in almost every aspect.

[B Dawg]

How in the world could GTA:SA be better than GTAV? V is better than GTASA in almost every aspect.

How in the world could GTA V be better than GTA:SA? SA is better than GTAV in almost every aspect.

[RedDagger]

And this, kids, is precisely how opinions work. These X vs Y threads are only as good as you are willing to contribute ^hinthint

[B Dawg]

Ahh I forgot, my reasons aren't listed in this thread, but in previous locked ones regarding the same topic of SA vs V.

 

For starters, SA has a proper reward for every single thing you do in the game, unlike V.

SA has better driving mechanics, not pissing you off with auto-correction assists and not giving you cars as strong as tanks.

SA has better shooting mechanics, even if you're fully skilled with an M4, the thing still has bulletspread to it. You have to crouch to completely minimize it. In V, you can just run n gun and spray your silly Special Carbine at a target with every bullet hitting the target.

SA weapons are also better and more varied, with tons of melee weapons including katanas and chainsaws, not to mention the flamethrower.

SA has a better combat system, with four different fighting styles where none of them include something as stupid as bitchslaps, and proper strenght stats. Everything in V is just oversimplified.

SA has a much better and larger cheat list with a lot of variety. Don't like the hunger system? Guess what, you don't need mods to get rid of annoying stuff like in GTA V, you just input a cheat!

SA has better radio stations.

SA has better heists (subjective). Don't mess with Catalina.

SA has a proper RPG system, where the hunger system can be disabled via cheat, and you can instantly become skinny/muscular/fat or have full stamina via cheat if you don't like using the gym.

SA has better character customization, letting you transform CJ into anything!

SA has better vehicle performance customization, including the likes of Nitrous and Hydraulics where as in V you already make easy cars even easier to drive and f*ck up their ridiculous acceleration even more.

SA has a gang control system, and even a cheat to recruit any ped with a 9mm/RPG/current held weapon by the ped, you can command them to stay, follow and attack.

SA has a much better and larger number of side missions and activities that provide good rewards for completing them.
SA has a better protagonist (subjective), and infinitely better supporting characters. Ryder > Lamar.

SA doesn't have health regeneration which for me is a positive.

SA has unique proof vehicles (for more info contact Militia)

SA doesn't have turbulence.

SA has the better tank, which is near indestructable unless you use fire against it.

SA actually has fast food restaurants that you can enter.

SA has girlfriends that give you cool rewards for dating them.

(PC)SA has the better multiplayer modes (though who cares about multiplayer).

(Consoles)SA has local co-op. (on PC with mods but here's vanilla comparisons)

SA doesn't have annoying hitmarkers and screen flashes for every kill. The only aid you get is the health arrow above the enemy.

SA has better looking vehicles. All the supercars in GTA V are ugly as f*ck. SA still has the classic Cheetah, Sabre, Stallion, etc...

SA doesn't have next-gen/PC exclusive content/vehicles.

SA has dual-wielding.

SA has the crouch feature.

SA has territory takeover, and even a glitch/bug that lets you take over the whole of SA.

SA has race cars.

SA has RC vehicles.

SA has a jetpack.

SA has a large number of interiors.

SA has stealth too, and it doesn't replace crouching. You can stealth kill in V and still have cops on your ass.

SA has better businesses (Car Dealership, Casino, etc...).

SA cars never instantly blow up, regardless of how hard or fast you hit something or land.

SA has gambling and casinos.

SA has four different schools (Cars, Bikes, Boats?, Aircraft).

SA has better Thriathlons. Thriathlons in V are criticized for being too long, button mashing fests (you have to repediately tap sprint for half an hour or so), In SA, you only have to hold sprint, tap it if you want a tiny speed boost.

SA has better movement/sprint mechanics (as mentioned above, in HD era games you have to repediately tap sprint, so yea, even a problem in IV)

SA has decapitation.

 

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas will always be king!

Edited August 15, 2015 by B Dawg

[Nah nah nah Gta 6]

Well V has a rusty tractor so I suggest you take every reason you quoted there and throw it out the window.

Can't beat it.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Stoney0503

[Xing of Virtue]

That's your reward for running five miles through the desert.

[slimeball supreme]

I ticked both of them because I could.

 

I honestly prefer V in a lot of ways.

 

That's your reward for running five miles through the desert.

