The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Grand Theft Auto: Vice City'.
Why do so many of you think GTA 3 is better than GTA: Vice City?
Im getting the double pack soon and i will still play GTA 3 but i dont think it beats GTA: Vice City, im so confused at why lots of you think GTA 3 is better, the guy doesn't speak in it, there are no motorbikes and there are lots of other features it lacks of which Vice City has.
Me Thinks:
95% = GTA 3
99% = GTA Vice City
Im getting the double pack soon and i will still play GTA 3 but i dont think it beats GTA: Vice City, im so confused at why lots of you think GTA 3 is better, the guy doesn't speak in it, there are no motorbikes and there are lots of other features it lacks of which Vice City has.
Me Thinks:
95% = GTA 3
99% = GTA Vice City
Page:
Why do so many of you think GTA 3 is better than GTA: Vice City?
Im getting the double pack soon and i will still play GTA 3 but i dont think it beats GTA: Vice City, im so confused at why lots of you think GTA 3 is better, the guy doesn't speak in it, there are no motorbikes and there are lots of other features it lacks of which Vice City has.
Me Thinks:
95% = GTA 3
99% = GTA Vice City
Im getting the double pack soon and i will still play GTA 3 but i dont think it beats GTA: Vice City, im so confused at why lots of you think GTA 3 is better, the guy doesn't speak in it, there are no motorbikes and there are lots of other features it lacks of which Vice City has.
Me Thinks:
95% = GTA 3
99% = GTA Vice City
Hang on.. I wrote a lot about this a while back...
A direct quote. [URL]http://ukchatforums.reserve.co.uk/display_messages.php?forumid=135&threadid=99240&offset=40¤tsort=desc[/URL] for the original thread.
----------
"There were too many weapons in Vice City, and the design of the city was really poor in places, with lots of repetition and dull textures. GTA 3's islands may have been smaller, but what they lacked in size, they made up for in quality. It had a really personal feel - it was easy to remember where places were, and each area had interesting aspects and locations. The same goes for the weapons; in GTA 3, you knew what each one did, knew what was best for a certain situation and used all of them - more than can be said for the confusingly large amount in Vice City.
I also thought that the missions and storyline (especially the Mafia) were better in GTA 3, as they had more of a gritty feel and, even though you knew it wouldn't make much difference, the sense of professionalism made you want to complete each one as best as you can. Unfortunately, I just didn't feel that in Vice. The missions had the right ideas, but when executed they just weren't as much fun or "important". This flaw can probably also be attributed to the lacklustre level design.
It was the little things too, like the radio stations, vehicles, characters, exploration, trains and mini-sections (stunts, secret packagages, etc) that I liked better in GTA 3. There were some genuinely positive improvements in Vice, such as the gameplay dynamics (jumping out of moving cars, and shooting people through their windscreens was very cool), motorbikes and helicopters but they weren't implemented so well that I felt I couldn't do without them. The game was put together in less than a year and, unfortunately, it shows.
Vice City somewhat reminds me of what I heard in an interview with Lawrence Fishburne regarding The Matrix Reloaded:
"Fans of the original will love Reloaded; it has more of everything. More action, more pace, more style, more revelations and twists... it expands upon the relationship between Neo and Trinity. It's essentially the original Matrix, to the power of ten."
But which is the better film?"
----------
----------
"There were too many weapons in Vice City, and the design of the city was really poor in places, with lots of repetition and dull textures. GTA 3's islands may have been smaller, but what they lacked in size, they made up for in quality. It had a really personal feel - it was easy to remember where places were, and each area had interesting aspects and locations. The same goes for the weapons; in GTA 3, you knew what each one did, knew what was best for a certain situation and used all of them - more than can be said for the confusingly large amount in Vice City.
I also thought that the missions and storyline (especially the Mafia) were better in GTA 3, as they had more of a gritty feel and, even though you knew it wouldn't make much difference, the sense of professionalism made you want to complete each one as best as you can. Unfortunately, I just didn't feel that in Vice. The missions had the right ideas, but when executed they just weren't as much fun or "important". This flaw can probably also be attributed to the lacklustre level design.
It was the little things too, like the radio stations, vehicles, characters, exploration, trains and mini-sections (stunts, secret packagages, etc) that I liked better in GTA 3. There were some genuinely positive improvements in Vice, such as the gameplay dynamics (jumping out of moving cars, and shooting people through their windscreens was very cool), motorbikes and helicopters but they weren't implemented so well that I felt I couldn't do without them. The game was put together in less than a year and, unfortunately, it shows.
Vice City somewhat reminds me of what I heard in an interview with Lawrence Fishburne regarding The Matrix Reloaded:
"Fans of the original will love Reloaded; it has more of everything. More action, more pace, more style, more revelations and twists... it expands upon the relationship between Neo and Trinity. It's essentially the original Matrix, to the power of ten."
