GTA, which is the best

[cheeseboy38!]

Out of
GTA 1
GTA 2
GTA 3
GTA Vice City
GTA San Andreas
GTA Liberty City Stories

I haven't played much of San Andreas and I don't have a PSP, but I love Grand Theft Auto 3. I like the story, all the characters, and just everything about. Vice City I didn't really like that much or at all. Which is your favortie?

[Viper]

VC, period. Hell, even Mach likes it.

[Handycrap101]

I like all the the current gen GTA's for the PS2... I thought they were all fun. GTA 3 had the best single city. GTA VC IMO had the best story and SA had the best OVERALL area. I said 3 had the best city because I felt that LC was better then any of the 3 citys in SA. If I was to recommend any of those 3 it would be SA... It just has everything to do and so much to explore.

I never really played any of the bids eye view GTA's... I think I played the one for a little and the controls weren't exactly fun.

[Pro A.]

GTA1 and 2 are amusing, but archaic, at best.

San Andreas, for me, was the best. A brilliant title with a great hero and a great story that is much darker, but more personal as a result. CJ's personal odyssey through San Andreas is amazing and the game has an epic feel to it. Vice City and GTAIII are both brilliant in their own right, don't get me wrong, but San Andreas managed to top both of them in ambition, gameplay, game design, and pure fun. So far, the best game of the generation (a claim Zelda may yet get its hands on).

[Scrilla]

Never played 1+2. GTA3 is good in terms of story (plus its the first 3D one people!). VC is good to me because Tommy carried around the attitude of ("F" with me and I'll kill you), so thats a plus. For some reason I never finished SA.

Even though I didn't finish it.....SA (it has way more options and bigger world)

[dendj55]

I would have to say the best GTA game for the PS2 was GTA:III because of the inovation, the free roam and the in-your-face realism it produced. VC and SA were both great imporvements but in the end seemed like they were running on the same engine as the original. I would be happy to play any of the 3 games, but to me GTA:III created a revolution.

As far as the best GTA game of all time, I have to say that GTA:LCS is an absolutley amazing game. The city is a carbon copy of GTA:III although the story is different and the fact that this game is one of the only game that really resembles a PS2 game on the PSP. GTA:LCS is the best game Rockstar has produced to this point.

[VG Aficionado]

I finished GTA3, Vice, Andreas and LCS. The one I played the most was GTA3, but the one I liked the most was San Andreas. This doesn't mean I didn't like Vice and LCS, I loved them too.

GTA3 is going to remain a classic for me since it was my first GTA game (I had played a demo of one of the 2D ones but never really liked it). Vice City was very fun, it kept me busy for a good while and Tommy Vercetti made me feel it was a very different game. San Andreas is an incredibly big effort to reinvent and expand the series while still feeling like a GTA game. LCS surprised me since I expected it to be "cheaper", but it turned up to be a great new story while adding some innovations which made it totally worth it for GTA fans.

Graphics wise, LCS (PSP) is slightly inferior to San Andreas (PS2), but it is better than GTA3 (PS2), IMO. Also, LCS production values are about as high as GTA3 and Vice City ones, so it feels like a great game.

If I had to choose or recommend one, I'd say San Andreas, which has recently been re-released as Platinum.

[[[tavis]]]

easy. vice city.

[VG Aficionado]

VC and SA were both great imporvements but in the end seemed like they were running on the same engine as the original.No way. San Andreas graphics engine is far superior to GTA3 and VC ones. While VC seemed like a little improvement over GTA3's, San Andreas was a big improvement. No more loading screens when travelling to other cities (totally seamless unless you entered interiors), underwater environments, much higher flying height, aeroplanes(!), superior vehicle reflections, more polygons per character and vehicle, far superior vehicle and character customization, more objects on screen, greater draw distance, improved lighting and special effects, and most importantly, add smoother framerate to all that! Plus other minor improvements.

I'm talking about PS2 versions, of course.

