DRM has pretty much killed pc gaming for me.

You get what you pay for... :roll:

Pretty cool, but I think I'll wait a few years before I get a new pc.

"Overall, the PlayStation 3 outputs visuals that are either on par with the Xbox 360 or only slightly behind." No excuse for a console touted as "the most powerful game console ever." Although I am still getting one, I think the PS3 is suffering from "Sega Saturn syndrom"; it looks more advanced on paper, but is so hard to program for that half the time the games run better on the competition. Sony's PS1 defeated the Saturn, so they should know better. I think winning the fifth and sixth console generations made Sony think they couldn't lose, and caused them to be careless.

Brouser, all the GTA's were in 3D. 1,London, and 2 had 3D maps with sprite cars, but it was still technically 3D.

"You don't have the ability to turn around the character to face the camera until San Andreas" Hmm... what version of the game were Gamespot playing?! In 3, VC, AND SA, you could face the camera. In all 3 versions, too. With the PC version, you had to switch to classic controls, but you still could face the camera. I really hate it when people get information wrong. Especially a news site.

Actually, both story and character wise, I like IV the best so far. 3 was the basic "Street thug workin the way to the top", VC was Scarface, and SA was basically Forrest Gump with a wannabe gangster. GTAIV has characters that just seem real. Niko doesn't annoy me at all, unlike CJ, and has a great, defined character. The only one that seems human out of the entire series. He seems to actually have some moral values, and I really like how you get to choose your path at certain points. A nice, and must needed touch.

SA's main graphics problem is they made the map too big. You ended up with poor detail throughout the game so they could make the world "big". "Big" meaning small, undetailed cities with boring countryside that only had about 5 trees every mile. The small "towns" were a joke. Imo, they tried to get too much out of the PS2. It just couldn't do it at that scale. Don't get me wrong, the PS2 could do amazing graphics, as God of War and MGS2 have proved, but at such a big scale, SA looked undetailed, even for an open world game. It just looked bland to me.

If this is a graphics comparison, they should've also shown the XBox1 version of GTA3. It looked a lot better than the PS2 version. It almost looked next gen, with the improved lighting and reflections, honestly. It looked below Saint's Row graphics wise, but way better than any other version of GTA, until 4.

Umm... I don't really see much difference.