Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

what does GTA 5 have to do

128 replies to this topic
MiamiViceCity
  • MiamiViceCity

    The Harwood Butcher

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Most Obsessive Name Changer 2016 (My unofficial GTAF annual award)
    Biggest Fanboy 2013, 2014, 2015
    Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#61

Posted 30 January 2013 - 01:32 AM

QUOTE (Dick Valor @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 10:52)
QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Tuesday, Jan 29 2013, 23:15)
QUOTE (Dick Valor @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 09:58)
Then here's an interesting question, my friend:

Imagine IV came out before SA and not the other way around.  In other words, SA comes out in 2008 as a leap forward in features, but a step back in graphics, physics, detail, etc.  Do you think SA would receive as much scrutiny under IV's shadow as IV has under SA's?  (Obviously, there's no way to know as this is an admittedly esoteric hypothetical, but I suspect SA would be as polarizing to this mirror universe fan base as IV is in ours.  alien.gif orly.gif )

I think it's interesting to think about because it's hard to compare the games without the nostalgia factor.  I was personally butthurt when IV didn't have parachutes after SA did... but I could also imagine myself feeling butthurt that SA didn't have free aim like IV did, or seamless interiors, etc.

Interesting.

I've always thought of it in another way if SA never existed and GTA IV came out after VC. Would GTA IV be as scrutinised under VC's shadow if it was the first main GTA in 6 years at that time?

IMO no. While VC also hits a nostalgic heart string with fans (Myself included) if GTA IV was the next GTA after it I don't think it would get criticised as much.

People tend to get butthurt about GTA IV not having as many features as SA. Since GTA IV is on level pegging and perhaps more than VC in terms of features I think if it was next in line more people would accept it.

To be honest though as much as GTA IV gets criticised I've always found more people to be disappointed, but still see it's a good game than people who literally don't like it. I even have my own gripes about GTA IV. Maybe not as extreme as some people, but I still have them nonetheless.

We are the same, you and I (at least with IV). tounge2.gif

I agree with you about VC. Less of IV's features would have been taken for granted had SA never existed (e.g., the ability to swim and hop fences). Of course, this is not to suggest I regret that SA came out (I used to be one hell of a SA fanboy). People just need to understand the context in which IV was released puts it at a slight disadvantage when comparing fan reception (particularly with the hardcore fans). That said, I still think it's impressive that IV has sold nearly as many copies as SA even though SA has had a four year head start! That speaks volumes to me about IV's popularity, as predominantly negative word-of-mouth should have slowed said growth. Instead, despite the haters, IV still sells like hotcakes!


@DeafMetal
It's a hypothetical. Of course the comparison would be unfair, as I'm trying to illustrate how IV's scrutiny is also unfair to an extent. The point of the hypothetical is to be as objective as possible, since no one can claim SA is objectively better than IV when it really comes down to contingent values and expectations. SA and IV are two very different approaches to the GTA franchise. I've just considered whether reception of SA's expansive features would have been different in another context where the values of GTA fans would have evolved differently. I'm not saying SA is only popular because of nostalgia, just acknowledging the advantage that coming out first might have had. In my hypothetical, fans would presumably focus on the downgrade of SA's core mechanics, as opposed to the downgrade with features we got with IV. You seem to assume that features are objectively valued more; my "thought experiment" is intended to shake that conviction.

@Deffpony
Interesting point about how the core mechanics are useless when there's nothing to do, but I find the inverse is also true. What's the point of turf wars, driving schools, etc, if you think SA's shooting and driving sucks (as I do)? It doesn't matter whether you have 1 side activity or 20 if the core mechanics are weak. It's all about balance. Why else would so many legions of fans be clamoring for V?

Were we separated at birth or something? tounge.gif

Deffpony
  • Deffpony

    Stay Golden Ponyboy

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2007
  • None

#62

Posted 30 January 2013 - 01:45 AM

Miamivice honestly said it the best... IV was a great game, but it was just disappointing in some regards. While its progressed significantly over SA in most aspects it also left out alot of things that most of us never thought would have been absent.

It would be like the next Zelda game not having bombs or the bow and arrow, but instead having the best graphics to date and awesome core mechanics.

Dick Valor
  • Dick Valor

    Cold Ass Honky

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Nov 2011

#63

Posted 30 January 2013 - 01:56 AM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 01:32)
Were we separated at birth or something? tounge.gif

Haha! Could be! I think we're the about same age (26-27?). I'd say the main difference is I'm more into SA than VC, and I'm a bit more critical of EFLC, but otherwise we see eye-to-eye on just about everything. biggrin.gif

MiamiViceCity
  • MiamiViceCity

    The Harwood Butcher

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Most Obsessive Name Changer 2016 (My unofficial GTAF annual award)
    Biggest Fanboy 2013, 2014, 2015
    Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#64

Posted 30 January 2013 - 01:57 AM Edited by Miamivicecity, 30 January 2013 - 02:01 AM.

