/vr/ - Retro Games

Characters mean nothing. They are just portraits in the menu screen. Technology in GTA2 is a visible upgrade while the gameplay is not much different. It's a better experience that's why GTA2 should be suggested instead of the original.

Official objective GTA power rankings:

1. GTA Vice City
2. GTA V
3. GTA = GTA2
5. GTA SA
6. GTA III
*power gap*
7. GTA IV

>>3396306
I honestly didn't like 5. It was big, but it felt so -empty-.

hey guyz

>>3396306
The actual official objective GTA power rankings:

1. VC
2. SA
3. GTA III
4. GTA IV
5. GTA 1/2
*power gap*
6. GTA V

well i guess, he's gonna upload a gta 2 gameplay soon

>>3396305
>Characters mean nothing
That's a good thing

>Technology in GTA2 is a visible upgrade while the gameplay is not much different
gameplay has been butchered

>GTA2 should be suggested instead of the original
Not in a GTA 1 thread

>>3396293
that's some really poor gameplay and really poor commentary/review

does nothing to describe the game, merely mentions that it exists

>>3396306
>V over SA

Is this some kinda bait or something?

>>3396519
I wished R*'s free version wasn't as fucked as it is. The PS version is a pain to emulate, and the London Windows version I found crashes pretty quickly. And of course resolution is an issue. There are some half-assed patches, but nothing functional

>>3396306
I'll never understand the dislike for 4, best driving in any game I've ever played with great gameplay.

>>3396526
currently using the Steam version, got it when it was still available in that full GTA (1 to GTA4+EFLC) pack

still have to use GTAFixer every time because it refuses to start a second time, but it kind of works

I think I also have a burned CD with an older version lying around somewhere, but the Windows exe from it didn't work on Win7, and the DOS version was a bit choppy in DOS-Box

>>3396380
>gameplay has been butchered

1's gameplay is more dated and shitty, though

>>3396323

Let's be honest with ourselves, lads. The true power rankings are more like:

1. SA
2. GTA V
3. VC
4. GTA IV
5. GTA III
*power gap*
6. GTA 1 and 2

Even if you don't agree with the exact order, let's not pretend for a second that GTA 1 and 2 are in any way superior to the modern installments in the series. I know we're the retro board and everything, and I had a lot of fun playing the first game when I was growing up too, but 1/2 just pale in comparison to the later games. From the driving to the shooting, gameplay does not hold up well when compared with GTA III and onwards. Even the radio stations are worse.

You're either drunk with nostalgia or just a massively contrarian hipster if you think otherwise.

>>3396561
>GTA IV above III
Perfect ranking except for that.

>>3396561
>You're either drunk with nostalgia or just a massively contrarian hipster if you think otherwise.

Oooor, you know, people just liked how the first GTA games didn't take themselves too seriously compared to the later ones (especially IV and V). The first games were at least some real games. Say what you want but you can't deny that Rockstar basically made the franchise into some Hollywood production that had little to nothing to do with the original games except for the "criminal has to make it big through missions and terrorizing town" idea.

>>3396561
The radio stations are actually well put together _radio stations_, rather than playlists of most popular songs of a given genre from the game's timeline (which are licensed and not even an original soundtrack).

The difficulty of missions in the 2D games is actually quite challenging, with missions being generally better overall than in most 3D games. And you're not constrained by a story or plot to play through some simple missions first. So essentially you have more freedom than in the 3D games.

Controls for shooting and driving are good for a 2D game, you can't really compare it to controls for a 3D game. Apples to oranges. Still, just because you need some practice to master them, instead of being hand-held by a tutorial for every action (some even being locked down in the beginning of the game), doesn't make them worse.

>You're either drunk with nostalgia or just a massively contrarian hipster if you think otherwise.
well ain't that some projecting

>>3396527
top kek. you were 12 when it came out and are pretty much nu /v/. that is the generation of faggots that like the travesty that is GTA Bore.

>>3396638
Don't call them 2D when they evidently aren't 2D.

>>3396686
everybody sane uses 2D and 3D as shorthands for top-down and over-the-shoulder-third person in the context of GTA. And then there's you ...

How do I git gud at classic GTA? The perspective fucks with me and I always hit stuff when I drive, and I'm piss poor at gunfightin'.

>>3396689
Then they aren't sane.
You can even play GTA3 in top down.

