The. Eternal. Debate

As someone that's played both recently, San Andreas and it's no contest. You'd be deluded to call VC the better game.

Vice City
If I wanted a sandbox where I play minigames I'd play the infinitely better Yakuza
If they remade SA to not look ugly as fuck and fixed its awful lighting, color, draw distance, etc., itd be a closer fight but VC hides it's draw distance well by being an actual city without large empty expanses where it's painfully obvious they made the world big for no reason

Attached: 1559912726123.png (650x650, 10K)

VC for radio stations, SA for everything else

why not both.avi.gif.dll.txt.bmp.tiff.vbs.exe

I just want VI to be in Vice City... that’s all I want bros.

I enjoyed Vice City more, but SA had some better mechanics in it.

Why are there so many IV apologists now? Did those "LOOK THE CAR HAS DENTS" videos influence so many low IQ posters?

Tommy > CJ

But the mechanics are far superior in SA I still love VC more.

It's not meant to be relatable. The fact that you think black people can relate to SA's completely absurd and over the top story shows just how sheltered you are.

Vice City is to MGS2 as San Andreas is to MGS3

VC because older game good—old game bad

III is better than both.

this, san andreas drops any pretense of being a realistic depiction of la gang culture when you start playing horde mode with ballas

both are good, swallow rocktars cum and move on

Attached: 1539460666987.png (640x480, 15K)

i'd say vice city since san andreas is "zoomber"-core for zoomers born after 95 but before 2000

What does that even mean

Every mechanic in IV is better than same mechanic from VC or SA

Movement is better in SA across the board

how?

The former is Style>Substance
The latter is Quatity>Quality

Because you aren't hindered by drawn out animations

The shooting just feels better in SA, and the swimming is honestly a huge improvement, but the smaller map in VC and missions just feel better.

Since when is MGS3 quantity over quality

>tfw replayed Vice City a year and half ago
>tfw movement, driving, and gunplay are significantly worse than I remember
>Missions are mostly pretty dull too
>That ending

Attached: maxresdefault-2.jpg (1280x720, 70K)

Left’s girl in right’s game

Its not a debate, sheeple will say GTA:SA and people with actual fucking class will say GTA:VC.

Story: Vice City
Gameplay: San Andreas

In order to relate to something the trigger doesn't need to be realistic, in fact the exaggeration helps with relatability. Of course we all know it's not realistic (i never said it was) but it's so "gangsta" and an exaggerated depiction of hip-hop culture that those who like that kind of thing relate to the most, blacks more than anyone else love that game to death

THEY'RE BOTH GREAT REEEEEEEE

I'm biased towards VC but San Andreas is a better game no contest.

Attached: RbG90W4.jpg (660x662, 51K)

based

Attached: A8BB4470-1222-4411-AFB6-7FAF7208995D.png (308x386, 152K)

Vice City story is hot garbage, though

>Story: Vice City
how is story is better?

Vice City has more style. San Andreas is just better.

It's going to be Vice City. SA is good but the newer games are still doing that gangster hood shit that SA did so it feels stale today. Vice City's setting feels unique in comparison

How?

Attached: vicecity.png (1356x1009, 1.29M)

All jokes aside, is Vice City peak aesthetic?

gonna say vice city because I want to fit in :)

Vice beach area in game is great, but after that environment is somewhat bland, and especially compared to San Andreas that is so little content

maybe

Attached: oceanbeach.png (1920x1080, 3.05M)

the correct answer is gta 5

I do not understand why everyone praises SA so much. The only thing I think it does better than the others, is the map design and coolness of the country side. But everything else is worse compared to VC or even III

Graphics? I would argue SA honestly looks the worst of the three, seriously. III's cloudier feel and dense city were better at disgusing graphical weaknesses and VC's brighter look and higher style could be the same. SA honestly looks pretty damn ugly most of the time. It looks best in the super-orange filter of the desert.
Music? Some very memorable tunes but overall a very inconsistent radio with a lot of filler and not a lot of thematic unity. Not nearly as consistent or cohesive as VC.
Missions? Is SA really considered good in this regard? So many boring, gimmicky missions that you just want to get over with. The best missions are the more traditional shootout ones, like the black project. When it diverges from this formula it feels like a chore.

SA is the game where they just tried to throw everything in there and see if it worked. And it was a cool idea but this game has so much bad crap in it that makes it a less consistent experience than the other games.

SA > VC > 3
IV is in it's own category it's more plot focused than freeromey, and it plays to it's strengths.
5 was a saint's row clone.

San Andreas is the better game no doubt, but VC is my favourite.

Attached: Mafia Cover.jpg (1535x2171, 494K)

I can't pick
>Vice City has the 80s look, the cool storyline and the nice comfy yet small map, superior looking cars
>San Andreas has more freedom, bigger map customisation and can let you actually swim in water unlike Vice City despite Water being a key component of Vice City
I'd unironically go with both.
I'd actually prefer GTA3 if it wasn't for the lack of motorcycles.

