The great debate

The great debate.

Best gameplay -> SA
Best context -> VC

san andreas with mods > vice city > san andreas

haven't played vice city with mods, i assume it's not as fun as san andreas with mods though

Is there any way to play old 3D GTA with ragdolls ?

iv is best gta imo

I prefer VC.
The whole 80s setting is just far more appealing to me.

Which mods?

This

Vice city because you dont play as a b*ack guy

Vice City will always be THE GTA for me.

VC is my all time favorite GTA, but SA it's a better game in every aspect

my mods include the mission selector, car spawner, cheat menu with skin selector, a car customization menu which lets you put james bond machine guns on your car, quick save, and fast travel

fpbp

...

SA for me

I can get lost in SA for days thanks to the varied environments

Is that even a good thing?

San Andreas is objectively better in every way.
Thats why they remade SA and not VC.

VC > III > SA
and thats not up to debate

>III
Even Gta 2 is better than 3.

How the fuck is III better than SA?

>fast travel
WUAAAHHTTT I HAVE TO DRIVE CLEAR ACROSS TOWN FOR MY MISSION??? DIS IS FUCKING STUPIDDD.

>muh fog

no its SA > III > VC

driving across town gets boring around the thirteen-year mark, yeah

Anime skins and cars

San Andreas objectively.
But for music, Vice City.

SA is better in almost every way

Yes you click the make ragdoll button

anyone who legitimately prefers Vice City is retarded, SA is objectively better in every way

SA was severely dragged down by all the retarded gangsta shit.

epbp

My opinion, despite how wrong you may find it:

3 > 1 > VC > 4 > 5 > SA > 2

>dragged down
>not significantly improved

Except story and characters

Only things SA has over VC is the map, myths and customization.

Gta Sa.

You have way more activities you can attend to and way more roleplay elements. You can be a trucker if you wish so for the next 14 human years. Bigger map, more missions, original story. Its justway more of everything and even more. Multiplayer was cash too

VC is the better game.

The RPG elements and diversity of settings where welcome in SA, but the game was filled with pointless filler missions and wasted map space. Don't even get me started with the whole Catalina arc were death nets you a one way trip back to the hospital in LS. The map in VC, was a lot more compact, meaning that you we're never far from something interesting.

VC also had a better protagonist. CJ was a man with next to no autonomy that spent most of the game doing other people's dirty work. Tommy meanwhile eventually decides to follow his own rules, leading to a great second half where the game embraces a very open-ended structure where the only lock on content is how much money you have.

Additionally, missions in VC had no scripting. In VC, you could approach missions however you wanted. Compare that to SA were you can't kill someone until you chase them to a certain point.

Finally, on a subjective note, the Mafia> gangbangers, so it's only natural that VC is better too.

Even though you don't play as a black guy, Lance's antics in both Vice City and VCS ruins the replay ability for me. It wouldn't be so bad if his most stupid moments weren't placed in the most hard missions in the game.

>more
Quantity=/=quality.

SA has both

San Andreas all the way.

>the woods part of the map on San Andreas

2spooky4me

I understand that nostalgia hits hard with VC.
But overall SA its the better game here.

>the first one that high
>San Andreas that low

There is no debate.

Vice City's only gimmick is being set in the 80s, and is peanuts compared to San Andreas.

Only hipsters think VC is better.

How do mods like that make the game better? None of it imoacts the gameplay or anything

Terrible opinion.

2 and SA were the best.

>people who started with original gta think VC is better

FTFY

they're fun

>IV above V
>SA below all but 2
You're alright.

This, nothing else really to be said honestly.

Thanks for proving my point.

And?
GTA 1 sucks anyway

San Andreas let's you actually go into water and not die but I like Vice City's aesthetic more so idk, they're both pretty good?

>3 first
How? That game is fucking horrible

...

SA is objectively better, but i like VC more because i played it first, i think the most important part of GTA is the atmosphere and ambience, something Rockstar nailed up to IV but sadly was not present in V. If i had to make a list with the games i played i'd say SA>IV>VC>>>>>>>>>V objectively and VC>SA>>IV>>>>>>>>>>V subjectively.
Are I,II,LCS and VCS worth playing?, i know III for fact that it is

>putting IV that high
Found the patrician.

Only sober opinion here

VC has a better atmosphere and soundtrack
SA has pretty much better everything else besides the RPG elements being annoying at times

I mean, IV had some problems like strange faces, optimization, lack of mechanics SA had, but overall the atmosphere missions and story were so amazing that those mistakes were forgettable. There are few feelings as good as starting IV with Russian Connection in the background.

For some reason Sup Forums is the only community where SA is the favorite. I think its because everyone here watched bigfoot videos on youtube and just feels nostalgic for those days. But it seems like virtually everywhere else VC is preferred

Why is IV's PC Port so horrible? It's completely ass-backwards.

The more resources you take up, the better the game runs. How did Rockstar manage that?

I vote Vice City but only because I couldn't understand what anyone was talking about in San Andreas. It needed English subtitles.

I would actually argue that SA has the worst gameplay. It has the worst, most boring, poorly designed missions in the series. I would argue that virtually all the missions in Los Santos and San Fierro are just straight terrible. The more fun missions are in the countryside and desert

Not to mention, you have the fucking useless and messy RPG elements and the more slippery driving. The gameplay is not as good as VC despite feeling less stiff.

Vice City

Had more fun in VC although objectively SA is better content wise.

It has subtitles.

I thought Las Venturas was kind of meh mission wise

This. From a gameplay perspectic, SA is miles ahead of VC because it's basically the same thing, but with more content. As far as an immersive environment, VC is leagues ahead of SA because what it lacked in size it made up for in 'feel' of the era.

Yeah but not English ones. The subtitles are still in ghetto slang.

You might actually be retarded if you can't understand what they were saying 90% of the time.

>that black guy and his friend in GTA IV who make absolutely no fucking sense and the subtitles don't help at all
>all the cutscenes he's in go on for 5 minutes

I never understood a thing he was saying, but i knew that he was still a bro.

Half of his dialogue was just clicks. At least it's played up for laughs, you can tell Niko has no clue what he's saying either.

I'm a sucker for 80s music.

Yeah the missions with the Jamaican guy right? Completely lost on those. No idea what that guy was ever talking about.

Badman was great.
I'm Jamaican (well Jamaican descent) and I can't even understand him.

I think Vice City does it for me with the soundtrack alone

There is no debate. San Andreas is the better game mechanically, thematically, is the most reference GTA game, has the most memorable city and missions.

It's like saying which is better, Mario 3 or Super Mario World. Super Mario World, no contest.

>It's like saying which is better, Mario 3 or Super Mario World. Super Mario World, no contest.
let's not go that far

>tfw you like VC and SMW more than SA and SMB3

This is what niggers actually believe. Sad.

Sad!

fun
>REEEE

This comic is so fucking old, long before retards shat themselves about seeing the word nigger on Sup Forums and talking about sjw culture or gamergate or some shit. A classic meme made by a classic cunt. Fuck off newfag

>fast travel
>fun
and that comes from someone who's shit at driving