Grand Theft Auto Grieving Thread - Yep, I've been drinkin' again...

[RJ MacReady]

I'll always love GTA. III and VC were some of my earlier console gaming memories. I only played a bit of SA (though later experienced the whole game through streaming and LPs) but I respect how it told an interesting gangland story while still using its entire map to involve CJ in tons of oddball missions and side content. It was ahead of its time.

I look back positively upon IV even though it's aged rapidly. It's pretty evident that R* was trying to step back from SA's size and insanity to create a denser map and more grounded story that made use of the recent console generation, and to that end it worked just fine. It had a lot of sweat put into it and it shows in all the little details that a lot of people point out are missing from V.

V... I don't know. I thought the story was almost incomprehensible and served more as an excuse to run the player through an escalating series of cinematic setpieces than a clear narrative. It's trying too hard to be the Grand Theft Auto game by jam-packing it with the elements, scale and absurdity of all the previous games, but it doesn't mix for me. I think it's the unspoken cynicism behind it: The lack of smaller details from IV, absence of single player DLC and the very existence of GTA Online make it clear that creating the end-all be-all of GTA was the business plan from early in production.

 

[ProfDongs]

My favorites are the III Trilogy and Spinoffs that came from them, out of those I think I played III or SA the most. Its probably because I played it first but III always stood out to me as my favorite, even if VC and SA were better games mechanically and structurally. Years after I played III on PS2 I played it again on PC and tried to do everything legit, and the only thing I didn't do was get the last few secret packages because I wasn't using a map or marking down which ones I had gotten. VC was great but I think I screwed myself over a few times by saving in the Ice Cream truck place that corrupted saves, although I did end up beating it later. SA I haven't really gone back to but I had great times playing it when it was first released.

I really liked LCS and all the different costumes you could get in it, they didn't do much but it was always fun to have unlockables and things like that. VCS was okay but I don't remember too much of it, the territory stuff was neat but it never really seemed to fleshed out from what I can remember.

I played I and II way later but because of that I could never get into them or appreciate them the way people seemed to. IV and V I didn't care for too much, IV was never fun to me except for the multiplayer, and V was better but not spectacular. The fact that the minigames and collectibles were gutted made me lose all interest in them. I know this isn't the thread for it but Saints Row 2 demolished both of them in terms of staying true to open world crime simulator with plenty of things to do and unlock, and the characters and story were pretty good.

 

[The Last Stand]

I really liked LCS and all the different costumes you could get in it, they didn't do much but it was always fun to have unlockables and things like that. VCS was okay but I don't remember too much of it, the territory stuff was neat but it never really seemed to fleshed out from what I can remember.

Funny you mention that, imo LCS's plot was almost non-existant. The gist was you were basically errand boy for Salvatore; if it wasn't for the fact that I played III, I would've forgot about some characters. VCS had a more established plot; you were in the military to take care of your family. But was kicked out early and you do crime to take care of your family. Antagonist was clear too from the startup. R* improved on that from LCS.

They were great handheld GTAs on the PSP. Controls were solid and gameplay reminded me of the console GTAs but streamlined and improved. VCS was a bit "pink" and jaded on the PSP AFAIK, but playable.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Spoiler: Autism

Shit like this is kinda why I hate the game/movie analyst circlejerk on Youtube. Not just this guy, but guys like Joseph Anderson or CrowbCat too.

It’s not even so much the videos themselves, the RDR2 video itself was just meh.

It’s more the fact that the moment one of these guys makes a “big brained” analysis on a game or movie it suddenly becomes the “right opinion” and anyone who disagrees with it will be met by an army of that analyst’s angry, autistic sycophants.

Not too keen on these long-form nerd analysts, but I can live with them; their fans on the other hand are some of the biggest spergs on the planet

If me posting this causes an autistic inferno, I’ll be sure to hide

Okay, so I watched American Krogan's video after I had made my own post about RDR2 on Reddit.

American Krogan hit every single point and every bit of evidence that I did, but the thing is... he kept going. And going. And going.

