Grand Theft Auto V (A.K.A 5) - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
ThePowerCosmic said:
Oh, you mean Vice City.
Click to expand...

:up:

I personally don't care for San Andreas. From a story perspective it bored me as it never really got away from the 90s "gangsta," parody. There was so much more that could've been done with a full state and three or four different cultures to satirize. But in the end, it is all about the West Coast "gangsta," mentality which I feel was a missed opportunity. I feel like with San Andreas, Rockstar's eyes were bigger than their stomachs. GTA V seems to be the complete satire of Los Angeles culture, from numerous angles, that San Andreas should've been.

Beyond that, San Andreas, for all the space, felt very empty. It was big, but the space went to waste. I feel like there was a hell of a lot more to do in Vice City. CJ's journey, even with all that area to explore, felt very linear. Tommy Vercetti's on the other hand, I really felt like I was building an empire. A big part of that was buying and running the businesses at my discretion. San Andreas may have been bigger, but Vice City had more life and more to do.
 
SA was awesome and I loved how big it was. I loved driving (and flying) along the country side. Other GTAs were a bit too dense for my liking but I did appreciate how there were 3 big cities and several smaller towns spread out throughout SA. I thought it had the best map
 
Vice City had the better characters and story, San An had the better gameplay and more replay value.
 
I loved the story in San Andreas. When I first found out it was going to be set in that sort of setting I was fairly sceptical, but playing the game it just sucked me in and I loved CJ and San Andreas as a whole. Mind you, I had the same reaction when I learned that Vice City was set in the 80's and ended up loving that one too. Both had great story and characters.
 
Matt said:
:up:

I personally don't care for San Andreas. From a story perspective it bored me as it never really got away from the 90s "gangsta," parody. There was so much more that could've been done with a full state and three or four different cultures to satirize. But in the end, it is all about the West Coast "gangsta," mentality which I feel was a missed opportunity. I feel like with San Andreas, Rockstar's eyes were bigger than their stomachs. GTA V seems to be the complete satire of Los Angeles culture, from numerous angles, that San Andreas should've been.

Beyond that, San Andreas, for all the space, felt very empty. It was big, but the space went to waste. I feel like there was a hell of a lot more to do in Vice City. CJ's journey, even with all that area to explore, felt very linear. Tommy Vercetti's on the other hand, I really felt like I was building an empire. A big part of that was buying and running the businesses at my discretion. San Andreas may have been bigger, but Vice City had more life and more to do.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that with San Andreas. You had also a parody of the triads and Los Vegas culture, though I agree it could have done more with Los Angeles culture.

Though I missed the business aspect, I think there were still a hell of a lot to do in San Andreas. I'd list them but I haven't played VC or SA in years. I remember gambling, gang wars, car remodeling, races, RPG aspects, skydiving, learning fighting styles, dating among others I probably forgot about.

Havok83 said:
SA was awesome and I loved how big it was. I loved driving (and flying) along the country side. Other GTAs were a bit too dense for my liking but I did appreciate how there were 3 big cities and several smaller towns spread out throughout SA. I thought it had the best map
Click to expand...

I realy enjoyed the variety with SA. I loved going from Los Santos to riding around the farms and driving my car off Mt. chilliad (And surviving) :woot:
 
Matt said:
:up:

I personally don't care for San Andreas. From a story perspective it bored me as it never really got away from the 90s "gangsta," parody. There was so much more that could've been done with a full state and three or four different cultures to satirize. But in the end, it is all about the West Coast "gangsta," mentality which I feel was a missed opportunity. I feel like with San Andreas, Rockstar's eyes were bigger than their stomachs. GTA V seems to be the complete satire of Los Angeles culture, from numerous angles, that San Andreas should've been.

