Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Why is V not better than IV or San Andreas?

136 replies to this topic
TheDust
  • TheDust

    Peon

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2010

#1

Posted 17 October 2013 - 07:02 PM

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.

  • dyz, I<3GTAV, stjimmy3 and 2 others like this

[T]
  • [T]

    The Sword Swingin' Surgeon

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2009

#2

Posted 17 October 2013 - 07:25 PM

Hmm I like GTA V for many reasons but I think San Andreas is better in many ways.. I like how they made it more like RDR than traditional rambo GTA. I like the detail and environment.. AI improvement, a lot of stuff like that was improved.

 

GTA V fell short compared to SA in my opinion for many reasons.. The gangs don't even attack each other (unless you ignite it), no gang wars, random events in the hood like police raids or drive bys (like they advertised), can't recruit people to roll with you, a measly 69 missions for 3 characters, simple things that made SA the great game it was was left out for a tacked-on holier than gang life attitude they gave Franklin. Towards the end of the game he lives in a cut off mansion in Vinewood with nothing to do.. yawn. Trevor and Michael I won't go into because they aren't really one of the reasons the game fell short for me, they played out exactly as they were advertised and are supposed to.

 

San Andreas was a huge 100+ mission story that accomplished everything GTA V did & more with one character than V did with three, all while keeping in the options to do a lot of the stuff I mentioned before in addition to things that GTA V can only mimick. Instead of yoga (who cares about that anyways lmfao) you had boxing and weightlifting. Instead of golf you had basketball. GTA V has more sidemissions that I like but GTA SA had the more complete package IMO.

  • visionist, Tha_Mac, iPone and 1 other like this

Vatus
  • Vatus

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2013

#3

Posted 17 October 2013 - 07:26 PM Edited by Vatus, 17 October 2013 - 07:31 PM.

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.



In my personal opinion,

On GTA: 4
I think it's better than GTA 4 in almost every way except for destruction of cars and no pool mini game. The missions were too repetitive and too heavy scripted in the game. While the story strive on making money, there is nothing to show for it because there was nothing to spend your money on. R* concentrated on their new core engine, but miss out on the features that GTA SA had.


GTA: SA:
It's tougher. While the core gameplay improved just like GTA 4 did, and GTA 5 brought back the features of GTA: SA, they didn't bring all of them. Like the RPG mechanics of GTA 5 are less complex than the GTA: SA, and in GTA: SA they are more noticeable. Although in GTA Online, they RPG elements are more noticeable since they are harder to level up.

GTA 5 missions are more fun than GTA: SA, and some of the mini games like golf (the best mini game ever in GTA history imo) are better. It's also more fun to explore the world in GTA 5 due to the random events and the attentive to detail.

While the world GTA 5 is bigger, it doesn't feel bigger than GTA:SA. Maybe it's just the nostalgia talking tho. I haven't played the game in years. It's just that it had so much variety with the different cities, the country side, and desert. But one big feature that I miss in GTA: SA is Gang Wars. If GTA 5 had it, then that would blow GTA: SA out of the water.

 

It's also noticable that GTA 5 single player suffered for GTA Online. You can apartments, arm wrestle, tag your car, sell cars, police will chase after stolen cars, RPG elements are more noticable and harder to upgrade, more clothes to buy, more hairstyles, and etc. None of these features were in the single player, and that's disappointing.

 

GTA: SA had more missions about 100, but GTA 5 have way more side missions which goes up to 120 something missions.

 

 

Overall:

 

You have to expect this for a series that have many sequels like GTA. It's like Final Fantasy where the fans have their favorite FF regardless of the technical advances. It could because of nostaglia, story, or whatever. The little things that ppl like.

 

Hell, there are some people who prefer GTA 3 or GTA Vice City over GTA: SA, GTA: 4 and GTA: 5. I have no idea why. But its their favorite game. There are certain subjective topcis about the games that you cannot argue which one is better like: Setting, tone, characters, and story. Those are much more personal.

 

But you can argue: Missions to some extent, gameplay, graphics and features. These are objectives topics that you can cleary see the difference to.

