Best GTA Game of the 3D Universe Era

[Lucas88]

I don't think San Andreas compares to Vice City, my friend. Vice City has better aesthetics, better cars, better characters, better soundtrack and although the map is much smaller by comparison, it has its own charm and a lot more distinguishable locations than any of the other GTA games.

I wouldn't play through San Andreas again dude. I think it's possibly the worst GTA. I don't wanna play as CJ and larp as a hood gangbanger I wanna larp as a big badass crime lord like Tommy Vercetti!

I found the missions on GTA SA just dragged on and they introduced that infuriating stealth mechanic which just sucked balls. I mean, we couldn't even play through San Andreas with 6 stars for every mission! How gay is that? And the gang wars were a total snore fest dude. Just repeating the same shit with the same NPC characters shooting at each other with different coloured headbands on.

GTA 3 at least had interesting rich and diverse gangs, which made it somewhat interesting and the runner up for best GTA game. But Vice City takes the cake! I first completed the game more than 10 years ago (at a guess) but even today it is still a gem that I enjoy playing through with 6 stars on all missions or even making up my own missions. The other GTA games haven't had that kind of replayability for me. Therefore, I think GTA Vice City is the best GTA.

The missions on Vice City weren't that easy either dude. The different properties you could buy made the game pretty interesting with different kinds of missions and what's more is they were all unique locations!

I absolutely love all of the three main GTA games of the 3D Universe era (GTA 3, Vice City and San Andreas) and appreciate each of them for different reasons. Each game has its own unique vibe and setting, characters, things that it does better than the others, and fun missions.

San Andreas isn't objectively a mediocre game. It is actually an incredibly evolved game with features and gameplay that set it apart and appeal to many GTA fans. It's just that the game and its themes don't appeal to your subjective tastes. That doesn't make it a mediocre game.

First of all, it's only natural that Rockstar would make a GTA game about the hood. GTA is indeed a crime game, after all. In real-life Los Angeles in the early 90s, gang warfare was getting really serious between the Bloods and Crips and other African-American and Latino gangs and the LA riots were a major historical event in 1992. Rockstar obviously wanted to capitalize on that. So they made a GTA game primarily about early 90s African-American and Latino gang culture and police corruption, although the game doesn't limit itself to those themes and includes plots surrounding the Triads, various Italian mafias, a major drug syndicate and a rogue CIA agent as the story progresses. These themes interest some people a lot.

Second, even if you don't personally like the characters (because you don't have any interest in early 90s African-American and Latino gang culture), the character development and storylines are undeniably much more elaborate and fleshed out than those of GTA 3 and Vice City and the game's storytelling is objectively superior. San Andreas marked the beginning of the cinematic feel in GTA games.

Third, the map actually does have many iconic locations. If you had played the game a bit more you might have noticed. You obviously have Grove Street and its surroundings which are extremely iconic and represent real-life Compton. Then you have various other gang areas and their iconic landmarks (e.g., Idlewood, El Corona, etc.) which represent real-life hoods, various beaches, and various other locations which represent real-life places in LA. Outside of Los Santos, you've got various towns like Angel Pine, all of which are based on real-life Californian and Nevadan towns, and then you have locations of interest like Area 69 and the Airstrip. Finally, you have Las Venturas with its amazingly beautiful and iconic Strip, a very good representation of real-life Las Vegas. San Fierro is the most boring city in my opinion but even San Fierro looks like a convincing representation of real-life San Francisco. The idea that the San Andreas map has less iconic locations than Vice City is just unfounded.

Fourth, San Andreas' missions aren't bad at all. Most of them are really good, especially on the first island (the Los Santos missions are all really well-done and relevant to the story) and the third island. San Fierro's missions are 50/50 in my opinion and that's where some boring filler content is inserted, but I'd say that overall at least 80% of the missions are good and relevant to the story. On the third island, you have intricate casino heists, infiltration of military facilities, intense shootouts with the Forelli and Sindacco mafias, etc. Many of the missions are excellently made and are therefore beloved by most fans.

