I absolutely love all of the three main GTA games of the 3D Universe era (GTA 3, Vice City and San Andreas) and appreciate each of them for different reasons. Each game has its own unique vibe and setting, characters, things that it does better than the others, and fun missions.Pixel--Dude wrote: ↑August 17th, 2023, 3:19 pmI don't think San Andreas compares to Vice City, my friend. Vice City has better aesthetics, better cars, better characters, better soundtrack and although the map is much smaller by comparison, it has its own charm and a lot more distinguishable locations than any of the other GTA games.
I wouldn't play through San Andreas again dude. I think it's possibly the worst GTA. I don't wanna play as CJ and larp as a hood gangbanger I wanna larp as a big badass crime lord like Tommy Vercetti!
I found the missions on GTA SA just dragged on and they introduced that infuriating stealth mechanic which just sucked balls. I mean, we couldn't even play through San Andreas with 6 stars for every mission! How gay is that? And the gang wars were a total snore fest dude. Just repeating the same shit with the same NPC characters shooting at each other with different coloured headbands on.
GTA 3 at least had interesting rich and diverse gangs, which made it somewhat interesting and the runner up for best GTA game. But Vice City takes the cake! I first completed the game more than 10 years ago (at a guess) but even today it is still a gem that I enjoy playing through with 6 stars on all missions or even making up my own missions. The other GTA games haven't had that kind of replayability for me. Therefore, I think GTA Vice City is the best GTA.
The missions on Vice City weren't that easy either dude. The different properties you could buy made the game pretty interesting with different kinds of missions and what's more is they were all unique locations!
San Andreas isn't objectively a mediocre game. It is actually an incredibly evolved game with features and gameplay that set it apart and appeal to many GTA fans. It's just that the game and its themes don't appeal to your subjective tastes. That doesn't make it a mediocre game.
First of all, it's only natural that Rockstar would make a GTA game about the hood. GTA is indeed a crime game, after all. In real-life Los Angeles in the early 90s, gang warfare was getting really serious between the Bloods and Crips and other African-American and Latino gangs and the LA riots were a major historical event in 1992. Rockstar obviously wanted to capitalize on that. So they made a GTA game primarily about early 90s African-American and Latino gang culture and police corruption, although the game doesn't limit itself to those themes and includes plots surrounding the Triads, various Italian mafias, a major drug syndicate and a rogue CIA agent as the story progresses. These themes interest some people a lot.
Second, even if you don't personally like the characters (because you don't have any interest in early 90s African-American and Latino gang culture), the character development and storylines are undeniably much more elaborate and fleshed out than those of GTA 3 and Vice City and the game's storytelling is objectively superior. San Andreas marked the beginning of the cinematic feel in GTA games.
Third, the map actually does have many iconic locations. If you had played the game a bit more you might have noticed. You obviously have Grove Street and its surroundings which are extremely iconic and represent real-life Compton. Then you have various other gang areas and their iconic landmarks (e.g., Idlewood, El Corona, etc.) which represent real-life hoods, various beaches, and various other locations which represent real-life places in LA. Outside of Los Santos, you've got various towns like Angel Pine, all of which are based on real-life Californian and Nevadan towns, and then you have locations of interest like Area 69 and the Airstrip. Finally, you have Las Venturas with its amazingly beautiful and iconic Strip, a very good representation of real-life Las Vegas. San Fierro is the most boring city in my opinion but even San Fierro looks like a convincing representation of real-life San Francisco. The idea that the San Andreas map has less iconic locations than Vice City is just unfounded.
Fourth, San Andreas' missions aren't bad at all. Most of them are really good, especially on the first island (the Los Santos missions are all really well-done and relevant to the story) and the third island. San Fierro's missions are 50/50 in my opinion and that's where some boring filler content is inserted, but I'd say that overall at least 80% of the missions are good and relevant to the story. On the third island, you have intricate casino heists, infiltration of military facilities, intense shootouts with the Forelli and Sindacco mafias, etc. Many of the missions are excellently made and are therefore beloved by most fans.
Fifth, the gangwar mechanic is just optional side-mission content. You don't even need to do it to complete the game. It's San Andreas' equivalent of GTA 3 and Vice City's rampages. Whether you like the gangwar mechanic or not is simply a matter of taste. For some players there is an exhilarating feeling to progressively conquering different parts of the Los Santos map.
Sixth, the stealth mechanic is only featured in about 2 or 3 missions out of over 100. It's not even a prominent feature of the game nor is it even that hard to learn once you understand the controls.
Seventh, San Andreas has most of the vehicles and weapons that GTA 3 and Vice City have and then some more.
That said, San Andreas definitely has worse AI than Vice City despite the physics being more developed and more realistic. The gang member NPCs are more stupid than those of the previous games. It's like the developers tried to be more ambitious in making a much more evolved game but at the same time got some of the simple things wrong. Then there are some game features that San Andreas doesn't do as well as its predecessor. San Andreas has property missions - predominantly in San Fierro - just like Vice City does, but in San Andreas the property missions are far more boring and don't do much to enhance the gameplay. They're treated more as an afterthought.
In my opinion, with San Andreas the gameplay is really good in Los Santos and Las Venturas (including the Airstrip) but is considerably weaker in San Fierro. San Fierro has good Triad and pimping missions and the whole angle with the Loco Syndicate, but also quite a few boring and really unmemorable missions. It's as though you just have to slog it out for a while until you unlock Las Venturas. Fortunately, some of the tedious missions (the Wang Cars and Zero missions) are optional. San Fierro could have been done much better. I would have liked more interesting properties and better property missions and maybe even "assassination contracts" like the phone missions in Vice City.