 

And for the record, I think GTA 5 is pretty much equal or better than GTA: SA for the best GTA game. I still need some time for GTA 5 to sink in, but it might be the best. I love the missions, the soundtrack, the story is solid, and Trevor is my favorite GTA character of all time and is one of the best and unique video game characters in history.

  • xXGst0395Xx, DeafMetal, latigreblue and 3 others like this

bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#4

Posted 17 October 2013 - 07:29 PM

So what? Some people still think V is the best, some think SA is still the best (myself included), some think IV is the best, and some think VC is the best.

They're is no collective thought here where we all think the same game is the best.

Anyways, what difference does it make if others don't like V as much as you do? Does it ruin the game for you?
  • latigreblue likes this

streetx1xracer
  • streetx1xracer

    F*kn magnets, how do they work?

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2012

#5

Posted 17 October 2013 - 07:30 PM Edited by streetx1xracer, 17 October 2013 - 07:31 PM.

Because your opinion and tastes do not allow it to be better in your view.

RockstarFanboy
  • RockstarFanboy

    GTA #2 FANBOY / Loyal R* Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2013

#6

Posted 17 October 2013 - 07:42 PM

I did not notice this change of opinion as you mention on this forum and I spend a lot of time in here... Actually I see much less hate in here than 2 weeks ago for V

 

Besides its just opinions... for me V is the best and I'm sure it will win a bunch of GOTY awards


haythem09
  • haythem09

    Honorbru Dispray

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#7

Posted 17 October 2013 - 08:42 PM

It is better than IV in every regard. I can see people arguing SA though.


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#8

Posted 17 October 2013 - 09:01 PM Edited by Official General, 17 October 2013 - 09:16 PM.

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 :

 

San Andreas 

 

* 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.

 

GTA IV

 

* 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. 

 

@ RockstarFanboy

 

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. 

  • B Dawg, [T], xXGst0395Xx and 5 others like this

Vatus
  • Vatus

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2013

#9

Posted 17 October 2013 - 10:17 PM Edited by Vatus, 17 October 2013 - 10:22 PM.

 

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 :

 

San Andreas 

 

* 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.

 

GTA IV

 

* 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. 

 

@ RockstarFanboy

 

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. 

 

 

Haha!

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.


THEBIGZED
  • THEBIGZED

    For an annoying dick, you really are an annoying dick.

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 May 2007

#10

Posted 17 October 2013 - 10:27 PM

Not entirely sure if I like V better than SA, but I was rather shocked to find that out that in a lot of ways the driving was more realistic in SA than in V.

 

This just really opened my eyes to just how much they went to the arcade direction. GTAIV's driving, in retrospect, feels like a natural step up from SA, offering more weight and better modeling for suspension and traction (granted the physics still needed some improvement). Then we get GTAV and the physics are super light, I mean wow, you can swerve the car around as much as you like without losing traction.

 

Playing San Andreas recently on PS2 and realizing I'd prefer its driving was a bittersweet moment.

  • B Dawg and Tikhung like this

Sting4S
  • Sting4S

    ♢ Corverra ♢

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#11

Posted 17 October 2013 - 10:32 PM

Its personal preference obviously. Different people have different opinions but you people obviously are too damn immature to realize that. No game is better than the other by fact. We all have our opinions. Stop making generalizations or reasons as to why a certain someone feels a certain way about one of the games towards another. 'Kay?

  • DeafMetal and bish0p2004 like this

ThatGr
  • ThatGr

    Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2013

#12

Posted 17 October 2013 - 10:34 PM

I don't think there is enough fun content on V


DarrinPA
  • DarrinPA

    Orange Grove Member

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2009
  • None

#13

Posted 17 October 2013 - 11:24 PM

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.

They finally played the game. Too many people were saying they thought this game was going to be the best, but their opinions weren't based actual gameplay. Plus, once you finish the game, just like GTA IV, you then will have a new opinion.

 

 

 Official General- 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,

Exactly, they should be building upon the success of those games while getting rid of only the unwanted and tedious gameplay elements - NOT stripping every new game of features.

  • AtomicPunk likes this

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#14

Posted 18 October 2013 - 12:23 AM Edited by Official General, 18 October 2013 - 12:24 AM.