QUOTE (deffpony @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 12:45)
Miamivice honestly said it the best... IV was a great game, but it was just disappointing in some regards. While its progressed significantly over SA in most aspects it also left out alot of things that most of us never thought would have been absent.

It would be like the next Zelda game not having bombs or the bow and arrow, but instead having the best graphics to date and awesome core mechanics.


And then replacing them with something no one really wanted in the first place.

Actually in a way I can see why people were upset with GTA IV. Even if it didn't have as many features as SA it could've replaced bowling, darts, pool etc with the things people wanted like car customizing (Screw you R* for not including this in GTA IV), planes, more clothing etc.

It seems to be happening again with GTA V with people being annoyed at Yoga in the game and no buyable property (I don't mean to spark that debate again just using it as example).

Perhaps even if GTA IV never had as much as SA if it had more features people like rather than "boring" (well not to me) minigames such as bowling and whatnot it may have been more receptive.

QUOTE (Dick Valor @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 12:56 )
Haha!  Could be!  I think we're the about same age (26-27?).  I'd say the main difference is I'm more into SA than VC, and I'm a bit more critical of EFLC, but otherwise we see eye-to-eye on just about everything.  biggrin.gif


Yep. I'm 27. cool.gif

I don't really like TBOGT all that much, but I love TLAD and as you can probably tell I'm a bit of a VC nut too.

Other than that we're brothers. biggrin.gif

DeafMetal
  • DeafMetal

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2012

#65

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:07 AM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 01:57)
And then replacing them with something no one really wanted in the first place.

Actually in a way I can see why people were upset with GTA IV. Even if it didn't have as many features as SA it could've replaced bowling, darts, pool etc with the things people wanted like car customizing (Screw you R* for not including this in GTA IV), planes, more clothing etc.

It seems to be happening again with GTA V with people being annoyed at Yoga in the game and no buyable property (I don't mean to spark that debate again just using it as example).

Perhaps even if GTA IV never had as much as SA if it had more features people like rather than "boring" (well not to me) minigames such as bowling and whatnot it may have been more receptive.

EXACTLY lol I could kiss you right now (it's not gay if we don't make eye contact; just sayin').

I loved IV, but those are the core reasons why I didn't think it was too much of a progression from SA: they removed many of the features that worked wonderfully for SA and instead implemented pretty risky new ones that were often hit and miss. I really hope V has more III-era-style features than IV-style ones. Didn't particularly disliked any of IV's, but I found III era's a lot more enjoyable in comparison (as did a lot of others).

rare.steak
  • rare.steak

    Li'l G Loc

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012

#66

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:20 AM

Just surpass SA? That should be do-able.

But surpassing how much SA raised the bar? Nah... I think how much SA raised the bar is one of the most in history of all games, just behind the likes of Zelda OOT and Chrono Trigger.

Deffpony
  • Deffpony

    Stay Golden Ponyboy

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2007
  • None

#67

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:25 AM

QUOTE (rare.steak @ Tuesday, Jan 29 2013, 22:20)
Just surpass SA? That should be do-able.

But surpassing how much SA raised the bar? Nah... I think how much SA raised the bar is one of the most in history of all games, just behind the likes of Zelda OOT and Chrono Trigger.

Nice references! icon14.gif

Capricornus
  • Capricornus

    R.I.P Zee -_-

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2005

#68

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:42 AM

I would like to start by saying this: GTA SA is my favorite of the series strictly due to the fact that, even in the present, I can have hours of fun with the game. I also love GTA IV and its my second favorite behind SA, and I have fun with that as well. To say any GTA game is "the best of the series" is strictly opinion based, not factual. Some people actually think sells dictate whether a game is better than another or not.

As for the topic at hand, from what I have read on here, some of it being absolute sh*t at times (being honest), people basically feel that GTA V needs to be GTA: SA 2.0. Bring back and enhance things such as the Jet pack, Green Goo, pink hairstyles, longer, thicker purple dildos, and a billionaire, gang-banging, business orientated dude named Carl. I be it would be these same people crying about GTA V being to similar to GTA SA.

As I like to say, R* spoiled most fans with GTA SA, and I'd like to think that R* personally has a love-hat relationship with their own product. I won't say that GTA SA is the holy grail of GTA games, but its the one I have had the most fun with. I am certain that, in due time, there will be a better GTA game that SA. Some people say GTA IV is better, and with good reason. I think GTA V is more than capable of being better, and I'd go as far as to say that it will be better. I loved the crazy, over the top sh*t we were able to do in GTA SA, but there are other ways in which a GTA game can be better than that.