Krogan's analysis is flawed because while he includes every single thing that bothered me, he then goes on to include a million other things that aren't issues, and he's very dishonest in his presentation. For example, he makes a crack about "miscegenation being the key to Arthur's heart" when Arthur helps the deserter, when it seems like it's meant to be more "this PREGNANT WOMAN is the key to Arthur's heart." And there's a ton of times where he'll take a scene out of context, or show an example that backs him but not one which doesn't, and so on.

As somebody who also felt like RDR2 was a bit too Left-wing, I feel like Krogan has done more harm than good because he's so over-the-top and dishonest in his critique that it makes everybody else critiquing the game look bad. Most of my complaints just came down to:

1) You're outlaw filth, but the game treats your gang (who are basically 1890s Antifa) like they're morally superior when dealing with social issues from the time. It sort of gives you a pass on the murdering and robbing. This ties into other issues, too, which have nothing to do with politics.

2) The gang being diverse makes sense in-story, in the sense that Dutch is a sort of socialist type, but I'm just tired of protagonists always having to have modern values in historical fiction.

3) The depiction of Appalachians and Southerners is the most negative I've ever seen in a game, and a lot of it doesn't make much sense.

4) I don't think of the game as "anti-White," but it's sort of "pro-Black and pro-Indian." There are a few encounters/missions where you shoot at Black outlaws, but all the murder-rape-hillbilly stuff, including what goes on in the bayou, is Whites. You're not even allowed to shoot the Indians, for no reason at all. Imagine if you played GTA and you just straight-up couldn't hurt a certain kind of NPC. FUCK ME, you can't even INSULT the Indians, and it actually has negative effects on gameplay as it makes an entire area of the map pointless to play in.

Bizarrely, the game goes in the opposite direction with Mexicans, having them act like moustache-twirling spaghetti Western bandito caricatures.

5) The game newspapers have lots of commentary on the Trump Administration. It's sort of typical Rockstar satire, except really boring and lazily done.

6) The game isn't quite bold enough to actually do anything interesting with its themes.

I like to contrast RDR2 with Mafia III. You'd think I would hate Mafia III, right? But surprise surprise, I loved it. It's a game that's all about a Black gangbanger waging a terrorist campaign against the Ku Klux Klan and the Mafia in the 1960s, and yet I felt like it had a much more nuanced, thoughtful approach to its subject matter.

They're almost like opposites, in some ways. RDR2's story was weak as piss (again, even outside of the politics), but its open world is a very fun toy and a massive improvement over RDR1. It had some other huge issues, but I loved travelling around the world living off the land. On the other hand, I LOVED Mafia III's story, but it's open world was just a shooting gallery.


Edit: Krogan's argument is even worse when I consider that I loved his Odyssey and BFV videos, both of which were on games I never saw. Given how many problem his RDR2 video has, it makes me wonder if he's all that credible with his criticisms of those two. At least those were more addressing history, though, so probably less chance for him to be a bell-end.

 

[UQ 770]

I actually liked Red Dead Revolver and basically have never played GTA. If they made a Red Dead Redemption filled with deranged teleporting B-movie bosses and weird fucking enemies with a soundtrack filled with classic movie scores like the first I'd buy it. That game was a work of art and nothing Rockstar produces will ever come close to it no matter how many virtual windshields I get to fly through.

 

[UE 558]

Okay, so I watched American Krogan's video after I had made my own post about RDR2 on Reddit.

American Krogan hit every single point and every bit of evidence that I did, but the thing is... he kept going. And going. And going.

Krogan's analysis is flawed because while he includes every single thing that bothered me, he then goes on to include a million other things that aren't issues, and he's very dishonest in his presentation. For example, he makes a crack about "miscegenation being the key to Arthur's heart" when Arthur helps the deserter, when it seems like it's meant to be more "this PREGNANT WOMAN is the key to Arthur's heart." And there's a ton of times where he'll take a scene out of context, or show an example that backs him but not one which doesn't, and so on.

