GTA3 is an interesting feat of engineering. It moved the game on from 2D quite well, although fell behind a bit with some of the things in GTA2. It included almost all the items in GTA1 - stunt bonuses, exploration, setpiece missions, emergency services, a variety of weapons, wanted system, secrets, trains/transport and tanks. Notably; and not many people realise, but the game can be played top-down too (although bridges sometimes get in the way, just like GTA1/2), a camera setting allows you the ability, which was taken out of later games which moved away from the tile-based city approach.
The main beauty is that driving around doing random things, and there being some classic Kill Frenzies, weapons and secrets to find, always makes exploring worthwhile. It can get dull - the game is, if nothing else, repetitive, but for the in between mission activities it provided just enough depth, as GTA1 and 2 did. The radio helped a lot here, the music stations were done in a similar style to the original 2D titles with a continuous track - the Lazlow Chatterbox show is great comedy writing, and really builds the world up. Exploring the world for the first time - simply driving around - can be actually quite fun. In a way, a good way to do something between missions, but not for more then half an hour (there's only so many cops you can kill, heh).
The best part was the transition involved a lot better AI - pedestrians cursed, shouted, ran away, attacked back. Cops were much more varied - GTA2 was actually the first to introduce SWAT, FBI and Army levels of star rating, but the behaviour in GTA3 included roadblocks, helicopters (a first), and of course the same kind of arrests as you could get in GTA1 and 2. The AI for Ambulance and Firetrucks were present too, transitioned into 3D well. The world really felt lived in, and people spawned continually - GTA1 and 2 had some really dense areas, but the population levels were a lot lower. Yes, the AI was arguably rubbish in most aspects of quality (although at the time, better then many), but quantity was staggering.
The game control was however a bit clunky - controlling cars was sometimes a feat (and some missions didn't let you get your vehicle scratched). Running and walking were a joke - you got tired easily (meaning you stopped to catch your breath), so cars were the only mid-to-long distance way to travel. Weapon aiming necessitated a mouse - the console version I couldn't cope with. Even then, it was pretty hard, since the mouse configuration was for movement not precise aiming (nevermind grenades). No form of cover, meant gameplay involved primarily having armour all the time and reloading on death - losing all those weapons hurt too much. The sequels did improve bits and pieces on the controls at least.
Sequels also importantly added swimming, boats and helicopters you could use. The division of islands for story segregation is pretty sad, really, and although that's carried on the actual physical barriers are much more removed. The lack of freedom in that respect is annoying. :)
The graphics were not spectacular as such - as much as GTA IV's graphics are good, they too are not spectacular - it's the fact there was so much available things on screen at once. Many missions piled up the enemies and cars involved. Comparatively good graphics however, which did last a long time considering San Andreas'.
The storyline was... cliché. Pop culture cliché at least. Typical gangs, very sterotypical mafia, corrupt cops, huge corporation empires. The actual enemies were vague and the reasons for going after them were pretty nonexistant or confusing. As you played a mute, the character also really lacked depth. However, some individual characters were funny or interesting, and the voiceacting was reasonably good as well as the cutscenes (which had some really good coverups for a mute, hah!). Some side missions were a lot more enjoyable then the main ones. I don't think I ever finished the game either (although I saw the last few missions online at one point) - the final island missions shows the gameplay was poorly constructed - the last missions can be nigh on impossible. Some of the missions really made you grit your teeth (eg: making sure your car doesn't get dented, aggghhh!) - there was (as is per GTA's style) no mid mission saves, and they were all scripted so there is zero replay factor. At least you could skip cutscenes!
Oh, but of course, GTA1 and 2 barely had a story. Notably, this was really the first story in the series of any merit. A good first attempt I think. Without the pop culture and characterisations of Vice City, the second game in the 3D series wouldn't have gone quite so well (and might well have bombed if it was worse) - it is the most lackluster of any of the 3D games, likely including the portable ones (which I have not played). The main thing is; since the story is reward, most of the missions just are not worth it for the reward of more story. There are many exceptions, but in general, the missions are not enjoyable enough by themselves and the reward is so poor as to remove the chore element from the difficult ones. Some real treats in there though, and the levels as a whole were usually well designed.
It was also very linear - unlike GTA1 and 2 which allowed mission selection (at least, a choice from a few missions - GTA2 gang system was also better then GTA3's), the game forces a linear path. This doesn't make the game more fun, although of course the storyline, what that it is (since they are really mini-stories for each group) possibly comes across better. This lack of freedom was a bit odd, and has carried on sadly. Apart from side missions, none of the 3D GTA's really allow mission freedom, to pick and choose jobs. In fact, if you fail a mission, it loops time and allows you to do exactly the same one again (something not present in GTA1 or 2). At least you could save for free in your hideout at any time out of missions, which was very important! (GTA2 you had to pay to save, hah!)
So, some good humour really helped the game, and while the freedom is there, you can't really do too much without getting board (so, you do it between missions, which is more the point) - you also probably will get stuck in the missions, they are not very lenient and certainly harder then later games. No multiplayer also was very annoying (at least when you got board of singleplayer) - GTA2 has some great multiplayer you can do on LAN, and no doubt GTA IV is much better with the multiplayer then without it. A great game, and an outstanding release at the time however, and pushed the genre in a good direction! Without it I wonder what would have happened to the general genre.
