Is this the best GTA, Cred Forums?

Is this the best GTA, Cred Forums?

I'm a VC and IV fan myself.

Never played Vice City or San Andreas? Which one would you recommend on me playing first?

That was V, contrarianism aside

VC
It's hard to go backwards with the 3D GTAs. When Liberty City Stories came out and featured pure III gameplay without any of the VC or SA improvements it really dragged it down.

Not him but i would play vice city first. SA adds a lot of mechanics and quailty you would really miss in VC if you played it second.

Both are fantastic games but ive spent more time in VC and like the atmosphere, world and characters more but its personal preference.

>durr me can pick up trash n hang from ledges
you'd have to be autistic to think the "realism" in IV makes it the best

No, not even close. Just because you were 12 when it released doesn't make it the best.

San Andreas is objectively the best GTA, because it introduced the most new features.

>more filler = good!

its good but the optimisation is so dogshit. gtav is so much more optismised than this shit dont know how they fucked up iv pc port so hard. good game though

i was just done wanking

Nothing can beat San Andreas.

>complaining about filler
>in a filler game
Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad

>tutorial levels at the beginning of IV
>game makes you pick up a brick to break a window
>literally never used again in a mission

IV is my favorite but this was just silly.

San Andreas is the best, forever and always

It had manual aiming on all weapons at least

you mean worst?

GTA Online was a mistake

Bully and other gta's have same problem, many underused game mechanics.

4 was okay, but sa was rockstar's magnum opus. there's just an unbelievable amount of stuff to do in that game.

That's SA, the most overrated GTA.
Most of what it added was shit. IV went too far with the realism, but one upside was it removed most of the unfun bloat SA added, like diving, the body system, awful turf wars (in fairness, this mechanic was even worse in VCS), or unlocking the full map and then getting treated to missions that were nothing but driving for 10 minutes, doing 1 minute of content, then driving back.

VC > SA > IV >>>>> V
Didn't fully play through III so won't rank it

what does that even mean?
VC was perfect
>b-but small map
yeah, I love to slog through empty fields and woods just to get to another city
even with all the garbage 'content' added, most of it is concentrated in the cities

I can already see you making epic gangster clips with your mom's handkerchief and toy guns as a kid
then little billy got himself some music editing software to make cringy rap while crunching some kush
and people wonder why you didn't finish school

No, it's not. It's good for what it is, but it was too experimental to have been considered the best.

GTA IV came at a time when the 7th gen consoles were relatively new, and the depth of simulation they could offer was still something that developers didn't really know what to do with. Consequently you get a lot of outdated controls and mechanics, alongside some new-ish ideas that would later be refined into a formula the works from top to bottom.

Take the game world, it's largely devoid of content because this was the first game in a new engine, released to meet a deadline, and with parts of the story chopped up to serve as DLC. So it was much less feature rich than the previous game San Andreas. There was however a detailed simulation at work, visible in many of the "GTA IV better than V" videos you'll see online, some of which was abandoned in the later instalment, and there was also a lot of incidental detail in the environment, along with a few ways to interact with them, like picking up debris to throw around, and being able to call the emergency services. The world felt like it was alive in the player's absence in a way that no previous game has captured, and with a strong sense of time and place, which is impressive by itself for a game set in contemporary times rather than a period piece, it distilled that sense of a moving postcard image that the cities in GTA games tend to evoke. I think only Vice City is more satisfying to just cruise around absorbing the ambience and listening to the radio.

>unlocking the full map and then getting treated to missions that were nothing but driving for 10 minutes, doing 1 minute of content, then driving back.
you mean the whole Alderney area in IV?

Yes. And at the very least, it had the best online of all time

>all of this projection
yikes

Alderney was the worst area in IV, yes, and still didn't feel as awful as getting an SA mission that started in an urban area and sent you to a rural area, or vice versa.

SA > VC > V = IV > dogshit > III

Yes
Serbian war criminal aesthetics>Ghetto niggers

What these guys said:
The early 2000s were a time of such rapid advancement in terms of technology and game design that you really want to play things from that era in release order, such is the magnitude of improvement between games released only a year or two apart.

V is the most mechanically refined, but I don't buy the argument people often trot out around here about only the gameplay mattering. V has serious deficiencies in terms of the setting and narrative that aren't present in earlier instalments like SA. It's a tight package, and well made, but it's let down by a lot of samey mission design, uninteresting characters and a bland, forgettable setting.

Except you play a total faggot, not a Serbian gangster.

>Niko, my cousin, please take care of my wife's son cousin...
I didn't notice this on my first playthrough, damn this game has aged well.

>It's a tight package, and well made, but it's let down by a lot of samey mission design, uninteresting characters and a bland, forgettable setting.
This exactly. After fiishing GTA V for the first time few months from that I couldn't remember most of the game.