Or $2,000,000. Edited August 16, 2015 by Mr. Fahrenheit

[Kreaytivity]

well sine I'm in my 2nd & last year of Game Design Creation associates degree major & have a pretty decent idea of how a game works, I can humbly say that both of them rock.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Kreaytivity

[combustion]

 

 

GTA: San Andreas was the last of the 3D era games, and because of that it will always have that nostalgic feeling of "this is what GTA is about." Personally, GTA IV is my favorite and I feel it's an authentic GTA but many people don't, and many more people think that GTA V barely resembles GTA and is heading in Saints Row territory. I agree. When ever I play GTA V, I feel like I'm playing a big, beautiful open world game but it doesn't feel like GTA to me, not with superpowers and limitations.

 

San Andreas will always be better then V, and I don't care how many updates Rockstar releases, they cannot fix the game's deep flaws by shoving shiny new cars down our throats. A few things about San Andreas, I really liked the body customization that we could give CJ. There was a wide variety of hairstyles, tattoos, and the ability to change his physique depending on eating habits and exercise habits, something that I think needs to be brought back. From a character and story standpoint, it is by no means a RDR or GTA IV but it still puts GTA V to shame. Many of the characters/personalities in the game were memorable and interesting, the story takes us around the map from a ghetto to small towns, deserts, to a stake in a casino on the strip, can't beat that. They game also had real antagonist...you know, the people who're supposed to drive you insane and put you through hell the entire game so at the end you get satisfaction from killing them, yeah them guys. As for the map, it wasn't massive by any means but it felt massive and ultimately that's what counts. Desert felt like a desert, woods like woods, and cities like cities. In closing, San Andreas was the real deal of the 3D universe.

Technically, Vice City Stories was the last of the 3D Era games, however I do wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your post.

 

I meant out of the main games. Thanks.

 

Wouldn't the last main 3D Universe game be GTAIII? GTAVC, GTAA, GTASA, GTALCS and GTAVCS are all secondary games in the 3D universe.

[Dee-account-with-1kbans]

I can't even play GTAVs SP months straight without getting bored. The online is way more fun but the loading screens and constant bugs and errors kill it.

 

Even today I can still pick up SA and play for days.

[XCalinX]

Sometimes I tend to prefer SA because of the better map IMO sometimes V because of everything else

[mikelatham]

 

 

GTA: San Andreas was the last of the 3D era games, and because of that it will always have that nostalgic feeling of "this is what GTA is about." Personally, GTA IV is my favorite and I feel it's an authentic GTA but many people don't, and many more people think that GTA V barely resembles GTA and is heading in Saints Row territory. I agree. When ever I play GTA V, I feel like I'm playing a big, beautiful open world game but it doesn't feel like GTA to me, not with superpowers and limitations.

 

San Andreas will always be better then V, and I don't care how many updates Rockstar releases, they cannot fix the game's deep flaws by shoving shiny new cars down our throats. A few things about San Andreas, I really liked the body customization that we could give CJ. There was a wide variety of hairstyles, tattoos, and the ability to change his physique depending on eating habits and exercise habits, something that I think needs to be brought back. From a character and story standpoint, it is by no means a RDR or GTA IV but it still puts GTA V to shame. Many of the characters/personalities in the game were memorable and interesting, the story takes us around the map from a ghetto to small towns, deserts, to a stake in a casino on the strip, can't beat that. They game also had real antagonist...you know, the people who're supposed to drive you insane and put you through hell the entire game so at the end you get satisfaction from killing them, yeah them guys. As for the map, it wasn't massive by any means but it felt massive and ultimately that's what counts. Desert felt like a desert, woods like woods, and cities like cities. In closing, San Andreas was the real deal of the 3D universe.

 

That's exactly my opinion. Of course GTA V was never meant to be a SA 2.0. But people - including me - keep comparing these games. For a reason: R* missed the opportunity to create a game that's far superior than San Andreas in every aspect. They hyped the game, the map, the setting, everything, and we joined the hype train. All in all GTA V is far from being a bad game, but it fails in terms of being something special, something that is unforgettable.

 

I marked one sentence in your post. I fully agree with your map opinion. While SA isn't nearly as massive as GTA V, it actually feels bigger and that's what counts for me when I'm playing the game. Angel Pine may technically be close to San Fierro and Los Santos, but it feels "cut off from civilization", there are tons of those areas in Back O' Beyond, Shady Creek, Red County, Bone County, etc.

 

I absolutely love the tricks R* used to make the map feel bigger than it is. It's fun to me, and that's all that matters.