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#69

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:44 AM Edited by Official General, 30 January 2013 - 04:21 AM.

QUOTE (Noclue_42 @ Tuesday, Jan 29 2013, 22:10)
IV is the best GTA to this day. You could say SA was more likable or whatever, but simply that leap forward in technology and all, makes every recent GTA the best there is. Namsayin? Can't find the right words for it atm...

So just because GTA IV is the most up-to-date game in the series with advanced technology, that makes it the best GTA game so far ?? That is pure bullsh*t.

In my view, IV was not even better than Vice City, let alone San Andreas. Yeah sure enough, VC and SA are much older games and cannot compare to IV in terms of graphics, physics, effects etc. But VC and SA provided much better, more fun, enjoyable and memorable experiences during their time than IV did in it's own time in eyes of many GTA fans.

That is how you compare the GTA games against each other. Not by how technologically up to date they are, but by how great they were at the time they were released. In the eyes of many (including myself), VC and SA clearly beat IV hands down in that area. But I still very much like GTA IV, I just don't think it was the best GTA in the series.

@ Dick Valor

Sorry bro, but I think you're just in denial. Listen to deffpony and DeafMetal, a lot of evidence points to them, being right. After the initial great hype, many people were just not that thrilled with GTA IV in the end, and by that point, many felt it was a bit of a letdown in certain areas. I appreciate the fact that guys like you and Miami love IV to the death and personally to you guys it's the best in the series, but I would safely say that the general consensus that most people do not consider IV to be the best GTA so far.

MiamiViceCity
  • MiamiViceCity

    The Harwood Butcher

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Most Obsessive Name Changer 2016 (My unofficial GTAF annual award)
    Biggest Fanboy 2013, 2014, 2015
    Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#70

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:08 AM

QUOTE (Official General @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 14:44)
So just because GTA IV is the most up-to-date game in the series with advanced technology, that makes it the best GTA game so far ?? That is pure bullsh*t.

In my view, IV was not even better than Vice City, let alone San Andreas. Yeah sure enough, VC and SA are much older games and cannot compare to IV in terms of graphics, physics, effects etc. But VC and SA provided much better, more fun, enjoyable and memorable experiences during their time than IV did in it's own time in eyes of many GTA fans.

That is how you compare the GTA games against each other. Not by how technologically up to date they are, but by how great they were at the time they were released. In the eyes of many (including myself), VC and SA clearly beat IV hands down in that area. But I still very much like GTA IV, I just don't think it was the best GTA in the series.

I agree to an extent, but I don't think that's necessarily GTA IV's fault. People grow up and for a lot of us VC and SA represented a time in video gaming which could be described as "golden" I guess.

I got that "feeling" playing VC for the first time and SA too. Then the subsequent months that followed. It was epic.

You know what? I got that feeling playing GTA IV too, but it felt a bit different. Not in a bad way, but it felt like GTA was changing.

Sometimes I feel like I'm one of the few original GTA players that actually likes GTA IV enough for it deemed to be best in the series.

I still remember being amused by the burp/fart button in GTA 1 and running over peds in the top down view when I was fresh in high school. GTA IV even on its realease to me was just as epic as VC and SA were.

Deffpony
  • Deffpony

    Stay Golden Ponyboy

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2007
  • None

#71

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:11 AM

The problem with IV is that people had a narrow set of expectations(including myself). Im sure there will be alot of disappointment with V as well due to this same aspect but I think it will be less so

I Shot The Sheriff
  • I Shot The Sheriff

    Yippie-kay-yay, motherf*cker!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2012

#72

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:17 AM

It would have to be an exact copy adding new missions, side missions, music, vehicles, weapons, interiors, new physics and a major overhaul of graphics.

Such a thing is not going to happen, so it won't quite "surpass" San Andreas, but rather be a kickass game on it's own. What I mean by that is that you can't simply apply the terms "better" or "worse" to such different experiences on such different times, even if GTA V gives more overall satisfaction than SA when it came out, simply because they're just totally different. To be "better", it would have to beat it on it's very own terrain, that's what I said be an "exact copy" with all those improvements.

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#73

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:21 AM Edited by Official General, 30 January 2013 - 04:29 AM.

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 04:08)
QUOTE (Official General @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 14:44)
So just because GTA IV is the most up-to-date game in the series with advanced technology, that makes it the best GTA game so far ?? That is pure bullsh*t.