Fifth, the gangwar mechanic is just optional side-mission content. You don't even need to do it to complete the game. It's San Andreas' equivalent of GTA 3 and Vice City's rampages. Whether you like the gangwar mechanic or not is simply a matter of taste. For some players there is an exhilarating feeling to progressively conquering different parts of the Los Santos map.

Sixth, the stealth mechanic is only featured in about 2 or 3 missions out of over 100. It's not even a prominent feature of the game nor is it even that hard to learn once you understand the controls.

Seventh, San Andreas has most of the vehicles and weapons that GTA 3 and Vice City have and then some more.

That said, San Andreas definitely has worse AI than Vice City despite the physics being more developed and more realistic. The gang member NPCs are more stupid than those of the previous games. It's like the developers tried to be more ambitious in making a much more evolved game but at the same time got some of the simple things wrong. Then there are some game features that San Andreas doesn't do as well as its predecessor. San Andreas has property missions - predominantly in San Fierro - just like Vice City does, but in San Andreas the property missions are far more boring and don't do much to enhance the gameplay. They're treated more as an afterthought.

In my opinion, with San Andreas the gameplay is really good in Los Santos and Las Venturas (including the Airstrip) but is considerably weaker in San Fierro. San Fierro has good Triad and pimping missions and the whole angle with the Loco Syndicate, but also quite a few boring and really unmemorable missions. It's as though you just have to slog it out for a while until you unlock Las Venturas. Fortunately, some of the tedious missions (the Wang Cars and Zero missions) are optional. San Fierro could have been done much better. I would have liked more interesting properties and better property missions and maybe even "assassination contracts" like the phone missions in Vice City.

[Pixel--Dude]

I absolutely love all of the three main GTA games of the 3D Universe era (GTA 3, Vice City and San Andreas) and appreciate each of them for different reasons. Each game has its own unique vibe and setting, characters, things that it does better than the others, and fun missions.

San Andreas isn't objectively a mediocre game. It is actually an incredibly evolved game with features and gameplay that set it apart and appeal to many GTA fans. It's just that the game and its themes don't appeal to your subjective tastes. That doesn't make it a mediocre game.

First of all, it's only natural that Rockstar would make a GTA game about the hood. GTA is indeed a crime game, after all. In real-life Los Angeles in the early 90s, gang warfare was getting really serious between the Bloods and Crips and other African-American and Latino gangs and the LA riots were a major historical event in 1992. Rockstar obviously wanted to capitalize on that. So they made a GTA game primarily about early 90s African-American and Latino gang culture and police corruption, although the game doesn't limit itself to those themes and includes plots surrounding the Triads, various Italian mafias, a major drug syndicate and a rogue CIA agent as the story progresses. These themes interest some people a lot.

Second, even if you don't personally like the characters (because you don't have any interest in early 90s African-American and Latino gang culture), the character development and storylines are undeniably much more elaborate and fleshed out than those of GTA 3 and Vice City and the game's storytelling is objectively superior. San Andreas marked the beginning of the cinematic feel in GTA games.

Third, the map actually does have many iconic locations. If you had played the game a bit more you might have noticed. You obviously have Grove Street and its surroundings which are extremely iconic and represent real-life Compton. Then you have various other gang areas and their iconic landmarks (e.g., Idlewood, El Corona, etc.) which represent real-life hoods, various beaches, and various other locations which represent real-life places in LA. Outside of Los Santos, you've got various towns like Angel Pine, all of which are based on real-life Californian and Nevadan towns, and then you have locations of interest like Area 69 and the Airstrip. Finally, you have Las Venturas with its amazingly beautiful and iconic Strip, a very good representation of real-life Las Vegas. San Fierro is the most boring city in my opinion but even San Fierro looks like a convincing representation of real-life San Francisco. The idea that the San Andreas map has less iconic locations than Vice City is just unfounded.

Fourth, San Andreas' missions aren't bad at all. Most of them are really good, especially on the first island (the Los Santos missions are all really well-done and relevant to the story) and the third island. San Fierro's missions are 50/50 in my opinion and that's where some boring filler content is inserted, but I'd say that overall at least 80% of the missions are good and relevant to the story. On the third island, you have intricate casino heists, infiltration of military facilities, intense shootouts with the Forelli and Sindacco mafias, etc. Many of the missions are excellently made and are therefore beloved by most fans.

