Why does Sup Forums praise this game so much?

Why does Sup Forums praise this game so much?

Because it's a great game with mechanics some games still haven't picked up on

>OPs mummy wouldn't let him play it when it was released

I'm playing this game for the first time and I fail to see any "mechanics" that are "good"

The voice acting is completely shit.
The gun play aged like milk
The characters are boring as fuck and I have no reason to care about anyone at all.
The world is empty as shit

The only good things about this game so far is the driving and music.

Good thing too because I'm not blinded by nostalgia.

When I played it, I could see why people liked it.
>Kind of shit gameplay, but to be expected.
>Somewhat funny characters, but are shallow gangster stereotypes.
>Great music, fits the game.
>I personally liked the enviorment.
>I think it captured the whole "City full of gangsters" pretty well.
I just think it's a fun game to play when you want to relax and play something that isn't very challenging.
inb4 all you had to do was follow the damn train

It had an amazing world that felt believable with an interesting cast of well voice acted characters, diverse scenarios that never got stale, and a very engaging plot paced well over a well designed environment that made itself feel bigger than it actually is through commitment to detail.

>The voice acting is completely shit.

Kys.

I liked the ability to customize your character to an extent. Like working out and haircuts and stuff. Made me feel more engaged as a player.

check this numah nine

It's run of the mill GTA title, garbage in other words.

The game is 13 years older than you sport. Don't try to understand things before your time, you won't be able to, my child

Every Ps2 game had shit shooting

fuck off gatsby

I can't think of a single thing besides manually getting fit/fat that is still unique to San Andreas.

They praise it because it's the first GTA they played, simple as that.

The game is glorious, just like every GTA game, it's just bad compared to VC or IV.

Vice City>GTAIV>SA>V>III

Jesus Christ people born in 1999 are allowed to post here.

And I am sure there's shitton of underages too, especially on this board.

>was only familiar with PC version
>buy PS4 version which is PS2 in 1080p
>train mission is a joke
>escaping from russians on a bike is hell

It's a great GTA game.

Has a great story to tell, an amazing amount of variety in world design.

It's scale is incredible.

It featured the most freedom to ever exist in a GTA game.

All the acts in the story are great, from being a thug from the hood trying to get the gang on the map, to owning a garage in San Fierro and slowly becoming a business tycoon, to making moves against the Mafia with the Triads in Las Venturas masterminding casino heists, only to take all the wealth back home to put the corrupt police and their drug lord in the ground.

All the whacky characters you meet along the way, Ken Rosenburg, and The Truth, and Caesar, man. It's just a really well put together game, and to think it was all balanced and playable on release, with no additional patches except to remove nudity from a hidden game feature.


Then they release GTA 5, and garages don't even work.

>All the acts in the story are great
To be fair, the hood parts of the story seem completely out of place from everything else in the storyline. I was constantly thinking that I should probably go do something about getting my brother out of prison instead of driving monster trucks across the desert for a g-man weirdo when I first played the game.

I dunno, I kind of just accepted that it was all going to be for the greater good, I'm pretty sure Torino/Toretto whatever G-man's name was mentioned Sweet and protecting him while he was in, if you continued to work for him.

Because muh jetpacks. Map and story-wise San Fierro and Las Venturas were completely worthless and they should've made a larger Los Santos with backwoods as the story and atmosphere were incomparably denser there.

It finds the perfect sweet spot between realism and fun. It has the right amount of satire. It has funny, memorable characters.

It has probably the best open-world map to date. Not overly big or small, just the right size. Three distinct cities and rural areas to explore. Plenty of easter eggs too.

Sure, the gunplay/shooting hasn't aged all that great but that's forgivable considering the game out 13 years ago.

Because they were 12 years old when it came out.

I liked IV, but it's so boring compared to SA. all you have in IV is a city that has more police than citizens and hardly anything to spend your money on. the driving and physics was great in IV though.

I mean, SA had miniguns, fighter jets, attack helicopters, jetpacks, and a map with a lot of variety. it was also a lot more funny whereas IV tries to be grimdark and so serious.

On the contrary GTA IV offers a much more detailed physics sandbox and AI which in my opinion makes it more replayable.

In San Andreas it might've been acceptable due to the available hardware, but it's major fault of GTA V - they thought they could dumb it down again and compensate for it with a bunch of useless vehicle tuning. I consider it a step backwards from GTA IV.