But which is the better film?"
----------
Fishburne better had take off his rose tinted glasses then. Reloaded was utter sh*te in comparison to the original.
For me though on this one I would say I prefered GTA 3 more purely because it was revolutionary and at the time it was amazing to play, more so than Vice City which didn't expand enough to make it a better game - time relative of course.
For me though on this one I would say I prefered GTA 3 more purely because it was revolutionary and at the time it was amazing to play, more so than Vice City which didn't expand enough to make it a better game - time relative of course.
I don't think either is better than the other to be fair.
The games are simply identical, with a few different features.
The game looks bland, because it has an 80s theme to it, that's the intentional look of the game and something which may not hav ebeen picked up on.
As for level design, I can't really say that either of the games is better than the other. GTA3 largely followed a grid pattern, where Vice City was a slightly less intuative layout, but with an in-game map and a paper based map in the box, I can't really see why that is a problem.
Being able to go onto rooftops with motorbikes and run from people in this way was much better in Vice City.
The owning of property was quite cool too, and as for being too many weapons in vice city, I'd disagree with that too.
I think if you play Vice City first, then GTA3, you would miss too many of the added features to think GTA3 was any better.
In essence though, the game engine is EXACTLY the same, therefore the games are exactly the same, other than a few minor additions.
The games are simply identical, with a few different features.
The game looks bland, because it has an 80s theme to it, that's the intentional look of the game and something which may not hav ebeen picked up on.
As for level design, I can't really say that either of the games is better than the other. GTA3 largely followed a grid pattern, where Vice City was a slightly less intuative layout, but with an in-game map and a paper based map in the box, I can't really see why that is a problem.
Being able to go onto rooftops with motorbikes and run from people in this way was much better in Vice City.
The owning of property was quite cool too, and as for being too many weapons in vice city, I'd disagree with that too.
I think if you play Vice City first, then GTA3, you would miss too many of the added features to think GTA3 was any better.
In essence though, the game engine is EXACTLY the same, therefore the games are exactly the same, other than a few minor additions.
Bonus wrote:
> The game looks bland, because it has an 80s theme to it, that's the
> intentional look of the game and something which may not hav ebeen
> picked up on.
I actually did not pick up on that. Most probably because using intentionally bland level design in a game that is structured around it would be one of the worst decisions you could possibly make.
> As for level design, I can't really say that either of the games is
> better than the other. GTA3 largely followed a grid pattern, where
> Vice City was a slightly less intuative layout, but with an in-game
> map and a paper based map in the box, I can't really see why that is
> a problem.
The problem is the fact that it's boring. It's completely and utterly dull in places, with repeated buildings, textures and very few memorable locations. The pink-ish colours that are splashed everywhere really don't do the game any favours, and actually make it a graphical step backwards from GTA 3 - a gritty, down-to-earth, well designed and imaginative game.
> I think if you play Vice City first, then GTA3, you would miss too
> many of the added features to think GTA3 was any better.
Well I completed GTA 3, and then I completed Vice City. I'm currently playing GTA 3 through again and, as I said, what improvements there were in Vice I can live without in return for an excellently designed masterpiece.
> The game looks bland, because it has an 80s theme to it, that's the
> intentional look of the game and something which may not hav ebeen
> picked up on.
I actually did not pick up on that. Most probably because using intentionally bland level design in a game that is structured around it would be one of the worst decisions you could possibly make.
> As for level design, I can't really say that either of the games is
> better than the other. GTA3 largely followed a grid pattern, where
> Vice City was a slightly less intuative layout, but with an in-game
> map and a paper based map in the box, I can't really see why that is
> a problem.
The problem is the fact that it's boring. It's completely and utterly dull in places, with repeated buildings, textures and very few memorable locations. The pink-ish colours that are splashed everywhere really don't do the game any favours, and actually make it a graphical step backwards from GTA 3 - a gritty, down-to-earth, well designed and imaginative game.
> I think if you play Vice City first, then GTA3, you would miss too
> many of the added features to think GTA3 was any better.
Well I completed GTA 3, and then I completed Vice City. I'm currently playing GTA 3 through again and, as I said, what improvements there were in Vice I can live without in return for an excellently designed masterpiece.
i think Gta3's missions were the best.
Vice city's structure was better.
Vice city's structure was better.
sorry,
posted it twice by mistake.
posted it twice by mistake.
I totally agree with your earlier post, Mav.
Stridman™ wrote:
> Me Thinks:
>
> 95% = GTA 3
>
> 99% = GTA Vice City
Me thinks:
98% = GTA 3
95% = GTA Vice City.
> Me Thinks:
>
> 95% = GTA 3
>
> 99% = GTA Vice City
Me thinks:
98% = GTA 3
95% = GTA Vice City.
Page: