>>19592

GTA 1: great
GTA 2: great
GTA 3: great
GTA VC: great
GTA SA: shite

Does this make me a bit of a racist?

>>19594
It makes you a busta.

>>19594
Nope. I agree with that.

>>19595
Shut up Ryder.

I played SA for the first time last year. I liked quite a lot about it but stopped playing the game when I got to the forced flying sections. Maybe on PS2 they were ok, but fucking hell in PC it's just torture.

>>19598

Everyone says that, but I just played with some settings and made flying more like Just Cause 2. It worked out quite well.

>>19599
I'd invested many hours in the game and was reluctant to give up but after fucking around with the controls for what seemed like hours I realised I just wasn't having fun and chucked it in.

>>19592
VC was sublime, the music, the atmosphere, everything fit so well. Even the glitches were funny and somehow enhanced the game. The physics were also hilarious, with my personal favourite of mowing down gangs with a fast car and watching their bodies launch into the sky with a fixed trajectory.

SA was also fun, it didn't have the same feeling as VC, but to cram such a big map with NO loading screenings, no lag is some feat. The city sizes were perfect as well, very enjoyable game and by no means lacking.

The RockStar lads are really outstanding in their game development. I never bothered with GTA IV, but they buffed out the kinks in V. I hope they keep doing what they do best.

>>19601
GTA III was shit though. Felt more like an alpha for VC.

>>19602
I think it was great at the time, I remember playing it at my mates, but as I was about to get it, VC came out and it blew it out of the water.

It's probably impossible to understand the impact that 3 had unless you were playing games when it came out - it was quite revolutionary at the time.

(I had more fun with GTA 3 than I did with VC, for what it's worth.)

>>19604
I had more fun playing the demo for 2 than I ever did with 3.

>>19601
>I never bothered with GTA IV

I AM UNHEPPY BECAUSE OF WAR IN HOME COUNTRY.

>>19604
GTA3 wast he very first PS2 game I played.
That first time I drove down from the bridge into portland, it felt like I was driving into a new age. Nothing like it had been before.

As for Vice City, I enjoyed it at the time because there was only GTA3 to compare it to. Looking back sure it has a good ost, but the City itself is awful. All flat and compact apart from the wasted areas of the airport & beach. The Scarface game that came out around that time is much better.

>>19606
IV gets a lot of hate because of trying to be semi-serious. It's a bit shit if you just want to jack a tank and go on a rampage (i.e classic GTA behaviour) but playing through the missions and side-quests kept my attention far longer than any other GTA game, plus the expansions were great. Unlike V where the story is just pointless fumbling until they realise "hey we're murdering psychos, lets just kill the fuck out of all our problems in the most anti-climactic way possible. I mean seriously, killing Dimitri was more satisfying than anything in V.

Vice City Stories was my fave GTA though. It improves on the original VC in basically every way (even better sound track, more missions and variety etc).

>>19608
Speaking of V, can anyone else think of games with such poorly made endings they almost retroactively ruin any and all earlier brilliance? Rage is the only one that comes to mind, for hopefully obvious reasons.

>>19609
The whole Mass Effect series.

>>19609
I finally got to Skyrim's story conclusion a week or two ago, after three solid attempts over the years. It was daft enough to have me almost laughing.

>>19609

I thought the ending was fairly decent, if not a bit cheesy.

>>19612
Like an enchilada?

>>19612
To V or Rage?

>>19614
V.

The choice of endings was pretty cool too.

>>19615
Eh, the choice is nowhere as near as well executed as in IV. There you actually had to choose between the cousin and the girl, though bowling issues aside we all know family comes first whereas in V there is no reason not to choose the fuck you I'm just gonna kill everyone Deus Ex Machina-style ending, except curiosity I suppose.

>>19616

What I liked about the GTA IV ending was that though a choice is presented to you, you don't know what will happen at the ending if you haven't seen it before. Though, one thing that somewhat annoyed me was the choice is really black and white. Do you side with the evil twat who has tried to kill you all through the game or do you get your revenge? It just seems like they were pushing you towards the good ending. And even then, you still get the $250,000 no matter what you do. I'd go as far as to say it had the best story of any videogame I've played.

>>19601
>such a big map with NO loading screenings, no lag
That depends on how you look at it. If you blasted along the roads fast enough you could bail out of a car in front of a sign before the text that was supposed to be on it rendered.

>>19618
Thats sort of pushing it - the times you actually do do that is rare. And when it does happen it's just momentary.

In VC you regularly fell through the world and teleported back onto the pavement with a minor bit of damage. I laughed at that though.

>>19619
On the PS2 if you were in some of the faster vehicles textures and sign text could be several seconds behind. Not that it's particularly bad, since you probably aren't navigating by the signs and there's rarely anything crucial in the detailed textures. That said, I have vague recollections in one of the earlier games of crashing into a set of tail lights whose vehicle hadn't rendered yet.

>>19620
Yeah it happened.

For fuck sake in VC there was a horrible bug, where if you didn't do rampage #26, it disappeared from the game after a certain point and you could never get 100%.

Then there were points where it froze suddenly, making you lose hours.

In SA there were numerous, but rare bugs where you could get eternally stuck inside a building.

Despite these bugs, I love the GTA series.

>>19620
Also, if you happened to crash into things while driving fast, it's your fault anyway for being a scrub and not memorizing the road layout. Just saying m8.

Replying SA at the moment after buying the new port for the 360, which is a polished up version of the Mobile version.

Theres just something about the map, it beats the piss out of V's, by seeming much larger despite being smaller. The game is still so much fun.

>>19622
Not even him, but

> I have vague recollections in one of the earlier games of crashing into a set of tail lights whose vehicle hadn't rendered yet.

How can you memorise where the game will generate cars?

>>19624
Well, I meant things like game objects, such as lampposts, signs, etc. As for cars, it was generally understood where they would be, so you;d best avoid them. And I don't think the glitch applied to cars. Only solid map objects.

>>19593
That makes me feel warm and fuzzy

THIS IS MC SHIT HEAD

That never fails to make me laugh.

>>19616
>>19617
I saw the retribution coming, but I felt the pain when Kate was killed, and then I felt incredibly guilty when the game ended and Patrick calls you up distraught and sobs at you that he's all his mother has left.

>>19700
Don't. Kate dumps you and never answers the phone again in the other ending. Bitch.

>>19701
What she does is within reason and actually fits in with Niko's character (a man who's done terrible things trying for a better life.) GTA IV was quite a masterpiece of character development in that respect.

>>19702
It's nice to see people looking back after V and appreciating IV more. To me IV felt so atmospheric and much more like a living city than V's purpose built adventure playground.

>>19703
That's why I enjoyed it, even before V. Most people hated it for that very reason. San Andreas was also an adventure playground, really. It feels like it was made for the player, but IV feels like it's a city existing independent of the player's actions.