it's a collectathon

[Anonymous No.8348395]

discuss

[Anonymous No.8348409]

>>8348395
Its not though

[Anonymous No.8348419]

>>8348395
I dislike certain aspects of older GTA, however it is certainly not part of the garbage eurojank genre.

[Anonymous No.8348432]

It's the best one before GTA became mainstream cringe.

[Anonymous No.8348441]

>>8348432

For example it's you against the world... GTA 5 having multiple characters you switch between... That are unlikable and uninteresting was just cringe...they tried to "please everyone" but only pleased trendies.

GTA vice city and the nigger one San Antonio or whatever, exist separately for a reason.

[Anonymous No.8348446]

>>8348395
what do ya collect? heads?

[Anonymous No.8348449]

3D GTA trilogy is pretty based even if SA is cringefest for about 1/3 of the game.

[Anonymous No.8348881]

>>8348449
If you aren't cringing for all of GTA, from 1 and 2 to the 3D series, you basically aren't picking up what the devs are putting down.

[Anonymous No.8348890]

am i the only one who didn't really enjoy VC? the story was somehow even worse/dumber than LC, having to buy property (essentially) to progress in story was weird and it just felt pretty lackluster. the AI works a lot better than LC, but otherwise that's the one for me. i genuinely enjoy VCS more, lel.

[Anonymous No.8348904]

>>8348881
the devs didn't intend for you to cringe and every single thing in GTA you fucking psuedo brainlet

[Anonymous No.8348961]

>>8348446
Packages, you get weapons at your mansion if you get enough.

[Anonymous No.8349168]

>>8348432
GTA 3 was mainstream you idiot cunt, what are you insinuating? You can't even be contrarian properly, so I suggest killing yourself

[Anonymous No.8349792]

>>8348449
what are you talking about?
worst part of SA is clearly towards the end as you go back to Los Santos

[Anonymous No.8349815]

>>8348395
How? The only collectibles in the game are those drug packages and they're optional.

[Anonymous No.8349821]

>>8348441
I think it would have been a great game even if you kept the same characters but added more story missions. Everything about it feel incomplete, from the property management, to the stock exchange, to the side activities. And most of the northern part of the map, which was fairly big and detailed, was left unused. Even a single-player expansion would have helped, but they saw how profitable GTAO was.
GTA online killed rockstar and turned them into tencent.

[Anonymous No.8349828]

>>8348432
Nice revisionist bullshit, GTA was mainstream since III

[Anonymous No.8349830]

Great game. However I can't really see GTA VC and SA as "retro games". I mean, they are not so different from GTA V. It's the same game but on a lesser scope. It feels modern to me. I guess calling retro just because something is "old" is a mistake.

[Anonymous No.8350049]

>>8349830
The graphics are enough to make it retro, as are the limitations on ped and vehicle spawns, the fog, the way everything else disappears if you assemble a gang or fly a jet in SA, the lock on aiming system, the janky melee controls, and so on. If this is 'lesser scope' then it encompasses many changes and makes a big qualitative difference.

[Anonymous No.8350120]

>>8350049
>The graphics are enough to make it retro
I disagree. The game is essentially the same and to be honest it doesn't look too old, at least compared to real retro games.

[Anonymous No.8350137]

>>8350120
So what about something like Tekken 3? You could say the core gameplay is much the same in the sequels right up to Tekken 7. Only expanded movesets and a few new gimmicks are added along the way. Does this mean that Tekken 3 is a essentially a modern game and NOT RETRO?

[Anonymous No.8350147]

>>8350137
Tekken 3 is retro because fighting games exists since the 90's. The third GTA game started a new trend on videogames that are essentially modern.

[Anonymous No.8350154]

>>8349828
Even earlier desu

[Anonymous No.8350157]

>>8350049
>he graphics are enough to make it retro, as are the limitations on ped and vehicle spawns, the fog, the way everything else disappears if you assemble a gang or fly a jet in SA, the lock on aiming system, the janky melee controls, and so on. If this is 'lesser scope' then it encompasses many changes and makes a big qualitative difference.
The same can be said if you campare GTA 3 with GTA SA, there's a lot of differences and improvements, but the core gameplay is similar.

[Anonymous No.8350158]

>>8350049
>the limitations on ped and vehicle spawns, the fog, the way everything else disappears if you assemble a gang or fly a jet in SA, the lock on aiming system, the janky melee controls, and so on.
The same can be said by comparing GTA 3 with GTA SA, there's a lot of changes and improvements but the core gameplay is almost the same.

[Anonymous No.8350230]

>>8349168

Nah, kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.8350264]

>>8348446
It's literally Mario 64 where the missions, and yes, people's heads, are the power stars.

