Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Why is V not better than IV or San Andreas?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
150 replies to this topic
GranThefTito
  • GranThefTito

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2013

#61

Posted 19 October 2013 - 08:48 AM

grand theft auto san andreas is fun game just game grand theft auto 5 is fail realistic not fun parody


Raiden雷電
  • Raiden雷電

    I Am Lightning, The Rain Transformed

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2011
  • United-States

#62

Posted 19 October 2013 - 08:52 AM

grand theft auto san andreas is fun game just game grand theft auto 5 is fail realistic not fun parody

I seriously hope you're joking.


GranThefTito
  • GranThefTito

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2013

#63

Posted 19 October 2013 - 08:58 AM

 

grand theft auto san andreas is fun game just game grand theft auto 5 is fail realistic not fun parody

I seriously hope you're joking.

 

my friend i am the truth boy i am not fanboy i do not providing sexual massage to rockstar games company just i providing the people truth in thinking my opinion just game is not excellency how rockstar games company is saying before the game grand theft auto 5 is selling just they lying of the map size the interiors the police is terminator rambo accuracy the not fun characters just game grand theft auto 5 is not fun game how grand theft auto san andreas for that no gang fighting no food for the life just why rockstar games company is not putting this in the game i do not know just i want more in the game for this time is for excellency quality games


Raiden雷電
  • Raiden雷電

    I Am Lightning, The Rain Transformed

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2011
  • United-States

#64

Posted 19 October 2013 - 09:01 AM

 

 

grand theft auto san andreas is fun game just game grand theft auto 5 is fail realistic not fun parody

I seriously hope you're joking.

 

my friend i am the truth boy i am not fanboy i do not providing sexual massage to rockstar games company just i providing the people truth in thinking my opinion just game is not excellency how rockstar games company is saying before the game grand theft auto 5 is selling just they lying of the map size the interiors the police is terminator rambo accuracy the not fun characters just game grand theft auto 5 is not fun game how grand theft auto san andreas for that no gang fighting no food for the life just why rockstar games company is not putting this in the game i do not know just i want more in the game for this time is for excellency quality games

 

What the f*ck?


Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#65

Posted 19 October 2013 - 02:06 PM

 

 

 

@ 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. 

 

Well if you put it that way, I agree with Franklin being the most underdeveloped character in the game. To be honest all of them were, which is a shame because their profiles had tremendous potential to do a lot more as far as storytelling and writing goes (and sometimes even beyond that).

 

Regarding my previous post, I honestly don't feel that GTA series, in general, should build upon previous games, I much rather seeing something new every time. For example SR has that problem for me, it's the same sh*t over and over again, it's fun don't get me wrong, but it's not that exciting anymore, the series became stale on it's third iteration already.

 

 

It's not about rehashing the same thing over and over again; it's about replicating life to an extent while disregarding the boring stuff and keeping the fun stuff.  Things like gang wars/drug wars, vigilante missions, nightclubs (not just for immersion, but shootouts as well), and gambling should be staples of the GTA series by now.  After all, these games are about crime. That's not to say the game should revolve around them, but they should be improved upon and included along with the new stuff.  If hardware space is an issue, then certain features should be excluded.  To me, this includes things like watching T.V., the internet, comedy clubs, yoga, and triathlons.

 

These things are neat to experience once or twice, but then that's it...they serve no other purpose.  The other features I mentioned before are what give the game even more longevity whenever you get bored of just going on rampages.

 

 

@ LateNightNeon

 

My reply to your post is exactly what bish0p2004 wrote. 

 

@ carmelo

 

I think you are living in denial if you really believed there was very little wrong with GTA V. Don't get me wrong, the game was great, I really enjoyed the main storyline and many things were done well. But the truth is, there are many things about this game that could have and should have done much better. 


iPone
  • iPone

    Super Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2013

#66

Posted 19 October 2013 - 02:12 PM

Remember how you used to be able to steal a van and go rob peoples houses at night time...gang wars were fun too skate park.. remember in vice city when you could ride around in the ice cream truck and sale "ice cream" there is some little things they could have brought to GTA5 but didn't.. But I still think this is the best GTA yet.


