I truly believe GTA is a series that gets better with each installment.

[sXeth]

And how is past games better in your opinion?

While I can't say I've necessarily ever been a fan, the past games didn't slice out their sandbox elements to pack into Online mode. Past entries also tended to embrace the arcadey tomfoolery a bit more. The sandboxes had a fun element without "Here's the omniscent cops with perfect aim that kill you in 3 shots". Now the sandbox is just a pretty walking simulator. Unless you go online where they've put all the effort into adding gameplay to the sandbox, but behind a web of terrible connectivity, griefers and trolls, and microtransactions.

If I do some cross-comparison with Saints Row or Watch_Dogs (both of which had drastically better gunplay (although WD2 toned theirs down specifically to push the hacking more), there's just more toys and things to do in the sandbox. Some of thats down to gimmicks of course. Watch_Dogs has more options for a puzzle or tactical game because of its hacking, and Saints Row just has wilder freedom because it doesn't give a crap for realism.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

And how is past games better in your opinion?

While I can't say I've necessarily ever been a fan, the past games didn't slice out their sandbox elements to pack into Online mode. Past entries also tended to embrace the arcadey tomfoolery a bit more. The sandboxes had a fun element without "Here's the omniscent cops with perfect aim that kill you in 3 shots". Now the sandbox is just a pretty walking simulator. Unless you go online where they've put all the effort into adding gameplay to the sandbox, but behind a web of terrible connectivity, griefers and trolls, and microtransactions.

If I do some cross-comparison with Saints Row or Watch_Dogs (both of which had drastically better gunplay (although WD2 toned theirs down specifically to push the hacking more), there's just more toys and things to do in the sandbox. Some of thats down to gimmicks of course. Watch_Dogs has more options for a puzzle or tactical game because of its hacking, and Saints Row just has wilder freedom because it doesn't give a crap for realism.

I beg to differ with regarding Saints Row judging from my experiance with Saints Row 3, there is nothing to do in that game outside of story missions.

And the City you are placed in is boring and unmemorable visually, nothing that makes it stand out.

I mean I remember Liberty City in GTA 4 better than Saints Row 3's city.

I mean after beating the game there is really nothing to do, and I find the game to be pathetically easy at times. The only praise I give it is character customization.

Saints Row 4 is more or less the same as 3.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Maybe I?m just more forgiving as a gamer, but my standards, while not low necessarily, are not high most certainly. These are video games; they are entertainment; if they entertain me; they?ve done their job! I can take any aspect of any game and name two other games that did it better, so perfection being unattainable, I don?t hold small shortcomings against any one of them especially given that nowadays, there?s no shortage of games that have HUGE shortcomings. GTA V?s sandbox entertained me: it was expansive, varied, filled with the life I?ve come to expect from GTA sandboxes (i.t.: funny ambient conversations, hilarious posters and billboards, etc.) and outside of the main missions, readily offered that cathartic ?vegging? one gets from silly rampaging and jumping a sports car off the top of a parking garage.

Best protagonists? Absolutely not, but they functioned as the vehicles for the ?middle of the road? story one should expect from the stock GTA affair: morally ambiguous, anti-heros whose end goals are at best the lesser of myriad evils. Best driving? Absolutely not, but that?s why I have Forza in my arsenal for when I want a driving simulator. Best gunplay? Absolutely not, but given the physical laws as defined within the world they inhabit, they got the job done way more often than not (and I?ve hundreds of thousands of pints of blood on my virtual hands to attest to that,) neither were they ever so dysfunctional as to come between me and my fun. Best online experience? Absolutely not, but seeing as the dregs of decent society is pretty much the industry standard across online communities, at the very LEAST GTA is representative of its clientele: sociopaths running around performing random acts of violence and general debauchery. Plus, it offered something that most multiplayer games don?t in a lack of structure where players are able to craft their own experience as opposed to simply syncing up for yet another 8-9 minutes of ?us vs. them? in one of a dozen or two small arenas.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Saint's Row is amateurish, childish trash. Some of the worst games I've ever played.