>>3396692
don't speed, practice

where can i get this game

the rockstar free downloads thing is down and i'm broke

>>3396319
sup /b/ro xD

>>3396686
Well the world might be actually 3D, but the gameplay is mostly 2D - aiming is done only horizontally, moving and driving is horizontal-only as well, even with elevation changes

plus, it's a common name for the games before the '3D era' games (III, VC, SA)

>>3396704
tried web-searching for 'gta1 download' or 'gta2 download'?

chip.de has mirrors iirc, should even be the top 3 results

>>3396747
How do you aim or drive up and down in GTA3?
>it's a common name for the games before the '3D era' games (III, VC, SA)
That's particularly silly when you consider the games after that are still in 3D as well.

>>3396758
They're called '3D era' because 3D was the new graphics gimmick those games used. IV and V are called 'HD era' because those were the first with "HD" graphics. 1 and 2 are called 2D because the game is primarily 2d sprite-based, with only buildings and some world objects being 3d.

Should I go for the DOS version and put it in dosbox or get one of those new PC versions?

>>3396765
>game is primarily 2d sprite-based, with only buildings and some world objects being 3d.
That makes it sound like some flight simulator where the world is flat save for a handful of polygonal buildings. The entire game is 3D save for moving objects.

What makes the graphics HD? GTA2 could be played in 1600x1200. Probably higher than that if you just edit the registry.

>>3396758
>That's particularly silly when you consider the games after that are still in 3D as well.
they're referred to as the 'HD era' games

>aim
mouse aiming on PC
PS2 version I think had free-look with the M16 and sniper rifle, plus I'm pretty sure you could lock on targets with different elevation and hit them

>drive
in GTA1 and 2 cars were always right way up, they didn't even tilt on ramps. while your elevation changed, a vehicle didn't change its pitch or roll - it only drove forwards/backwards, and turned.

since III, vehicle collisions are 3D, cars can jump or bounce off things upwards, flip, i.e. vertical movement

>>3396770
>That makes it sound like some flight simulator where the world is flat save for a handful of polygonal buildings. The entire game is 3D save for moving objects.
that doesn't sound like it at all, actually
flight sims always had 3D movement, even the most crude ones

>>3396775
While what defines HD may be a bit subjective, compare GTA IV and GTA SA and you can see that a huge leap in graphics quality was made between the two. Considering people don't really hold HD strictly to it's dictionary definition, it's understandable that kinda-sorta realistic graphics could be called HD by those not "in the know", especially when compared to to SA's blocky models and especially compared to the relatively crude "classic" GTA games.

>>3396775
>What makes the graphics HD?
shaders probably

still, you're overanalyzing what's just a common label for distinguishing a certain set of GTA games

>>3396790
Why not refer to them by the console generation? GTA 1 and 2 (and London) came out for the PS1 and its contemporaries, GTA3, VC and SA came out for the PS2 and contemporaries and GTA4 and 5 came out for the PS3 and contemporaries.
That also explains jumps in the graphics department.

>>3396798
You're just replacing one set of arbitrary labels with another set of arbitrary labels.

The current designation (Classic>3D>HD) makes sense because it follows the changes the series has made over time. Each label demonstrates a leap in graphics quality.

And what about the spinoff games that were released on multiple platforms?

If I recall correctly, VCS got a release both on PSP and on PS2, though I may be mistaken.

>>3396704
>>3396770
>>3396526
>>3396532
There's a complete pack "ala GOG" for pc and mac. It has GTA1, london 69 and 61 with music. The pc version can replace the steam release http://gtaforums.com/topic/860039-grand-theft-auto-max-pack-a-complete-pack-ala-gog/

>>3396798
>Why not refer to them by the console generation?
because the 2D - 3D - HD eras are already established, common and understood labels
PS1 - PS2 - PS3 implies it's exclusive to Sony's consoles, and no one is going to add 'and its contemporaries' since at that point it's easier to just enumerate the games individually

>>3396815
Thanks pal.

Ya done me a solid.

>>3396816
>because the 2D - 3D - HD eras are already established, common and understood labels
If they were we wouldn't have this discussion.
Call them 5th gen, 6th gen and 7th gen if you want.

>>3396809
How is labeling them by the system arbitrary? Everybody can look at the games and see it. There's no debate on what a PS1 is aside from some PSX retardation.
If something got released on the PS2 and not the PS1 then it's obviously a PS2 game.

>>3396825
It's not an exclusive series. So now you have a chart that goes something like (DOS/Dreamcast/Gameboy>PS1>PS2/Xbox/PSP>PS3/Xbox 360/Nintendo DS>PS4/Xbox One)

It's a lot more obfuscated. I'm sure there are some systems I missed.

are the GTA games on the GBC worth playing

>>3396846
It goes 5th gen -> 6th gen -> 7th gen.
How would they even label GTA6 when it gets released for PS4 and Xbone? What buzzword comes after HD?

