Why did some of you on these boards switch positions so quick? You went from really loving the game, to saying it's a piece of sh*t over minor, trivial reasons.
My opinion is that the game is leaps and bounds over IV and SA and is what I expected the game to be. Didn't expect unrealistic things.
So someone explain to me why the game is not better than IV or SA in a nice critical way please.
Ok OP, let me explain. GTA V is a great game, I enjoyed it, but....it really should been much better than GTA IV and San Andreas combined. Because V actually did not contain the really good stuff that IV and SA had, it sadly in my eyes is not better than SA, I feel that SA is still the better game. And V certainly not much better than IV. It can even be argued that V and IV are evenly matched. The fact is, that SA and IV had stuff that GTA V did not have, and really should have had :
* Majorly fun and interesting gameplay related to the hood, like gang wars for turf, recruiting gang members to follow you around, fight other gangs, doing drive bys on rivals. Stuff like this gave SA high replay value. GTA V had none of this for Franklin, not even in a diluted form.
* Much better variety of side missions. Aside from the gang wars and recruiting gang members, you could burgle houses, hijack drug package shipments, gambling in the bookmakers and casinos, gym, boxing and more. In V, we get f**king yoga, tennis, triathlon and the very below-par Strangers and Freaks missions.
* Much longer main storyline. V was way too short for how big it was, SA had a very long storyline and it's got a smaller map.
* Element of danger was felt more in the streets of Los Santos. Explosive shootouts between rival gangs would just break out in the streets without the player igniting them.
* 3 different major cities. Added to variety of the map a great deal.
* Much more accessible interiors, including all the fast food joints like Cluckin' Bell and Burger Shot, nightclubs, bars, bookmakers, casinos, gym, barbershop, tattoo parlor, police stations, convenience stores, clothes stores, your own properties and businesses etc. Much more immersion and interaction in the environment than V.
* You could buy your own safehouse properties of YOUR own choice.
* Better clothing options, bigger range of clothing. You could buy lost of expensive jewelry like nice gold/diamond chains, watches, rings, not just minor diamond studs which Franklin could only buy in V.
* Much better storyline than V. It was filled with more interesting, and deep plots that were very engaging. You had various alliances, conflict and dealings with all kinds of organized crime groups, Mafia and gangs. In IV, the storyline involved choosing sides, double-crossing, striking up partnerships and epic showdowns. A huge chunk of V's storyline just revolved around corrupt cops and federal agents that just used you to do their dirty work, got boring after a while.
* Much more main storyline missions than V. Although some of IV main missions were sometimes repetitive. the very good storyline still kept you entertained. Compared to IV, V was very short.
* Liberty City in IV actually more interiors to enter than Los Santos in V, which was quite shocking. In LC you could enter fast food restaurants, cafes, nightclubs, bars, hotels, office buildings, hospitals, museums, apartments - the crazy thing is that you could do none of this in V. Once again, the environment in IV provided more interaction and immersion than V.
* In LC, the gang members carried a better variety of firearms. They had pistols, Uzis and shotguns, the Russian Mob guys even had AKs. In V, gang members just carry pistols only, and I really don't why that is. It's a small but important detail.
* IV had much better gunshots sounds than V. In IV, the gunshots had this very crisp, loud clattering sound. In V, they seem somewhat like just very loud toy gun caps.
* IV had a better variety of side missions and activities. Although some of them were not infinite, they were much better than what V offered for most part. In IV you could call up Dwayne's gang members for back up, to be your bodyguard or to follow you around and help you out in missions, you could deliver drug packages and do drug deals for Little Jacob, you could steal cars for Brucie and Steve for money and do Police Database vigilante missions. In Ballad of Gay Tony, you could do Drug Wars, Nightclub management and cage-fighting for money.
Come on bro, I don't hate V, but I did find it a bit of a letdown in some areas, and many people on here have experessed their discontent with the game. You really cannot deny that.
I would like to debate with you on this for my points as well. Another essay to another! Mostly on the GTA 4 tho.
GTA San Andreas:
I mostly agree with almost everything that you said except you left out a bunch of the cool features that GTA 5 had to offer.
* The mini games features and interaction are more polish in GTA 5.
You forgot to list all the mini games in GTA 5. Hunting, golf (fun as hell), tennis, get drunk, smoking, sky dive, watching movies, scuba dive also with submarines, hung out with friends, run businesses, custuomzation of cars, strip clubs, burber shops, tattoes and etc.