As somebody who also felt like RDR2 was a bit too Left-wing, I feel like Krogan has done more harm than good because he's so over-the-top and dishonest in his critique that it makes everybody else critiquing the game look bad. Most of my complaints just came down to:

1) You're outlaw filth, but the game treats your gang (who are basically 1890s Antifa) like they're morally superior when dealing with social issues from the time. It sort of gives you a pass on the murdering and robbing. This ties into other issues, too, which have nothing to do with politics.

2) The gang being diverse makes sense in-story, in the sense that Dutch is a sort of socialist type, but I'm just tired of protagonists always having to have modern values in historical fiction.

3) The depiction of Appalachians and Southerners is the most negative I've ever seen in a game, and a lot of it doesn't make much sense.

4) I don't think of the game as "anti-White," but it's sort of "pro-Black and pro-Indian." There are a few encounters/missions where you shoot at Black outlaws, but all the murder-rape-hillbilly stuff, including what goes on in the bayou, is Whites. You're not even allowed to shoot the Indians, for no reason at all. Imagine if you played GTA and you just straight-up couldn't hurt a certain kind of NPC. FUCK ME, you can't even INSULT the Indians, and it actually has negative effects on gameplay as it makes an entire area of the map pointless to play in.

Bizarrely, the game goes in the opposite direction with Mexicans, having them act like moustache-twirling spaghetti Western bandito caricatures.

5) The game newspapers have lots of commentary on the Trump Administration. It's sort of typical Rockstar satire, except really boring and lazily done.

6) The game isn't quite bold enough to actually do anything interesting with its themes.

I like to contrast RDR2 with Mafia III. You'd think I would hate Mafia III, right? But surprise surprise, I loved it. It's a game that's all about a Black gangbanger waging a terrorist campaign against the Ku Klux Klan and the Mafia in the 1960s, and yet I felt like it had a much more nuanced, thoughtful approach to its subject matter.

They're almost like opposites, in some ways. RDR2's story was weak as piss (again, even outside of the politics), but its open world is a very fun toy and a massive improvement over RDR1. It had some other huge issues, but I loved travelling around the world living off the land. On the other hand, I LOVED Mafia III's story, but it's open world was just a shooting gallery.


Edit: Krogan's argument is even worse when I consider that I loved his Odyssey and BFV videos, both of which were on games I never saw. Given how many problem his RDR2 video has, it makes me wonder if he's all that credible with his criticisms of those two. At least those were more addressing history, though, so probably less chance for him to be a bell-end.

People like Krogan’s video for the same reason why people sub to faggots like Sargoon of Applebees and TheQuartering, fat autistic men on the internet like having their autistic political opinions reaffirmed by other fat autistic men

And in AK’s defense, he at least admitted it was a WELL MADE game, so at least he isn’t as bad as say RazorFist who considers Dishonored 2 Big Rigs-tier shovelware for having some dumb pro-trans/pro-feminism shit that triggered his timbers

 

[The Last Stand]

You'd think I would hate Mafia III, right? But surprise surprise, I loved it. It's a game that's all about a Black gangbanger waging a terrorist campaign against the Ku Klux Klan and the Mafia in the 1960s, and yet I felt like it had a much more nuanced, thoughtful approach to its subject matter.

About time we start talking about Mafia. Another "GTA clone", but I'll get to why it isn't imo.

I briefly played the first Mafia on PS2, did not like it. I thought the controls were clunky, and it had a very slow start. I was bored after 10 minutes about. Looking at footage for the story, because I played Mafia II, it looked like it didn't really age as well as GTA. Voice acting wasn't that great, but the story was, I guess movie quality. Okay.

Mafia II I tried because it was free with Gold on Xbox. It was a massive improvement over its predecessor in every aspect. I was invested into Vito and Joe's journey in a life of crime. The setting of World War II also illustrated the fact that Italians & Irish were the gutter race in America, working for nothing in slums and corruption in Midwest America. Granted, I never seen Mafia media so to me, it was a good depiction of Mafia culture and the time period of 40s and 50s.

