Avatar image for doctoroptimist
#1 Edited by DoctorOptimist (535 posts) -

I'll probably be flamed to death for saying this, but I firmly believe that GTA III has not withstand the test of time. Don't get me wrong, it was amazing game for it's time and it was very revolutionary. However, the gameplay is just not fun anymore. The missions are horribly designed, they're either too frustrating or just piss easy, not to mention that there are WAY too many tedious time based missions. The car handeling is horrific and the shooting mechanics are the worst in the series. The fact that there's no city map is a pain in the ass too.I guess we could overlook these flaws, because it was something new and original back then, but they're very appearent when compared to most sandbox games these days. 
 
Vice City, San Andreas, and hell, even GTA IV are better games in every way.  GTA III have have been influential, but it's not a classic.
 
Do you think GTA III is a classic or do you think the game is outdated?

Avatar image for handsomedead
#2 Posted by HandsomeDead (11853 posts) -

The only parts that are still good are the all star cast, the radio stations and the bridge where you put your siren on and the cars swerve into the water.

Avatar image for jimbo
#3 Posted by Jimbo (10472 posts) -
@DoctorOptimist said:
"Do you think GTA III is a classic or do you think the game is outdated? "
Both.
Avatar image for icemael
#4 Posted by Icemael (6876 posts) -

GTAIV felt archaic when it was released, so even though I haven't played III, I'm gonna go ahead and say yes.

Avatar image for re_player1
#5 Posted by RE_Player1 (8053 posts) -
@Jimbo said:
" @DoctorOptimist said:
"Do you think GTA III is a classic or do you think the game is outdated? "
Both. "
lol That's exactly what I think about the entire GTA franchise. 
Avatar image for gabriel
#6 Posted by Gabriel (4139 posts) -

It has definitely not aged as well as the other ones, Vice City has such a great setting and characters the flaws are easier to overlook.  San Andreas has much much much better controls and crazy ass shit to do. But make no mistake GTA III is the best game in the series, and one of the best games ever made.

Avatar image for jb16
#7 Posted by JB16 (825 posts) -
@Jimbo said:
" @DoctorOptimist said:
"Do you think GTA III is a classic or do you think the game is outdated? "
Both. "
This
 
Hell there are plenty of classic games that don't stand the test of time. For example, FF7 is one of the UGLIEST blocky games in existence. It was one of the first steps into the 3D gaming world and now it looks like complete shit. Give me 2D sprites over that 3D blocky mess any day.
Avatar image for mrariscottle
#8 Posted by mrariscottle (290 posts) -

I'd still play through GTA III now. I think some parts of GTA III are much better than the newer GTA games.

Avatar image for video_game_king
#9 Posted by Video_Game_King (36564 posts) -

The gameplay has, but the graphics bring about that feeling of, "I used to think this looked good?"

Avatar image for rankrabbit
#10 Posted by RankRabbit (399 posts) -

Frame rate is too crappy in III, vice city, and san andreas, that always annoyed. I won't jump on the "i'm cool for hating gta train" though. My favorite so far is gay tony.

Avatar image for hitmanagent47
#11 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8553 posts) -

Gta san andreas has, I still played the game recently and it's fun. I'm not sure about vice city, I haven't installed it yet. GTA 3 didn't age well because it's gameplay is limiting. You can't walk and shoot, or swim, jump over walls, missions were not that good, ect.

Avatar image for doctoroptimist
#12 Posted by DoctorOptimist (535 posts) -
@Fudgeman7 said:
" I'd still play through GTA III now. I think some parts of GTA III are much better than the newer GTA games. "
Such as?
Avatar image for natetodamax
#13 Posted by natetodamax (19467 posts) -

It's a classic, but horribly outdated. I can't see why anyone would want to play it today.

Avatar image for guided_by_tigers
#14 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8020 posts) -

Its an outdated classic.

Avatar image for yummylee
#15 Edited by Yummylee (24646 posts) -

Absolutely not. Vice City at that. San Andreas I can still play though for not too long. ''AM I REALLY THE ONLY CRIMINAL WORTH CHASING HERE?!?''

Avatar image for sagesebas
#16 Posted by sagesebas (2465 posts) -

Vice city is probably one of my favorite games ever, I only played a bit of San Andreas, and a little of GTA 3

Avatar image for deusoma
#17 Posted by Deusoma (3222 posts) -

Hell no. Even Vice City, which in my opinion was the best of the series, is so ugly these days that I can't go back and seriously play it.

Avatar image for sarumarine
#18 Posted by Sarumarine (2588 posts) -

As long as you can steal cars and run from the cops Grand Theft Auto III still works. That's pretty much the majority of the action the GTA series saw among my friends and in college. It became a sub-game of seeing who could run from the cops the longest without getting killed or busted. Story wise, the only problems I'd have with GTA III would be some of those side missions like collecting magazines with a van or how the entire first area turns into a death trap after pissing off the mob. Shotguns might as well be anti-vehicle weapons in that game.

Avatar image for gamb1t
#19 Posted by gamb1t (1067 posts) -

outdated classic. just like playing wolfenstein 3d. can literally run around and shoot nonstop through each level.

Avatar image for zameer
#20 Edited by zameer (636 posts) -

Yeap, like everyone said; it's outdated classic that hasn't quite stood the test of time.  
 
The only game that qualifies as an evergreen in my books is probably Starcraft: Brood War. It still looks decent!

Avatar image for zanzibarbreeze
#21 Posted by ZanzibarBreeze (3242 posts) -
@DoctorOptimist said:
" I'll probably be flamed to death for saying this, but I firmly believe that GTA III has not withstand the test of time. Don't get me wrong, it was amazing game for it's time and it was very revolutionary. However, the gameplay is just not fun anymore. The missions are horribly designed, they're either too frustrating or just piss easy, not to mention that there are WAY too many tedious time based missions. The car handeling is horrific and the shooting mechanics are the worst in the series. The fact that there's no city map is a pain in the ass too.I guess we could overlook these flaws, because it was something new and original back then, but they're very appearent when compared to most sandbox games these days.  Vice City, San Andreas, and hell, even GTA IV are better games in every way.  GTA III have have been influential, but it's not a classic. Do you think GTA III is a classic or do you think the game is outdated? "
I disagree with these points. The missions are the only parts that are dated to the point where it can become frustrating to play. The cars handle fine. The shooting mechanic boils down to lock-on shooting, which is what was in Vice City, San Andreas, and the two PSP titles -- and it's still in GTA IV, albeit with a few variations. And there is a map. There's both a minimap and a start button map. 
 
The game's a classic. I think it's fine. I still play it. It plays great.
 
To conclude, what the hell are you even talking about? :)
Avatar image for trophyhunter
#22 Posted by trophyhunter (6038 posts) -

SA has not aged well

Avatar image for shabs
#23 Posted by Shabs (905 posts) -

I don't think so - I can't handle playing (or looking at) the PS2 versions now.
 
I LOVED those games at the time.  Playing Vice City and San Andreas are some of my fondest gaming memories. 
 
GTA III kicked off a genre, and it's been iterated on constantly.  New open world games have taken the idea of a "go anywhere, do everything game" and each polished some aspect of it.  When you go back and play the GTA III series, none of those elements feel polished by today's standards.  Hell, I can barely tolerate doing anything but walking and driving in GTA IV now, and that's a current-gen game.

Avatar image for aaron_g
#24 Posted by Aaron_G (1681 posts) -
@Video_Game_King said:
" The gameplay has, but the graphics bring about that feeling of, "I used to think this looked good?" "
Agreed. The game looks horrid compared to anything now.
Avatar image for spoonman671
#25 Posted by Spoonman671 (5874 posts) -

GTA4 hasn't aged well, so I doubt it.