Marabunta Grande
  • Marabunta Grande

    Azul y Blanco

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2009
  • Philippines

#67

Posted 19 October 2013 - 02:16 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.



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.

 

This.


JordCorner
  • JordCorner

    Smoke Show

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2013
  • Canada

#68

Posted 19 October 2013 - 02:19 PM

It's still GTA. It's all a matter of personal opinion, and regardless of any facts or statements - all the games were great. 


Vatus
  • Vatus

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2013

#69

Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:55 AM

 


You can do drivebys in GTA 5 but only by yourself, which kind of botches the whole interactiveness of it. In GTA SA you could have a car load of Families and they'd all spray at the enemy on sight. You'd end up chasing their gang cars with your homies shooting at them or hopping out and starting an all out gang war a lot of the time. Imagine how fun that'd be with GTA V mechanics.. speeding down into Grove Street pulling with a bunch of Families shooting at them, using your car to barricade the street for cover and start an all out gang war. You'd have to play it real strategically since you die in a couple hits, adding a real danger aspect to attempting this..

 

The most you can do in GTA V is call up Lamar to ride with you and he doesn't do anything.. you could be in a full scale shoot out with the Ballas and all that fool will do is just stand there eating bullets.

 

This part is actually not true. The MOST you can actually do is call up Trevor and Michael (you can hang out with them both at the same time), and do a drive by in grove street. They carry guns and are more than willing to shoot the enemies. You can actually get an achievement if you survive for a while if you get 3 stars with them in hanging out with you, and they have funny conversations with all three of them together.

 

With that said, I do agree with you that Gang Wars should've been apart of GTA V. It was the most addicting feature in GTA SA IMO. But as I mentioned before: R* may implement this with DLCs. It'll give the consumer something to go back to. They did something similar with RDR, but disguise the turf war with zombie outbreaks in Undead Nightmare. If they do not do this, then you'll have to wait until the PC version comes out and hope there is a mod for it (or create it yourself).


TheOtherRyan
  • TheOtherRyan

    The Harwood Butcher

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#70

Posted 23 October 2013 - 06:56 AM

GTA V is better than SA and GTA IV is better than both.

Niko and LC> GTA V and SA combined.

DANIEL3GS
  • DANIEL3GS

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2013

#71

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:07 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.

 
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.

i sadly have to agree. And i am rockstar fan. But my favourite is still red dead redemption

LateNightNeons
  • LateNightNeons

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2013

#72

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:22 AM

 

 

 

@ 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. 

 

Well if you put it that way, I agree with Franklin being the most underdeveloped character in the game. To be honest all of them were, which is a shame because their profiles had tremendous potential to do a lot more as far as storytelling and writing goes (and sometimes even beyond that).

 

Regarding my previous post, I honestly don't feel that GTA series, in general, should build upon previous games, I much rather seeing something new every time. For example SR has that problem for me, it's the same sh*t over and over again, it's fun don't get me wrong, but it's not that exciting anymore, the series became stale on it's third iteration already.

 

 

It's not about rehashing the same thing over and over again; it's about replicating life to an extent while disregarding the boring stuff and keeping the fun stuff.  Things like gang wars/drug wars, vigilante missions, nightclubs (not just for immersion, but shootouts as well), and gambling should be staples of the GTA series by now.  After all, these games are about crime. That's not to say the game should revolve around them, but they should be improved upon and included along with the new stuff.  If hardware space is an issue, then certain features should be excluded.  To me, this includes things like watching T.V., the internet, comedy clubs, yoga, and triathlons.

 

These things are neat to experience once or twice, but then that's it...they serve no other purpose.  The other features I mentioned before are what give the game even more longevity whenever you get bored of just going on rampages.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree. Crime activities have to make sense in the story you're trying to tell and theme you're trying to make.

If GTA V was an extended and deeper story about Michael for example, then Gang Wars and Drug Wars wouldn't make sense at all. In order to have the same features you have to rehash previous games, which is exactly what SR does. I don't consider it a bad, thing, I just don't think that is what GTA is all about.