It played like a GTA game, but it wasn't a GTA game. Third person, open world to explore, jacking cars at will, crime: all the traits of GTA. But what Mafia II did differently was its focus on the story, nothing more. The world wasn't a sandbox of sorts, not many activities to do compared to other games in the genre. It was linear, after you're done with one mission, you're immediately tasked for the next one. Not necessarily a bad thing, just took some getting used to.

Mafia III, I was excited about the setting and subject matter it would discuss with being in the 60s in Louisiana. Vietnam War, Civil Rights Era, racism. Even playing as a black character where those flaws in the 60s would impact you moreso than other characters. I was quite impressed with the story; the twist of playing as a non-Italian character in a Mafia type piece of media was fresh. Gameplay was meh, in fact barebones.

Mafia III had the same issue with Mafia II, linearity within an open world because of story. The option to use stealth or gun blazing was a smart idea, even implemented better than GTA V tried. Although wasn't perfect, sometimes you could kill AI right next to each other and stay "hidden" or they find you like that. I wish more open world games had choice of stealth or guns blazing. But each story mission was the same copy paste structure: meet contact, go to place, kill enemies, damage for points, come back, repeat. The most interesting encounters were the bosses, with the monologues Lincoln would give or listen. Great character development that way. Gameplay was so mundane, I just watched the cutscenes on Youtube. Must better experience that way.

And you could collect Playboy centerfolds in the missions too. Full nudity too and actual centerfolds, was actually surprised. If you want a look, here are locations and pictures of the collectibles.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

About time we start talking about Mafia. Another "GTA clone", but I'll get to why it isn't imo.

I briefly played the first Mafia on PS2, did not like it. I thought the controls were clunky, and it had a very slow start. I was bored after 10 minutes about. Looking at footage for the story, because I played Mafia II, it looked like it didn't really age as well as GTA. Voice acting wasn't that great, but the story was, I guess movie quality. Okay.

Mafia II I tried because it was free with Gold on Xbox. It was a massive improvement over its predecessor in every aspect. I was invested into Vito and Joe's journey in a life of crime. The setting of World War II also illustrated the fact that Italians & Irish were the gutter race in America, working for nothing in slums and corruption in Midwest America. Granted, I never seen Mafia media so to me, it was a good depiction of Mafia culture and the time period of 40s and 50s.

It played like a GTA game, but it wasn't a GTA game. Third person, open world to explore, jacking cars at will, crime: all the traits of GTA. But what Mafia II did differently was its focus on the story, nothing more. The world wasn't a sandbox of sorts, not many activities to do compared to other games in the genre. It was linear, after you're done with one mission, you're immediately tasked for the next one. Not necessarily a bad thing, just took some getting used to.

Mafia III, I was excited about the setting and subject matter it would discuss with being in the 60s in Louisiana. Vietnam War, Civil Rights Era, racism. Even playing as a black character where those flaws in the 60s would impact you moreso than other characters. I was quite impressed with the story; the twist of playing as a non-Italian character in a Mafia type piece of media was fresh. Gameplay was meh, in fact barebones.

Mafia III had the same issue with Mafia II, linearity within an open world because of story. The option to use stealth or gun blazing was a smart idea, even implemented better than GTA V tried. Although wasn't perfect, sometimes you could kill AI right next to each other and stay "hidden" or they find you like that. I wish more open world games had choice of stealth or guns blazing. But each story mission was the same copy paste structure: meet contact, go to place, kill enemies, damage for points, come back, repeat. The most interesting encounters were the bosses, with the monologues Lincoln would give or listen. Great character development that way. Gameplay was so mundane, I just watched the cutscenes on Youtube. Must better experience that way.

And you could collect Playboy centerfolds in the missions too. Full nudity too and actual centerfolds, was actually surprised. If you want a look, here are locations and pictures of the collectibles.