Fifth, the gangwar mechanic is just optional side-mission content. You don't even need to do it to complete the game. It's San Andreas' equivalent of GTA 3 and Vice City's rampages. Whether you like the gangwar mechanic or not is simply a matter of taste. For some players there is an exhilarating feeling to progressively conquering different parts of the Los Santos map.

Sixth, the stealth mechanic is only featured in about 2 or 3 missions out of over 100. It's not even a prominent feature of the game nor is it even that hard to learn once you understand the controls.

Seventh, San Andreas has most of the vehicles and weapons that GTA 3 and Vice City have and then some more.

That said, San Andreas definitely has worse AI than Vice City despite the physics being more developed and more realistic. The gang member NPCs are more stupid than those of the previous games. It's like the developers tried to be more ambitious in making a much more evolved game but at the same time got some of the simple things wrong. Then there are some game features that San Andreas doesn't do as well as its predecessor. San Andreas has property missions - predominantly in San Fierro - just like Vice City does, but in San Andreas the property missions are far more boring and don't do much to enhance the gameplay. They're treated more as an afterthought.

In my opinion, with San Andreas the gameplay is really good in Los Santos and Las Venturas (including the Airstrip) but is considerably weaker in San Fierro. San Fierro has good Triad and pimping missions and the whole angle with the Loco Syndicate, but also quite a few boring and really unmemorable missions. It's as though you just have to slog it out for a while until you unlock Las Venturas. Fortunately, some of the tedious missions (the Wang Cars and Zero missions) are optional. San Fierro could have been done much better. I would have liked more interesting properties and better property missions and maybe even "assassination contracts" like the phone missions in Vice City.

I've played through San Andreas twice now the first time was alone and I got so bored that I turned off the game and never continued after completing the first island. The story was boring and the pacing was very slow. The characters were boring gang bangers and the missions were all repetitive and consisted of the same old shit. Spray painting walls, taking Big Smoke to get fried chicken and a bunch of gang banger NPCs with different coloured headbands on shooting at each other. At least the gangs in Vice City were somewhat diverse and the gangs of GTA 3 were even better. I understand some of these points are based on subjective tastes, but I personally believe that GTA Vice City is objectively superior to San Andreas.

I'll address some other of your points in more detail:

1. A GTA game set in the hood - They could have done a bit more with this. I found the first island missions to be boring, slow paced and repetitive. Compared to Vice City where after only a few missions you're thrown right into the action. Making Vice City better and much better paced than San Andreas. Driving around spray painting graffiti and partaking in tedious gang wars for territory were just mundane mechanics. Vice City excelled in its diversity of missions with phone missions, races and rampages.

Vice City really did something special with its depiction of Miami in the 80s, unlike San Andreas which just seemed all over the place. Unlike San Andreas, Vice City really immerses players in the location and time period with awesome 80s soundtracks and beautiful in game aesthetics. Aesthetics are a moral imperative and Vice City has a bright and beautiful aesthetic which brings genuine joy to players immersed into the setting. San Andreas failed to capture me in that sense.

2. Characters & Story - The characters are boring and the story pacing is really slow. Vice City throws players straight into the action after only a few missions. Tommy and Lance are trying to find out who f***ed up their deal and as Tommy you work your way from a lucky to a crime boss who could aquire assets throughout the city. I don't think San Andreas had that feature. I also don't think San Andreas was as open ended as Vice City in the selection of missions you have. With Vice City you can play any missions you want after a certain point in the game. Where San Andreas was linear and, as you admit yourself, disorganised once you reach the second island. Vice City is superior.

3. Iconic Locations - Why is it unfounded to say Vice City has more memorable and iconic locations than San Andreas? So you're telling me Grove Street, which is a complete shit hole, is more memorable than locations like the Malibu Club or the Pole Position? Vice City's locations are so unique and interesting that it makes it easy to memorise your way around the map without using the waypoints.

4. Missions - The heist was okay in San Andreas, but I don't think it was that memorable, not like the heist in Vice City where you have to prepare by getting a getaway driver, safe cracker and shooter. As I already mentioned the missions are boring on San Andreas compared to Vice City which has a fast paced story and an open ended way for players to complete missions.

5. Gangwars - As already stated the gangs in San Andreas are unimaginative. Just the same NPC with green or purple headbands or green headbands. Yellow headbands for the Mexican gang or wherever they are from. Vice City gangs weren't that good either, GTA 3 beats both games in terms of interestingly diverse gangs.

6. Stealth - The worst and most pointless thing introduced to GTA. Sneaking around a mansion with a knife or a purple dildo. It's stupid. GTA is brilliant as a car chase or shooting game. But leave the stealth to Siphon Filter

7. Cars - Cars on GTA Vice City look different. All cars on San Andreas look the same. The only thing that pisses me off with Vice City cars is that if you have an infernus for example so does everyone else.

In conclusion I think the evidence speaks for itself that GTA Vice City is objectively better than San Andreas. The music is better. They capture the 80s atmosphere better. The missions get you straight into the action and you can complete them in any order.

[Lucas88]

I understand some of these points are based on subjective tastes, but I personally believe that GTA Vice City is objectively superior to San Andreas.

Dude, having read through all of your points, I still think that you are conflating your own subjective tastes with objective superiority. I understand that the overall theme of the game and certain other aspects of it don't appeal to you as you've made it abundantly clear. There is nothing wrong with that as preferences with regard to time periods, places, cultures, etc. differ wildly among individuals. However, just because the theme of the game and some of its other aspects don't appeal to you doesn't mean that the game is objectively inferior. That's where your argument goes wrong.

1. A GTA game set in the hood - They could have done a bit more with this. I found the first island missions to be boring, slow paced and repetitive. Compared to Vice City where after only a few missions you're thrown right into the action. Making Vice City better and much better paced than San Andreas. Driving around spray painting graffiti and partaking in tedious gang wars for territory were just mundane mechanics. Vice City excelled in its diversity of missions with phone missions, races and rampages.

Vice City really did something special with its depiction of Miami in the 80s, unlike San Andreas which just seemed all over the place. Unlike San Andreas, Vice City really immerses players in the location and time period with awesome 80s soundtracks and beautiful in game aesthetics. Aesthetics are a moral imperative and Vice City has a bright and beautiful aesthetic which brings genuine joy to players immersed into the setting. San Andreas failed to capture me in that sense.

Rockstar did do a lot with the hood theme. They replicated the gang culture of LA in the early 90s with an escalating gang war between the Grove Street Families and the Ballas reminiscent of the real-life conflict between the Crips and Bloods, and also depicted the Chicano culture of that same place and era with the rivalry between the Vagos and Varrio Aztecas. Moreover, they did all of this in a fictitious city that strikingly resembles real-life LA.

All of the missions in Los Santos fit the theme of the game. You begin with simple things like tagging up the enemy's turf (just one mission), drive-bys on Ballas, small-scale robberies and beating up drug dealers and then progress to a full-scale hood war with the Ballas, assaults on the Russian mafia and a mad shoot-out with SWAT and the subsequent epic car chase until the storyline of the first island culminates with the showdown with the Ballas, Big Smoke's and Ryder's betrayal, and CJ's and Sweet's arrest. Moreover, the pacing isn't as slow as you remember. After the first few simple missions that teach you about the game's features and mechanics, you're soon thrown into serious and challenging missions. Don't forget that Vice City and GTA 3 have their own fair share of unsubstantial or otherwise underwhelming missions too. It's not just a San Andreas thing.

Personally, I can complete the Los Santos missions in about 2 and half hours, so if you find the gameplay slow then maybe you're not that skilled at this particular GTA game due to a lack of practice.

San Andreas actually has the largest diversity of missions. It has intense combat missions, many unique objective-based missions, street races, heists, base infiltration missions, aerial vehicle missions, CRASH assignments (SA's equivalent of GTA 3's and VC's phone missions), etc. The gang war mechanic is merely side-mission content and is SA's equivalent of the rampages. SA features some of the most epic and unique missions in any GTA game (especially once you get to the third island). Just because not all of them reflect your tastes doesn't mean that they're bad. A large percentage of the GTA fanbase loves SA's missions for their intricacy and uniqueness.