>>3396561
1.SA
2.VC
3.VC stories
4.LC stories
5.IV
6.III
7.V
8.everything else

>>3396306
1.- GTA San Andreas
2.- GTA 3
3.- GTA Vice City
4.- GTA 5
5.- GTA1 - 2
6.- GTA 4

>>3396306
>implying
Its
1. San Andreas
2. V
3. IV + EfLC
4. Vice City
5. III
6. Chinatown Wars
7. 2
8. VCS
9. 1 + London
10. LCS
>power gap
11. Online

We don't count Advance because rockstar had no involvement with the game

>>3396974
impressively shit taste, well done

>>3396992
Lets see your list then :^)

>>3396825
>If they were we wouldn't have this discussion.
just because you're retarded doesn't mean it's not a standard

>>3396864
this is the only correct list

>>3396852
Nope. Controls are fucked.

Still, it is a very, very impressive port.

>>3396853
I'm a bit late but my money's on "next gen."

That's just how it goes when your fanbase is primarily tweens with ADHD

GTA 1 and 2 have a bunch of problems. They're good to great games, but they're a pain to go back and experience. The learning curve is awful, and the lack of checkpoints adds to the frustration. They don't even really set up 3. I mean having gone back to play them in order, I can see elements from 1 and 2 that made it in to 3, but the primary experience is just so different.

>>3397595
>The learning curve is awful
fuck minimaps. GTA 1/2 at least respect your navigation skills. Minimaps and ingame maps are one of the biggest mistakes sandboxes made.

>the lack of checkpoints adds to the frustration
Jesus saves in GTA 2 and GTA 1 is a score attack game

>They don't even really set up 3
wrong way round, shithead. 3 intruded into the series, knocking out 1 and 2 with a baseball hat, stealing their name and dragging them into a dark alley. 3 and its successors are a stain on the GTA name

>>3396293
There is only GTA 1(+addons) and 2, the rest is just overrated bullshit.

>>3397619
>3 and its successors are a stain on the GTA name

>>3397687
Don't bother he's just some kid from /v/ desperate to prove he's a real retro gamer by shitting on something that's been scientifically proven to be amazing.

>>3397619
Let's see (and I'm speaking for the PS2 games, since I haven't played anything beyond San Andreas). The PS2 GTA games still retain:
-the concept of gang warfare
-bomb shops
-pay n sprays
-car crushers
-usage of pagers (3 has them, VC and SA have big, bulky cell phones)
-taking missions from payphones
-vast arsenal of weapons such as molotovs, rocket launchers, flamethrowers, shotguns,
machine guns, pistols, and your fists
-GTA2's noon/dusk system was re-worked into a day/night cycle
-in-house music (at least 3 still has this, VC and SA went for all the big name record labels, losing some of the charm)
-Kill Frenzies (renamed as rampages)
-stunt bonuses
-Tanks
-Hidden Packages (basically GTA2's tokens)
same style of humor
-the army coming after your ass if you're bad enough

In conclusion, you're autistic and afraid of change.

>>3397731
#rekt

>>3396306
Only ontopic ranking:
1. GTA 1

>>3397731
Good post though.

>>3397937
>Good post though.
is it? Half the stuff that anon mentions is from GTA 2, and the rest is constantly tip-toeing around the simple fact that not even GTA 2 is a score attack game any longer. The very foundation of the game changed. It only get story-heavier from that point on

>>3397937
GTA 2 is retro under the rules, it was released in late 1999.

>>3397962
GTA 2 is off-topic in a GTA 1 thread

>>3397965
not if it's being compared to gta 1.

that's all /vr/ does though
>hey guys this toy is cool, let's talk about it here
>HURRRRRR MY TOY IS BETTER THAN YOURS HURRRRRRRR
fucking retarded machildren

GTA threads are always fun to watch how badly people get triggered at the thought that 1, 2, and London weren't the pinnacle of the series.

>>3396571
There was nothing wrong with IV.

IV > V as a matter of fact.

>>3398120
they're the only games in the series (though GTA 2 is questionable). The games 3 (2) and onwards are an entirely different series

>There was nothing wrong with IV.
Except for being the worst game in the series.

>>3398120
They were all shit. There is no logical argument towards claiming that a top down 2D game with no in game map and difficult controls due to its top down nature is somehow better than a 3D version of a game with the same gameplay and features that actually make the game better. The first two GTAs are mere curiosities for people interested in where the series started. On their own they are terrible games.

>>3398213
Which 2D game are you talking about?

>>3398219
1 & 2.