In my view, IV was not even better than Vice City, let alone San Andreas. Yeah sure enough, VC and SA are much older games and cannot compare to IV in terms of graphics, physics, effects etc. But VC and SA provided much better, more fun, enjoyable and memorable experiences during their time than IV did in it's own time in eyes of many GTA fans.

That is how you compare the GTA games against each other. Not by how technologically up to date they are, but by how great they were at the time they were released. In the eyes of many (including myself), VC and SA clearly beat IV hands down in that area. But I still very much like GTA IV, I just don't think it was the best GTA in the series.

I agree to an extent, but I don't think that's necessarily GTA IV's fault. People grow up and for a lot of us VC and SA represented a time in video gaming which could be described as "golden" I guess.

I got that "feeling" playing VC for the first time and SA too. Then the subsequent months that followed. It was epic.

You know what? I got that feeling playing GTA IV too, but it felt a bit different. Not in a bad way, but it felt like GTA was changing.

Sometimes I feel like I'm one of the few original GTA players that actually likes GTA IV enough for it deemed to be best in the series.

I still remember being amused by the burp/fart button in GTA 1 and running over peds in the top down view when I was fresh in high school. GTA IV even on its realease to me was just as epic as VC and SA were.

@ Miami

I actually believe it's the fault of Rockstar. I genuinely believe they messed up a great chance to make GTA IV the best GTA in the series so far. They had a great story/plot, the best setting for a GTA game (New York City), and the newer, HD technology at their disposal to make it happen. Before it was released, I really believed IV had the potential to surpass Vice City and San Andreas as the best GTA games in the series, but Rockstar blew it. Rockstar's newer, story-driven direction was great, but a lot of the gameplay and features that traditionally made GTA fun and interesting were compromised, hence why IV was seen a bit of a letdown. If Rockstar had just made IV as it was, but with the added features from previous GTAs, more varied missions and without the repetitive hitman stuff, I'm almost sure that many people would have no problem to at least consider GTA IV to be the best GTA in the series.

And I tell you this bro, even now, New York City would still be my most favorite location for a GTA game. This is one big reason why I really wanted IV to be the best GTA, but I can only be real with myself, I just don't think it is in any way.

Don't get my comments twisted though - I've learned to get over my disappointments and just accept IV for what it is and not for what I wanted it to be. I liked it a lot more when I played it again and discovered many new things. And I still very much love IV for many things, like it's dark and gritty urban New York setting, the immigrant storyline and the nice mix of crime groups that had dealings with each other. It's still a classic game to play and own.

Game2048
  • Game2048

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2012

#74

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:23 AM Edited by Game2048, 30 January 2013 - 04:27 AM.

GTA IV was actually not so good. And not because because there was less of "San Andreas " fun.

I don't care about fun in GTA at all. In GTA IV I've enjoyed realism and excellent virtual world, which has NY vibe. And NY is one of my favorite cities on the planet.

GTA IV was simply not so good in general.

But "TBOGT" was the best part of GTA IV, much better than the main game itself. Absolutely amazing music, bright story and atmosphere, and everything that surrounded Luis in this episode.

And TLAD was the worst. I had to make some effort to finish this episode, because it was not interesting - nor story, nor atmosphere, neither characters. Besides, dumb f*cks in some dumb band who listening horrible music is not the best choice

MiamiViceCity
  • MiamiViceCity

    The Harwood Butcher

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Most Obsessive Name Changer 2016 (My unofficial GTAF annual award)
    Biggest Fanboy 2013, 2014, 2015
    Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#75

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:28 AM Edited by Miamivicecity, 30 January 2013 - 04:30 AM.

QUOTE (deffpony @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 15:11)
The problem with IV is that people had a narrow set of expectations(including myself). Im sure there will be alot of disappointment with V as well due to this same aspect but I think it will be less so

I feel the same aswell. Basically I see the complaints of no buyable property being very similar to no planes being in GTA IV. I still remember all the whining about the lack of planes in the months prior to GTA IV's release as should you. tounge.gif

However I think R* have to be careful this time around. While some people do have wild expectations it's been a long time coming.

The way I see it R* have to apply an "all in or nothing at all" approach. They have to deliver. A second major GTA title to cause mass disappointment would be a disaster for the series. Maybe they set the bar too high with SA.

GTA V is make it or break it IMO.

Kifflom112
  • Kifflom112

    I like to spam

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2012

#76

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:29 AM Edited by Kifflom112, 30 January 2013 - 04:32 AM.

QUOTE (Official General @ Tuesday, Jan 29 2013, 22:21)
QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 04:08)
QUOTE (Official General @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 14:44)
So just because GTA IV is the most up-to-date game in the series with advanced technology, that makes it the best GTA game so far ?? That is pure bullsh*t.