As for aesthetics, San Andreas also has aesthetics that brilliantly capture the vibe of its intended setting and time period. Los Santos has its attractive areas and even its unattractive hood areas have their unique character. The Strip of Las Venturas is arguably just as atmospheric as Vice City's Ocean Beach except far larger and more imposing. For somebody who prefers the aesthetics of California and Nevada, San Andreas is an attractive game, just as Vice City is for you as a lover of Miami.

2. Characters & Story - The characters are boring and the story pacing is really slow. Vice City throws players straight into the action after only a few missions. Tommy and Lance are trying to find out who f***ed up their deal and as Tommy you work your way from a lucky to a crime boss who could aquire assets throughout the city. I don't think San Andreas had that feature. I also don't think San Andreas was as open ended as Vice City in the selection of missions you have. With Vice City you can play any missions you want after a certain point in the game. Where San Andreas was linear and, as you admit yourself, disorganised once you reach the second island. Vice City is superior.

The characters are boring to you, but not to me and many others. This point is subjective.

Neither of the games are truly open-ended. In both games the missions are unlocked in phases and often depend on the completion of very specific requirements.

San Fierro is relatively weaker in terms of its mission content (the quality dips down a little in the middle of the game) but that doesn't invalidate the whole game. Other GTA games have their weak points and things that could be improved too but that doesn't make them bad games. San Andreas more than makes up for the weaker content of the second island once you reach the Airstrip and Las Venturas (both of these are absolutely f'n' epic).

3. Iconic Locations - Why is it unfounded to say Vice City has more memorable and iconic locations than San Andreas? So you're telling me Grove Street, which is a complete shit hole, is more memorable than locations like the Malibu Club or the Pole Position? Vice City's locations are so unique and interesting that it makes it easy to memorise your way around the map without using the waypoints.

Because San Andreas indeed has far more iconic and memorable locations than Vice City. It has the Strip for a start, far more explorable venues (bars, nightclubs, strip clubs, casinos, etc.), various beaches, hoods with their own unique character (iconic doesn't necessarily equal beautiful), towns and secret locations.

San Andreas' locations simply aren't as iconic or memorable to you because you didn't play the game much while they're extremely iconic and memorable to SA fans who have played the game multiple times.

Grove Street is iconic to SA fans. But is it any worse than Vice City's Little Havana or Little Haiti? Vice City has its shitholes too outside of the nice parts such as Ocean Beach.

4. Missions - The heist was okay in San Andreas, but I don't think it was that memorable, not like the heist in Vice City where you have to prepare by getting a getaway driver, safe cracker and shooter. As I already mentioned the missions are boring on San Andreas compared to Vice City which has a fast paced story and an open ended way for players to complete missions.

Vice City feels so fast-paced precisely because it's spread so thin when it comes to missions. It's not a big game in terms of content. It could have been a bit longer and more elaborate for me.

San Andreas actually has dozens of really well-designed and memorable missions, especially on the third island. It's just that you either didn't play them because you never progressed beyond the first island by yourself or only had a half-assed go at them because you played the game with me and my brother at a frequency of one day a week. You have to advance through the whole game by yourself to be able to appreciate its missions.

5. Gangwars - As already stated the gangs in San Andreas are unimaginative. Just the same NPC with green or purple headbands or green headbands. Yellow headbands for the Mexican gang or wherever they are from. Vice City gangs weren't that good either, GTA 3 beats both games in terms of interestingly diverse gangs.

The gang wars are just side-mission content. You don't even have to do them. But they were probably a necessary addition since the theme of the game is LA gangs of the early 90s and their struggle for supremacy.

6. Stealth - The worst and most pointless thing introduced to GTA. Sneaking around a mansion with a knife or a purple dildo. It's stupid. GTA is brilliant as a car chase or shooting game. But leave the stealth to Siphon Filter

Why is it pointless? It suits the objective of some missions. Some people like the stealth mechanic.

7. Cars - Cars on GTA Vice City look different. All cars on San Andreas look the same. The only thing that pisses me off with Vice City cars is that if you have an infernus for example so does everyone else.

This is not true. San Andreas has most of the same cars that appear in GTA 3 and San Andreas and then some. In San Andreas, classic sportscars like the Infernus are extremely rare but there are various other more common sportscars that make their appearance for the first time in SA.