And when I?m in the mood for ?amateurish, childish trash,? Saints Row delivers in spades! XD

No, even if you?re not a fan, you have to admit that Saints Row is shameless and brazenly honest with what it is. Save for SR1 which was a blatant, dollar store GTA, the franchise makes no apologies for being a vessel for pure wackiness. Though ironically it survives on ham-fisted pop culture satire, it doesn?t try to be any other game; it doesn?t water itself down to be a beige bit of everything for everyone like so many games do.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

The best GTA is Vice City.

I am convinced that Vice City is so well regarded because of its setting and less the actual gameplay.

I mean you guys you would love Vice City even more if had the gameplay of San Andreas (Swiming, better gun controls or controls in general, lots of things to do)

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Saint's Row is amateurish, childish trash. Some of the worst games I've ever played.

And yeah I did not laugh at all in Saints Row 3 and 4.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Saint's Row is amateurish, childish trash. Some of the worst games I've ever played.

And when I?m in the mood for ?amateurish, childish trash,? Saints Row delivers in spades! XD

No, even if you?re not a fan, you have to admit that Saints Row is shameless and brazenly honest with what it is. Save for SR1 which was a blatant, dollar store GTA, the franchise makes no apologies for being a vessel for pure wackiness. Though ironically it survives on ham-fisted pop culture satire, it doesn?t try to be any other game; it doesn?t water itself down to be a beige bit of everything for everyone like so many games do.

Amateurish means it lacks mechanical depth. It's flimsy. The characters have no weight and everything feels cheap. They're terrible, painfully unfunny games.

They ARE flimsy and cheap; that?s another part of their appeal, IMHO. Not every game has to be a challenge; I?ve got more than my fair share of options for demanding, nuance and complexity and it?s not always something I want. After biting through my lower lip in frustration fighting Ornstein & Smough for the 15th time in Dark Souls, it?s nice to unwind by leaping over a building whilst swinging a dildo baseball bat in Saints Row IV! But I get it; that?s not everyone?s cup of tea. C?est la vie.

You strike me as rather severely austere fellow, though. Out of genuine curiosity, what games DO you find funny. If you can?t think of one, might you have an example from another medium?

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I enjoyed PS2 era games more. Especially Vice City and San Andreas. I liked their settings the best. A large part of my preference also has to do with my age. Naturally, I enjoyed GTA more when I was younger. I was but a kid when GTA 3 was released. I just started high school when San Andreas was released. Back then there weren't many open world games. Even fewer like GTA. It was a unique and special experience. Not so much these days. But I like GTA V too. From a purely gameplay perspective it's probably the best one.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Why do you want to know? What would be the point? I'll list comedies I like and you'll feel differently.

Like I said, it?s genuine curiosity. Not looking to compare, contrast or justify; simply curious what someone of your exacting opinion finds humorous. I did note the post you made recently when someone challenged your oft negative posts and you posted an exhaustive list of things you DO like, so I hope you don?t think I?m similarly challenging you. I think you and I shared an affinity for Playdead?s INSIDE last year, so I think we might have some interests in common, so I?m curious what constitutes good humor or comedy in your gaming experience; maybe there?s something out there I might have overlooked and could appreciate.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I enjoyed PS2 era games more. Especially Vice City and San Andreas. I liked their settings the best. A large part of my preference also has to do with my age. Naturally, I enjoyed GTA more when I was younger. I was but a kid when GTA 3 was released. I just started high school when San Andreas was released. Back then there weren't many open world games. Even fewer like GTA. It was a unique and special experience. Not so much these days. But I like GTA V too. From a purely gameplay perspective it's probably the best one.