 

I agree however that we could have some more things like, gambling, property management and night clubs etc. Things that fit the theme very well and are easily expected.

 

Side activities like watching TV, comedy clubs etc is what makes GTA games feel alive, and it enhances the satirical recreation they try to make. I do feel they are essential to the GTA experience and it's what sets the series apart from other similar games.


Shootaholic
  • Shootaholic

    zzzz....

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2012

#73

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:38 AM

GTA V is better than SA and GTA IV is better than both.

Niko and LC> GTA V and SA combined.

lol. In you're opinion.


B Dawg
  • B Dawg

    My Name Is Notim Portant

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2008
  • Bosnia-and-Herzegovina

#74

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:44 AM

I wholeheartedly disagree. Crime activities have to make sense in the story you're trying to tell and theme you're trying to make.

What are you left to do after the story? You want too much realism at the expense of fun you could have.


hflgk
  • hflgk

    gtaforums.com

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2002

#75

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:47 AM

I'm beginning to think many insult V because it surpasses San Andreas in every aspect except mainly side activities. It basically renders every other aspect of SA obsolete. And gamers hate that.

Gamers know the graphics are better. The mechanics are better. The game is more polished overall. It blows SA out of the water. But yet people are still clinging to SA like a baby blankie.

Yes, GTA V causes SA to look like a classic turd, but don't hate V for that.

LateNightNeons
  • LateNightNeons

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2013

#76

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:59 AM Edited by LateNightNeons, 23 October 2013 - 10:02 AM.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree. Crime activities have to make sense in the story you're trying to tell and theme you're trying to make.

What are you left to do after the story? You want too much realism at the expense of fun you could have.

 

I didn't say that there shouldn't be things do to after the story, which to be honest there are plenty of thing to do after you finish the story in GTA V, (I have 90 hours on my main save file and I'm still going), but they have to make sense. Not be there just to be there.

 

It's not about realism, nothing is real in video games, it's about immersion. If I want mindless fun, I would just play Saints Row (which I do), but GTA is something different.


spamtackey
  • spamtackey

    Business Socks

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#77

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:11 AM Edited by spamtackey, 23 October 2013 - 10:14 AM.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree. Crime activities have to make sense in the story you're trying to tell and theme you're trying to make.

If GTA V was an extended and deeper story about Michael for example, then Gang Wars and Drug Wars wouldn't make sense at all. In order to have the same features you have to rehash previous games, which is exactly what SR does. I don't consider it a bad, thing, I just don't think that is what GTA is all about.

 

I agree however that we could have some more things like, gambling, property management and night clubs etc. Things that fit the theme very well and are easily expected.

 

Side activities like watching TV, comedy clubs etc is what makes GTA games feel alive, and it enhances the satirical recreation they try to make. I do feel they are essential to the GTA experience and it's what sets the series apart from other similar games.

 

 

There is an extent that I agree with this and an extent that I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment.

 

Look, I have one rule for a movie to be good. If a movie breaks this rule, I don't care whether the cinematography was excellent, I don't care if it had a message that was important to society, I don't care if it receives awards or is panned. Is the damn movie entertaining? 

 

Why do I use that rule? Because I believe that for a message to be worth anything, you have to make that message approachable. 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the movies that I hate and film critics have criticized me for my dislike of the film. The film to me is the opposite of everything a movie should be. I don't care what they were trying to say with it because it made me sit through minutes upon minutes of slow space travel. This isn't like The Godfather where the slow pace gave us time to know the characters, this is just wasting time. The movie could not hold my interest so why should I give it a pass because it was 'artistic'? A direct contrast would be from the same director: I loved The Shining much more than the book version because I felt it messed with my head. I was curious why things were done the way they were. Everything about the movie was approachable. 

