To the person bitching about how hard it was to drive a non-AWD car off of tarmac:
In his defense he cant ride a bike on the pavement without crashing, so its no wonder he thinks driving is hard,haha!
I tried finding out which poster you are taking about and failed, so please tell me who it is lol..
Anyway, I've been following this topic for a long time to see whether there would be someone who would be sensible about the major differences between IV and V, but thusfar even on the 100th page it seems like noone really has been. I see the same dumb arguments used over and over again.
The most significant nonsense that every discussion in here seems to be based on is: more realistic driving = better. I don't agree with this. I agree that R* should use reality as a starting point with creating their driving, because a sense of realism improves the experience. But after creating the most realistic driving, it is a matter of finding out whether that is the most enjoyable driving in the context of the rest of the game. Does it let the player weave in and out of traffic at high speeds? Does it give chase sequences that are exciting? Take for instance the feature of moving your car in the air with the analog stick. That feature is pretty silly and really unrealistic, but I'm glad I have it because otherwise every jump I would make that didn't have a perfect take off would have me crashing all over the place. And I think it is an enjoyable feature to be able to take jumps and being able to land properly every time. So my point is, realism is not always better. V maybe overdid the in air steering though, and the unflipping of a car that is upside down just looks really stupid.
If you look at IV's driving, it seems as though they gave it realistic body roll, but because it is enjoyable in GTA to have responsive steering to an unrealistic degree to be able to weave in and out of traffic, that combined with the realistic body roll, made the body roll sometimes get out of hand. If you are able to take an unrealistically sharp turn with a realistic amount of body roll, then your car will behave strangely. I think that that is IV's problem. The body roll and the slow acceleration on supercars made the supercars kind of underwhelming sometimes. I also think some other cars, like the tuner Presidente, are too underwhelming performance wise. And the bikes were really weird and slidey in IV. EFLC repaired that a bit, which was good.
V removed removed the boat like body roll that was created in combination with the unrealistically responsive steering. Apart from that V also decreased braking times because the top cars in the game had increased top speed and acceleration, so it was needed to make crashing when driving on the edge less likely. Pretty much every car in V has insane traction. This has made drifting much harder. It seems as though R* wants you to be able to drive 'pedal to the metal' all the time in V without ending up crashing too much...
What I think is good about V is the improved top speed and acceleration in the faster cars in the game. It makes the driving more fun and dynamic for me. And somehow it seems logical how they changed the braking and body roll considering the supercars. A supercar with body roll just looks silly. And a supercar with realistic braking would be crashing too much if you'd drive it on top speed in traffic. But it is as though the complete driving mechanics have been aimed at driving around in supercars at top speed and that being fun, and that is probably the main mistake. I think they should've made bigger differences inbetween cars. It is silly how every car in the game is on top speed in 5 seconds and brakes from that top speed to 0 in 2 seconds. The differences between supercars and other cars should've been more significant I think. The fact that it's stupid that supercars are the best off road cars in V is a valid critism too. R* should work on that.
Some of you have denied the improved top speeds of cars, but it is easy to look up the numbers people have gotten from the handling.dat, and they prove that supercars in V are faster.
Part of opinion on driving in GTA comes down to taste though. Some people like a realistic approach to GTA, some like a more arcady GTA set up. I don't think there's a right or wrong concerning that and it's a matter of taste. When I say "most enjoyable driving in the context of the rest of the game", I mean the most enjoyable driving considering the somewhat arcady nature of missions in GTA V (and IV for that matter). I bet when a pc version comes out, people will start tweaking the setting to their own taste, which will solve the problem.
The decreased damage in V seems to be because in online racing you often crash because of idiots doing everything to ram you. If you have to respawn your car because some asshole rammed you so hard that the front axle of your car is damaged and your car does not perform properly, then you'll lose so much time that it will screw over your race. V seems to be online aimed, so it is no wonder that the car damage settings have the online racing in mind.
I'd also like to point out that V has much greater weight to cars. Ramming cars is much harder than it was in IV. In IV racing I was always PIT maneuvred all over the place. Because of the increased weight pushing cars with other cars has become almost impossible in V.