And you make a great point. GTA III was the reason I broke a multi-year gaming hiatus. I hadn?t played anything since the N64, then in the early 2000?s in my 20?s, my ex?s best friend?s boyfriend brought over his PS2 and GTA III. My jaw hit the floor. Around the time my gaming interest had petered out, the most notable controversy gaming had seen was Mortal Kombat?s graphic depiction of violence becoming a legal issue giving rise the ESRB, and now we?re running down civilians, killing cops, dealing drugs and having sex with prostitutes only to subsequently kill them for a refund? Gaming had grown UP and I was interested again. It was not long after that sandboxes started to saturate the industry, and though subsequent GTAs (imho) always jump to the fore as the gold standard, it?s not helping that the competition has diluted enthusiasm for the genre.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Vice City is the best in my opinion. Sucks about insta-death water though. Something about San Andreas, don't know what, didn't grab me. And in terms of "bigger" (not necessarily better) GTA has yet to top San Andreas. IV and V have more versatile gameplay for sure, though I don't think they benefit from their dead-seriousness.

 

[Wakey87]

I'd love to see a remake of GTA 1. With todays graphics I'm pretty sure you could make a game with a top down view with near photorealistic visuals given a big enough budget.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

. Something about San Andreas, don't know what, didn't grab me. .

I assume you weren't grabbed by San Andreas because of the main premise of being a African American Gangsta in Da Hood complete with Gangsta Rap music like Tupac and Ice Cube?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Technically GTA gets better as it goes from a gameplay perspective but lots developers have shot way past Rockstar in the gameplay department in even the freaking PS2-era with the likes of Pandemic's Mercenaries. Way back on PS2, GTA3 was fresh and groundbreaking, now open world games are a dime a dozen. Rockstar is still making the same game as GTA3 basically, they still don't understand how to make an open world game. The point of making an open world game is having an open ended structure to complete missions (like Mercenaries) whereas Rockstar's missions are so linear in nature the open world is completely wasted. The GTA games (and Rockstar's other games) are basically just linear games that make you travel to the content, and said content isn't anything special to begin with. And, the writing quality has plummeted as the series has gone on because Dan Houser thinks he's an actual good writer putting together very important arrangements of words. Whereas something like Vice City was fun because all it was striving for was fun. It would be like Platinum Games turning the next Bayonetta into a drama because people liked their cheesy B-movie dialogue so they thought they could actually write anything beyond that.

I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion of GTA V, but I often wonder if the rancor it gets from people is just their being contrarians? It's popular to dislike what's popular? Not saying everyone has to like GTA; I can certainly get that it's formula is not for everyone, but it's pretty hard to deny the quality of what Rockstar did. As far as sandbox games go, GTA V is the gold standard. The world felt alive and there's enough variety throughout it to keep it interesting.

Mercenaries back on PS2 showed me what an open world game is supposed to be like and since then Rockstar has yet to step up their game (outside of better presentation). Open world games are supposed allow the player an open-ended structure to complete missions, which Rockstar fails at. Even Ubisoft: The Game (not counting the AssCreed games) is better than Rockstar's offerings. I'll take a Watch Dogs or Farcry over GTA any day of the week because those games at the bare minimum have at least a legit stealth option for combat. Their mission structures are more open-ended even though they aren't the pinnacle of the genre by any stretch. And, their shooting and controls are far far better than GTA whether in 3rd-person or 1st-person.

The best GTA is Vice City.

I am convinced that Vice City is so well regarded because of its setting and less the actual gameplay.

I mean you guys you would love Vice City even more if had the gameplay of San Andreas (Swiming, better gun controls or controls in general, lots of things to do)

The thing is that the PS2 GTAs had better gameplay at their time than the current GTAs. Watch Dogs/Farcry/Horizon/MGS5/etc controls and plays so much better than GTA vs back in the PS2-era when the GTAs were some of the only open world games so by default they sorta had the best gameplay of the genre. Even Uncharted has better shooting controls and it's below average by TPS standards.

 

[Deadguy2322]

Call me when Rockstar finally realizes that you don?t need a fucking run button on controllers with analog sticks.