I didn't like Mafia II although I expected to. I liked the demo of it so much I bought it. It was just too boring for me. The dialogue was grating with the constant cussing, the missions were just so boring to me. It's one of those things that I don't begrudge anybody for liking, but I just couldn't stand it enough to get even halfway in.

With how repetitive Mafia III was, I had to take a few weeks break in between, but I was pleased to find that it was easy to get back into. Hadn't forgotten anything important. Unlike an RPG, there's so few plot strands running that you can't really forget anything. I liked the gunplay and cars but it was not a game that could sell itself on that alone. In some ways, having an empty world kind of reinforced its feeling, since it gave you a no-nonsense, there's-a-job-to-be-done attitude that matches the Rambo you're playing as. I would probably have still preferred to have had more GTA-style content, but it was fine if you think about it, like you said, as just being an open world which contains a linear game, and not an open world game as such.

For that matter, in that regard it's more like LA Noire than it is GTA. I also think of Mafia III as feeling a lot like Far Cry. That may sound odd, since Far Cry is known a lot for its hunting and unique navigation, but I got a lot of the same feelings exploring New Bordeaux as I did in Mafia III.

Where it excelled was the presentation. Extremely slick, stylish period piece with great acting, writing. It was brilliant of the devs to have set it up with that framing device of being a documentary. It would have made an amazing movie. Pretty much every one of the death scenes (for the targets) is great. It's such a shame the public didn't appreciate it more.

As far as Mafia III and RDR2 goes, my thinking there is that Mafia III is very political and racial, but it still treats Southern culture with a sort of respect. It never really depicts it, and I don't remember any good white Southern characters, but the South is treated like... I dunno, an actual place? Actual people? I thought it was sharp of them to have made the Italian mafioso go native, where he spoke in a hybrid Italian-Louisiana accent and called Yankees "carpetbaggers."

In RDR2, on the other hand, the game felt like it was dripping venom towards Southerners. The Van der Linde Gang keeps making cracks about how "creepy" the swamp and townsfolk are, and for some reason the Braithwaites call Arthur a Yankee even though he has an obvious, thick Texan/Louisiana accent. Like, Arthur repeatedly implies he's not Southern, but he sounds Southern. Cracks about the Southerners all being white trash/hillbilly/redneck/dumbass scum. The whole place has this negative tone to it. If they meant to go for a kind of Southern gothic feeling I can get that, but if that was the intention it didn't real land right. It also makes sense that Dutch would be bigoted towards Southerners; it just comes across feeling off because the game never shows him wrong, I guess you could say. Roanoke Ridge (Appalachia, basically) is even worse, seeing as they put in straight-up Deliverance troglodytes. It's hard to explain coherently what I didn't like about it, but again, it felt like Mafia III was a depiction of the actual South, while RDR2 is a weird caricature, and while people say Rockstar satirizes everything, none of the rest of the map felt like a caricature.

 

[UE 558]

@Syaoran Li why not convert this into “Rockstar General”? We’ve always had a problem with RDR/GTA threads getting either abandoned and replaced with other threads, it’d be lovely if we had one that just contained everything from GTA, to Red Dead, Max Payne 3, Midnight Club, Bully, The Warriors, Manhunt even more obscure shit like Body Harvest or Wild Metal

 

[The Last Stand]

I didn't like Mafia II although I expected to. I liked the demo of it so much I bought it. It was just too boring for me. The dialogue was grating with the constant cussing, the missions were just so boring to me. It's one of those things that I don't begrudge anybody for liking, but I just couldn't stand it enough to get even halfway in.

Funny you mentioned that, Mafia II actually was recognized in the Guinness Book of World Records ... for its constant swearing. I guess they thought Italians were profane a lot. You don't really notice it unless you play it from beginning to end.

In some ways, having an empty world kind of reinforced its feeling, since it gave you a no-nonsense, there's-a-job-to-be-done attitude that matches the Rambo you're playing as.

I agree. Mafia II did that well. You were reliving a character's experience, the world was just a setting. The story was the important part. It would've been distracting to have side activities like bowling or other minigames. You were supposed to be engaged in the story and characters. Sometimes less is more.