Avatar image for bones8677
#26 Posted by Bones8677 (3535 posts) -

Visually it hasn't aged well, everything is very blocky. But it's still a great game, I'd play that game right now if I had the time. Damn I love that game so much. ^_^

Online
Avatar image for eccentrix
#27 Posted by eccentrix (2396 posts) -

Vice City is the best, but doesn't play so great now.

Avatar image for zanzibarbreeze
#28 Posted by ZanzibarBreeze (3242 posts) -

Wow. What is everybody's problem with the graphics? Are people really that vain? I guess so. Who gives a shit what the game looks like, it's about the gameplay. Are those games still fun and interesting to play? Having play much of all three of the PlayStation 2 games earlier this year, I can authoritatively say that, yes, they are still fun to play. I'm hardly a Grand Theft Auto defender/apologist, but, man, I must register my genuine surprise at the reactions in this thread.
 
(Nobody's going to claim that the three PS2 GTA games are amazing graphical achievements, but, take GTA III for instance -- I find that it still has the best modern city atmosphere of any game yet, including games from this generation. It really captured the feel of a city in the middle of the day when it's dark and it's raining and all the street lights are blurring and everything. GTA III had great aesthetic design.)

Avatar image for doctoroptimist
#29 Posted by DoctorOptimist (535 posts) -
@ZanzibarBreeze said:
" @DoctorOptimist said:
" I'll probably be flamed to death for saying this, but I firmly believe that GTA III has not withstand the test of time. Don't get me wrong, it was amazing game for it's time and it was very revolutionary. However, the gameplay is just not fun anymore. The missions are horribly designed, they're either too frustrating or just piss easy, not to mention that there are WAY too many tedious time based missions. The car handeling is horrific and the shooting mechanics are the worst in the series. The fact that there's no city map is a pain in the ass too.I guess we could overlook these flaws, because it was something new and original back then, but they're very appearent when compared to most sandbox games these days.  Vice City, San Andreas, and hell, even GTA IV are better games in every way.  GTA III have have been influential, but it's not a classic. Do you think GTA III is a classic or do you think the game is outdated? "
I disagree with these points. The missions are the only parts that are dated to the point where it can become frustrating to play. The cars handle fine. The shooting mechanic boils down to lock-on shooting, which is what was in Vice City, San Andreas, and the two PSP titles -- and it's still in GTA IV, albeit with a few variations. And there is a map. There's both a minimap and a start button map.   The game's a classic. I think it's fine. I still play it. It plays great.  To conclude, what the hell are you even talking about? :) "
The auto-aiming is horrific, in later GTA games, the auto-aim usually spots the right target. In GTA III, the auto-aim is random, it targets the wrong NPC and it sometimes doesn't even work.
Avatar image for mrklorox
#30 Edited by MrKlorox (11176 posts) -

GTA3 is very outdated. San Andreas, and to a lesser extent Vice City, are still great games though (as long as you don't play them on a PS2).

Avatar image for jjweatherman
#31 Edited by JJWeatherman (15101 posts) -

I don't know if it's just me, but I find the way the game blurs to be incredibly off-putting these days. I guess I was more tolerant of that stuff back in the day. But yeah, it seems terrible in comparison to modern games.

Avatar image for ace829
#32 Posted by Ace829 (2106 posts) -

It's the Final Fantasy VII of sand-box games. It's a classic, but I can't see anyone wanting to play it nowadays other than nostalgia.

Avatar image for drpockets000
#33 Posted by DrPockets000 (2878 posts) -

It's fun for the nostalgia, but other than that I wouldn't go back.

Avatar image for zanzibarbreeze
#34 Posted by ZanzibarBreeze (3242 posts) -
@DoctorOptimist said:
The auto-aiming is horrific, in later GTA games, the auto-aim usually spots the right target. In GTA III, the auto-aim is random, it targets the wrong NPC and it sometimes doesn't even work. "
Maybe you just need to get better at video games?
 
