How does the GTA Trilogy hold up?

E

eastshore4

Guest
Okay, so I'm sure alot of folks can agree that GTA San Andreas still holds up well, but what about the other two games? I came across a cheap copy of the GTA Trilogy, but before I bit I wanted to know if Vice City and GTA3 were any good for the missions, or if they are just too outdated? I've never really played GTA3 for more than an hour, and I really enjoyed Vice City's atmosphere and soundtrack so I was kinda interested in jumping back in.
 
i think they all kinda feel the same and are pretty fun... there's just more features in san andreas. both gta3 and vice city have entertaining storylines, and you can't beat vice's 80's music!
 
I did maybe five missions in Vice City and had much more fun than I've had with GTAIV so far. No Roman, I don't want to play stupid minigames with you and fuck off Michelle. Next time I'll fart at the best parts, maybe you'll be too embarassed to call me again. I'm not a fan of the 'realistic' movement controls either. And the Uncanny Valley keeps me from connecting to the story at all.

So yeah I'd say the trilogy is way better than IV.
 
I finished GTA 3 late last year. I borrowed it from a friend has that all the games since. He just bought a PS3 so I'm sure he'll buy GTA IV soon.

I played just the missions as they came up, I used one of the Gamefaq walkthroughs to make sure I was doing it in the right order. I seldom did any of the mini games in GTA 3, I just wanted to finish the game and get to the end, which took long enough anyway as I don't play games daily maybe once or twice a week.

I had fun, it was just hard enough to not breeze though and I started there because I wanted to play the whole series of games in order. I will play Vice City soon, I'm just working on ToCA Race Driver 3 and GT4 for starters...
 
[quote name='javeryh']Vice City is the best GTA to date, IMO.[/quote]

Seconded.

GTA3 was, at the time, amazing to me. I loved the very first GTA (never played the second), but the amount of detail and just fun of the first "3D" GTA world was great. However I do not think it aged very well, and I'm not talking about graphics. There's not a whole to "Fido" and the storyline is pretty straightforward/generic, although some of the supporting characters are interesting.

VC, however, I still think is a great play. The fact that it had a REAL soundtrack and a main character that was entertaining as hell were the sellers. The city was big enough to be interesting, but not so huge that it took forever to get from one area to another. Story isn't great, but it doesn't really take itself seriously (not like GTA3 did anyway) and I definitely felt that at the end of the game I had actually accomplished something - especially that last mission.

SA took a while to grow on me, and although I think it was a step up in terms of the game world itself, it was not as fun to play as VC. Using the word "epic" would be over the top, but the vast space contained in the game world almost reaches that level. What made this game entertaining were the supporting characters (well voiced, as always) and the amount of crap you could do. But the setting, for me at least, just wasn't as attention-grabbing as VC.

Short answer - VC alone is worth it for the variety of missions and sheer joy of playing it. GTA3 is good for historical sake, but there's nothing really earth shattering now about the missions themselves.
 
Well, I ended up passing on the trilogy set, and just picked up a copy of VC since it was only $3... I had also forgotten that I already have a copy of SA that I got for $3.XX during the CCity closeout so it wouldn't make much sense to buy the whole trilogy. To be honest the things I was most concerned about(namely the older mechanics that SA improved upon) aren't nearly as bad as I originally expected. I think the smaller game world is actually a positive too, it makes this game more of a quick-play feel than SA.

After this, I might have to go pick up Vice City stories as well.
 
bread's done
Back
Top