@ Vatus

 

I know that GTA V has the upper hand over San Andreas and GTA IV in certain areas, it definitely does, but I did not point them out for a reason. GTA V certainly does many things much better than those two GTAs. But the point of my my last post was to answer the OP's question as to why many people don't believe that GTA V was better than SA or IV. So I gave a list of great stuff that was in SA and IV that were not seen in V to answer his question. 

 

I actually do honestly think that GTA V is better than GTA IV, but not by much though, only slightly. For that is a bit of a disappointment, because I really believed that V was gonna be better than IV in every way and include all or most of the best features from previous GTAs like SA. And looking at the huge map and incredible looking graphics of V, Rockstar could have made V the king of all GTAs, but I just cannot deny that they fell short of this by some significant margin.

 

@ DarrinPA

 

Exactly my point. I just don't understand why Rockstar failed to do something so simple to make their best product better.

  • DarrinPA likes this

dewan2000
  • dewan2000

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 May 2007

#15

Posted 18 October 2013 - 12:28 AM

Hmm I like GTA V for many reasons but I think San Andreas is better in many ways.. I like how they made it more like RDR than traditional rambo GTA. I like the detail and environment.. AI improvement, a lot of stuff like that was improved.

 

GTA V fell short compared to SA in my opinion for many reasons.. The gangs don't even attack each other (unless you ignite it), no gang wars, random events in the hood like police raids or drive bys (like they advertised), can't recruit people to roll with you, a measly 69 missions for 3 characters, simple things that made SA the great game it was was left out for a tacked-on holier than gang life attitude they gave Franklin. Towards the end of the game he lives in a cut off mansion in Vinewood with nothing to do.. yawn. Trevor and Michael I won't go into because they aren't really one of the reasons the game fell short for me, they played out exactly as they were advertised and are supposed to.

 

San Andreas was a huge 100+ mission story that accomplished everything GTA V did & more with one character than V did with three, all while keeping in the options to do a lot of the stuff I mentioned before in addition to things that GTA V can only mimick. Instead of yoga (who cares about that anyways lmfao) you had boxing and weightlifting. Instead of golf you had basketball. GTA V has more sidemissions that I like but GTA SA had the more complete package IMO.

 

I think you and many others are looking at it with rose tinted glasses. Sure it was a great game overall, especially for its time. But I still believe GTA V is a huge improvement over it all.  Having more missions doesnt really mean the game is better, the story felt dragged out.  You are also forgetting SA's main focus was gangs, GTA V however is not.  Franklin, the only one who would be in a gang, is trying to move on from such.


spamtackey
  • spamtackey

    Business Socks

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#16

Posted 18 October 2013 - 12:33 AM

The reason people complain now is because they've actually played it rather than imagined it. 

 

Honestly, GTA V deserves a lot of the complaints it gets. It's by no means a bad game, but the longer I spend with it the less impressed I am. They built a good foundation in 2008 with GTA IV, but GTA V feels like it should have come out in 2010 and that we should be waiting for the next better GTA game to end the generation with. When sites like IGN talk about how GTA V is bigger than next-gen (or something along those lines) the game really ought to live up to that and GTA V doesn't IMO. 

  • Sting4S likes this

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#17

Posted 18 October 2013 - 12:54 AM Edited by Official General, 18 October 2013 - 01:02 AM.

You are also forgetting SA's main focus was gangs, GTA V however is not.  Franklin, the only one who would be in a gang, is trying to move on from such.

 

 

Not quite accurate. Franklin was not necessarily trying to move on from being a gang member, he never once stated that he wants that. Franklin was always a part of his gang or at least still gang-affiliated. He just wanted to be doing criminal activities that would make him a lot of money and give him that life of luxury he craved - something he was unlikely to ever achieve by being stuck in the hood and continuing to live the gang life. 

 

And even then, Rockstar could have created some emphasis on the gang/hood side of the game to make things more interesting and exciting. There was very little hood action in the main storyline which was very disappointing. Franklin had no side missions or activities whatsoever involving gangs at the very least, he still had gang connections. There could have still have been gang stuff for Franklin on the side to do, it does not have to affect the main storyline. Rockstar could not even gives us that. 

  • thekillerdonuts likes this

bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#18

Posted 18 October 2013 - 12:58 AM Edited by bish0p2004, 18 October 2013 - 12:59 AM.