Mafia III's gameplay loop was flawed. I wanted to actually play and see the story to its completion by experience, but I wasn't compelled enough to go through that slog. Shame though, Mafia III was an underrated game with lots to say and experience. I hope Hanger 13 makes more games set in time periods that is often ignored in games.

but again, it felt like Mafia III was a depiction of the actual South, while RDR2 is a weird caricature, and while people say Rockstar satirizes everything, none of the rest of the map felt like a caricature.

I haven't got to play RDR II, maybe soon, so I can't say. I think because the developers are well known for satire, and they live in Scotland. I guess that's a reason why it's "satirized".

 

[Syaoran Li]

@Syaoran Li why not convert this into “Rockstar General”? We’ve always had a problem with RDR/GTA threads getting either abandoned and replaced with other threads, it’d be lovely if we had one that just contained everything from GTA, to Red Dead, Max Payne 3, Midnight Club, Bully, The Warriors, Manhunt even more obscure shit like Body Harvest or Wild Metal

I might consider it, but I also want to include stuff like Saints Row, Mafia, and "GTA Clones" that aren't done by Rockstar.

Also, anyone remember an old PS2 game named GUN? It came out back in 2005 and was an open-world Western game that I loved back in the day. Honestly, GUN was more of a predecessor to Red Dead Redemption than the actual Red Dead Revolver was.

Red Dead Revolver was originally a Capcom game meant to be a modern (for the time) re-imagining of the old 80's game Gunsmoke, sort of like how Maximo was a modernized version of Ghosts N' Goblins and how the first Resident Evil was a re-imagining of Sweet Home.

However, the game was cancelled and Rockstar bought the rights to it and finished the development.

IIRC, the idea was that Red Dead Revolver was going to have a lot of horror and supernatural elements in the later part of the game, and there were rumors that it would form a "shared universe" with Maximo and possibly Devil May Cry. I dunno about the shared universe stuff being true, but the horror elements from the earlier Capcom build would definitely explain the weirder elements of Red Dead Revolver.

 

[Niggernerd]

I actually didn't mind GTA Chinatown wars for DS. It had a birds eye view like the originals and the tattoo mini game was pretty fun. Story wasn't half bad either.

 

[UE 558]

I might consider it, but I also want to include stuff like Saints Row, Mafia, and "GTA Clones" that aren't done by Rockstar.

Also, anyone remember an old PS2 game named GUN? It came out back in 2005 and was an open-world Western game that I loved back in the day. Honestly, GUN was more of a predecessor to Red Dead Redemption than the actual Red Dead Revolver was.

Red Dead Revolver was originally a Capcom game meant to be a modern (for the time) re-imagining of the old 80's game Gunsmoke, sort of like how Maximo was a modernized version of Ghosts N' Goblins and how the first Resident Evil was a re-imagining of Sweet Home.

However, the game was cancelled and Rockstar bought the rights to it and finished the development.

IIRC, the idea was that Red Dead Revolver was going to have a lot of horror and supernatural elements in the later part of the game, and there were rumors that it would form a "shared universe" with Maximo and possibly Devil May Cry. I dunno about the shared universe stuff being true, but the horror elements from the earlier Capcom build would definitely explain the weirder elements of Red Dead Revolver.

Makes me wonder if Undead Nightmare was a semi-tribute to RD Rev’s earlier build

I might consider it, but I also want to include stuff like Saints Row, Mafia, and "GTA Clones" that aren't done by Rockstar.

Also, anyone remember an old PS2 game named GUN? It came out back in 2005 and was an open-world Western game that I loved back in the day. Honestly, GUN was more of a predecessor to Red Dead Redemption than the actual Red Dead Revolver was.

Red Dead Revolver was originally a Capcom game meant to be a modern (for the time) re-imagining of the old 80's game Gunsmoke, sort of like how Maximo was a modernized version of Ghosts N' Goblins and how the first Resident Evil was a re-imagining of Sweet Home.

However, the game was cancelled and Rockstar bought the rights to it and finished the development.

