What's the best GTA game and why is it vice city?

What's the best GTA game and why is it vice city?

Other urls found in this thread:

gtaforums.com/topic/750757-vice-city-the-leftovers-fix/
youtube.com/watch?v=HkMNOlYcpHg
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

you answered your own question

I recently picked up a PS2 and only ever beat GTA 2 and 3 as a kid. Should I play Vice City on PS2 or pick it up on the Shield or PC?

PC version but you're gonna have to do some work arounds to get it to work and display properly with no crashes.

As much as I love Vice City, San Andreas because it has more to do

Also is there anyone else who never really got in to 4 and 5 and likes 3, VC and SA more?

It's Vice City because V-Rock.

i wanted to like it. But just couldn't bring my self to.

I'm pretty sure most anons on Sup Forums who were old enough during 3, VC, and SA's releases liked them more

remaster when?

I mean shit IV was fucking reviled on here when it released and it wasn't until V when people started defending it.

Flash best station

gtaforums.com/topic/750757-vice-city-the-leftovers-fix/
there you go
also install the Xbox models, they're more detailed

There needs to be more art of those twins.

I thought 4 was complete shit in story and gameplay compared to SA. It's insane how far they regressed. Didn't play 5 because I don't trust Rockstar to make good games anymore.

I can explain why VC is the best GTA with a single point; The protagonist isn't a fucking doormat for 90% of the game.

>GTA:SA
>Come home from killing 35154 people, cops included, only to have a trio of cops walk in and boss you around

GTA:IV
>Come home from killing 17423 people, cops included, only to have a cop phone you up and boss you around

>GTA:V
>Come home from pulling someone's building down only to have him boss you around, you also play as a literal cuck with two out of three characters.

Best soundtrack

>GTA:SA
>Go around building a criminal empire and saving your brothers cherry from jail
>brother bosses you around because "muh streets"

True, and GTA;V decides to revisit that brilliance with fucking Lamar and Tanya and "being real" or some shit.

At least Lamar redeems himself at least somewhat by sticking his neck out for you in the end, so he isn't all talk like that fucking pile of trash in SA.

Tommy is also the most realistic character in the series. His character is the only true to his actions, a fucking sociopath to the core.

IV was okay, nowhere near as good as SA or VC. I'm playing V right now for the first time and its pretty good so far it has that GTA vibe IV lacked as a matter of fact it made me want to replay San Andreas

>Intelligent, nihilistic and with a wicked sense of humor

It isn't. Most GTA fans are morons that ignore the shit map and filler missions because 'muh soundtrack'.
It's a solid, fun game, but nowhere close to the best in the franchise. SA, BoGT and V are far better.

You do like 4 or 5 missions for Tenpenny. Everything else is either for your gang homies or other allies.

Yes, which only makes the contrast that much more striking. He just comes out of nowhere and you have absolutely zero reason not to just gun him down then and there.

But you don't, you do whatever he tells you like a good little bitch or the game grinds down to a halt until you do. Worse still, even when you're not even in LS anymore you still become his bitch the moment he rolls up to you, fucking disgusting. You can't even have your chink pal just have him killed.

I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense, but what I'm saying is 90% doesn't revolve around doing things for Tenpenny. You still do loads of crime shit for the sake of money/revenge or your gang.

the objective list is as follows
VC>4>SA>5>3

Is this game good on PC? I want it but I'm scared it might be buggy as shit

But Vice has the worst map.

It's super tiny and there are no hills.

I enjoy 5 for what it's worth

download some really nice cars that were ripped from simulator racing games and drive around for a little darting between traffic, when modded the game can look really nice.

Forgot to mention I enjoyed how you could call up most of the cast and ask them to hang out and drive around with them, always resorting in funny banter, driving around with lamar as trevor was always a good laugh.

It's not about prevalence though, It's about the fact that you don't stop getting pushed around until the very fucking end of the game, Tenpenny keeps swinging by until right near the end.