 

Hmm I like GTA V for many reasons but I think San Andreas is better in many ways.. I like how they made it more like RDR than traditional rambo GTA. I like the detail and environment.. AI improvement, a lot of stuff like that was improved.

 

GTA V fell short compared to SA in my opinion for many reasons.. The gangs don't even attack each other (unless you ignite it), no gang wars, random events in the hood like police raids or drive bys (like they advertised), can't recruit people to roll with you, a measly 69 missions for 3 characters, simple things that made SA the great game it was was left out for a tacked-on holier than gang life attitude they gave Franklin. Towards the end of the game he lives in a cut off mansion in Vinewood with nothing to do.. yawn. Trevor and Michael I won't go into because they aren't really one of the reasons the game fell short for me, they played out exactly as they were advertised and are supposed to.

 

San Andreas was a huge 100+ mission story that accomplished everything GTA V did & more with one character than V did with three, all while keeping in the options to do a lot of the stuff I mentioned before in addition to things that GTA V can only mimick. Instead of yoga (who cares about that anyways lmfao) you had boxing and weightlifting. Instead of golf you had basketball. GTA V has more sidemissions that I like but GTA SA had the more complete package IMO.

 

I think you and many others are looking at it with rose tinted glasses. Sure it was a great game overall, especially for its time. But I still believe GTA V is a huge improvement over it all.  Having more missions doesnt really mean the game is better, the story felt dragged out.  You are also forgetting SA's main focus was gangs, GTA V however is not.  Franklin, the only one who would be in a gang, is trying to move on from such.

 

 

sigh

 

Here's another one that can't accept other people's opinions and the fact that they may genuinely like an older game better than a newer game based on the fun they had at the time with the older game compared to the fun they had with the newer game.

 

So, I'll stereotype you as well.  You just like GTA V because it's new and pretty.

 

I'll ask this question again...so what if people still rank SA as their favorite GTA game?  Does it ruin your enjoyment of the current one?

  • latigreblue and thekillerdonuts like this

AtomicPunk
  • AtomicPunk

    I'm your huckleberry

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2012

#19

Posted 18 October 2013 - 02:22 AM

In San An you could have fun. In VC you could have fun. In IV you could have fun. In V it is not permitted. Shoot in the middle of nowhere and super cop comes outta nowhere fast and kills you. Can't drive trains, which is something we could do in San An. Dumbed-down car damage. sh*tty car handling. No interiors. Not many cool vehicles. You cannot hear vehicles. The story is poorly written. Nothing to do. Many past features left out. Heli's have some weeble-wobble syndrome. The list goes on and on with this game. It's a lazy GTA. It does look good but it's got no soul. What a disappointment. We can't even load stuff onto trains or boats. Cranes don't work.....ahhh there I go again

  • Tikhung likes this

Vatus
  • Vatus

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2013

#20

Posted 18 October 2013 - 03:28 AM

 

You are also forgetting SA's main focus was gangs, GTA V however is not.  Franklin, the only one who would be in a gang, is trying to move on from such.

 

 

Not quite accurate. Franklin was not necessarily trying to move on from being a gang member, he never once stated that he wants that. Franklin was always a part of his gang or at least still gang-affiliated. He just wanted to be doing criminal activities that would make him a lot of money and give him that life of luxury he craved - something he was unlikely to ever achieve by being stuck in the hood and continuing to live the gang life. 

 

And even then, Rockstar could have created some emphasis on the gang/hood side of the game to make things more interesting and exciting. There was very little hood action in the main storyline which was very disappointing. Franklin had no side missions or activities whatsoever involving gangs at the very least, he still had gang connections. There could have still have been gang stuff for Franklin on the side to do, it does not have to affect the main storyline. Rockstar could not even gives us that. 

 

 

I got the complete opposite of that. He did say Lamar that you couldn't make money in the hood and was trying to get out of it. If you ride with Jimmy, he said that he doesn't gangbang anymore with Lamar. He was always trying to get away from it. Lamar even calls him a part timer with gangbang, and everyone around there makes fun of him for trying to leave the hood and be more sucessful like his aunt, Lamar to some extent, and Tonya.