We already have a Saints Row thread, but I don’t see one for Mafia. Maybe just call this thread “Grand Theft Auto & Its Clones” for now?

 

[The Last Stand]

I actually didn't mind GTA Chinatown wars for DS. It had a birds eye view like the originals and the tattoo mini game was pretty fun. Story wasn't half bad either.

I always wanted to play GTA: Chinatown Wars for awhile but didn't have a DS at the time. Yes, I know it was out on PSP but was a kid then.

Played it on an iPad mini, one of the few mobile games out there that is actually damn good and worthwhile. The touch controls were well done, and dare I say, initiative. Carjacking a car: either rotate a screwdriver in the ignition or hotwire it by connecting and twisting wires (depending on the type of car, nice attention to detail). A tattoo minigame where you have to trace a symbol as best you can to get better ratings. Even buying lottery tickets and scratching them off with the stylus or finger. That's how you do touch controls.

Chinatown Wars was developed with the DS in mind, with its limitations and advantages not found in other consoles. The comic book aesthetic was a great, simple way to tell missions and story to the player with the DS's aging hardware. The writing was tongue in cheek and entertaining. Even though they didn't have voices, I would laugh just reading the lines they'd spit out.

Gameplay worked well too on the iPad. The 2.5D perspective was smart with the lack of an analog stick and force feedback. Shooting was responsive and snappy too, save for a couple times where autoaim wouldn't work as well. The cop evade system was a favorite of mine. You could go to a Pay n' Spray like before, or actually ram the cops off the road to lose them. Sometimes I'd just get in murder sprees and just watch the cops crash, losing my wanted level that way. It feels like an action movie in that regard.

Collectables were finding drug dealers, destroying cameras and discovering hidden areas around the city (rampages, stunt jumps, properties, etc.) Yes, you could buy and sell drugs in the game with drug dealers. There's even a nifty tab where you would know which parts of the city were buying, selling, what drugs are of supply and demand. That's how I made some money ingame, a great economy system R* implemented. I even nearly 100%'d the game, just exploring anything and everything the game had to offer.

CW felt more familiar to the heyday of the 3D era of GTA with including rampages, minigames, buying property and pure mayhem. It was a great mix of the HD era's mechanics with the gameplay of yesteryear. They even brought the tank back as well (also with GTA: TBoGT). Only thing it had similar to GTA IV was its setting of Liberty City sans Alderney (that was removed due to space). Like San Andreas, the story of CW was self contained. It had little connection to the events of GTA IV despite being in the same canonical timeline. You could jump in and play. Brilliant.

Anyway, if you have emulation, a DS, PSP or mobile device, I'd recommend GTA: CW. A handheld open world game done right without many compromises to the devices' limitations.

 

[UE 558]

inb4 this thread gets derailed by “RDR2 is for cucks” aspergers

Yeah, I jumped the gun with this post and admit it was stupid.

prepares to get so many dumb ratings that Uncle and Bill would call me fucking stupid

 

[The Last Stand]

Toni can't swim in LCS but I like how they explained why (the water in Liberty City is toxic because of the heavy pollution)

@Syaoran Li In game explantation using the fictional Liberty Tree newspaper. I just found this out this year; R* actually wrote faux articles about the state of Liberty City before the release of GTA III and "published" them using their website (now it would say this page doesn't exist, but archives are available on the GTA Wiki if you're interested.) I love how they were focused on developing the setting and characters before the game even came out; the articles were satirical as well, bringing humor to American news media. I didn't know you read those too. That would explain why Claude and Toni would die upon reaching the water canonically.

I can respect III for what it is but the game's aged horribly in terms of control. The lack of map hurts it too.

Oh yes, GTA III's gunplay was horrendous. Especially when sniping or using the manual aim full auto assault rifle, because its acceleration was high without a way to tone it down. And that vertical aim was inverted without a way to change it. Remember that mission where you had to provide sniper support for 8-Ball on a boat? Thanks to the controls, that mission would take more tries than it needed. PC players didn't have to worry because of mouse and keyboard, also having free aim for any weapon because of the reticule on the screen.

