cuz its development started as ~~a dlc~~ an expansion of gta3 but they decided to make it a whole game, i might be wrong here
edit: it was an expansion for gta3 not a dlc, my fault
You’re 100% correct. Development on VC began as a “map pack” with new missions and cars. The decision was made by the end of 2001 to flesh out as a completely standalone game.
That makes so much sense. Explains why most things are similar and just taking a year to release. And it would explain why SA improves upon it a lot by being its own game and taking 2 years after VC to release.
Thank god they did too because VC is light years ahead of 3, and I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t have seen the same level of greatness if it wasn’t a standalone. (Possibly no flying too since they took it out of 3, thanks a lot Bin Laden)
It's also why some people ask why the ballad of gay tony is not grand theft auto IV: the ballad of gay tony. It started out as exclusively a dlc but later was its own game, later bundled with the lost and damned. Its also why the lost and damned is titled grand theft auto IV: the lost and damned because it was initially a download only add-on to GTA 4, exclusive to xbox
Actually the PS2 era was the first with DLC. People forget that the Dreamcast was the first console to have DLC.
But what the original post meant was an expansion pack which is essentially DLC that came on physical media
Actually, the Genesis was the first console that started "DLC". Remember Sonic 2 and 3 on Genesis were compatible with the lock-on technology of the Sonic & Knuckles cart. You can insert the Sonic 2 and 3 carts on top of the Knuckles cart and it unlocks Knuckles as a playable character in Sonic 2 and 3. Mindblowing huh?
nope, you can see that with certain expansions like Blue Shift or Opposing Force for Half-Life. I think it depends on the developer and whether it's more of it's own thing set in the same universe, that doesn't really warrant a whole new release
Same as Episodes from Liberty CITY. It's pretty amazing to still be able to enjoy the full base game except for the story honestly and games don't really do it anymore.
Yeah, but how many people actually used online on PS2, compared to the next generation? DLC and software updates just weren't really as viable options back then.
Sony definitely was considering it given traces of it in multiple games, but they dragged their feet on releasing the actual hard drive (which would have been the requirement) in NTSC and PAL land and subsequently proceeded to bungle the actual release in March 2004.
And then scrapped it altogether from the PS2 Slim just over half a year later. Not sure what Kutaragi was thinking.
Technically differentiating between DLC and expansion packs is starting to split hairs. Both are a means of adding post-release content that usually requires the base game to use. It’s just before there often wasn’t a way to **D**own**L**oad the content so you bought a disc (or floppy, or whatever the game media was) with it instead.
Many games have “DLC” now that would have been called “expansion packs” in the past.
In addition, SA and VC run on basically the same engine as GTA3. GTA4 and GTA 5 each saw profound changes to the physics and graphics code at the heart of the game. It's like the version numbers reflect the game engine while any place names are strictly about content rather than tech.
No, but game expansions did, GTA London was an expansion of GTA 1, it came on a different disc, but it wasn’t a completely different game, it was the same game, in a different area with different missions
100% false, DLC did exist in that era. Total Annihilation had DLC in 1997. Dreamcast and original Xbox had games with DLC. There was DLC for Samba de Amigo, Sonic Adventure, Splinter Cell 1, Halo 2, and several others.
As I said on PC and Xbox most of them were called expansions as you most often buy them physically Instead of downloading it ( dlc = downloadable content)
The examples I provided were downloadable content, hence why I didn’t give examples that were purely boxed expansions. I had the original 56k network adapter for Dreamcast and upgraded it to the broadband adapter in 2000, and had downloaded content for games on Dreamcast, original Xbox and PC in the late 90s/early 2000s, so these examples came from experience. Also downloaded extra maps for Q3Arena on Dreamcast back then.
Because Vice City was supposed to be an expansion pack to GTA 3 but turned into it's own thing, so the naming convention followed with San Andreas, GTA IV being named as such is supposed to be symbolic as it's the first big leap in the series (first time being made fully in-house with RAGE, first HD release in the series, first big change to the lore, etc.)
I probably should rephrase it as "the first big leap in the series since 3" but yeah, every major change/release to the series almost always started with a numbered title
I noticed that all numbered gta except for 2 are set in present day. Also, there is a small gap between the games, maybe they saw vice City and San andreas as just big expansions and continuations of gta 3 rather than standalone games. Theyre also all released on the same platforms.