In terms of what I had the most fun with:

VC > IV (TBoGT > LaD > base) > III > CTW > LCS > V > VCS

I never really cared for 1/2/L69/L61/Advance, so I'm not even gonna bother working those in there.
III came out when I was 15 and it blew my friends and I away even though we had played Body Harvest, Driver 1-2 and Shenmue.
VCS probably had the worst story, cast, writing and humor other than your asshole CO at the Army base. It overdid the "HEY GUYS REMEMBER LANCE VANCE?!" shit.

Vice city surely is the comfiest.

VCS really shined in soundtrack, though. Emotion, VCFL and Flash had one of the best tracklists in history of series.

SA4LYFE NIGGAZ

>letting Roman died in the end
no user, you are not my cousin

>you'd have to be autistic to think the "realism" in IV makes it the best

Of course, but I do miss that stuff. The tendency of player characters in V to butt-scoot off of the edge of a roof from which I was trying to jump, or to faceplant a wall I was trying to scale is infuriating at times. I've never felt as in-control of my character as I did in IV and EFLC.

>>more filler = good!

San Andreas had a lot of optional content that was period and theme appropriate, that's very different from filler that exists to pad out the length of the game.

>i was just done wanking

I'm doing no cum-february, it was going to be no-fap but I couldn't keep my hands off of my dick, so I'm never done fapping, I just keep edging myself to everything I see.

>>literally never used again in a mission

This kills me. There's so much potential for a mechanic like this, but it was just some one-note experimental little thing that you could later use to flick NPCs cigarettes back at them.

>GTA Online was a mistake
Yes and No.
The matchmaking system in GTA IV was a nightmare, trying to get your friends on the same team was a pain, and it had a number of other issues, but I can't say I didn't like a roaming deathmatch that takes in potentially the whole city as two teams fight a running battle in the streets and alleys. Cops vs crooks was amazing, and [Team] Mafiya Work was great. The cooperative missions were fun and challenging, if repetitive.

V ruined it all with cancerous microtransaction driven game design, and horrible loading times that encourage everyone to stay in free-roam all the time and buy sharkcards to fund their griefing spree.

>And at the very least, it had the best online of all time

This. It's amazing how much I miss playing GTA IV multiplayer given all the accessibility problems that the menus and matchmaking presented.

I replayed it over the last week...No.
VC, SA, IV`s add-ons and 5 are better.

Unfortunately on the other end of the dial, it had possibly the worst talk radio content.

For me its III and IV.
III what it lacks in technology it makes up in atmosphere and the straight cut story. In the words of a respectable salesman
>It just works
And having just finished replay of IV, it really is just an event. It is such a leap from GTA SA it is mind boggling.
Yes, the cars are more slippery than they should be, but is the damage system just so satisfying, and when you finally master your hand brake turns, it gives you a feeling you are doing stunts for the 70's Cop Action flicks.
Gunplay is simple but satisfying. The fact that the glock, first weapon you get, is completely viable end game weapon is pretty good, a complete contrast of Half Life 2 notorious pistol.
I don't know, maybe i am biased, but perhaps IV captures New York(Very gritty) and V captures LA(Very plastic) in their gamefeel as well.

My biggest Gripe with GTA games is that despite cars being central part of the game they never play any role in the story.
Sure V gave us personal cars for each character, but I much rather the player could decide what car the main character should drive.
You could incorporate this in missions, for example if you show up with a big black muscle car for a "Follow him, don't get noticed" you get called out for having subtlety of a wrecking ball. That is something I expected we would get judging by the vector GTA IV took, the next step.
Instead we got a gimmicky
>3 characters, dude!
That doesn't give us anything actually new.

GTA II 3D HD remake when

I have 250 hrs in it on steam, I'd say yes. Mainly because of the driving. Driving in V is bad, cars all handle like they're glued to the ground and cars are the biggest part of GTA for me. Also Liberty City > Los Santos. I do like V a lot though.

Oh shit, I forgot SA somehow. It should be between III and CTW.

That would be SA.

>SA below VC, III, and GTAIV

Holy shit talk about bad tastes.

If VI had Vs controls (weapon wheel, but with only 1 weapon per slot like in IV) and animation refinements (dat cover slide, ew) I'd happy keep playing that instead of Online.

but there are only like 5-6 missions in SA that did that
meanwhile, Alderney is just an empty land with nothing but main missions

SA babbys are the overall worst GTA fanbase.

SA improved so many mechanical flaws of III and VC that it was indeed the true sequel to III rather than a quick cashin in like VC was. The fact that VC didn't have swimming to this day still boggles my mind despite the very narrow islands and shitload of boat missions. Fuck that.

>That's
Not even going to ready any further, you fucking nigger. Don't reply to me again.

I wasn't talking about the game.

Cred Forums partybus in gta 4.

N-nigger
H-homo

I think you have a point

...

>it introduced the most new features
that were groundbreaking at it's release plus i subjectively find it the best,mainly because of it's setting which i like the most out all gta's