San Andreas fixed that with adding free aim on console as well. Much needed change.

 

[Gravityqueen4life]

call me a faggot but if GTA IV did one thing right, it was the characters. see, im an RPG kind of guy so like character building in my games and getting to know them on a personal level. just being able too hang out with little Jacob or Brucie, hell, even Roman and having them talk with Niko was really nice. made them feel like actual people and you started caring about them.

i cant remember a character like that in V outside Michaels son and his a complete faggot.

 

[The Last Stand]

call me a fagot but if GTA IV did one thing right, it was the characters. see, im an RPG kind of guy so like character building in my games and getting to know them on a personal level. just being able too hang out with little Jacob or Brucie, hell, even Roman and having them talk with Niko was really nice. made them feel like actual people and you started caring about them.

GTA IV did its story and characters right. The change of tone that IV brought to the table was welcoming in maturing the series forward. Hanging with your friends had bonuses too, which encouraged you to hang with them. Even get to know them on a personal level. Writing was spectacular and reached its peak with satirizing post 9/11 America.

Almost every detail in IV's Liberty City was a jab at the American Dream. The Internet, the dialogue, the instruction manual, even the characters themselves. I don't understand why people complained that GTA IV was lesser than San Andreas. (They were planning on making GTA IV bigger with having upstate NY at one point, but I guess technological limitations with the RAGE kept it happening). The city was smaller, but there was more to do and see. A huge technical and suspenseful leap from the last generation.

 

[vertexwindi]

I absolutely can't stand V's writing. It's unbelievably smug and shallow, as if the writer constantly had a shit-eating grin on his face while writing it. It brought down the whole game for me honestly.

 

[The Last Stand]

I absolutely can't stand V's writing. It's unbelievably smug and shallow, as if the writer constantly had a shit-eating grin on his face while writing it. It brought down the whole game for me honestly.

Would you argue that it would perfectly replicates the atmosphere it aimed to capture with satirizing Southern California? Southern California is often smug and shallow, so it that case even when V's "failed", it "succeeded" for the reasons you gave.

Before talking about GTA V, I want to talk about the game it was based off: San Andreas.

As a kid, I loved being in Los Santos with CJ and the Grove. I don't remember much, but I liked being in that area. The music was spot on, I love rap music. I do remember after being in the countryside, I was short on money and couldn't afford the hanger. And always being lost in the big world. Compared to III and VC, it was massive. It was ugly, but in a good way. The haze you would see when the sun rises made it feel very 90s.

Now, after playing and beating it on 360 (okay port, but another time), I felt it was overrated. Don't give me wrong, it was a good game in its own right and a good GTA open world game. But it was too ambitious after leaving Los Santos. The world was too big for its own good, I remember always looking back at the map and figuring out where what was. It didn't help that there was a lot of dead space inbetween the three islands: Los Santos, Las Venturas and San Fierro. If it had IV's GPS system, it would've been better to navatige and explore.

The references it made to 90s gang movies were great (Menace II Society, Boyz in the Hood, etc.) It felt like you were part of a gang in underdeveloped Los Angeles. San Andreas was a topical experience of being black in Southern California in the 90s. Near the end of the game, there is even a segment of the 1992 race riots. Not just mentioned, Los Santos was under riot mode. Houses and cars burning, violence being in every corner, peds looting. After Tenpenny was acquitted, Los Santos was in turmoil. And you were in the middle of it if you stayed in Los Santos. It set the tone as best as it can, and I say it succeeded.

However, when leaving Los Santos, that charm just went away. It was still enjoyable going through the story, but it went from CJ returning home to Grove Street to him doing outlandish stuff. Going in Area 51, taking a jetpack, setting up a heist, flying aircraft. One minute I'm gangbanging, next minute all of this shit. My experience of SA now was after playing GTA IV so that may explain it. Feel free to ask questions or give you thoughts of why you loved SA.