Beyond that, San Andreas, for all the space, felt very empty. It was big, but the space went to waste. I feel like there was a hell of a lot more to do in Vice City. CJ's journey, even with all that area to explore, felt very linear. Tommy Vercetti's on the other hand, I really felt like I was building an empire. A big part of that was buying and running the businesses at my discretion. San Andreas may have been bigger, but Vice City had more life and more to do.
Click to expand...
Nobody really buy's GTA for the story. Besides, Vice city was a Scarface/Carlito's way paradoy. :o
 
BattleCat said:
Nobody really buy's GTA for the story. Besides, Vice city was a Scarface/Carlito's way paradoy. :o
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think it's definitely pack of the package for a lot of people. Although the storytelling can be all over the place at times, it's still entertaining even if it isn't the next Godfather or whatever.
 
Well, that's not the main reason, but an interesting setting / atmosphere, and fun characters do make up a big part of what a game is.

I really liked San Andreas, but the story was awful. The characters were, for the most part, just not good. But some, like Toreno, was awesome.
 
To me, San Andreas had better gameplay, especially with the shooting mechanics, but Vice City had the better story and characters. CJ wasn't bad, but he always too restrained which isn't bad, but they didn't make up for it with depth like they did with Niko.
 
The story line was just so... strange.

CJ starts out as a petty thug, who's framed by a corrupt beat cop. Then we go on to take over most of Los Angeles, get our own casino in Vegas, break into Area 51, start a multi-million dollar franchise...

And then at the end of the game, our archenemy is (somehow, despite all this) still a corrupt beat cop...

It doesn't follow any sensical progression. In Vice City we start out small, slowly make a name for ourselves, and eventually take over the city. The final showdown is with a mob boss, and an entire mafia army.

That's a good (or at least sensical) story line.
 
Pretty much, San Andreas was Vice City on steroids. I have no problems with it because it provided many fun gameplay moments but to me it was obvious story wasn't as much of a priority as Vice City (and honestly, it wasn't that much of a priority as a whole until IV).

Before IV, each followed the basic layout of "start out small, rise up, get betrayed along the way, become more important, get revenge, and finish on top".

IV, there was no "become king of the underworld or become rich". In the end, Niko fought for something much more valuable that's often taken for granted: freedom. Rockstar started taking story more seriously with IV, and it shows not only in GTA, but also games like RDR, and LA Noire.
 
Last edited:
Why does everybody hate on San Andreas? What was so special about Vice City's story? San Andreas was massive in every way. Characters. Story. Locations. Tommy Vercetti is my favorite GTA character, but SA's story was the best in the series, so far.
 
No one's really hating on SA as such, just saying which was their favorites and why. I loved both games, each for different reasons.
 
CrypticOne said:
Why does everybody hate on San Andreas? What was so special about Vice City's story? San Andreas was massive in every way. Characters. Story. Locations. Tommy Vercetti is my favorite GTA character, but SA's story was the best in the series, so far.
Click to expand...

Read what I wrote.

Locations, awesome. Missions, awesome. Story? Nonsensical. Characters? Mostly annoying at worst, forgettable at best. Except Toreno.
 
Ahh Toreno, how freakin' cool was that guy!
 
I wonder when do you think Rockstar will reveal multiplayer details
 
I thought they already said there wasn't going to be multiplayer?
 
They've confirmed there will be multiplayer, but they haven't gone into any detail beyond that.
 
Yeah, all they've said is that the Crews from Max Payne will be brought back for GTAV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

StrainedEyes
Top 10 Games of the Decade.
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
11K
Rukus
Rukus
T
  • Locked
Grand Theft Auto V (A.K.A 5) - Part 5
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
45K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Grand Theft Auto V (A.K.A 5) - Part 4
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
33K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Grand Theft Auto V (A.K.A 5) - Part 3
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
32K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Grand Theft Auto V (A.K.A 5) - Part 2
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
30K
Thread Manager
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 6,860 (members: 23, guests: 6,837)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,415
Messages
22,100,081
Members
45,896
Latest member
Bob999

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"