 

But I agree with you that R* alluded to being gangbang in the hood would be apart of the game, but didn't have any side missions like that sadly. I wonder why? My guess is that they are going to some for the DLCs just like they did in GTA 4.


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#21

Posted 18 October 2013 - 03:40 AM Edited by Official General, 18 October 2013 - 03:41 AM.

 

 

You are also forgetting SA's main focus was gangs, GTA V however is not.  Franklin, the only one who would be in a gang, is trying to move on from such.

 

 

Not quite accurate. Franklin was not necessarily trying to move on from being a gang member, he never once stated that he wants that. Franklin was always a part of his gang or at least still gang-affiliated. He just wanted to be doing criminal activities that would make him a lot of money and give him that life of luxury he craved - something he was unlikely to ever achieve by being stuck in the hood and continuing to live the gang life. 

 

And even then, Rockstar could have created some emphasis on the gang/hood side of the game to make things more interesting and exciting. There was very little hood action in the main storyline which was very disappointing. Franklin had no side missions or activities whatsoever involving gangs at the very least, he still had gang connections. There could have still have been gang stuff for Franklin on the side to do, it does not have to affect the main storyline. Rockstar could not even gives us that. 

 

 

I got the complete opposite of that. He did say Lamar that you couldn't make money in the hood and was trying to get out of it. If you ride with Jimmy, he said that he doesn't gangbang anymore with Lamar. He was always trying to get away from it. Lamar even calls him a part timer with gangbang, and everyone around there makes fun of him for trying to leave the hood and be more sucessful like his aunt, Lamar to some extent, and Tonya.

 

But I agree with you that R* alluded to being gangbang in the hood would be apart of the game, but didn't have any side missions like that sadly. I wonder why? My guess is that they are going to some for the DLCs just like they did in GTA 4.

 

 

You are right, he wanted to get away from the petty gang stuff yes, but it does not mean he no longer wanted to be associated with his gang. Franklin even sometimes yells out his gang's name when shooting at rival gangs. I never hard him say he wanted to completely give up being in the gang, he just does not want any part in the everyday gang stuff that he now believes is low-level stuff that gets him nowhere. If you remember, he would willingly go along with Lamar on gang missions that involved the promise of big money, but they always ended in disaster - like that failed, big drug deal on Grove Street that ended up in massive shootout with the Ballas. I think what Franklin meant to Jimmy was that he has no more time for the usual gang stuff that Lamar still seems to be content with doing. Lamar even states, "I'm still getting money in my hood". Franklin does not share the same vision, that's what that was all about. 

 

Anyway, the main point is, Rockstar really messed up by not giving us more gang and hood action in this game. They really made out like it was gonna play a significant part but sadly and painfully it did not. 

  • bish0p2004 likes this

Cilogy
  • Cilogy

    SILLuhjee

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jul 2007
  • United-States

#22

Posted 18 October 2013 - 03:49 AM

I don't think I'll ever understand this obsession with gang and hood life.

 

I mean, f*ck, the game developers have a certain vision for the players and certain goal in mind, just f*cking enjoy it.

  • White Hot Speed likes this

Vatus
  • Vatus

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2013

#23

Posted 18 October 2013 - 04:13 AM

 

 

 

You are also forgetting SA's main focus was gangs, GTA V however is not.  Franklin, the only one who would be in a gang, is trying to move on from such.

 

 

Not quite accurate. Franklin was not necessarily trying to move on from being a gang member, he never once stated that he wants that. Franklin was always a part of his gang or at least still gang-affiliated. He just wanted to be doing criminal activities that would make him a lot of money and give him that life of luxury he craved - something he was unlikely to ever achieve by being stuck in the hood and continuing to live the gang life. 

 

And even then, Rockstar could have created some emphasis on the gang/hood side of the game to make things more interesting and exciting. There was very little hood action in the main storyline which was very disappointing. Franklin had no side missions or activities whatsoever involving gangs at the very least, he still had gang connections. There could have still have been gang stuff for Franklin on the side to do, it does not have to affect the main storyline. Rockstar could not even gives us that. 