[Anonymous No.8350273]

>>8349821

The multiple characters took away the original "alone against the world" feel... And as I mentioned... the characters in my opinion were so unlikable, uninteresting and unnatural in chemistry together, I couldn't even get much into it to play far into it.

GTA Vice city has it's flaws but it's a modern classic.... Blacks like their version... GTA 5 was too liberal, too trendy, and turned me away from it in every sense. Story mode should have had one character and a silent character to custom design... If they wanted to market it to all demographics

[Anonymous No.8350318]

>>8350273
GTA always borrowed its ideas from crime films and TV shows like Goodfellas, Sopranos, Menace 2 Society, etc. After making use of the obvious sources, I think the pop-cultural well ran dry and Rockstar didn't know where to turn next for inspiration. I can't think of any gangster films that came out in the 2000s that I would call iconic, nothing that could supply the materials for a GTA game. So what we got instead was an attempt to recycle past glories with a character who is like CJ, a character who has Tony Soprano's family and therapy difficulties, and a joke character in the form of Trevor whose EXTREME and SHOCKING behaviour seemed a like an unsuccessful attempt to bait the guardians of the public morals and make GTA controversial again. No one gave a fuck about Trevor, of course. Like a latter-day Eminem album, his rude words and naughty antics were met with a jaded shrug by people who stopped caring a decade prior.

[Anonymous No.8350379]

>>8350318
V's characters were too self referential, like they wanted everything to be a commentary on past GTA games and the people who played them. The problem is that none of them were interesting on their own. Also having you hop around characters and start as a rich guy with the nice house and loads of money took away from the core GTA plot, which is protagonist turns up in a strange town, learns his way around and becomes rich and powerful. Michael was already rich and did nothing with it, franklin was just boring and trevor was too cartoonish and never had any real aims.

[Anonymous No.8350389]

>>8350318

I never liked that wigger.

[Anonymous No.8350404]

>>8350389

[Anonymous No.8350406]

>>8350404

[Anonymous No.8350562]

>>8348890
How is that weird when you are literally taking over the town? You can't take over a town without buying up assets.

[Anonymous No.8350569]

>>8350389
>>8350404
>>8350406
Most losers obsess over a girl that never gave them the time of day. This guy has never been allowed in a room with a woman, and this is the result

[Anonymous No.8350595]

>>8350389
>>8350404
>>8350406
had a kek

[Anonymous No.8350597]

>>8350569

[Anonymous No.8350603]

>>8348395
Personally only played this game for the story, which I played through a handful of times, and to cruise around and pretend I was in the 80s. Barely got into 100% it.

[Anonymous No.8350609]

>>8350595

Me too, glad you did.

[Anonymous No.8350692]

>>8350273
>The multiple characters took away the original "alone against the world" feel
It harkens back to the original game, and opens up possibilities that they never really explored.

[Anonymous No.8350725]

>>8350264
"the power of the heads has returned to the apartment complex... and it's all thanks to you."

[Anonymous No.8350750]

>>8348395
>Discuss
It's objectively not, wow what a discussion

[Anonymous No.8351007]

>>8348432
vice city was mainstream you zoomer kid

it's the best one before they had a nigger protagonist

[Anonymous No.8351073]

>>8348432
I like vice city and 3 the best, the story wasn't as intrusive on it's gameplay compared to sa and also less niggers

[Anonymous No.8352217]

>>8349828
how gta2 wasnt mainstream, when every school mate i knew would install that and half life on school computers to play during classes
it was on par with half life

[Anonymous No.8352235]

>>8348890
oh yeah VCS was better because
>retarded story and characters
>even worse property system similar to SA gang wars

[Anonymous No.8352241]

Genre distinctions are mostly imaginary. We covered this last thread.

[Anonymous No.8352242]

>>8348441
V really should have just been Micheal. He's the only character they really seemed to have a vision for besides "black", and "crazy".

[Anonymous No.8353154]

>>8352242
Trevor is really the key
He may be insane, but he is also compassionate, whereas Franklin and Michael are truly evil. It is to say that a "monster" is still better than a sociopath; that a Canadian is still better than an American

[Anonymous No.8354573]

>>8348904
Yes they did. Did you think any of their mobster pastiches were sincere?

[Anonymous No.8355802]

>>8348441
"and the nigger one san antonio or whatever" what a cringe insult. ill let you try that again because white people suck at being funny

[Anonymous No.8356567]

I just replayed VC for the first time since it launched and the missions are miserable. The atmosphere, characters, VAs and OST are top tier, but as a game its worse than most of the other entries.

[Anonymous No.8356568]

>>8355802
jamal is fucking seething