And if it isn't Tenpenny it's that secret agent faggot, though that isn't as ridiculous since you at least have a proper motive for listening to him.

it's ok if you download Silent's Patch and the widescreen fix

People who praise IV aren't the ones who shat on it when it was released, they were most likely kids and it was their first GTA game.

IV was so bad it's the only GTA game I've actually never finished.

I can't think of a single character or moment I actually thought was cool.

Vice City == San Andreas > GTA V > GTA IV > GTA III = GTA CW >[POWER GAP] GTA I > GTA II > GTA London 1969 Prove this wrong, you won't.

> He just comes out of nowhere and you have absolutely zero reason not to just gun him down then and there.
i'm pretty sure if you kill him, he's got people who'll "take care of" Sweet

Yea because he totally seems like the kind of fellow who inspires post mortem loyalty in his followers who would totally act on his wishes after he's dead.

He never posed an even remotely credible threat, and this is going with the situation AFTER Sweet is in jail. Smoke, for all his faggotry, at least demonstrated that he had some charisma to make people do what he wanted and make people care about his well-being, and hood loyalty and all that would pose a credible threat, but Tenpenny? Nothing, hell literally all of LS broke down into riots because EVERYONE hated his ass.

You kill Pulaski much before the end, before you even return back to the first island. CJ was framed for murder by CRASH after all so the few times you do missions for them does some kind of sense. Once Tenpenny is the only one left alive in the group and is himself being investigated for the murder, CJ clearly doesn't care or get pushed around.

San Andreas is my favorite but I respect VCbros and 3bros. Everything else can fuck off.

VC has such a comfy feel. The neon lights, the soundtrack...I would kill for a remaster or VC2

>CJ was framed for murder
>This somehow matters when you literally murder hundreds of people, gangsters, cops etc. in and outside of missions
No, that point was so fucking ridiculous I really don't understand why you'd even bring it up.

Yea you kill Pulaski near the end, but only because he's literally about to kill you if you don't, not because of any agency in your character.

Why is it that whenever I try to finish San Andreas I keep getting stuck at that city with the driving school, story-wise? You move around all the time and it's hard to really get a feel for the place when one moment you're robbing banks with the traitor bitch and shooting up the forest looking for Bigfoot then you're with the fighting the Wu Tang clan and repairing some guys truck or whatever. I can't even imagine what happens whrn CJ gets to Vegas.

I played 3, VC and SA when they came out.

IV and V are better, but you're all being contrarians, yet again.

Sup Forums is the definition of contrarianism. "SHIT IS WAY BETTER TO EAT THAN CHOCOLATE! FUCKING NORMIE PLEBS EATING CHOCOLATE! HUMAN FAECES IS THE ONLY PATRICIAN FOODSTUFFS!"

Exactly, because Sup Forums is full of frustrated virgins who try and feel superior to those that are doing better than them by taking contrarian positions on everything.

Nice show of hypocrisy

And yet here you are, in a crowd providing arguments and reasoning why one is definitely worse than the other, doing nothing but screaming "NOOOO THE LATER ONES ARE BETTER I TOTALLY PLAYED ALL OF THEM YOU'RE ALL JUST CONTRARIANS EATING SHIT REEEE"

Very convincing buddy, really.

Put III above IV and you'd be my nigga.

SA is the summit of GTA
is not only here, pretty much every site/forum/etc

>I'm playing V right now for the first time and its pretty good so far it has that GTA vibe IV lacked as a matter of fact it made me want to replay San Andreas
That's exactly how I felt about V as well. It will pass.

Is that fucking Psyguy with Snoop?

It matters because you're never canonically arrested in the game story. If you die or get busted during a mission, you fail it. Whatever happens out of the missions isn't the story.

>You're all just contrarians
>Posts his contrarian opinion as objective fact
Ironic.

youtube.com/watch?v=HkMNOlYcpHg

You can get busted just roaming around, the thing is; every thing in the game, every action and consequence, completely falls apart and becomes nonsensical the moment you introduce the concept of a sensible penal system, you can't both have running around massacring people by the dozen, and the looming threat of persecution.