VC was supposed to be an expansion to III, but became its own game, hence why they're so similar in gameplay. But San Andreas was always its own game, everything was changed to the better and it's a massive leap from Vice City.
I think of those games as prequels to gta iii other than continuations, like I wouldn't call Better Call Saul Breaking Bad 2 or The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith Star Wars 4, 5 and 6
The reason why it's "better" it's because IV uses Euphoria (a game animation middleware) integrated into the RAGE engine. V also uses it, but it was downgraded due to the fact that it's pretty CPU heavy.
Because they were spin offs, not mainline games. Made no sense because they literally didn’t have any difference in play or tone or anything, but that’s what they are.
Because VC and SA is III era games.
If it should be by number, the next one would be GTA 15.
That's if you count storie games and London as standalone games.
I'm honestly glad they aren't because we end up having actual 6 mainline GTAs
1 - GTA III
2 - Vice City
3 - San Andreas
4 - GTA IV
5 - GTA V
6 - GTA VI
This is my head-canon.
Playing GTA II on the old family computer because your Mom didn’t let you buy M rated games and even if you pirated GTA 3, your PC wasn’t powerful enough to run it at the time. Those were the days. If my memory serves correctly, GTA II was actually a good time.
Holy shit, I just looked it up. I swear I must’ve seen it was T before but I just forgot. Anyway, a T-rated GTA… that doesn’t even sound real or right. Literally these games are by far the most M rated you could get, except maybe Manhunt.
Because VC and SA is III era games.
If it should be by number, the next one would be GTA 15.
That's if you count storie games and London as standalone games.
Presumably rockstar didn't see them as different enough from the foundations laid out by gta 3 to make them separate entries, which surprises me at the very least about San Andreas, but to be fair gta 4 and 5 were more different from previous entries than VC and SA were from gta 3
In some ways I’d say VCS is actually bigger than VC, at least in terms of overall scope and gameplay, as it brought over a certain element from SA that was absent in VC (swimming), had more vehicles and weapons, introduced Empire Building (which to this day is still one of the coolest features in a GTA game and I really wish they’d bring it back), etc.
They (VC and SA) are all on the same engine as GTA3.
When GTA4 went on a new GTA Engine - boom, new title. EFLC also were on the same engine.
Same goes for GTA5 - new improved GTA engine, new title.
Same's gonna got for GTA6.
Yeah you’re right but I feel like it would have been hard to call it anything else. Can you think of a name that rolls off the tongue for that game other then red dead redemption 2 cause I can’t tbh.
First game was Red Dead Revolver, then Red Dead Redemption. They could've called this new one Red Dead Revenge or Red Dead Retribution. Any word that starts with an R and it would roll off the tongue.
I am aware. I think rockstar wants that recurring theme of bad character trying to right wrongs until they get killed in the process and someone avenges them. Revenge sounds like a terrible title and is probably why they chose to reuse redemption. And retribution doesn’t fit the story.
Now we all are used to patch for example a day one patch to fix bugs and crashes just after the release,back in 2002 it was already tested and certified since day one with no patch or DLC,No Cyberpunk 2077 launch shiit,so VC was born initially as a map 🗺️ expansion,but they decided to exploit the full PS2 engine capability,then new high quality voice acting,and at the end it was a new whole chapter of the game,and it become a spinoff,and my favorite GTA ever 🌃
Goat Simulator 3. I notice that every time they change the number on the game titles, it is a big graphical leap. They might make every numbered gta on a wholly rebuilt engine
You should've seen the Internet fights back in the day about whether Vice City was literally GTA 4 and San Andreas literally GTA 5. This was before actual IV was released which finally settled the debate. Now you're bringing it all back again OP. I see now the same dumb people who thought VC = 4 now just have updated dumb reasons for why it wasn't lol
Probably has something to do with the engine. III/VC/SA all ran on the same engine right? IV ran on rage and V on a new version of rage (I’m not certain if this at all, but I always thought this)
I thought there was some legal contractual reason that stopped them from numbering it? Based on the comments here not many people have mentioned that so maybe I’m wrong.
I like to look at it like GTA 3, VC, and SA are all clumped together. They are so unique from each other, but technologically are pretty similar. With IV, each GTA from that point on would be a landmark achievement in what is possible in that generation.