The city is a carbon copy of GTA:III although the story is different and the fact that this game is one of the only game that really resembles a PS2 game on the PSP. GTA:LCS is the best game Rockstar has produced to this point.There are many differences between Liberty City in GTA3 and LCS. I mean, PSP can recreate it just like PS2 did back then, but there are a lot of changes which make it feel a bit fresh.

[Rizon]

The oringal GTA3.

I prefer it because it broke so many more boundarys then other games did. The free roamingness and the choice given whether to do a mission. It may have exicsited on other games beforehand, but GTA3 was the one that did it for me.

[mr187]

In my opinion GTA3

Reason being i didn't like how they introduced main characters into it. I like the anonymous ("fido" or "claude") guy factor that gave gta3 some sort of edge over vice city or san andreas. GTA3 was about liberty city and the happenings in it...fido was just the guy that progressed it. Vice City was about Tommy V. I hardly noticed vice city at all..it was small and it was about Tommy V and how perfect he was..in the end i didn't really care about mafia issues between Tommy and Sonny or buddy issues with Lance. San Andreas was abit better..it was bigger and had more variety than Vice. Still it had a main character Carl Johnson. Even though Carl was more "human" than Tommy..me as a player didn't care too much about him and his story. All i wanted to was open up the areas and look for areas to chuck insane stunts. Like Vice city it took me ages to finish the storyline mainly because i spent too much time doing other things. Anyway what ticked me off in Vice City and San Andreas how suddenly when doing a mission you get handed a weapon out of nowhere or convience things like that. In GTA3 you where free to choose what you packed or what car you drove. In San Andreas i couldn't stand how you where given a car for the races. My point is the freedom of choices have been reduced in VC and SA and thats why i prefer gta3 over them.

I just hope gta4 brings back those freedoms.

[VG Aficionado]

I prefer it because it broke so many more boundarys then other games did. The free roamingness and the choice given whether to do a mission. It may have exicsited on other games beforehand, but GTA3 was the one that did it for me.Driver series on PS1 were already free roaming in 3D, much before GTA3 was released. I remember playing one of them, although I hardly remember anything. There was really serious popping issues as far as I remember, which was understandable. Anyway, the GTA series were the real deal for that newly born genre, in a way. And Reflections didn't achieve the quality required for this genre since then.


GTA San Andreas: security staff at Madd Dogg's house while playing a videogame:

"This sucks. I mean, how could Refractions mess up so bad? Tanner, you suck ass!"

("craftily" bashing Driv3r)

[martel]

GTA SA.

I've played them all quite recently, playing any of the others after SA seems strange.

1 and 2 are now free downloads at http://www.rockstargames.com/classics/ for anyone who didn't know.

GTA 3 was revolutionary. I remember reading the magazine articles and simply not believing they could produce a GTA game in 3D whilst keeping anything like the scale of the previous games. The story line wasn't up to much, and it didn't have the music and movie star support of the later games, but it had a fantastically realised city, LC is small but every inch has character.

VC was only what, 1 year later. It upped things in terms of the storyline, the music and the voice acting, it had real atmosphere and a good character in Tommy. It also added a few features like tire popping. But the map was not good at all IMO. First off, it was flat, utterly flat. Secondly it was twice the size of LC, but seemed to have less in it. Go to the area around the car dealership for example, or the south west of downtown. Big empty spaces, there just seemed a to be a lack of detail. There was also two much emphasis of water IMO, boats in VC were unpleasant to use and you had to use them a fair few times.

After 2 years (I think) SA came out. Story line wise it was up to VC I felt, and was at least as good in terms of voice acting and music. But most importantly the city designs were better. The wide open areas felt intentional, and the urban areas, like the area around CJ's home seemed more detailed then VC. The size of the map made it hard to navigate at first, but in a brilliant way, one of my favourite aspects of GTA is exploring a new environment, I almost wish they didn't publish maps of them (be funny to see people of forums try their hand at a bit of cartography). And the new features, especially swimming, character developement (body shape, clothes etc) and climbing were nice too.