 

 

I got the complete opposite of that. He did say Lamar that you couldn't make money in the hood and was trying to get out of it. If you ride with Jimmy, he said that he doesn't gangbang anymore with Lamar. He was always trying to get away from it. Lamar even calls him a part timer with gangbang, and everyone around there makes fun of him for trying to leave the hood and be more sucessful like his aunt, Lamar to some extent, and Tonya.

 

But I agree with you that R* alluded to being gangbang in the hood would be apart of the game, but didn't have any side missions like that sadly. I wonder why? My guess is that they are going to some for the DLCs just like they did in GTA 4.

 

 

You are right, he wanted to get away from the petty gang stuff yes, but it does not mean he no longer wanted to be associated with his gang. Franklin even sometimes yells out his gang's name when shooting at rival gangs. I never hard him say he wanted to completely give up being in the gang, he just does not want any part in the everyday gang stuff that he now believes is low-level stuff that gets him nowhere. If you remember, he would willingly go along with Lamar on gang missions that involved the promise of big money, but they always ended in disaster - like that failed, big drug deal on Grove Street that ended up in massive shootout with the Ballas. I think what Franklin meant to Jimmy was that he has no more time for the usual gang stuff that Lamar still seems to be content with doing. Lamar even states, "I'm still getting money in my hood". Franklin does not share the same vision, that's what that was all about. 

 

Anyway, the main point is, Rockstar really messed up by not giving us more gang and hood action in this game. They really made out like it was gonna play a significant part but sadly and painfully it did not. 

 

 

I would agree with everything you said except for the williness of Franklin of going with Lamar with the gang activties. I remember Lamar and Stretch had to convince Franklin that is worthy of his time because of the money not exactly because of the gang pride or because he was apart of the gang as he thinks that those type of gang activties have hight risk and low pay off.

 

But as you said, R* messed up on not giving us more gang and hood action in the game. Very disappointing, but I have a feeling that it's going to be a DLC instead. Just like what they did with GTA 4 when played as the biker gang. I don't know how you feel about it tho and would it change your opinion of the game if they add it, but you have to pay for with the DLC?


fish61324
  • fish61324

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2013

#24

Posted 18 October 2013 - 04:15 AM

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.

Because with next gen consoles right around the corner, and the hype that was built up for GTA V.... People were kind of expecting a next-gen-ish type game with GTA V. But what people need to remember is this game is on current gen and is amazing for a current gen game. That is why people hate this game, they were expecting a next gen GTA


Vatus
  • Vatus

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2013

#25

Posted 18 October 2013 - 04:56 AM

 

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.

Because with next gen consoles right around the corner, and the hype that was built up for GTA V.... People were kind of expecting a next-gen-ish type game with GTA V. But what people need to remember is this game is on current gen and is amazing for a current gen game. That is why people hate this game, they were expecting a next gen GTA

 

 

What? I don't find ppl are hating this game. Ppl really like it. But some say it's not better than GTA: SA some do. But a lot of ppl are ripping on the GTA: O tho. But now it's been working. But I don't think ppl are saying this is the game of this generation.

 

None of the GTAs ever reach that title for me personally, but to each their own.


waikzguy8998
  • waikzguy8998

    Desert Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 May 2013

#26

Posted 18 October 2013 - 05:02 AM

Hmm I like GTA V for many reasons but I think San Andreas is better in many ways.. I like how they made it more like RDR than traditional rambo GTA. I like the detail and environment.. AI improvement, a lot of stuff like that was improved.

 

GTA V fell short compared to SA in my opinion for many reasons.. The gangs don't even attack each other (unless you ignite it), no gang wars, random events in the hood like police raids or drive bys (like they advertised), can't recruit people to roll with you, a measly 69 missions for 3 characters, simple things that made SA the great game it was was left out for a tacked-on holier than gang life attitude they gave Franklin. Towards the end of the game he lives in a cut off mansion in Vinewood with nothing to do.. yawn. Trevor and Michael I won't go into because they aren't really one of the reasons the game fell short for me, they played out exactly as they were advertised and are supposed to.

 

San Andreas was a huge 100+ mission story that accomplished everything GTA V did & more with one character than V did with three, all while keeping in the options to do a lot of the stuff I mentioned before in addition to things that GTA V can only mimick. Instead of yoga (who cares about that anyways lmfao) you had boxing and weightlifting. Instead of golf you had basketball. GTA V has more sidemissions that I like but GTA SA had the more complete package IMO.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head..