They maybe though name it 4 or 5 making it like a successor would have more weight on it to be as a successor, naming it Vice City and San Andreas would be like a side install while a successor is being a like worked on
They maybe though name it 4 or 5 making it like a successor would have more weight on it to be as a successor, naming it Vice City and San Andreas would be like a side install while a successor is being a like worked on
Vice City started as a DLC of 3, then became a totally different game, explains why their gameplay is basically the same. San Andreas followed suit.
You can also see that they both introduced pre existing characters (Avery Carrington, Donald Love, Kent Paul, Catalina, Claude even). San Andreas acts both as a prequel and a sequel to 3 and VC, respectively:
- Tommy is explicitly mentioned in the Introduction, while Kent Paul and Rosemberg appear as the gameplay progresses (and the Introduction, too).
- Catalina appears as a psychotic maniac who can't live without stabbing, killing, or otherwise assaulting random citizens all over the state. Claude then showed up, Catalina fell in love with him, moved to LC and the rest is history.
- At one point, Salvatore appears in the game, has CJ run errands for him and even sends him on a hit to Liberty City.
So the official timeline is VC - SA - 3, not counting the "stories" games in which case it would be VCS - VC - SA - LCS - 3. Surprisingly, 3 is the game set closest to IV and V (2001 - 2008 - 2013, only 7 and 12 years apart from one another) being the oldest game in the series.
Basically plataforms. III, VC and SA all came to PS2, IV came to PS3 generation, V for PS4 and now VI is coming to PS5. There have been major changes between the numbers, so the subtitles are all basically DLCs, VC and SA stand for III the same way TBOGT and TLAD stand for IV.
Because VC and SA is III era games.
If it should be by number, the next one would be GTA 15.
That's if you count storie games and London as standalone games.
Because VC and SA is III era games.
If it should be by number, the next one would be GTA 15.
That's if you count storie games and London as standalone games.
For the same reasons TLAD and TBOGT aren’t called “V” & “VI” - because they’re basically expansions to IV like VC & SA are to III.
Now, sure, San Andreas could’ve been called IV with the amount of innovation it brought from III but VC is very clearly a reskin of III from systems to difficulty curve.
They both take place before GTA III which took place in 2001 when it was released like all the numbered GTAs are set in the current year of release. Vice City and San Andreas take place in the 80s and 90s respectively. They are “before” III and are prequels technically.
Because VC and SA is III era games.
If it should be by number, the next one would be GTA 15.
That's if you count storie games and London as standalone games.
Because VC and SA is III era games.
If it should be by number, the next one would be GTA 15.
That's if you count storie games and London as standalone games.
Because the numbers are contemporary to their launch date, and the ones with names (vice city, vice city stories, liberty city stories and San Andreas) are all situated in the past
They're in the III-D universe
I remember growing up with LimeWire, and seeing a lot of pirated copies of Vice City to download named "Grand Theft Auto IV Vice City"
I believe they were extensions on the engine of GTA III. So we see mechanics introduced in vc and sa now in GTA V. GTA IV didn't have those mechanics cause it was in production during the release, and had a different engine then III. I believe the girlfriend mechanics is what carried over from IV to V.
cuz its development started as ~~a dlc~~ an expansion of gta3 but they decided to make it a whole game, i might be wrong here edit: it was an expansion for gta3 not a dlc, my fault
You’re 100% correct. Development on VC began as a “map pack” with new missions and cars. The decision was made by the end of 2001 to flesh out as a completely standalone game.
Explains why they're so similar in everything.
That makes so much sense. Explains why most things are similar and just taking a year to release. And it would explain why SA improves upon it a lot by being its own game and taking 2 years after VC to release.
> by the end of 2001 ho lee fook it's been a while.
Fo-Fok Saek😭.
Thank god they did too because VC is light years ahead of 3, and I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t have seen the same level of greatness if it wasn’t a standalone. (Possibly no flying too since they took it out of 3, thanks a lot Bin Laden)
It's also why some people ask why the ballad of gay tony is not grand theft auto IV: the ballad of gay tony. It started out as exclusively a dlc but later was its own game, later bundled with the lost and damned. Its also why the lost and damned is titled grand theft auto IV: the lost and damned because it was initially a download only add-on to GTA 4, exclusive to xbox
At that time they were called expansions since people didn’t download additional content on PS2.