In conclusion I think the evidence speaks for itself that GTA Vice City is objectively better than San Andreas. The music is better. They capture the 80s atmosphere better. The missions get you straight into the action and you can complete them in any order.

What evidence? What you've presented is mostly subjective preferences. Vice City does some things better than San Andreas and vice versa (and also san versa ). Vice City isn't objectively a better game. San Andreas has many of its own strong points even if the overall game doesn't appeal to you.

[Lucas88]

Here are some playthrough videos of some of the funnest and most epic missions in San Andreas.

@Pixel--Dude, take a look at some of them if you have the time and tell me what you think. I want to show you that some of San Andreas' missions are off the hook and even some of the best in the GTA series!

@Natural_Born_Cynic, what are some of your favorite missions from San Andreas?

@WilliamSmith, I include you here because we've spoken about GTA before even though you haven't played the game yourself because of the gratuitous violence and your pothead friends' addiction to the games. Maybe some of these videos of the gameplay will inspire you to rent GTA San Andreas from the nearest Blockbusters and obsessively play it with you big butt Black girlfriend! LMAO!


Los Santos

While not the most epic missions in the game since they appear near the beginning and therefore have a lower level of difficulty, some of the Los Santos (first island) missions are full of action and exhilaration and are a whole lot of fun to play. Here are some of my favorites:


GTA San Andreas Definitive Edition - Mission #20 - House Party




GTA San Andreas Definitive Edition - Mission #22 - Gray Imports




GTA San Andreas Definitive Edition - Mission #26 - Reuniting the Families




GTA San Andreas Definitive Edition - Mission #27 - The Green Sabre





San Fierro

Even though San Fierro (second island) is arguably the most boring part of the game, it still includes some good missions. Here are the first two that spring to mind:


GTA San Andreas - Pier 69




GTA San Andreas Definitive Edition - Mission #59 - Yay Ka-Boom-Boom

[Lucas88]

The Airstrip and Las Venturas

The third island is where San Andreas becomes absolutely f'n' epic. Here are some of the most action-packed and beloved missions in any GTA game:


GTA San Andreas Definitive Edition - Mission #72 - Black Project




GTA San Andreas Definitive Edition - Mission #82 - Up, Up and Away!




GTA San Andreas Definitive Edition - Mission #84 - The Meat Business




GTA San Andreas - Misappropriation




GTA San Andreas Definitive Edition - Mission #90 - Saint Mark's Bistro




GTA San Andreas Definitive Edition - Mission #91 - Breaking the Bank at Caligula's




GTA San Andreas Definitive Edition - Mission #92 - A Home in the Hills




GTA San Andreas - Walkthrough - Mission #93 - Vertical Bird (HD)




GTA San Andreas Definitive Edition - End of the Line (This is the final mission and is insanely intense )

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

@Lucas88

Oh man... there are many mission that I liked.

Los Santos: The lowrider mission(dance dance revolution style), Big Smoke's missions with the Russian mob, Gang territory mission, some stealth mission such as mad dog's mansion, Ryder's burglary mission, The police raiding on Grove Street gathering mission, the final stand mission where CJ and Sweet have to fend off an ambush.

Countryside: Carolina heist missions, and the truth's mission where I go into a farm and take out all the inbred hillbillies and steal their harvester.

San Fierro: Woozi's mission with the Da ning boys, Some Mike Toreno missions. Zero's missions totally sucks and boring. I agree with Lucas, San Fierro has nothing noteworthy to write about.. just a big blur to me.

Las Venturas: Mafia Casino Heist missions, Woozi's casino missions, more Mike Toreno missions the one you have to steal a jetpack in area 69, and the one you have to steal a fighter jet. The mission where I fly to liberty city and waste all the mafia guys there.

Los Santos again: The final mission where I have to take over Big Smoke's drug lab and kill tenpenny. The final mission was crazy and off the charts. People are rioting, and you need to fight your way through 4 floors of a drug lab, waste big smoke, chase tenpenny with a car.

[Lucas88]

Oh man... there are many mission that I liked.

That's what I'm talking about!!! There are so many people who absolutely love San Andreas' missions.

