am I the only one on this board who preferred the second half of this game more than first?
granted, I haven't played it in a long time, but I remember the missions towards the end each being like small action movies of their own, heists and countryside races and stuff like that.
>inb4 "vc/3 better"
keep it on topic

yes

>>11797650
huh
okay
/thread, then
kek

imo: Desert > Country > Los Santos > Las Venturas > San Fierro > Return to Los Santos

>>11797660
Desert and Country are kino.

>>11797660
>>11797673
I like how around halfway to the game it suddenly tells you to take flying lessons and learn new stuff like that, even tho I can imagine some people hated those missions. Either way it feels like you have come a long way.

I don't remember that many Las Venturas missions atm but the whole heist thing is actually optional and you can choose to not do it at all and still complete the game, or complete it after beating the game.

>>11798015
Yeah I really respected the flight school bit. No game made for years from then would demand a player learn something so autistic but GTA was so big they could look a normalfag in the face and demand they do something awkward and uncomfortable and they'd do it.

>>11797648 (OP)
only on 4chan you'll find contrarian cucks complaining about ''Le game goes downhill once you leave Los Santos''

>>11797648 (OP)
I mean gameplay wise the 2nd half is objectively better because you're doing all sorts of cool and crazy shit. It's main issue is how odd it feels going from being a random gang banger to a nigga that owns a casino, works with the CIA, has done mob hits, and has yakuza connections all in a relatively short time.
It really does feel like it could use a few more "regular" missions between all the crazy shit. But regardless no you're not the only one, I only find the game goes downhill during the return to LS which felt extremely rushed.

>>11797648 (OP)
Dumb game for wigger potheads who think 50 cent is art.

>>11798707
Yes even if the missions are enjoyable, the writing is pretty weak because 1) it's just "I need money t. CJ" (same with IV & Niko) with no objective on what to actually spend the money on and/or you have more than you'll ever need already and 2) possible cut content and running out of development time so there was probably some small stuff which would have made the thing feel more coherent or connected.

>>11798536
True. Tho I suppose if we had statistics from back in the day, most people playing never reach the flight school. I remember that if you played until the point where your ass is thrown to the countryside, you had played the game really far, and by that point the flight school is still a long way away. Most people probably never left Los Santos.

>>11798824
Yeah that's what I'm getting at the gameplay and premise of the missions is great but they don't flow together as naturally as the LS missions and the actual story take a big dip. As for spending money, this is an issue I've had with almost every GTA game that especially by the end you're loaded with money and have nothing to actually spend it on, it would be cool if there was some multi-million dollar properties to buy at the very least iirc the most expensive ones are only like 100-200k.

>>11799014
I think most gta games I have played could do without any money system but I guess it's just for free roam if you want to larp vigilante and taxi driver and buy weapons. For story missions or story reasons the money system is always just useless or a failure. You will often get weapons during missions, you might have to buy armor between missions which is again just useless. Just give selected weapons (on top of what you already have) and full armor when the missions starts. It doesn't do anything. Sometimes the missions even forcibly change your loadout anyway and overwrite the purchases you might have done between missions.

Note my experience is mostly from gta sa and iv. At least in iv when you die you don't lose the arsenal you bought, only if you are arrested which happens never.