 

If you focus too much on making everything fit your intended view of things, you might end up making something that isn't worth anything because you get in the way of your own product. GTA V is fun due to a lot of mission variety, but there isn't much reason to play the free roaming for me. This is in a series that was known for giving us a large sandbox and a large set of toys to use in that sandbox. Now the toys are being taken away because they're not what Daddy Rockstar wants us to play with. "No you can't have Barbie and G.I. Joe! You're going to play a bank robber dammit!" He says in his gruff voice, taking out side things like bowling and half of our action figures while also forcing fake bank vault play sets that can only be played the way Daddy Rockstar designed them into the sandbox without caring that he's making the sandbox less fun. Even worse is that they have a character in this game who pretty much enables any kind of side-mission you want. Trevor could do almost anything and be in-character. He could help the poor on a good day and torture them the next. Rockstar made him that way in response to people saying characters like Niko went against the players actions. 

 

Sometimes there needs to be a disconnect from the gameplay and the story. That's why Niko has money despite needing money in the story. It would be annoying if our cash went down constantly for bills and Roman's gambling. That's why we don't need fuel. That's why we should be able to hunt crime, burglarize houses, and put out fires. Because that stuff is fun. When you sacrifice fun to make a point your point might as well not be made at all. I, personally, would trade extra satire and small details for better main gameplay and more features because I don't believe they make up for messy mistakes. They can make a good game great but a game has to be good in the first place. GTA V without the little details is only average at best IMO. 

 

* I should also specify that I put in at least 300-500 hours on the 360 alone and 300 hours on the PC version of GTA IV, and I have pretty much stopped playing V at about 150 hours except what I'm doing for my youtube channel. I've experienced the excellent story and when I want to do it again I will, but other than that and the obligation I started when I began recording it I'm pretty much burned out. 

  • B Dawg and bish0p2004 like this

BurnCK
  • BurnCK

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013

#78

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:16 AM

GTA V lacks depth, plain and simple. Compare what you could do in San Andreas to this release and it makes you wonder what R* have done with the past 5yrs. 

 

Sure, their main focus seems to have been online this time round (I say that due to how short SP storyline was), but they still could have included a lot more.

 

Most of the Los Santos just appears to be scenery. You can enter very few buildings, no casinos, no fast food joints, no betting shops, no gyms, less clothes shops, etc, etc.

 

Hopefully more stuff will be added to online...but as an initial release, it's not been anything ground-breaking.

  • Mr. Tibbs likes this

hflgk
  • hflgk

    gtaforums.com

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2002

#79

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:44 AM

GTA V lacks depth, plain and simple. Compare what you could do in San Andreas to this release and it makes you wonder what R* have done with the past 5yrs. 
 
Sure, their main focus seems to have been online this time round (I say that due to how short SP storyline was), but they still could have included a lot more.
 
Most of the Los Santos just appears to be scenery. You can enter very few buildings, no casinos, no fast food joints, no betting shops, no gyms, less clothes shops, etc, etc.
 
Hopefully more stuff will be added to online...but as an initial release, it's not been anything ground-breaking.

GTA V lacks depth? Seriously?

In GTA IV we couldn't even fly or swim.

San Andreas wasn't really all that much deeper either. Dancing quickly got boring, dating/romance became boring (and was basically the same thing as hanging out with friends in GTA V) eating and gaining weight was cool for a while, but you were stuck with a single thug character in CJ... not much depth there. Changing clothes is changing clothes. V offers a decent selection of clothes anyway.

As far as San Andreas goes.... do those side activities really hold up nowadays? Is entering/exiting a few more buildings, mashing a few more buttons in sequence and changing into roughly 10-12 more outfits that much better?

BurnCK
  • BurnCK

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013

#80

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:55 AM Edited by BurnCK, 23 October 2013 - 10:57 AM.

 

GTA V lacks depth, plain and simple. Compare what you could do in San Andreas to this release and it makes you wonder what R* have done with the past 5yrs. 
 
Sure, their main focus seems to have been online this time round (I say that due to how short SP storyline was), but they still could have included a lot more.
 
Most of the Los Santos just appears to be scenery. You can enter very few buildings, no casinos, no fast food joints, no betting shops, no gyms, less clothes shops, etc, etc.
 