In my view, IV was not even better than Vice City, let alone San Andreas. Yeah sure enough, VC and SA are much older games and cannot compare to IV in terms of graphics, physics, effects etc. But VC and SA provided much better, more fun, enjoyable and memorable experiences during their time than IV did in it's own time in eyes of many GTA fans.

That is how you compare the GTA games against each other. Not by how technologically up to date they are, but by how great they were at the time they were released. In the eyes of many (including myself), VC and SA clearly beat IV hands down in that area. But I still very much like GTA IV, I just don't think it was the best GTA in the series.

I agree to an extent, but I don't think that's necessarily GTA IV's fault. People grow up and for a lot of us VC and SA represented a time in video gaming which could be described as "golden" I guess.

I got that "feeling" playing VC for the first time and SA too. Then the subsequent months that followed. It was epic.

You know what? I got that feeling playing GTA IV too, but it felt a bit different. Not in a bad way, but it felt like GTA was changing.

Sometimes I feel like I'm one of the few original GTA players that actually likes GTA IV enough for it deemed to be best in the series.

I still remember being amused by the burp/fart button in GTA 1 and running over peds in the top down view when I was fresh in high school. GTA IV even on its realease to me was just as epic as VC and SA were.

@ Miami

I actually believe it's the fault of Rockstar. I genuinely believe they messed up a great chance to make GTA IV the best GTA in the series so far. They had a great story/plot, the best setting for a GTA game (New York City), and the newer, HD technology at their disposal to make it happen. Before it was released, I really believed IV had the potential to surpass Vice City and San Andreas as the best GTA games in the series. Rockstar's newer, story-driven direction was great, but a lot of the gameplay and features that traditionally made GTA fun and interesting were compromised, hence why IV was seen a bit of a letdown. If Rockstar had just made IV as it was, but with the added features from previous GTAs and without the repetitive hitman stuff, I'm almost sure that many people would have no problem to at least consider GTA IV to be the best GTA in the series.

Don't get my comments twisted though - I've learned to get over my disappointments and just accept IV for what it is and not what I wanted it to be. I still very much love IV for many things, like it's dark and gritty urban New York setting, the immigrant storyline and the nice mix of crime groups that had dealings with each other. It's still a classic game to play and own.

icon14.gif Well said. And I also love the grittiness of the game. Most people oddly despise it but I love it.
I thought IV was a well done game but yeah it had flaws. A lot of content was missing. I felt they missed a rather interesting opportunity with property. The thought of being able to buy penthouses and stuff like that, things NY real estate is famous for would excite me but it was axed.
The missions were okay, some were exciting, but some were pretty bland. I also felt some missions lacked a sort of edgy feeling they should have. Some were way too easy.
But overall I love the game and love the city and it's detail to death. I'd honestly live in LC. inlove.gif
And comment above Miami: I disagree, TBoGT was just so much worse than IV in my opinion. It has better weapons, more cars(though some seemed half ass), and some nice music(Vice City FM inlove.gif ) But it's storyline sucked ass, I'm sorry it did. And the "vibrancy" didn't fit IV's setting at all. To be honest, vibrant colors and LC did not go well together at all, I rather a gloomy LC. And the protagonist of TBoGT was just ugh.

But on topic: V can easily surpass SA in my honest opinion. I mean even though IV lacked some 'freedom', the game was just so, I don't know I just liked it so much. And I feel that IV already surpassed SA. I can play IV much more than SA, it's just my type of game.
So V can easily surpass it, hell from what I've seen it has already surpassed it. It's already better than just some SA with HD graphics and a bigger map. And the storyline seems so much more intriguing as well. Sort of glad it doesn't have to do much with gangs.

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#77

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:41 AM

QUOTE (Kifflom112 @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 04:29)
QUOTE (Official General @ Tuesday, Jan 29 2013, 22:21)
QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 04:08)
QUOTE (Official General @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 14:44)
So just because GTA IV is the most up-to-date game in the series with advanced technology, that makes it the best GTA game so far ?? That is pure bullsh*t.

In my view, IV was not even better than Vice City, let alone San Andreas. Yeah sure enough, VC and SA are much older games and cannot compare to IV in terms of graphics, physics, effects etc. But VC and SA provided much better, more fun, enjoyable and memorable experiences during their time than IV did in it's own time in eyes of many GTA fans.

That is how you compare the GTA games against each other. Not by how technologically up to date they are, but by how great they were at the time they were released. In the eyes of many (including myself), VC and SA clearly beat IV hands down in that area. But I still very much like GTA IV, I just don't think it was the best GTA in the series.