No, I'm just baiting you. :)
 
Whatevs. You don't like it, I like it. That's fine. I don't know which version of the game you're playing because, as I say, I played through all three PS2 GTAs a while back and had no tremendous qualms with the gameplay. But that's fine. I'm not interested in debating the intricacies of GTA III's auto-aim mechanic.
Avatar image for man_flannel
#35 Posted by MAN_FLANNEL (2472 posts) -

The GTA series is still by far the best sand box games I have ever played.  GTA III is nearly a decade old, why wouldn't it feel and look outdated?  Honestly people.  Go play through your PS2/Xbox/Dreamcast/N64 libraries and realize how horrible 90% of them are by today's standards.  It's called progress people.   

Avatar image for lunar_aura
#36 Posted by Lunar_Aura (2824 posts) -

GTA3 hasn't aged well but San Andreas less so because of all the GTA games, GTA:SA could have been more accurate by having a constant minimum 1-star wanted level.
Avatar image for jakob187
#37 Posted by jakob187 (22957 posts) -

I'm reading this thread...and all I see is a lot of drivel. 
 
GTA III is still the best in the franchise.  Their vision of Liberty City might've been held back due to the technology at the time, but that game was incredibly focused on the story it wanted to tell as well as the gameplay it wanted to offer.  It isn't super massive huge like later installments in the franchise that created a genuine lack of appeal to the cities they took place in (even GTA IV's vision of Liberty City).  The gameplay was frantic enough to be fun on a ton of levels, but you never felt totally restrained. 
 
I don't know.  Maybe my love of that game is based on the fact that I HAVE literally played it in my sleep...or some state of sleep...and I have a witness to the whole thing.  There's just something about that game that I continue to enjoy every time I plug it in for a quick round of "beat up the hookers".

Avatar image for thehbk
#38 Posted by TheHBK (5672 posts) -

Gameplay is ever evolving.  And those PS2 graphics dont help.  Is it a classic?  Hells yes, the characters, mature story, the gameplay, the draw distance and violence all made it something we remember.  GoldenEye is not exactly holding up.  Same with Ocarina of Time in my opinion.  the first Metal Gear Solid and FF7, which sucks ass.  And by the way, we dont remember GTA III for the missions.  We remember it for running people over and killing a bunch of cops and going anywhere we can.  And for trying to fly the dodo.
Avatar image for archscabby
#39 Posted by ArchScabby (5877 posts) -

Look at this, do you think it's aged well?  Do you?  DO YOU?!
 

No Caption Provided
Avatar image for zanzibarbreeze
#40 Edited by ZanzibarBreeze (3242 posts) -
@jakob187 said:

GTA III is still the best in the franchise.  Their vision of Liberty City might've been held back due to the technology at the time, but that game was incredibly focused on the story it wanted to tell as well as the gameplay it wanted to offer.  It isn't super massive huge like later installments in the franchise that created a genuine lack of appeal to the cities they took place in (even GTA IV's vision of Liberty City).  The gameplay was frantic enough to be fun on a ton of levels, but you never felt totally restrained. 

I agree. I dig. I'm one of many that prefers Vice City, but I definitely agree that III is one of the best; I'd put it at second best. But Vice City was really more of a patch for GTA III in any case. It came out a year after III, and the only real update to the gameplay was motorbikes. Apart from location and story and characters, it's essentially the same game (with regards to gameplay) as III.
 

@ArchScabby

said:

" Look at this, do you think it's aged well?  Do you?  DO YOU?!
 

No Caption Provided
"
You're probably being sarcastic, but this screenshot doesn't make the game look bad -- it actually makes the game look a whole lot better than it really does. The graphics aren't offensive in any way. This is obviously the PC version, so that makes a difference. In any case, I would still play III over IV any day. The only bad thing about that game for me: the offroad missions. Eff those offroad missions, man. How can they expect you to drive a SUV sideways along a cliff?