It's just such gargantuan narrative dissonance I just can't comprehend why they went with it, not once, not twice, but three times now.

Turn the frame limiter on in the options.

Or was it off? I'm pretty sure it was on, but flip the option regardless.

Shit, should have finished reading your post. I responded after having read " keep getting stuck at that city with the driving school, story-wise? You move around all the time"

>food analogy
begone, small child

2014? Damn, never knew about it

San Andreas is renamed to Las Venturas, Tommy is the main character, CJ is the antagonist, the story deals with the mob losing influence in the face of more organized street gangs and their numbers, map and gameplay improvements between VC and SA stay intact, Tommy is based out of a casino
Would you play it

Not even being contrarian. I just feel like there's something missing from 4 and 5, not just in terms of gameplay and story but just general charm

Being contrarian would be saying that 1/2/London are the best in the series and I doubt anyone thinks that

Switch Tommy with CJ

I love Tommy but he's a fucking lunatic. He'd make a much better antagonist than CJ who's only trying to make do for his family.

It's because they're too 'real' graphically. III era GTA's were practically cartoons.

I loved each as they were released, but san andreas jet pack and flying car stuff just made it great. the turf wars was fun too so from a nostalgic poi it will always be the 'most fun' for me

5 and its not even close

Constantly having to defend territory was the most annoying part of the game for me.

While IV and V have a lot of neat small details, it lacks as a whole sadly.

This is cool and all and reminds of the SA days with all those dumb mysteries but it feels like they're trying way too hard with this.

...

So just let them take it. You can always just take it back later.

Unless it's that tiny ass square of territory in the Vatos territory. That shit is such a pain to actually get a gang war to start on that once you take it, you should never let it fall.

Saints Row 2

I just straight up ended the gang war in one long string of endless violence until there was no one left to fight
>And then you lose it all a few missions later and need to re-do all that shit at the end of the game

Didn't even feel bad, had a lot of fun doing it.

If you play gta for gameplay, V is the best hands down no questions asked, with honorable mentions to SA for variety.

If you want to go with story included, vice city is the best one, with SA and V being honorable mentions,

Yea, I agree with you there, absolutely.

I would argue saints row 1 and 2 were the pinnacle of gta.
They had the humor
They had modern genre mechanics so they don't feel like hell to play even now
You can actually drive in the games and not feel like the game is fucking you

The fact that it took till gta5 to catch up to saints row 1 is sad in and of itself.

Save the game whenever one comes under attack and it stays yours. Those small ones are retarded, never understood what the deal is with them.

I never bothered taking anything until near the end of the game. There's no point taking anything when they first appear.

I think SA probably has that overall problem, the huge difference in tone between core storyline and mission content, because the missions were designed to be fun first and story consistent second by people who probably had no hand in the story writing.

Depends on what you played the games for.
Gta 1,2, and london were all arcade style gameplay, I dont think I ever actually played them, just ran around in them like a sand box, an ok pick up and play kind of game for short bursts.

3 and vice control like hell, making it stupidly easy to die for no reason.

gta4 removed most if not all the humor that the games had to this point for that gritty feel but felt like crap compared to saints row series that basically made a gta game, but modern.

I have never been able to pinpoint what is wrong with gta 4 and 5, something about how the characters moves feel off for me, but 5's first person mode fixes most complaints I have with controls.

Story is subjective, I think its told better in 4 and 5, but for content and setting I liked vice city far more.

Honestly, as shitty as I think 4 is, 3 has such bad gameplay it cant be overlooked, and basicly no real story to go on besides we made gta 1-london in third person.

vice city is where story trumps gameplay, and even the gameplay got enough of an overhaul to make it hold up a bit better.

V is good but it just lacks the campy charm and genuine humour the PS2 era games had.

Rockstar feels too tryhard now a days.

ludonarrative dissonance