I agree to an extent, but I don't think that's necessarily GTA IV's fault. People grow up and for a lot of us VC and SA represented a time in video gaming which could be described as "golden" I guess.

I got that "feeling" playing VC for the first time and SA too. Then the subsequent months that followed. It was epic.

You know what? I got that feeling playing GTA IV too, but it felt a bit different. Not in a bad way, but it felt like GTA was changing.

Sometimes I feel like I'm one of the few original GTA players that actually likes GTA IV enough for it deemed to be best in the series.

I still remember being amused by the burp/fart button in GTA 1 and running over peds in the top down view when I was fresh in high school. GTA IV even on its realease to me was just as epic as VC and SA were.

@ Miami

I actually believe it's the fault of Rockstar. I genuinely believe they messed up a great chance to make GTA IV the best GTA in the series so far. They had a great story/plot, the best setting for a GTA game (New York City), and the newer, HD technology at their disposal to make it happen. Before it was released, I really believed IV had the potential to surpass Vice City and San Andreas as the best GTA games in the series. Rockstar's newer, story-driven direction was great, but a lot of the gameplay and features that traditionally made GTA fun and interesting were compromised, hence why IV was seen a bit of a letdown. If Rockstar had just made IV as it was, but with the added features from previous GTAs and without the repetitive hitman stuff, I'm almost sure that many people would have no problem to at least consider GTA IV to be the best GTA in the series.

Don't get my comments twisted though - I've learned to get over my disappointments and just accept IV for what it is and not what I wanted it to be. I still very much love IV for many things, like it's dark and gritty urban New York setting, the immigrant storyline and the nice mix of crime groups that had dealings with each other. It's still a classic game to play and own.

icon14.gif Well said. And I also love the grittiness of the game. Most people oddly despise it but I love it.
I thought IV was a well done game but yeah it had flaws. A lot of content was missing. I felt they missed a rather interesting opportunity with property. The thought of being able to buy penthouses and stuff like that, things NY real estate is famous for would excite me but it was axed.
The missions were okay, some were exciting, but some were pretty bland. I also felt some missions lacked a sort of edgy feeling they should have. Some were way too easy.
But overall I love the game and love the city and it's detail to death. I'd honestly live in LC. inlove.gif
And comment above Miami: I disagree, TBoGT was just so much worse than IV in my opinion. It has better weapons, more cars(though some seemed half ass), and some nice music(Vice City FM inlove.gif ) But it's storyline sucked ass, I'm sorry it did. And the "vibrancy" didn't fit IV's setting at all. To be honest, vibrant colors and LC did not go well together at all, I rather a gloomy LC. And the protagonist of TBoGT was just ugh.

But on topic: V can easily surpass SA in my honest opinion. I mean even though IV lacked some 'freedom', the game was just so, I don't know I just liked it so much. And I feel that IV already surpassed SA. I can play IV much more than SA, it's just my type of game.
So V can easily surpass it, hell from what I've seen it has already surpassed it. It's already better than just some SA with HD graphics and a bigger map. And the storyline seems so much more intriguing as well. Sort of glad it doesn't have to do much with gangs.

@ Kifflom

Thanks bro icon14.gif

There was a multitude of things Rockstar could have put in GTA IV to make it a great game. Illegal gambling in shady backroom dens, make or lose money at the stock exchange, buy some prime city real estate, rob and hold-up liquor and 247 grocery stores for petty cash in your early days in LC, buy and sell drugs to make a bit of fast money, burgle wealthy homes, make the streets in the ghettoes more dangerous with random violence and shootings etc. The crazy thing is the previous GTAs has many of these features, and they were using old technology.

San Andreas will be hard to surpass though. The sheer amount of gameplay variety and depth, the vast expanses of different kinds of land, and multiple cities and towns on a huge map, a lengthy storyline, it's gonna be a challenge. But Rockstar looks like they are on the right track so far with GTA V - except for the omission of properties which I'm not pleased about one bit. Especially when they can find the time to put damn yoga in the game.


Mike the Young Lord
  • Mike the Young Lord

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2013

#78

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:46 AM

Ok I know you guys love to hold San Andreas up on the pedestal but my honest opinion of it is that the only thing it still has going for it is the size of the map. I'm just gonna take V for what it is. Same as I did with IV.

Kifflom112
  • Kifflom112

    I like to spam

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2012

#79

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:49 AM

QUOTE (Official General @ Tuesday, Jan 29 2013, 22:41)
except for the omission of properties which I'm not pleased about one bit.