I would admit that despite this, San Andreas have more features. Some crappy ones like basketball, which I hoped they would've fixed in GTA 5. But some of the features in GTA 5 have way more depth. Like the cars in GTA 5 and some of the tattoes. And I find that golf in general is the best GTA mini game out there unless you count Gang Wars.
And like GTA SA, GTA 5 have benefits and rewards if you do the mini games..
*GTA 5 the world is more active.
While San Andreas have more variety in their world due to 3 cities and the country side and the desert, they don't have a lot little things that make more fun to explore than GTA 5. GTA 5 have little details of going to the playboy mansion to see nude girls, ufo sightings, ghost sightings, random events all over the map that act like missions sometimes, random police chasing and shootouts with the criminals, and more details that may have not been discovered. The exploration is better in GTA 5. Of course, this is all due to the technical advances.
This also include the stock market, which adds to the world being more alive than other GTA game.
* While GTA San Andreas have more main missions than GTA 5, it doesn't have more missions overall than GTA 5 nor does it have it's variety.
Some of the missions in GTA SA were just go there and sign some papers for casinos or, do you remember that? The missions GTA 5 have better presentation due to it being recent, the heists are fun as hell and there are a lot of replayability within because some of them you can decide how you want to run it and pick your crew members.
*You can customize your guns in GTA 5.
But most of the stuff I agree with. I wouldn't say GTA: SA is nesscary better. GTA: 5 added a few new features and elements never seen in GTA game, but didn't add all of GTA: SA elements. I would've love to see gang wars in there.
Grand Theft Auto 4:
*The storyline is really subjective.
Some ppl love the story, some ppl do not and miss the comedy that SA brings. I personally like the story, but I wouldn't put this a being better than GTA 5 because I could argue that the story is better in GTA 5. Like for the characters. I like Michael and Trevor more than Niko, and I think Trevor is the best GTA character in history as well as one of the best video games characters because he is very unique. But you can disagree with me with that.
*Nothing to spend your money on.
It's funny how Niko strive for money, but you cannot spend your money on anything other than guns. You can't show off for your hardwork.
And you criticize GTA 5 for not having buying a bunch of safehouses of your choosing like San Andreas, but not GTA 4?
*Missions were too repetitive and heavy scripted.
Out of all the GTAs starting from 3, I think GTA 4 was the worst in this regard. Granted, all GTAs have drive to point A to point B type of missions. But GTA 4 had more of those type of missions, the presentation didn't help to disguise it all that much, and those missions were too heavly scripted. Like the car chase scenes in GTA 4.
It's funny how you said that GTA 4 have longer missions than GTA 5, but the main reason why R* shorten GTA 5 was because they had complaints that GTA 4 was too long and did not finish the story. Which goes back to your point of what you said that ppl played through GTA 4 repeptitive missions because of the story. That is obviously not true for everyone.
They ddin't fix this until Ballad of Gay Tony.
*Lack of customize your character and features
Again, you say GTA: SA have more customization than GTA 5 but failed to mention the extreme lack of customization in GTA 4. No burger shop, no tattoes, and very limited clothing. And there was no parachuting in the game until Ballad of Gay Tony
*Lack of vareity of the cars
The cars feel a bit boat like and but the destructions of the cars were great.
*More customaztion with the guns
The shooting and guns in GTA 4 did feel more real than GTA 5. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. But the customization of your guns in GTA 5 is great.
*GTA 5 cover system is more tactical
This is very evident in both GTA O and GTA 5 single player. The fact that they made you more fragile was a brillrant more and forces you to actuallly take over.
* Stranger missions
We would have to agree to disagree on the side missions here. I find that GTA 5 side missions have so much variety and unique. It's from driving to point A to point B, to blow up people's houses, bounty missions, hunting. There is sooooooo many stuff in GTA 5 and they don't feel the same like GTA 4 does. Part of the reason is because of the county side and the culture of Los Angeles/Los Santos. Hollywood, beach, the hood. And then you expand to the country side.
If anything, GTA 5 is the real sequel to GTA: SA and GTA 4 is a very similar to GTA 3.
But I don't think GTA 4 is a bad game. I think it's great, but I still consider it be wosre than GTA: SA and GTA 5.
Edited by Vatus, 17 October 2013 - 10:22 PM.