>>3398225
GTA 1 and 2 aren't 2D.

>>3398227
Top down is always 2D. There is no way for a top down game to not be 2D. Are you literally autistic?

>>3398231
You need to get back that extra chromosome.

Driven over people was more satisfying in the top down perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn7NzBrxYtw

>>3398241
>Driven over people was more satisfying in the top down perspective.
Even if that were true, that still wouldn't change the fact that the 2D games are inferior to the 3D games.

>>3398287
why do you insist on convincing people that made this thread precisely because they enjoy GTA (1)? They won't disturb you playing one of the crappy games, and they're better off without your intrusion

>>3398227
The neither is bomberman

>>3398296
anon is being anal about GTA 1 and 2 using a polygonal 3D engine, despite their gameplay, all characters, cars and most of the interaction being two dimensional

Bomberman, at least the old games, uses a fully sprite + tile based 2D engine

>>3398305
Apparently you never heard of 3D Bomberman.

>>3398305
Anon isn't being "anal". People on this board, who should have seen 3D born and rise, should know the difference.

>>3398307
they do, and they can distinguish between 2D/3D gameplay and 2D/3D visuals in context

>>3398312
Then they should see at first glance that GTA 1 and 2's engines are 3D.

>>3398316
they do. They're just not talking about visuals

>>3398317
Gameplay is 3D as well. You're not just moving on a flat plane, you can move up and down.
For instance you can jump over objects.

>>3398120
/vr/ is far too casual for the originals. Mid '90s born shitters can't play arcadey games like GTA1&2. All they can do is shoot a dumbass lumbering imp with a shotgun and feel special about it.

>>3398157
4 is almost as abominable as your face is, in actual fact.

>>3398319
>Gameplay is 3D as well. You're not just moving on a flat plane, you can move up and down.
you can "change elevation" (i.e. move to a higher/lower plane) but you're still running on parallel 2D planes (even if they overlap "over" and "under" each other). you can't even interact with objects on different elevation levels (i.e. you can't shoot something above or below you), only on the same level.

GTA2 is a bit more ambiguous since it adds grenades/molotovs which can 'fall', but that's still more like going over a border of one 2D board and onto another board, rather than actual falling like in 3D. you can even see it in how the grenades 'fall'.

>For instance you can jump over objects.
you don't really jump over objects, you pass through them while the sprite is drawn over them

It's funny watching GTA dialogue go full circle.
GTA 1
>Hey asshole! Go do this thing for me!
GTA 3
>Listen. I'd appreciate if you'd go do this for me.
GTA V
>Hey asshole, go do this thing for me!

IV > V ( HD games)
SA > VC > III > VCS > LCS ( 3D games)
CTW > 2 > 1 ( 2D games)

>>3398745
You forgot advance.

>>3398745
They're not 2D, no matter how hard you try to force that. Even calling them 2.5D would be a stretch of you take the stuff mentioned by >>3398648 into account.

>>3398770
are you autistic or something?

i bet you get pissed off when people call imax movies 3D too.

>>3398776
Why would anybody call IMAX movies 3D?

>>3398787
>To create the illusion of depth, the IMAX 3D process uses two separate camera lenses that represent the left and right eyes. The lenses are separated by a distance of 64 mm (2.5 in), the average distance between a human's eyes. Two separate rolls of film are used to capture the images they produce. The IMAX 3D camera weighs over 113 kg (249 lb).

You knew what I meant pal.

>>3398796
But that's IMAX 3D and not regular IMAX.

>>3398806
dearest friend,

when somebody says imax and then immediately brings up 3D, is it that hard to make the mental leap?

genuinely interested in a glimpse into the mind of a genuine autist

please reply

sincerely, anon

>>3398815
I assumed >>3398776 was talking about non-3D IMAX movies being called 3D by retards, which never happened in my experience.
I'm not going to argue about stereoscopic images not being true 3D

>>3398815
>>3398776
That's like asking somebody here if he's a weeaboo.
We're all autistic or we wouldn't be here.

>>3398120
There's a difference between thinking something is the pinnacle and then trying way too hard to fit in like this faglord. >>3397647


Also good job deleting all the opinions you don't like jani-kun instead of actually getting rid of shitposting.

I always found the old top-down GTA unplayable.
That's a shame because London is the only one with an interesting setting next to Vice City.

>>3398745
>CTW better than anything

he is back with a new video, gta 3

youtube.com/watch?v=KLsHUpxGYe4

>>3396521
Is this some kind of setup?

>>3396527
4 wast fun, and took itself too seriously.

>>3399771
It's a setup
It's a setup
It's a setup
It's a setup
It's a setup