Hopefully more stuff will be added to online...but as an initial release, it's not been anything ground-breaking.

GTA V lacks depth? Seriously?

In GTA IV we couldn't even fly or swim.

San Andreas wasn't really all that much deeper either. Dancing quickly got boring, dating/romance became boring (and was basically the same thing as hanging out with friends in GTA V) eating and gaining weight was cool for a while, but you were stuck with a single thug character in CJ... not much depth there. Changing clothes is changing clothes. V offers a decent selection of clothes anyway.

As far as San Andreas goes.... do those side activities really hold up nowadays? Is entering/exiting a few more buildings, mashing a few more buttons in sequence and changing into roughly 10-12 more outfits that much better?

 

 

Side activities keep the game going. I think this one was the first GTA games I've completed within 2 weeks. Most things outside of the storyline missions were a bit boring. If it wasn't for online it would have been sold by now...and even online is becoming stale and repetitive. Even more so now they've nerfed mission payouts. I know there's more stuff to come, but I expected more from the start....especially after 5yrs in the making.

 

Usually when I play a new title in a series I expect something new on top of what made the previous one great, but this ones seems to have taken stuff away and offered very little in it's place, with online being the only real exception.

  • Mr. Tibbs likes this

hflgk
  • hflgk

    gtaforums.com

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2002

#81

Posted 23 October 2013 - 11:04 AM


 

GTA V lacks depth, plain and simple. Compare what you could do in San Andreas to this release and it makes you wonder what R* have done with the past 5yrs. 
 
Sure, their main focus seems to have been online this time round (I say that due to how short SP storyline was), but they still could have included a lot more.
 
Most of the Los Santos just appears to be scenery. You can enter very few buildings, no casinos, no fast food joints, no betting shops, no gyms, less clothes shops, etc, etc.
 
Hopefully more stuff will be added to online...but as an initial release, it's not been anything ground-breaking.

GTA V lacks depth? Seriously?

In GTA IV we couldn't even fly or swim.

San Andreas wasn't really all that much deeper either. Dancing quickly got boring, dating/romance became boring (and was basically the same thing as hanging out with friends in GTA V) eating and gaining weight was cool for a while, but you were stuck with a single thug character in CJ... not much depth there. Changing clothes is changing clothes. V offers a decent selection of clothes anyway.

As far as San Andreas goes.... do those side activities really hold up nowadays? Is entering/exiting a few more buildings, mashing a few more buttons in sequence and changing into roughly 10-12 more outfits that much better?
 
 
Side activities keep the game going. I think this one was the first GTA games I've completed within 2 weeks. Most things outside of the storyline missions were a bit boring. If it wasn't for online it would have been sold by now...and even online is becoming stale and repetitive. Even more so now they've nerfed mission payouts. I know there's more stuff to come, but I expected more from the start....especially after 5yrs in the making.
 
Usually when I play a new title in a series I expect something new on top of what made the previous one great, but this ones seems to have taken stuff away and offered very little in it's place, with online being the only real exception.
I see your point.

I, myself, am pretty content with what V offers. San Andreas had a couple perks, but I don't really see myself going back to SA considering the offerings present in V.

Jay_
  • Jay_

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2013

#82

Posted 23 October 2013 - 11:17 AM

GTA V lacks depth? Seriously?

In GTA IV we couldn't even fly or swim.

San Andreas wasn't really all that much deeper either. Dancing quickly got boring, dating/romance became boring (and was basically the same thing as hanging out with friends in GTA V) eating and gaining weight was cool for a while, but you were stuck with a single thug character in CJ... not much depth there. Changing clothes is changing clothes. V offers a decent selection of clothes anyway.

As far as San Andreas goes.... do those side activities really hold up nowadays? Is entering/exiting a few more buildings, mashing a few more buttons in sequence and changing into roughly 10-12 more outfits that much better?


Having the ability to change the physique of your charchter by getting fat, skinny or muscular was fun to do and maintain.