GTA3 is an interesting feat of engineering. It moved the game on from 2D quite well, although fell behind a bit with some of the things in GTA2. It included almost all the items in GTA1 - stunt bonuses, exploration, setpiece missions, emergency services, a variety of weapons, wanted system, secrets, trains/transport and tanks. Notably; and not many people realise, but the game can be played top-down too (although bridges sometimes get in the way, just like GTA1/2), a camera setting allows you the ability, which was taken out of later games which moved away from the tile-based city approach.
The main beauty is that driving around doing random things, and there being some classic Kill Frenzies, weapons and secrets to find, always makes exploring worthwhile. It can get dull - the game is, if nothing else, repetitive, but for the in between mission activities it provided just enough depth, as GTA1 and 2 did. The radio helped a lot here, the music stations were done in a similar style to the original 2D titles with a continuous track - the Lazlow Chatterbox show is great comedy writing, and really builds the world up. Exploring the world for the first time - simply driving around - can be actually quite fun. In a way, a good way to do something between missions, but not for more then half an hour (there's only so many cops you can kill, heh).
The best part was the transition involved a lot better AI - pedestrians cursed, shouted, ran away, attacked back. Cops were much more varied - GTA2 was actually the first to introduce SWAT, FBI and Army levels of star rating, but the behaviour in GTA3 included roadblocks, helicopters (a first), and of course the same kind of arrests as you could get in GTA1 and 2. The AI for Ambulance and Firetrucks were present too, transitioned into 3D well. The world really felt lived in, and people spawned continually - GTA1 and 2 had some really dense areas, but the population levels were a lot lower. Yes, the AI was arguably rubbish in most aspects of quality (although at the time, better then many), but quantity was staggering.
The game control was however a bit clunky - controlling cars was sometimes a feat (and some missions didn't let you get your vehicle scratched). Running and walking were a joke - you got tired easily (meaning you stopped to catch your breath), so cars were the only mid-to-long distance way to travel. Weapon aiming necessitated a mouse - the console version I couldn't cope with. Even then, it was pretty hard, since the mouse configuration was for movement not precise aiming (nevermind grenades). No form of cover, meant gameplay involved primarily having armour all the time and reloading on death - losing all those weapons hurt too much. The sequels did improve bits and pieces on the controls at least.
Sequels also importantly added swimming, boats and helicopters you could use. The division of islands for story segregation is pretty sad, really, and although that's carried on the actual physical barriers are much more removed. The lack of freedom in that respect is annoying. :)
The graphics were not spectacular as such - as much as GTA IV's graphics are good, they too are not spectacular - it's the fact there was so much available things on screen at once. Many missions piled up the enemies and cars involved. Comparatively good graphics however, which did last a long time considering San Andreas'.
The storyline was... cliché. Pop culture cliché at least. Typical gangs, very sterotypical mafia, corrupt cops, huge corporation empires. The actual enemies were vague and the reasons for going after them were pretty nonexistant or confusing. As you played a mute, the character also really lacked depth. However, some individual characters were funny or interesting, and the voiceacting was reasonably good as well as the cutscenes (which had some really good coverups for a mute, hah!). Some side missions were a lot more enjoyable then the main ones. I don't think I ever finished the game either (although I saw the last few missions online at one point) - the final island missions shows the gameplay was poorly constructed - the last missions can be nigh on impossible. Some of the missions really made you grit your teeth (eg: making sure your car doesn't get dented, aggghhh!) - there was (as is per GTA's style) no mid mission saves, and they were all scripted so there is zero replay factor. At least you could skip cutscenes!
Oh, but of course, GTA1 and 2 barely had a story. Notably, this was really the first story in the series of any merit. A good first attempt I think. Without the pop culture and characterisations of Vice City, the second game in the 3D series wouldn't have gone quite so well (and might well have bombed if it was worse) - it is the most lackluster of any of the 3D games, likely including the portable ones (which I have not played). The main thing is; since the story is reward, most of the missions just are not worth it for the reward of more story. There are many exceptions, but in general, the missions are not enjoyable enough by themselves and the reward is so poor as to remove the chore element from the difficult ones. Some real treats in there though, and the levels as a whole were usually well designed.
It was also very linear - unlike GTA1 and 2 which allowed mission selection (at least, a choice from a few missions - GTA2 gang system was also better then GTA3's), the game forces a linear path. This doesn't make the game more fun, although of course the storyline, what that it is (since they are really mini-stories for each group) possibly comes across better. This lack of freedom was a bit odd, and has carried on sadly. Apart from side missions, none of the 3D GTA's really allow mission freedom, to pick and choose jobs. In fact, if you fail a mission, it loops time and allows you to do exactly the same one again (something not present in GTA1 or 2). At least you could save for free in your hideout at any time out of missions, which was very important! (GTA2 you had to pay to save, hah!)
So, some good humour really helped the game, and while the freedom is there, you can't really do too much without getting board (so, you do it between missions, which is more the point) - you also probably will get stuck in the missions, they are not very lenient and certainly harder then later games. No multiplayer also was very annoying (at least when you got board of singleplayer) - GTA2 has some great multiplayer you can do on LAN, and no doubt GTA IV is much better with the multiplayer then without it. A great game, and an outstanding release at the time however, and pushed the genre in a good direction! Without it I wonder what would have happened to the general genre.
Andrew