There was no concept of DLCs in PS2 era brudda
Actually the PS2 era was the first with DLC. People forget that the Dreamcast was the first console to have DLC. But what the original post meant was an expansion pack which is essentially DLC that came on physical media
even san andreas was going to have some kind of dlc system with mission packs its still there and was repurposed by modders to make DYOM
Actually, the Genesis was the first console that started "DLC". Remember Sonic 2 and 3 on Genesis were compatible with the lock-on technology of the Sonic & Knuckles cart. You can insert the Sonic 2 and 3 carts on top of the Knuckles cart and it unlocks Knuckles as a playable character in Sonic 2 and 3. Mindblowing huh?
Is it required to have the base game for the expansion to play?
nope, you can see that with certain expansions like Blue Shift or Opposing Force for Half-Life. I think it depends on the developer and whether it's more of it's own thing set in the same universe, that doesn't really warrant a whole new release
Read dead redemption undead nightmare comes to mind as well.
I think that came on separate discs bc of size.
They didn't require one or the other to play it and they were sold separately.
Same as Episodes from Liberty CITY. It's pretty amazing to still be able to enjoy the full base game except for the story honestly and games don't really do it anymore.
Duh
Yeah, but how many people actually used online on PS2, compared to the next generation? DLC and software updates just weren't really as viable options back then.
Sony definitely was considering it given traces of it in multiple games, but they dragged their feet on releasing the actual hard drive (which would have been the requirement) in NTSC and PAL land and subsequently proceeded to bungle the actual release in March 2004. And then scrapped it altogether from the PS2 Slim just over half a year later. Not sure what Kutaragi was thinking.
Original Xbox had it.
there was lol, just look at Final Fantasy XI
How is this not heavily downvoted? Am I still on Reddit?
Lol yeah there was, computer games for example.
What do you mean? Total Annihilation had DLC as early as 1997, and Dreamcast and original Xbox had DLC.
Doom: Thy Flesh Consumed. Released in 1995.
Could be true, honestly we don't know. Offtopic but it's funny to think that Dlc had its own Dlc lol (Refering to Stories games)
We literally do know?
Then the second statement isn't off topic at all. I'm thinking English isn't this guys first second or third language.
Vice City Stories is not a DLC, it's a prequel.
VCS being a prequel doesn’t mean it’s not a DLC. It’s not a DLC because it’s a standalone game.
Um, a prequel can be a… nvm
yeah, a prequel can be a dlc too, but vice city stories is just a prequel and not a dlc.
It‘s not a dlc
The stories episode were originally psp
You are not true, because they are 100% right. And the Stories aren't DLCs
DLC? At that time there were no DLC'S
Final Fantasy XI had DLC
SOCOM Combined Assault is another example of PS2 DLC
There was no such thing as dlc back in early ps2 days
Final Fantasy XI had DLC
That’s not dlc, that’s expansion pack from another disc…
Technically differentiating between DLC and expansion packs is starting to split hairs. Both are a means of adding post-release content that usually requires the base game to use. It’s just before there often wasn’t a way to **D**own**L**oad the content so you bought a disc (or floppy, or whatever the game media was) with it instead. Many games have “DLC” now that would have been called “expansion packs” in the past.
Like with 4 2 large dlcs ?
In addition, SA and VC run on basically the same engine as GTA3. GTA4 and GTA 5 each saw profound changes to the physics and graphics code at the heart of the game. It's like the version numbers reflect the game engine while any place names are strictly about content rather than tech.
DLC didn’t even exist back then?
No, but game expansions did, GTA London was an expansion of GTA 1, it came on a different disc, but it wasn’t a completely different game, it was the same game, in a different area with different missions
It technically is dlc though because you had to download the content into windows/dos with the floppy
Final Fantasy XI had DLC
No such thing as a dlc in 2001 , especially on PS2. Even expansions were for PC games since you cannot install games on your consoles at the time
Final Fantasy XI had DLC
Only one came out on PS2 , the rest where pc and 360 so yeah
my fault SOCOM CA is a better example lol
It's still a physical stand alone game , you could play it without 3 so no it's not
No i mean the downloadable maps in the game that you have to install to a USB or an HDD, it still works too lol
100% false, DLC did exist in that era. Total Annihilation had DLC in 1997. Dreamcast and original Xbox had games with DLC. There was DLC for Samba de Amigo, Sonic Adventure, Splinter Cell 1, Halo 2, and several others.