Yeah that pisses me off. whatsthat.gif
I really wanted more safehouses to add to the variety and save slots. I also just wanted more interiors. The interiors in IV were superbly detailed and fantastic which is why I was disappointed that there wasn't much and, even stupider, some were locked after missions. I wanted to own several decently sized houses with pools, maybe a penthouse again, a house in the country.

But no. R* can come up with every excuse but this is just one thing I will not be pleased with, ever. It's not near the point where I'm like "this game will suck" but I'm quite pissed. I don't give a flipping duck if "wii culdn pictah trevor in a manson". I couldn't picture a immigrant owning two nice ass penthouses in a world class city but it happened in IV.

The property feature was something I really loved in SA.

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#80

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:59 AM

QUOTE (Kifflom112 @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 04:49)
QUOTE (Official General @ Tuesday, Jan 29 2013, 22:41)
except for the omission of properties which I'm not pleased about one bit.

Yeah that pisses me off. whatsthat.gif
I really wanted more safehouses to add to the variety and save slots. I also just wanted more interiors. The interiors in IV were superbly detailed and fantastic which is why I was disappointed that there wasn't much and, even stupider, some were locked after missions. I wanted to own several decently sized houses with pools, maybe a penthouse again, a house in the country.

But no. R* can come up with every excuse but this is just one thing I will not be pleased with, ever. It's not near the point where I'm like "this game will suck" but I'm quite pissed. I don't give a flipping duck if "wii culdn pictah trevor in a manson". I couldn't picture a immigrant owning two nice ass penthouses in a world class city but it happened in IV.

The property feature was something I really loved in SA.

Los Santos would have been a great location for property. Imagine upgrading from some average condo in South Los Santos to a luxury manison in Rockford hills with massive garden, Roman statues, swimming pool, driveway etc ? There could have been countless opportunities for property in GTA V.

greenrock
  • greenrock

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2012
  • None

#81

Posted 30 January 2013 - 05:02 AM

Official General, are you the top expert in the world when it comes to organized crime groups?

DeafMetal
  • DeafMetal

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2012

#82

Posted 30 January 2013 - 05:02 AM

QUOTE (Official General @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 04:59)
QUOTE (Kifflom112 @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 04:49)
QUOTE (Official General @ Tuesday, Jan 29 2013, 22:41)
except for the omission of properties which I'm not pleased about one bit.

Yeah that pisses me off. whatsthat.gif
I really wanted more safehouses to add to the variety and save slots. I also just wanted more interiors. The interiors in IV were superbly detailed and fantastic which is why I was disappointed that there wasn't much and, even stupider, some were locked after missions. I wanted to own several decently sized houses with pools, maybe a penthouse again, a house in the country.

But no. R* can come up with every excuse but this is just one thing I will not be pleased with, ever. It's not near the point where I'm like "this game will suck" but I'm quite pissed. I don't give a flipping duck if "wii culdn pictah trevor in a manson". I couldn't picture a immigrant owning two nice ass penthouses in a world class city but it happened in IV.

The property feature was something I really loved in SA.

Los Santos would have been a great location for property. Imagine upgrading from some average condo in South Los Santos to a luxury manison in Rockford hills with massive garden, Roman statues, swimming pool, driveway etc ? There could have been countless opportunities for property in GTA V.

Yeah, I was also REALLY looking forward to properties again after IV missed the perfect opportunity to include them. Oh well... there's always VI, right? confused.gif

Mainland Marauder
  • Mainland Marauder

    Ghost

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2005
  • United-States

#83

Posted 30 January 2013 - 05:14 AM

Really, if it wasn't going to be a kind of asset-building like in Vice then I'm not that fussed about property. In SA it amounted to accumulating places to run to when you have a wanted level or want to change clothes. Only the safehouses with garages really mattered.

What does GTA V have to do? Be big, be immersive, be fun. Everything else is open-ended.

Dick Valor
  • Dick Valor

    Cold Ass Honky

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Nov 2011

#84

Posted 30 January 2013 - 06:52 AM

QUOTE (Official General @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 03:44)
@ Dick Valor

Sorry bro, but I think you're just in denial. Listen to deffpony and DeafMetal, a lot of evidence points to them, being right. After the initial great hype, many people were just not that thrilled with GTA IV in the end, and by that point, many felt it was a bit of a letdown in certain areas. I appreciate the fact that guys like you and Miami love IV to the death and personally to you guys it's the best in the series, but I would safely say that the general consensus that most people do not consider IV to be the best GTA so far.