Explain to me why Mexicans, Spaniards and Italians love this game so much then.

But it's not a depiction of hip-hop culture, it's a depiction of west coast gang culture, something only a small percentage of blacks can relate to. Let's not pretend that plenty of whites don't have this game in their top 10 list in part because of the story and characters, though.

i bet you played on PC
check out SkyGfx, it makes SA much more climatic

yes

Attached: 12110_20190107192757_1.png (1920x1080, 1.84M)

i don't understand the problem with that, i used to play them together at the same time, never had any problem in switching between them movement-wise.

Redpill me on Mafia. Is it actually good, or just something contrarians circlejerk?

i actually think SkyGFX overdoes it somewhat. the PS2 GTA isnt as super orange as people remember, it really was only orange at dawn and evening.

5 was nothing like Saints Row. It's in its own category of garbage.

>zoomers that never watched Scarface

Attached: 1396501493318.jpg (854x859, 176K)

they did an amazing job with what they had back in 2002. Story and characters were great. SA had an ugly world.

also
>you now realize vice city is closer to the 1986 than 2019

It's not a big problem, but obviously the game that gives you more direct control over your actions has the better movement. They don't get flat out bad with it until 5 and Red Dead 2.

SA was better, but right now I'm kind of tired of niggers as MC's. I mean, is it that hard to make a respectable black man that's a badass? I mean, first thing to come to mind, Pulp Fiction had 2 of them. Respectable, hardcocre motherfuckers with black skin that didn't act like a couple of niggers.

Vice City's story doesn't deserve appreciation just because it's a shitty version of Scarface

Did you even play the game, CJ wasn't really a chimp at all, none of them were really except for Ryder

so you relate to wop sociopaths, jewish lawyers and a texan real estate shark?

>Vice City
Better world scope with a tighter focus, not just big for the sake of it.
Much more fun side-activities (at least with a gamepad, I hear the keyboard controls for the RC chopper are dogshit). No eternal turf wars boring bullshit.
More memorable side-missions that play into the overall goal of owning the city.
Main mission is more traditionally paced, doesn't have weird tangents to justify bloating the world map.
The 80s theming just has a more dignified and appealing air to it than ghetto bullshit.

>San Andreas
The gameplay is actually fun.

Well I guess San Andreas wins.

but IV had better control over character movement because of it's cover mechanics?

VC is nothing like Scarface, parody at best.

Are you kidding? The slapped on cover mechanics in 4 are terrible. Thanks to SA's snappy controls you can pop in and out of cover more efficiently when you need to. No, having a dedicated cover button doesn't mean the game inherently has better control over character movement.

You fags are fuckin retards and have shit taste, now gtfo out my Yea Forums

Attached: 1366660988106.jpg (413x600, 27K)

Just how easily amused are you?

Can't decide

you don't need to pop out of the cover in IV. Again, i don't understand your problem with movement, maybe i just need to replay IV.

You don't need to in SA either, but having the option to reposition yourself more reliably is, again, an obvious advantage of the older GTA movement. I have no clue how what I'm saying is debatable.

VC had the better atmosphere and characters but its mechanics were more or less the same as GTA3. SA improved upon various mechanics, but the San Ferrio part of the story was absolute tedium. Still, I'm leaning towards SA just because the power vehicles like the harrier were hilarious and fun to run amock in.

Fuck San Andrea's. Three fucking Cities and boring endless countryside.

>I have no clue how what I'm saying is debatable.
of course it's debatable, cause you're claiming IV is worse because of the way it's handling character's movement. I wish i could see your gameplay of sa and IV to get an idea of what are you doing wrong. I personally was never bothered with using covers in SA.

I'm doing nothing wrong, I can play both efficiently and have no issues transitioning between each. SA is more responsive so its movement is better, nothing more nothing less.

>derrrr why don't we make half the map Beach and half the map airport

Attached: 1561769011271.jpg (500x628, 85K)

>I can play both efficiently and have no issues transitioning between each
so, you don't have any actual problems with movement controls in IV and you're just angry cause it's a bit different?

white people relate more to those than gangsta negros, that for sure

>being able to efficiently play a game should have any bearing on whether I enjoy its controls
By this fucking stupid logic, I should enjoy MGS3's controls more than 5's because I'm better at 3. I know you know what I'm saying, you're just acting like a retard.

Both are great, but Vice City wins for story and atmosphere. Quality over quantity. Oh, and the soundtrack is the best liscensed one of all time.

>Italian-American
>white

Vice City is the contrarian answer.
>Muh no Nigger protag
>Muh shitty Scarface story
>Muh aesthetics.
Kys, San Andreas is superior and has a more Diverse radio in which every station was good.