 

Except I would add that I kind of like the golfing/golf course and tennis on V (wish they had it with the Venturas courses in SA) 

 

Also SA's landscape had more variety in it from Chilliad to bustling cities to deep wooded forests to a full blown desert and 3 functioning cities

 

I know that V probably could not hand 3 cities on the PS3 but some of the things, like making the environment drab, kind of got on my nerves.  Like the Grand Senora Desert was pretty good, but the wooded areas north of there were EXTREMELY lackluster.  In the preview trailers it looked like there would be thick, wooded areas to get lost in and explore (maybe find a serial killer and his cabin).  But in reality the landscape was so barren, dry, and plain with a few trees dotted here and there...what's up with that?

 

Plus V didn't have a character as lovable or one you you sympathized as much with as we did with CJ and Niko


LateNightNeons
  • LateNightNeons

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2013

#27

Posted 18 October 2013 - 05:09 AM

I don't think I'll ever understand this obsession with gang and hood life.

 

I mean, f*ck, the game developers have a certain vision for the players and certain goal in mind, just f*cking enjoy it.

 

Not to mention that the whole purpose of having Franklin, is the fact that he tries to get as far away from the hood life as possible, risking his life to do so, blindly following Michael etc.

 

 

I've said that before, seeing the comments above makes me realize that I am pretty glad Rockstar doesn't build upon previous GTAs and wants to set a new tone with every GTA.

Imagine having IV and V being all about gangsta sh*t over and over again.


[T]
  • [T]

    The Sword Swingin' Surgeon

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2009

#28

Posted 18 October 2013 - 05:19 AM Edited by [T], 18 October 2013 - 05:24 AM.

I would agree with everything you said except for the williness of Franklin of going with Lamar with the gang activties. I remember Lamar and Stretch had to convince Franklin that is worthy of his time because of the money not exactly because of the gang pride or because he was apart of the gang as he thinks that those type of gang activties have hight risk and low pay off.

 

Exactly.. he doesn't want to do those things but Franklin still is a member and supports the Families. Gang tatts, can be seen wearing the color, respects and is respected by the other Families in the streets. He even says "Making money, that's what Forum Gs should be about.", Forum Gs referring to the set under CGF that Lamar and Franklin made after Stretch tried taxing them.

 

 

 

I don't think I'll ever understand this obsession with gang and hood life.

 

I mean, f*ck, the game developers have a certain vision for the players and certain goal in mind, just f*cking enjoy it.

 

Hood sequences offer a lot of interaction with the environment.. instead of just being some boring lame running around killing random people, you can recruit homies to roll with you, take out enemies, take over their hoods, etc. it offers a channel for something a bit more organized than randomly deathmatching NPCs. Very few games depict the hood life so when players who finally do enjoy that see it advertised in GTA V so in depth only to find that none of it is in game we're disappointed.

 

The problem with it is that it is very difficult to enjoy. Especially when they advertised it through false videos and screenshots. Not to mention the predecessor that had all these features and more. There's a reason why San Andreas was the best selling PS2 game and you'd be a fool to think it wasn't because the hugely interactive LA hood setting being the main selling point..

 

 

 

I think you and many others are looking at it with rose tinted glasses. Sure it was a great game overall, especially for its time. But I still believe GTA V is a huge improvement over it all.  Having more missions doesnt really mean the game is better, the story felt dragged out.  You are also forgetting SA's main focus was gangs, GTA V however is not.  Franklin, the only one who would be in a gang, is trying to move on from such.

 

I'm definitely not. I still play San Andreas to this day and have consistently 9 years. I do think GTA V has improved in many ways. Like I said.. AI, RDR kind of feel and play style, graphics, a lot of cool minor features in the game, gun and car customization.. tons more improvements. But when you shake both games down to their core, it's San Andreas that does a lot of basic things better. It has the most unique and iconic features that offer infinite replayability to me. Making Franklin some wannabe white collar criminal was probably the biggest cop-out to not reintroducing the basic features that made SA one of the best games ever.