Sigh. There is no hard evidence and, more obviously, no consensus. The voices/opinions of IV fans like myself count (sorry, but they do) and there are lots of us (see how easy it is to rely on empty, ad populum arguments?). Therefore, no "official general" consensus. Ha! tounge2.gif

Kiast
  • Kiast

    Collectors edition

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2012

#85

Posted 30 January 2013 - 07:11 AM

Am I the only one who thinks that IV should never be compared to SA? I mean it's ridiculous, IV should only ever be compared to III as it is the first of the generation like IV. I think that way a lot of the fans will gain a better understanding of what R* was trying to achieve with IV. Once V is released then we have a HD era world that we can finally compare to SA. Besides the fact that SA and IV are set in different cities, They were made on different engines, R* had over 10 years to perfect the previous engine, hence why we have SA. Now they believe they've perfected RAGE, hence why V isn't set in vice, its set in San Andreas, the only playground big enough for us to truly enjoy this engine.

TL;dr don't compare IV to SA, compare it to III because thats what they were aiming for. Once V is released, compare your hearts out!
suicidal.gif monocle.gif

MiamiViceCity
  • MiamiViceCity

    The Harwood Butcher

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Most Obsessive Name Changer 2016 (My unofficial GTAF annual award)
    Biggest Fanboy 2013, 2014, 2015
    Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#86

Posted 30 January 2013 - 08:49 AM

QUOTE (Dick Valor @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 17:52)
QUOTE (Official General @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 03:44)
@ Dick Valor

Sorry bro, but I think you're just in denial. Listen to deffpony and DeafMetal, a lot of evidence points to them, being right. After the initial great hype, many people were just not that thrilled with GTA IV in the end, and by that point, many felt it was a bit of a letdown in certain areas. I appreciate the fact that guys like you and Miami love IV to the death and personally to you guys it's the best in the series, but I would safely say that the general consensus that most people do not consider IV to be the best GTA so far.

Sigh. There is no hard evidence and, more obviously, no consensus. The voices/opinions of IV fans like myself count (sorry, but they do) and there are lots of us (see how easy it is to rely on empty, ad populum arguments?). Therefore, no "official general" consensus. Ha! tounge2.gif

That made me laugh. lol.gif

simonp92
  • simonp92

    Whodunit?

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009

#87

Posted 30 January 2013 - 08:57 AM

Have quality over quantity, like IV.

man dragon
  • man dragon

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2012

#88

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:36 AM

I grew up with Grand Theft Auto. I was 11 when I bought III, I was 12 when I got Vice City. When San Andreas came out, my 14 year old self loved the wacky stuff you could find yourself getting up to - pink dildos and jet packs were a representation of my maturity at the time. GTA IV came out two weeks before my 18th birthday, and by that stage I had very much grown up, I loved shows like The Sopranos and The Wire, so GTA IV was exactly what I was looking for in a game. My 14 year-old self probably would have hated IV, but I'm glad I grew up.

Just my two cents.

simonp92
  • simonp92

    Whodunit?

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009

#89

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:55 AM

QUOTE (man dragon @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 09:36)
I grew up with Grand Theft Auto. I was 11 when I bought III, I was 12 when I got Vice City. When San Andreas came out, my 14 year old self loved the wacky stuff you could find yourself getting up to - pink dildos and jet packs were a representation of my maturity at the time. GTA IV came out two weeks before my 18th birthday, and by that stage I had very much grown up, I loved shows like The Sopranos and The Wire, so GTA IV was exactly what I was looking for in a game. My 14 year-old self probably would have hated IV, but I'm glad I grew up.

Just my two cents.

I wholeheartedly agree. GTA is growing up. Albeit it took abit of a dive with TBOGT.

Kifflom112
  • Kifflom112

    I like to spam

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2012

#90

Posted 30 January 2013 - 12:43 PM

QUOTE (Kiast @ Wednesday, Jan 30 2013, 01:11)
Am I the only one who thinks that IV should never be compared to SA? I mean it's ridiculous, IV should only ever be compared to III as it is the first of the generation like IV. I think that way a lot of the fans will gain a better understanding of what R* was trying to achieve with IV. Once V is released then we have a HD era world that we can finally compare to SA. Besides the fact that SA and IV are set in different cities, They were made on different engines, R* had over 10 years to perfect the previous engine, hence why we have SA. Now they believe they've perfected RAGE, hence why V isn't set in vice, its set in San Andreas, the only playground big enough for us to truly enjoy this engine.

TL;dr don't compare IV to SA, compare it to III because thats what they were aiming for. Once V is released, compare your hearts out!
suicidal.gif   monocle.gif

I seriously agree. I recall something from Zee's post back in 2009 where he said "honestly comparing GTA IV to the III era is like comparing apples to oranges". But most of the SA "fanboys" feel it is appropriate to do so.

@The growing up comment: I was 13 when IV came out yet I didn't hate it at all. It depends on the person not the age.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users