[dragon_goran_mijo]

I think GTA SA, as a game, was sh*t. The story was incoherent, and the development of characters was the equivalent of a children's book. CJ was everyone bitch. The ending goal made me forget about the entire story. Sweet was barely introduced. He felt like a stranger! Working for the Triads, stealing jetpacks.. etc.

(Side, douche like comment) Bellic > Vercetti.

And number two. I prefer VCS as opposed to GTA VC. I don't know why.

[Tycek]

QUOTE (dragon_goran_mijo @ Jun 9 2012, 06:56)

I think GTA SA, as a game, was sh*t. The story was incoherent, and the development of characters was the equivalent of a children's book. CJ was everyone bitch. The ending goal made me forget about the entire story. Sweet was barely introduced. He felt like a stranger! Working for the Triads, stealing jetpacks.. etc.

This opinion is very unpopular on these forums and you may get flamed by some angry, childish SA fanboys, but to be honest I am sharing this with you. I believe that R* was aiming for size and simply missed the point of the game. Fortunately they fixed everything in IV. SA was good testing ground for some activities and technology for the future generations of GTA, but very mediocre as a GTA game.

QUOTE (dragon_goran_mijo @ Jun 9 2012, 06:56)

(Side, douche like comment) Bellic > Vercetti.

This is hard for me to decide. Niko was more deep in terms of characters creation, but Tommy was also great and his monologues after some of the cutscenes, were really extending his character. He may be a bit too straight in his actions, but I believe he was simply the best protagonist in the 3D era and could be easily placed in HD era without much problems.

QUOTE (dragon_goran_mijo @ Jun 9 2012, 06:56)

And number two. I prefer VCS as opposed to GTA VC. I don't know why.

It depends what are we judgning. In terms of mechanics, gameplay and graphics VCS is much better than VC. In terms of story and missions VC is the winner.

[Miamivicecity]

I think's it's harsh to call SA sh*t, but I don't think it's as fun as it used to be.

[dragon_goran_mijo]

QUOTE (Tycek @ Saturday, Jun 9 2012, 09:08)

QUOTE (dragon_goran_mijo @ Jun 9 2012, 06:56) I think GTA SA, as a game, was sh*t. The story was incoherent, and the development of characters was the equivalent of a children's book. CJ was everyone bitch. The ending goal made me forget about the entire story. Sweet was barely introduced. He felt like a stranger! Working for the Triads, stealing jetpacks.. etc. This opinion is very unpopular on these forums and you may get flamed by some angry, childish SA fanboys, but to be honest I am sharing this with you. I believe that R* was aiming for size and simply missed the point of the game. Fortunately they fixed everything in IV. SA was good testing ground for some activities and technology for the future generations of GTA, but very mediocre as a GTA game. QUOTE (dragon_goran_mijo @ Jun 9 2012, 06:56) (Side, douche like comment) Bellic > Vercetti. This is hard for me to decide. Niko was more deep in terms of characters creation, but Tommy was also great and his monologues after some of the cutscenes, were really extending his character. He may be a bit too straight in his actions, but I believe he was simply the best protagonist in the 3D era and could be easily placed in HD era without much problems. QUOTE (dragon_goran_mijo @ Jun 9 2012, 06:56) And number two. I prefer VCS as opposed to GTA VC. I don't know why. It depends what are we judgning. In terms of mechanics, gameplay and graphics VCS is much better than VC. In terms of story and missions VC is the winner.

The reason I picked Niko is because he shares more emotions. Tommy's main motive was to get the money and murder Forelli, yet in IV he had multiple goals that span across the entire game. Nijo wanted peace, finding Darko, eliminating Dimitri and finding a woman. He also wanted to find Florian, but I don't think that's really a huge motive for the story, but whatever.

[BlueRidgeMountainMan]

1: San Andreas is my personal favorite, but I can see why you wouldn't like it for those reasons. Even I've gotta admit that it's got some pretty big flaws... not so much with story as with gameplay. Namely, there's a lot of filler missions, and some of the missions (especially most of those damn flying missions) aren't fun at all. I still consider it my all-time favorite game, but I'd be lying if I said there weren't moments I wanted to dunk it in an acid toilet.

2: Can't really argue with this. I like Tommy just fine, but Niko's the more developed and well-rounded character by far in my book. Of course, this can be chalked up to the writing in general. They weren't taking themselves quite as seriously in Vice... I mean, Vice took itself at least somewhat seriously and at least FELT like a good crime movie and not like a total farce (*coughcoughSaintsRowTheThirdcoughcough*), but it was also more like an 80's exploitation film as opposed to IV's Michael Mann-like feel.

3: I do think the gameplay in VCS is a bit better. The controls are a lot better, and it's a bit deeper what with the empire building and all. I thought the plot was kind of weak (I liked Vic, and I get what they were going for with him (and would later pull off with Niko in IV), but he was such a decent person that it made a good deal of the game an out-of-character mess), but I still enjoyed it just fine.

[dragon_goran_mijo]

QUOTE (BlueRidgeMountainMan @ Sunday, Jun 10 2012, 03:51)

1: San Andreas is my personal favorite, but I can see why you wouldn't like it for those reasons. Even I've gotta admit that it's got some pretty big flaws... not so much with story as with gameplay. Namely, there's a lot of filler missions, and some of the missions (especially most of those damn flying missions) aren't fun at all. I still consider it my all-time favorite game, but I'd be lying if I said there weren't moments I wanted to dunk it in an acid toilet. 2: Can't really argue with this. I like Tommy just fine, but Niko's the more developed and well-rounded character by far in my book. Of course, this can be chalked up to the writing in general. They weren't taking themselves quite as seriously in Vice... I mean, Vice took itself at least somewhat seriously and at least FELT like a good crime movie and not like a total farce (*coughcoughSaintsRowTheThirdcoughcough*), but it was also more like an 80's exploitation film as opposed to IV's Michael Mann-like feel. 3: I do think the gameplay in VCS is a bit better. The controls are a lot better, and it's a bit deeper what with the empire building and all. I thought the plot was kind of weak (I liked Vic, and I get what they were going for with him (and would later pull off with Niko in IV), but he was such a decent person that it made a good deal of the game an out-of-character mess), but I still enjoyed it just fine.

Nice post. Appreciate your input.

[akavari112]

The beauty of Tommy Vercetti is that he basically represents the essence of what GTA is. He sees something he likes, he takes it. ("Hmm, nice bike")

Grand Theft Auto IV was a much bigger project and I wouldn't even consider it fair to compare Niko and Tommy, although I agree that Niko is more developed. Niko is also hypocritical and selfish in a lot of his actions throughout the story; senselessly killing and ruining lives in an attempt to bring him personal closure?

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (akavari112 @ Sunday, Jun 10 2012, 15:27)

Grand Theft Auto IV was a much bigger project and I wouldn't even consider it fair to compare Niko and Tommy, although I agree that Niko is more developed. Niko is also hypocritical and selfish in a lot of his actions throughout the story; senselessly killing and ruining lives in an attempt to bring him personal closure?

That's what makes him so deep and developed though. He has flaws like any human does. Hypocrisy and selfishness is just apart of human nature.

R* exploiting the fact he was conflicted made his character even better.

This post has been edited by Miamivicecity on Sunday, Jun 10 2012, 05:31