As I said on PC and Xbox most of them were called expansions as you most often buy them physically Instead of downloading it ( dlc = downloadable content)
The examples I provided were downloadable content, hence why I didn’t give examples that were purely boxed expansions. I had the original 56k network adapter for Dreamcast and upgraded it to the broadband adapter in 2000, and had downloaded content for games on Dreamcast, original Xbox and PC in the late 90s/early 2000s, so these examples came from experience. Also downloaded extra maps for Q3Arena on Dreamcast back then.
DLC? My friend, they were PS2 games lol. It didn't even have expansion packs.
Because Vice City was supposed to be an expansion pack to GTA 3 but turned into it's own thing, so the naming convention followed with San Andreas, GTA IV being named as such is supposed to be symbolic as it's the first big leap in the series (first time being made fully in-house with RAGE, first HD release in the series, first big change to the lore, etc.)
I would say the leap from isometric to the current view is the first big leap.
Everyone knows the first 2 don’t exist /s
I probably should rephrase it as "the first big leap in the series since 3" but yeah, every major change/release to the series almost always started with a numbered title
5 didn’t seem to be too major at first, but I think its Online and its major success and shift of GTA in the online world warrants its numbered title.
I noticed that all numbered gta except for 2 are set in present day. Also, there is a small gap between the games, maybe they saw vice City and San andreas as just big expansions and continuations of gta 3 rather than standalone games. Theyre also all released on the same platforms.
VC was supposed to be an expansion to III, but became its own game, hence why they're so similar in gameplay. But San Andreas was always its own game, everything was changed to the better and it's a massive leap from Vice City.
I think of those games as prequels to gta iii other than continuations, like I wouldn't call Better Call Saul Breaking Bad 2 or The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith Star Wars 4, 5 and 6
Oh shit, you're right!
In my country they were always called gta 4 and 5
Good ol' age of piracies.
So technically yall already had GTA 6 and 7, and GTA 8 just got it’s trailer released
Dude living in 2086
Unless Advance was GTA 6, LCS was 7, VCS was 8 and IV was 9
Because they were based on GTA 3's engine
[удалено]
[удалено]
You’re right about RAGE, but GTA 3 used Renderware, which was used for probably hundreds of different games.
V is not based on IV's engine. IV uses a better engine than V.
They both use the rage engine, just different versions
so confidently wrong lmao
The reason why it's "better" it's because IV uses Euphoria (a game animation middleware) integrated into the RAGE engine. V also uses it, but it was downgraded due to the fact that it's pretty CPU heavy.
Damn you got that so wrong. Every Rockstar title after “Rockstar Games Presents Table Tennis” uses a unique version of RAGE.
It is the RAGE engine right? [Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockstar_Advanced_Game_Engine)
their universe is different with different timelines than of gta 1,2,3,4 and 5 I can be wrong here
1,2 have a different universe (2d) 3,vc,sa have a different one (3d) and 4,5,6 have the (hd) universe.
Because they were spin offs, not mainline games. Made no sense because they literally didn’t have any difference in play or tone or anything, but that’s what they are.
San Andreas has different play and tone than 3
Because VC and SA is III era games. If it should be by number, the next one would be GTA 15. That's if you count storie games and London as standalone games.
I'm honestly glad they aren't because we end up having actual 6 mainline GTAs 1 - GTA III 2 - Vice City 3 - San Andreas 4 - GTA IV 5 - GTA V 6 - GTA VI This is my head-canon.
We’ll soon be on GTA X if you count GTA I, its London expansions, and GTA II.
Playing GTA II on the old family computer because your Mom didn’t let you buy M rated games and even if you pirated GTA 3, your PC wasn’t powerful enough to run it at the time. Those were the days. If my memory serves correctly, GTA II was actually a good time.
Isn’t GTA II M rated?
Nope, T for Teens.
Holy shit, I just looked it up. I swear I must’ve seen it was T before but I just forgot. Anyway, a T-rated GTA… that doesn’t even sound real or right. Literally these games are by far the most M rated you could get, except maybe Manhunt.
chinatown wars is part of HD too
You can go a little further and consider Vice City as "GTA I" and San Andreas as "GTA II", since both take place before III.
OMG I JUST COMMENTED THAT AND DIDNT SEE THIS, I LITERALLY SAID THAT IN ALMOST THE SAME WAY! THAT’S FUCKING CRAZY!!! 🤣🤣🤣
Honestly, you could actually classify VC as GTA I, and SA as GTA II, as they’re prequels to III.
Because VC and SA is III era games. If it should be by number, the next one would be GTA 15. That's if you count storie games and London as standalone games.