The clothes in V were great, however i did feel that a bandana for Franklin should have been available for purchase, when he had it on during one of the early missions with Lamar it felt right for him but its not biggy

The main thing however was Gang Attacks, this was definitely the best side activity to do in any GTA game which never got boring, just having waves of enemies with 3 gang members on your side was fun. And when you're randomly free roaming you get a notification saying a territory is under attack and you go and defend it

hflgk
  • hflgk

    gtaforums.com

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2002

#83

Posted 23 October 2013 - 11:36 AM

GTA V lacks depth? Seriously?

In GTA IV we couldn't even fly or swim.

San Andreas wasn't really all that much deeper either. Dancing quickly got boring, dating/romance became boring (and was basically the same thing as hanging out with friends in GTA V) eating and gaining weight was cool for a while, but you were stuck with a single thug character in CJ... not much depth there. Changing clothes is changing clothes. V offers a decent selection of clothes anyway.

As far as San Andreas goes.... do those side activities really hold up nowadays? Is entering/exiting a few more buildings, mashing a few more buttons in sequence and changing into roughly 10-12 more outfits that much better?

Having the ability to change the physique of your charchter by getting fat, skinny or muscular was fun to do and maintain.

The clothes in V were great, however i did feel that a bandana for Franklin should have been available for purchase, when he had it on during one of the early missions with Lamar it felt right for him but its not biggy

The main thing however was Gang Attacks, this was definitely the best side activity to do in any GTA game which never got boring, just having waves of enemies with 3 gang members on your side was fun. And when you're randomly free roaming you get a notification saying a territory is under attack and you go and defend it
Yeah, gang wars and territory disputes were pretty cool... but on the other hand, sometimes it became tedious having to reclaim or re-defend territory over and over again. Especially when I just wanted to roam around..... oops, got to defend the territory... again.

GTA V allows you to hang out with several buddies. And Chop. They back you up when things get heated too.

TheOtherRyan
  • TheOtherRyan

    The Harwood Butcher

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#84

Posted 23 October 2013 - 11:40 AM

GTA V lacks depth? Seriously?

In GTA IV we couldn't even fly or swim.

San Andreas wasn't really all that much deeper either. Dancing quickly got boring, dating/romance became boring (and was basically the same thing as hanging out with friends in GTA V) eating and gaining weight was cool for a while, but you were stuck with a single thug character in CJ... not much depth there. Changing clothes is changing clothes. V offers a decent selection of clothes anyway.

As far as San Andreas goes.... do those side activities really hold up nowadays? Is entering/exiting a few more buildings, mashing a few more buttons in sequence and changing into roughly 10-12 more outfits that much better?

Having the ability to change the physique of your charchter by getting fat, skinny or muscular was fun to do and maintain.

The clothes in V were great, however i did feel that a bandana for Franklin should have been available for purchase, when he had it on during one of the early missions with Lamar it felt right for him but its not biggy

The main thing however was Gang Attacks, this was definitely the best side activity to do in any GTA game which never got boring, just having waves of enemies with 3 gang members on your side was fun. And when you're randomly free roaming you get a notification saying a territory is under attack and you go and defend it
I thought the gang territories were a pain in the ass. The fact we had to tend to them in free roam was annoying aswell as being forced in the story too.

Just not my thing I guess. I don't see what makes them so great, but that's just me.

Jay_
  • Jay_

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2013

#85

Posted 23 October 2013 - 11:46 AM

Yeah, gang wars and territory disputes were pretty cool... but on the other hand, sometimes it became tedious having to reclaim or re-defend territory over and over again. Especially when I just wanted to roam around..... oops, got to defend the territory... again.

GTA V allows you to hang out with several buddies. And Chop. They back you up when things get heated too.


Well you didn't need to go and do them, you could just continue to free roam and go retain it back whenever you get bored

Also it would only be a Franklin thing, so you can free roam with Michael or Trevor without any notice about them

Osho
  • Osho

    Old School RPG'er

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • None

#86

Posted 23 October 2013 - 12:27 PM Edited by Sol86star, 23 October 2013 - 12:28 PM.

Why is V not better than IV or San Andreas?