 

GTA V is very big, but technically the map focusses on a very, very small area of San Andreas. Half of the map is Los Santos and those Vinewood Hills. As I remember GTA V's map was meant to represent a re-imagined Southern California, yet it's more like Los Santos and some industrial surroundings. No real countryside feeling at all (in my opinion). Old School San Andreas had that countryside vibe, that "beeing in a state" feeling, although it was technically smaller. GTA V doesn't feel like a state to me, more like Los Santos and industrial outskirts.

 

The map is one of those things I think R* could have done miles better easily. Wasted potential in many aspects, the game feels rushed overall.

 

I have stated similar things in the past regarding SA's map.

Gta San Andreas is 10 times as good as Five.

Five has a weard small desert with a countryside that has people everywhere.

There's no gang warfare in five or San Francisco or Las Vargas.

I love driving between city's in GTASA and flying trains, driveing trains, Driveing tanker trucks with sandstorm cheats that makes a mad max server possible. All so the country side and the myth hunting, it's just the best.

I'm never getting rid of San Andreas

[Rhoda]

I couldn't get into GTA V properly. I've played the story mode through once since it came out and after lending a PS4 copy from a friend a few months ago, I stuttered up to Trevor's introduction before I gave it back. I've barely touched Online because the level and skill gap is a little much for me. I understand it isn't a bad game, it's just not my kind of game and that's fine. I feel like with polls and opinions like this, nostalgia plays a factor. When San Andreas came out in 2004 I was blown away from how much of a step-up it was from Vice City, which is now basic in comparison. I don't feel like I could apply the same feelings towards V for some reason. I didn't care for the protagonists in V, and couldn't really bring myself to play as any of them. I thought Online would solve this as it allowed me to play as my own iteration of a character but as I said, I couldn't get into that either. San Andreas gave me so much, and I've spent nearly twelve years playing it to death on various consoles, exploiting saves, playing the main story under different conditions and generally having a great time. I can't even bring myself to play V's storyline in full twice.

[Raj The Rager]

GTA San Andreas is just the better game.

[KingofVenturas]

San Andreas by far, hard to compete with the nostalgia and variety. I was doing an inventory of my games and counted 9 different versions of San Andreas, PS2 (disk), PS3 (PS2 Classics), PS3 (HD Re-Release), PS4, Xbox 360 (Originals), Xbox 360 (HD Re-Release), PC (Disk), PC (Steam), and iOS, still playing it routinely over 11 years later.

[TheOneLibertonian]

I'm not a big fan of both games, and personally both are least favourite 3D GTA, but San Andreas was still the better game between the two. Why? Because of the way of having limitless fun is broader in San Andreas. It felt less restrictive, it felt bigger in scale, and overall is a better game. San Andreas felt more of a GTA game should than how V implemented the GTA formula. One of the reasons why V isn't as good as San Andreas is the characters and story. Both stories are the weakest within the series, but personally the characters were so much better than in GTA V. SA had a great antagonist, the story did however dragged too long, but still it remained more enjoyable to watch than V's lackluster narrative. The gameplay in SA felt more dynamic and the amount of things to do is just immense. Unlike V, SA felt something special. It brought vastness and additional excitement to the series, whilst V just felt superficial to my liking. V is a good game, so does the Online portion, but both of them are not worthy enough to be called special to the series IMO. Just my two cents.

[Giantsgiants]

I wanted to ask this since it seems like every poll/thread I go to (on any website) asking about people's favorite GTA usually ends up being a two horse race between GTA SA and GTA V. Which of these two GTA titans do you like better? Discuss.

[Hdxt_Hardluck]

SA.

[Lancerator]

Well, I've been playing GTA SA since I am 4 years old, in an excessive manner, it used to be cause of bullying towards me in elementary school, dilated my entire brain temporarily, I passed it for over +500 times, along SA-MP and few mods. While I played GTA V for a month after his launching, sold it, bought it again for the gang banging masks and here it is, jammed off onto my PS3.

 

Evidently, I'll stick with GTA V.

 

[GamesBoy316]

San Andreas is the immediate pick for me. Better gameplay, story, freedom, etc.

Edited July 6, 2016 by GamesBoy316

[RedDagger]

Merged similar threads.

[Femme Fatale]

San Andreas, it had a better story and better characters...

[Misunderstood]

San Andreas, it's not even a contest lol.

[Megumi]

V. SA gets incredibly boring after the campaign when you seize all of the territories, in addition to the fragile wanted system.