SA's story is far better

The debate ended when the game that combined the best of both worlds came out

Attached: 51RXzCnX9BL._SY445_.jpg (318x445, 43K)

>o, having a dedicated cover button doesn't mean the game inherently has better control over character movement.
It does, IV has the better controls dumbass.

Sure bro

The first Mafia is one of the best PC games ever made. The gunplay was leagues ahead of GTA III, VC and SA, same goes for the graphics. The world felt very genuine and comfy. The driving also felt authentic, the heavy 1930's cars made just the simple act of driving around a unique experience compared to other GTA style games. The police interactions were also far more accurate: the police would ticket you for traffic offences, arrest you for minor assaults and would start shooting back the moment you started shooting. The story was engaging and well told with likable characters. Most importantly, the story missions were all fantastic (unlike San Andreas where half of them are frustrating). The only issue is that the free ride mode could have had more things to do in it, but the core gameplay is just so fun that it's hard to fault it for that.

>By this fucking stupid logic, I should enjoy MGS3's controls more than 5's because I'm better at 3
It's not what i'm saying. I'm saying you shouldn't complain about IV's movement, cause it doesn't effect your gameplay. I prefer SA over VC, cause i can move camera while driving, to look around. I prefer IV over Vice City, cause in IV you can actually shoot you pistol and actually hit your target. I prefer IV over SA, cause i can aim while driving the car, drop grenades out of car and i don't need to use a gun for couple minutes before it works at full efficiency.

SA

SA was an evolution of the rough start if 3D GTA, VC is just 3.5

i only ever played vice city at my friends house as a kid doing free roam but never played the story much

should I play vice city? does it hold up?

What's the best way to play it nowadays?

I don't care how much it you think it affects my gameplay, nor do I care whether or not you think I should complain about it lol

White skin = white

Absolutely

It doesn't hold up at all, still better than 3 though and not frustrating to play through

Attached: Screenshot (107).png (1920x1080, 1.17M)

>you think it affects my gameplay

>I can play both efficiently and have no issues transitioning between each

You sad it yourself, lol

>If they remade SA to not look ugly as fuck and fixed its awful lighting, color, draw distance
Play the PS2 original not the mediocre xbox port or the god awful PC port then.

What does my efficiency playing 4 have to do with whether or not I prefer its movement? Are you actually dumb

>Protag
CJ
>Music
Vice City
>World
San Andreas

Attached: 1551131743354.jpg (1586x648, 222K)

What's the debate? SA is better, hands down; anyone who disagrees is objectively incorrect.

San Andreas has better gameplay
VC has better everything else

That's what I played. You're telling me there are versions that look even worse? Holy fuck

Better everything else excluding story, characters, map, vehicles, customization, and minigames.

Am i the only one who likes this game? I don't recall ever seeing a mention of it in gta/open world games threads

Attached: godfather_pc.jpg (1360x768, 254K)

i'm not saying you shouldn't have preference, i just don't understand why would you complain about things what don't make any difference to you.

That game is fucking great, it's sequel is pretty good too

can't choose.
VC was more aesthetically consistent. SA was more fun in some bits, but mostly a hot mess. Would be better if they cut half the content and focused on gang wars.

This is the last response I'll give you. Whether or not it makes a difference in my efficiency, and whether or not it makes a difference in my enjoyment/playstyle, are two different things.

>thing is DIFFERENT from what i remember
>I DON'T LIKE THAT
ok, at least i can understand that position. Have a nice life, there is imp for you.

Attached: 1553039167670.jpg (900x1000, 630K)

VC is more fun to play with its theme and more compact and focused world, you can actually grind through the story on a weekend and enjoy it compared to SA's winding story in a flat empty world.
80s Miami at night also just looks more inviting and fun than the absolute shit hole that LA will and always is.

It always boggles the mind that IV and V are still lacking in certain features that SA had more than a decade ago.
SA is literally the very example of ambitious features and devs not being afraid to try new things despite how overwhelming they might have seemed at the time. It's one of those rare games that literally would make you legit amazed at said features the first time you played it if you actually did it back on release.

Attached: cj.png (640x480, 103K)

/thread

"I'd rather do a drive-thru than a drive-by..."

Fat CJ best CJ.

It's the novelty, but once you actually try you try some of them remember why you never finished most of them.

vice city story it's good until you take the Diaz's Mansion, the rest it's boring

>every game must completely reflect me

spotted the ledditor kotaku faggot

Yes. Old good new bad.

Wtf? Zoomers are have great taste now?

vice city

just get it on GOG

There's only one choice.

Attached: 1542527378272.png (1400x840, 1.44M)

vice city stories is better than vc anyways

>replay san andreas for the first time since I was a kid
>it's nowhere near as good or big as my childish mind had made it out to be

Why did SA get all the myths and legends but none of the others?