Originally Posted by John JJ
I enjoyed SA far more than III. I just believe that III was a good game but was great because ti was revolutionary. Same thing with IV and V. Stoked for V after not being a huge fan of IV.
Well, I can never really decide because it's an unfair comparison. What I meant to say is that III is arguably better because it was the building blocks and without it San Andreas could never have existed. It's the same deal, I wouldn't say IV looks like an "alpha build" in comparison, because it's more than 5 years old and without it we wouldn't be getting a game like GTA V right now.
I guess the best way of putting it is, what was the better title at the time of release? Of course San Andreas is going to be better in the grand scheme of things.
(Vice City is and always will be my favourite)