 

Not better than IV simply for one reason Quantity of fun over quality of improvements in IV

 

Not better than San Andreas for three reasons Quantity of fun, Story and absence of major quality-fun never expected to be removed in the first place, if not improved


fac316
  • fac316

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2012
  • None

#87

Posted 23 October 2013 - 12:51 PM

Its always cool to hate on the thing that is "in" right now, Also I find it hilarious everyone is looking @ IV w/ rose coloured glasses. b/c when that game came out there was prolly even a bigger divide on who liked/hated it


BurnCK
  • BurnCK

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013

#88

Posted 23 October 2013 - 01:22 PM

Its always cool to hate on the thing that is "in" right now, Also I find it hilarious everyone is looking @ IV w/ rose coloured glasses. b/c when that game came out there was prolly even a bigger divide on who liked/hated it

 

I can think of many current games that are better than the previous releases. Sadly GTA V isn't one of them.

 

Better graphics, mechanics, yes.....but more fun ? No.


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#89

Posted 23 October 2013 - 01:49 PM

 

 

 

 

@ 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. 

 

Well if you put it that way, I agree with Franklin being the most underdeveloped character in the game. To be honest all of them were, which is a shame because their profiles had tremendous potential to do a lot more as far as storytelling and writing goes (and sometimes even beyond that).

 

Regarding my previous post, I honestly don't feel that GTA series, in general, should build upon previous games, I much rather seeing something new every time. For example SR has that problem for me, it's the same sh*t over and over again, it's fun don't get me wrong, but it's not that exciting anymore, the series became stale on it's third iteration already.

 

 

It's not about rehashing the same thing over and over again; it's about replicating life to an extent while disregarding the boring stuff and keeping the fun stuff.  Things like gang wars/drug wars, vigilante missions, nightclubs (not just for immersion, but shootouts as well), and gambling should be staples of the GTA series by now.  After all, these games are about crime. That's not to say the game should revolve around them, but they should be improved upon and included along with the new stuff.  If hardware space is an issue, then certain features should be excluded.  To me, this includes things like watching T.V., the internet, comedy clubs, yoga, and triathlons.

 

These things are neat to experience once or twice, but then that's it...they serve no other purpose.  The other features I mentioned before are what give the game even more longevity whenever you get bored of just going on rampages.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree. Crime activities have to make sense in the story you're trying to tell and theme you're trying to make.

If GTA V was an extended and deeper story about Michael for example, then Gang Wars and Drug Wars wouldn't make sense at all. In order to have the same features you have to rehash previous games, which is exactly what SR does. I don't consider it a bad, thing, I just don't think that is what GTA is all about.

 

I agree however that we could have some more things like, gambling, property management and night clubs etc. Things that fit the theme very well and are easily expected.

 

Side activities like watching TV, comedy clubs etc is what makes GTA games feel alive, and it enhances the satirical recreation they try to make. I do feel they are essential to the GTA experience and it's what sets the series apart from other similar games.

 

 

Who says Michael has to do gang wars or drug wars?  Of course that wouldn't make sense.  But, we have two other characters who could do them, and yes, despite the belief of some, they could be made to fit in the current narrative.

 

I agree that things like watching TV, or going to the comedy club makes the world seem that much more immersive; however, if they are added in at the exclusion of other repeatable activities that provide hours of entertainment versus 1 hour of entertainment, I'm obviously going to go with the features that provide hours of entertainment and I would think that any sensible gamer would as well. 


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#90

Posted 23 October 2013 - 01:52 PM

I'm beginning to think many insult V because it surpasses San Andreas in every aspect except mainly side activities. It basically renders every other aspect of SA obsolete. And gamers hate that.

Gamers know the graphics are better. The mechanics are better. The game is more polished overall. It blows SA out of the water. But yet people are still clinging to SA like a baby blankie.

Yes, GTA V causes SA to look like a classic turd, but don't hate V for that.

 

This post is funny because everything he mentioned that blows SA out of the water revolves around the technical aspects of the game, which are expected to be improved as time moves forward.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users