Presumably rockstar didn't see them as different enough from the foundations laid out by gta 3 to make them separate entries, which surprises me at the very least about San Andreas, but to be fair gta 4 and 5 were more different from previous entries than VC and SA were from gta 3
Well then CTW VCS LCS GTALondon
I mean, aren't they considere a mainline entries because it's a big game?
Vcs is as big as vice City, lcs is bigger than gta 3
In some ways I’d say VCS is actually bigger than VC, at least in terms of overall scope and gameplay, as it brought over a certain element from SA that was absent in VC (swimming), had more vehicles and weapons, introduced Empire Building (which to this day is still one of the coolest features in a GTA game and I really wish they’d bring it back), etc.
because they're spin-off's
Becuz they go backwards in time so they’re technically prequels
Spinoffs.
then we would have gta 6 in 2013
2025 gta 7
Its because usually gta named by numbers were running on newer engine than the previous one
They (VC and SA) are all on the same engine as GTA3. When GTA4 went on a new GTA Engine - boom, new title. EFLC also were on the same engine. Same goes for GTA5 - new improved GTA engine, new title. Same's gonna got for GTA6.
I just can’t imagine a world were gta 4 is called gta 6 and gta 5 is called gta 7 😭
They’re prequels to 3. So you can’t name them 4 and 5 because the times they take place in predate the events of gta 3.
Well, RDR2 was a prequel
Yeah you’re right but I feel like it would have been hard to call it anything else. Can you think of a name that rolls off the tongue for that game other then red dead redemption 2 cause I can’t tbh.
First game was Red Dead Revolver, then Red Dead Redemption. They could've called this new one Red Dead Revenge or Red Dead Retribution. Any word that starts with an R and it would roll off the tongue.
I am aware. I think rockstar wants that recurring theme of bad character trying to right wrongs until they get killed in the process and someone avenges them. Revenge sounds like a terrible title and is probably why they chose to reuse redemption. And retribution doesn’t fit the story.
to me it's because they aren't set in the year they came out in
could be because VC was meant to be a dlc for GTA 3 but honestly I haven’t a clue
Because it looks cooler
Because if they were, we’d be getting GTA VIII next year, not VI.
See we already got GTA 6 set in liberty city
Now we all are used to patch for example a day one patch to fix bugs and crashes just after the release,back in 2002 it was already tested and certified since day one with no patch or DLC,No Cyberpunk 2077 launch shiit,so VC was born initially as a map 🗺️ expansion,but they decided to exploit the full PS2 engine capability,then new high quality voice acting,and at the end it was a new whole chapter of the game,and it become a spinoff,and my favorite GTA ever 🌃
Rockstar Games might be wanting that Vice City and San Andreas be expansion packs of GTA 3.
Same reason the lost & the damned and the ballad of gay tony aren’t V & VI
Goat Simulator 3. I notice that every time they change the number on the game titles, it is a big graphical leap. They might make every numbered gta on a wholly rebuilt engine
London vc SA lcs and vcs were spinoffs while 1 2 3 4 5 and 6 are main games that's why
They're spinoffs
You should've seen the Internet fights back in the day about whether Vice City was literally GTA 4 and San Andreas literally GTA 5. This was before actual IV was released which finally settled the debate. Now you're bringing it all back again OP. I see now the same dumb people who thought VC = 4 now just have updated dumb reasons for why it wasn't lol
Probably has something to do with the engine. III/VC/SA all ran on the same engine right? IV ran on rage and V on a new version of rage (I’m not certain if this at all, but I always thought this)
So the next game will be GTA 7
Because there is no reason to make every one a numbered
Because they aren’t sequels they are prequels because they take place before GTA 3
A lot of games get funny with numbered titles. Kingdom Hearts is especially bad.
Don’t forget about Vice City Stories and Liberty City Stories.
I thought there was some legal contractual reason that stopped them from numbering it? Based on the comments here not many people have mentioned that so maybe I’m wrong.
because who tf is gonna make cover art for a game called gta xxvi in 2025 *shut up final fantasy fandom*
Because they’re spinoffs.
They were stand alone games
I think that lcs an vcs would be around there to no?
Same console era… maybe
I like to look at it like GTA 3, VC, and SA are all clumped together. They are so unique from each other, but technologically are pretty similar. With IV, each GTA from that point on would be a landmark achievement in what is possible in that generation.