The missions can't be that bad if they are enjoyed and rated so highly by so many people including serious old-school gamers and hardcore GTA fans. In fact, I'd say that one of the biggest strengths of San Andreas is the diversity and depth of its mission content.

San Fierro: Woozi's mission with the Da ning boys, Some Mike Toreno missions. Zero's missions totally sucks and boring. I agree with Lucas, San Fierro has nothing noteworthy to write about.. just a big blur to me.

San Fierro definitely drops off quite a bit. It lacks the sheer chaos and constant danger of Los Santos as well as the excitement and missional epicness of Las Venturas (including the Airstrip). Many echo the same opinion that SF is a mediocre part of the game that the player simply has to plug through.

That being said, the common complaint that the SF missions are all over the place and disconnected from the game's main story isn't entirely true. The story becomes rather complex at this point and many casual fans don't fully follow it.

The SF story has two main themes: the Loco Syndicate and CJ's new life outside of the hood. The Loco Syndicate is linked to the drug production operations in Los Santos. The traitors Big Smoke and Ryder are doing business with it. In light of this fact, CJ and Cesar look to investigate that mysterious organization and eventually to take it down. In order to do so, CJ gets close to the pimp and Loco Syndicate member Jizzy and acts as a mole. Meanwhile, CJ and Cesar work on their new business endeavors since they've been forced to live a new life outside of the hood and can't go back to Los Santos. Their main thing is cars.

Then you have the beginning of the Toreno angle. Toreno becomes acquianted with CJ through his involvement in the Loco Syndicate and realizes that he can manipulate CJ into doing dangerous tasks for him using CJ's incarcerated brother Sweet as a bargaining chip.

Also, San Fierro is boring but it's not that bad to get through. Fortunately, much of the most boring content (Zero's missions, the Wang Cars missions and driving school) is completely optional and so the missions that you need to complete in order to unlock the Airstrip and Las Venturas aren't that many. Meanwhile, there are a few good missions sprinkled in like the Triad missions, Pier 69 and Yay-Ka-Boom-Boom which serve to break up the monotony a bit. All in all, if you advance through the missions fast, SF is more or less bearable.

[Flat-Antelope7927]

I don't play videogames because they're a pointless waste of time but my nephew was playing the Vice game or whatever it's called and I heard this awesome song from it:



I wanna ROCK!

I wanna ROCK!

I want to ROCK!

[Pixel--Dude]

I don't play videogames because they're a pointless waste of time but my nephew was playing the Vice game or whatever it's called and I heard this awesome song from it:



I wanna ROCK!

I wanna ROCK!

I want to ROCK!

Vice City has the best soundtrack of any GTA. Some of the 80s classics on this game are just one of the things that makes it superior to other GTA games. I don't think gaming is pointless, it can be fun but when not done in moderation it can take time away from more productive things.

@Lucas88
@Natural_Born_Cynic

Nice choice of song

@Flat-Antelope7927

I wanna Mercer!

I wanna Mercer!

I want to Mercer!

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

I don't play videogames because they're a pointless waste of time but my nephew was playing the Vice game or whatever it's called and I heard this awesome song from it:



I wanna ROCK!

I wanna ROCK!

I want to ROCK!

Vice City has the best soundtrack of any GTA. Some of the 80s classics on this game are just one of the things that makes it superior to other GTA games. I don't think gaming is pointless, it can be fun but when not done in moderation it can take time away from more productive things.

@Lucas88
@Natural_Born_Cynic

Nice choice of song

@Flat-Antelope7927

I wanna Mercer!

I wanna Mercer!

I want to Mercer!

That song is one of my favorite songs! Vice City has some legendary soundtracks, better aesthetics, and better Main character but much less feature rich than San Andreas.

Gaming is good in moderation. I only play a sprint of 2-3 hours then another sprint of 2-3hours after break if I have time left... Gaming is relaxing and helps me forget about real life problems. However, if you play everyday for more than 6 hours than your an addict. My sides, and my eyes start to hurt when in long play of 4 hours or more. I'm allergic to "long gaming" . I used to able to play 6 hours or more in one sitting when I was in high school and university.. not anymore now. Adult life isn't much fun anymore.