GTA SA has aged so poorly compared to GTA 4 in graphics and gameplay

GTA SA has aged so poorly compared to GTA 4 in graphics and gameplay.

It's 4 years older so graphically it makes sense. i still like the game play. But there are some parts that are pretty clunky but it was still a big improvement over Vice City.

I agree, it can feel pretty clunky.

I played it recently and found out that I had to turn on frame limiter, which makes the FPS 20, in order for some shit to work, like swimming, or car sirens. It also makes some things, like rolling barrels, incredibly fucking fast.
Still a good play though. Great story

Why would you expect that a game from the early 2000s would hold up graphically? Get out of my face

huh, weird ... you mean to say that the game that is older than its sequel has aged poorly? i did the math and i always thought it had just aged MORE. you know, an older game. in fact, i didn't even bother trying to compare how 'well' they aged since it's FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE AS THEY ARE DIFFERENT AGES AND ONE IS LITERALLY THE SEQUEL TO THE OTHER WOW KID

compare GTA 4 to GTA 5 on PC they look pretty good considering its nearly 7 years apart were as if you compare GTA SA to GTA 4 on PC which is only 4 years apart it is a night and day difference.

where*

commit hys urself murder

Not really really in terms of gameplay. GTA:SA is only ahead of 3 in the visual department and it's a downgrade from Vice City for sure in all but scope.

i will say it was ambitious for the time but when playing it now its so fucking clunky

The only thing thats really ambitious about SA is the amount of content. Its pretty much identical to VC in every other way.

Its a shame because if they used a newer engine the game would have been amazing

it's still a way better game than IV

>SA pretty much identical to VC
did you even play either of those games?

The engine is pretty much the same. Adding some frills to it doesn't change that

>sa is pretty much identical to vc

that's like claiming that morrowind and oblivion are pretty much the same game, just because the engine is the same

except Bethesda upgraded Gamebryo in just about every way. SA has the same shit graphics, sound and physics as VC

>graphics
of course
>gameplay
wrong

SA is best GTA

>except Bethesda upgraded Gamebryo in just about every way. SA has the same shit graphics, sound and physics as VC
What? The physics are entirely different.

VC and SA were both released initially for the PS2, so they were limited by that. 4 was made for 360 and PS3, so they didn't have nearly as much hardware constraints.

It's still a lot of fun to play even with it's age, it takes me a little bit to get used to the how shooting works, but once I get the hang of it the game is a lot of fun. Now if you compare SA to VC, VC is a bit worse in many technical and mechanical regards, such as not being able to move the camera with your mouse in the car to cars disappearing easily, still a fun game though.

what? please die seriously.
SA is based on the GTA3 engine, which is much older. get your shit together before posting again, junior

IV uses the same engine as V

Play them both one after the other, they are similar, but SA was a huge improvement over VC in a lot of regards, better car handling, being able to move camera in car, better visuals, huge map, less car disappearing.