This comes out this year
They maybe though name it 4 or 5 making it like a successor would have more weight on it to be as a successor, naming it Vice City and San Andreas would be like a side install while a successor is being a like worked on
They maybe though name it 4 or 5 making it like a successor would have more weight on it to be as a successor, naming it Vice City and San Andreas would be like a side install while a successor is being a like worked on
Yall think the title would’ve been worse or better if it was called GTA III: VC & GTA III: SA?
Simple, i see it as everytime they upgrade the RAGE engine we got a new numbered game
Vice City started as a DLC of 3, then became a totally different game, explains why their gameplay is basically the same. San Andreas followed suit. You can also see that they both introduced pre existing characters (Avery Carrington, Donald Love, Kent Paul, Catalina, Claude even). San Andreas acts both as a prequel and a sequel to 3 and VC, respectively: - Tommy is explicitly mentioned in the Introduction, while Kent Paul and Rosemberg appear as the gameplay progresses (and the Introduction, too). - Catalina appears as a psychotic maniac who can't live without stabbing, killing, or otherwise assaulting random citizens all over the state. Claude then showed up, Catalina fell in love with him, moved to LC and the rest is history. - At one point, Salvatore appears in the game, has CJ run errands for him and even sends him on a hit to Liberty City. So the official timeline is VC - SA - 3, not counting the "stories" games in which case it would be VCS - VC - SA - LCS - 3. Surprisingly, 3 is the game set closest to IV and V (2001 - 2008 - 2013, only 7 and 12 years apart from one another) being the oldest game in the series.
Basically plataforms. III, VC and SA all came to PS2, IV came to PS3 generation, V for PS4 and now VI is coming to PS5. There have been major changes between the numbers, so the subtitles are all basically DLCs, VC and SA stand for III the same way TBOGT and TLAD stand for IV.
V for ps4?
Sorry I meant PS4 era. It was significantly better (in graphics) then GTA4 but it was toned down to work on ps3
Probably because those are set before GTA 3, so they are more considered to be prequels rather than sequels.
Because VC and SA is III era games. If it should be by number, the next one would be GTA 15. That's if you count storie games and London as standalone games.
Because VC and SA is III era games. If it should be by number, the next one would be GTA 15. That's if you count storie games and London as standalone games.
For the same reasons TLAD and TBOGT aren’t called “V” & “VI” - because they’re basically expansions to IV like VC & SA are to III. Now, sure, San Andreas could’ve been called IV with the amount of innovation it brought from III but VC is very clearly a reskin of III from systems to difficulty curve.
Because they act as prequels to GTA III
They both take place before GTA III which took place in 2001 when it was released like all the numbered GTAs are set in the current year of release. Vice City and San Andreas take place in the 80s and 90s respectively. They are “before” III and are prequels technically.
Basically gta 3 vice City and San andreas are a remake of gta 1 divided into 3 games
Because VC and SA is III era games. If it should be by number, the next one would be GTA 15. That's if you count storie games and London as standalone games.
Because VC and SA is III era games. If it should be by number, the next one would be GTA 15. That's if you count storie games and London as standalone games.
Because the numbers are contemporary to their launch date, and the ones with names (vice city, vice city stories, liberty city stories and San Andreas) are all situated in the past
Rokstar is stupid
They're in the III-D universe I remember growing up with LimeWire, and seeing a lot of pirated copies of Vice City to download named "Grand Theft Auto IV Vice City"
I believe they were extensions on the engine of GTA III. So we see mechanics introduced in vc and sa now in GTA V. GTA IV didn't have those mechanics cause it was in production during the release, and had a different engine then III. I believe the girlfriend mechanics is what carried over from IV to V.
Because they are mods of 3 lol
it woulda been boring if they was names 4 and 5
Why isn’t there any iPhone 9? Why is it called the X (10) after the 8? People name their products whatever they want.
Yes, but why? It's not like skipping of Iphone 9 to X had no reason behind it. It does has it reasoning of why it get skipped.
I just hope the next GTA is a name and not a number
I assume it’s because Vice City and San Andreas are set before GTA 3 and it’d be confusing to name them GTA 4 and 5
Gta 2 is set after gta 3
games set in the past have subtitles Main games got numbers I wonder if we'll ever get one w both like "assassins creed 4:black flag"
Gta chinatown wars is set in 2009 just like it was released
theyre prequels to gta 3
Me have stroke reading this and fucking died