 

Realistically are most players going to keep coming back to GTA V like many go back to SA for it's gang war, graffiti, car imports/exports, gambling, gym, ability to recruit and do drive bys, etc. because of it's innovative yoga system or the ability to get drunk for about 30 seconds?


Vatus
  • Vatus

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2013

#29

Posted 18 October 2013 - 05:45 AM


I'm definitely not. I still play San Andreas to this day and have consistently 9 years. I do think GTA V has improved in many ways. Like I said.. AI, RDR kind of feel and play style, graphics, a lot of cool minor features in the game, gun and car customization.. tons more improvements. But when you shake both games down to their core, it's San Andreas that does a lot of basic things better. It has the most unique and iconic features that offer infinite replayability to me. Making Franklin some wannabe white collar criminal was probably the biggest cop-out to not reintroducing the basic features that made SA one of the best games ever.

 

Realistically are most players going to keep coming back to GTA V like many go back to SA for it's gang war, graffiti, car imports/exports, gambling, gym, ability to recruit and do drive bys, etc. because of it's innovative yoga system or the ability to get drunk for about 30 seconds?

 

 

First: I think that depends on the DLCs. We don't know whatever or not they'll have gang wars or anything of a sort. It could be like GTA 4 and just introduce Franklin's cousin and he'll be in the gang wars.

 

Second: With GTA: SA, the most I ever did was participate in the gang wars (very addicting) and the gyms were fun as well. And you can do drive bys in GTA 5 silly. You can do that in all GTAs. I think ppl are going to come back just because the missions are super fun, golf is the best mini game that GTA has ever had imo and some of the other mini games are pretty fun, and GTA: O is there and will constantly improve. Plus, many ppl go back to play a bunch of GTAs. Some ppl go back to play Vice City too.

 

Third: The potential PC version. The modders will create a bunch of interesting mechanics.

 

But only time will tell tho.


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#30

Posted 18 October 2013 - 11:45 AM Edited by Official General, 18 October 2013 - 11:46 AM.

I don't think I'll ever understand this obsession with gang and hood life.

 

I mean, f*ck, the game developers have a certain vision for the players and certain goal in mind, just f*cking enjoy it.

 

It's not an obsession, you are reading it the wrong way. The game was set in Los Santos and clearly showed there was gonna be gang and hood involvement. Gang/hood action means that there is more of an intense element of danger in the streets and the opportunities for fun, interesting things to do are much bigger. You can recruit gang members to follow you around, have shootouts with gang rivals, do drive-bys on them, take over their turf, or hijack their illegal operations. This it's the kind of stuff that would have added much more excitement and thrills to the game, it don't even have to be in the main storyline, it could have been a set of continuous side missions. This stuff was proved to be very popular in San Andreas, because of one simple reason - it was a lot of pure fun. Not much to understand here. 

 

Also, Rockstar advertised GTA V as containing a significant amount of hood action in their previews and trailers (Franklin's especially). That in-game TV show called the Underbelly Of Paradise made the Los Santos gang culture seem like it was gonna be some very thrilling and exhilarating stuff. So if Rockstar mislead their fans to believe certain things like a good amount of serious gang and hood action were gonna be in the game and were not, then it's not the fans fault. 

 

@ LateNightNeon

 

 

Not to mention that the whole purpose of having Franklin, is the fact that he tries to get as far away from the hood life as possible, risking his life to do so, blindly following Michael etc. I've said that before, seeing the comments above makes me realize that I am pretty glad Rockstar doesn't build upon previous GTAs and wants to set a new tone with every GTA.
 
Imagine having IV and V being all about gangsta sh*t over and over again.

 

 

 

Nobody said anything about whole game being about that 'gangsta sh*t' again. I wanted to see significant amount of it because Franklin is a protagonist in the game, and he is a gang member, that's not hard to understand really. Franklin's side of the story should have covered the gang/hood aspect quite well for fans of that stuff, but it did not even scratch the surface, which is the main problem I had with this game. Franklin's spent most his time in the background in the second half of the game, a lot of his story was wastefully written anyway. I'd have rather him do more exciting gang stuff than run around helping Michael and Trevor in that boring corrupt cop/federal agent part of the story. 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users