Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

The Official "I'm Dissapointed with GTA 5" Thread V2.0

538 replies to this topic
Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#421

Posted 23 November 2013 - 10:09 PM Edited by TheMasterfocker, 23 November 2013 - 10:33 PM.

 

 

 

 

None of the playerbase wants their secret XP nerf either. So f*ck rockstar, they're going to get a BBB boot in the ass. Also, nerfing that in secret does fall under the statutes of the law... It's called FALSE ADVERTISEMENT. When something you bought isnt as advertised, it is actually illegal.

Well, guess what? You didn't buy multiplayer. You bought Single Player. Multiplayer is its own separate entity, which you got for free with your GTA 5.

 

Not only that, how can it be false advertising if it's in a patch? There was no advertising to be had! Not only that, but it was free. And it wasn't the f*cking game itself!

 

The definition of false advertising: False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising

 

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Have fun getting your refund of $0.00 because you never even paid for multiplayer though. Oh, and the fact that R* never did any of the sh*t you're spewing, since, like I said before, they announced they did it right after they did it.

 

Oh, and umad?

 

Multiplayer was announced before GTA 5 went on sale, therefore it IS part of the purchase price of GTA 5. As well, false advertising includes more than just that, in patch notes, on a update to a paid product, if they change something without telling you, that is false advertising as there is no documentation to support the change, therefore no way for a person to make a decision whether or not to buy the game based on lack of information.

 

"Multiplayer was announced before GTA 5 went on sale, therefore it IS part of the purchase price of GTA 5."
 
No. 
 
 
Some quotes from the article:
 
"As it stands now, however, Grand Theft Auto Online is a free “add-on” for GTA 5"
 
And from R* themselves: “We don’t have any plans to sell GTA Online separately. It will come free with every copy of GTA V and doesn’t require a code, online pass, or anything like that.”
 
So no, it wasn't part of the price. You bought GTA 5. GTA: Online is a separate entity that you have access to for free when you bought GTA 5. You didn't pay for GTA: Online.

That is utter BS I'm sorry, I don't care about those "official statements" that is BS.

 

Oh really? Prove it's BS then. Prove that GTA: Online (Notice how it's not called GTA 5 Multiplayer) isn't its own entity. I'd love to hear it! I'd love to hear you, some random dude on GTAF, prove that what R*, the creator, has said multiple times, is BS.


Scaglietti
  • Scaglietti

    Italia

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • Italy

#422

Posted 23 November 2013 - 10:32 PM

prove that what R*, the creator, has said multiple times is BS.

 

They've lied before, dude. Remembers buyable properties shown in the first gameplay trailers?


PkUnzipper
  • PkUnzipper

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2013

#423

Posted 23 November 2013 - 10:36 PM

 

0_0.jpg

?????

 

!!!!!!!!  :lol:


PkUnzipper
  • PkUnzipper

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2013

#424

Posted 23 November 2013 - 10:40 PM

 

prove that what R*, the creator, has said multiple times is BS.

 

They've lied before, dude. Remembers buyable properties shown in the first gameplay trailers?

 

 

actually that was a white lie because you CAN buy properties in both GTAO and SP. 

 

It's just that R* forgot to mention that little detail where players would be limited to exactly ONE safe house in both game modes for an indefinite period of time.... :lol:


Scaglietti
  • Scaglietti

    Italia

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • Italy

#425

Posted 23 November 2013 - 10:43 PM

 

 

prove that what R*, the creator, has said multiple times is BS.

 

They've lied before, dude. Remembers buyable properties shown in the first gameplay trailers?

 

 

actually that was a white lie because you CAN buy properties in both GTAO and SP. 

 

It's just that R* forgot to mention that little detail where players would be limited to exactly ONE safe house in both game modes for an indefinite period of time.... :lol:

 

Yeah what I meant is that they showed purchasing apartments via internet in the SP trailer yet the Dynasty8 page ceases to work in SP.


Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#426

Posted 23 November 2013 - 10:47 PM Edited by TheMasterfocker, 23 November 2013 - 10:47 PM.

 

prove that what R*, the creator, has said multiple times is BS.

 

They've lied before, dude. Remembers buyable properties shown in the first gameplay trailers?

So because you couldn't buy properties through a website like shown in the trailer (They didn't lie, you could still buy real estate.) everything they say is BS? Okay, you have fun entertaining that idea.

 

I mean, your logic is so sound! I've lied before, so everything I say should be thought of as BS, with absolutely no merit behind thinking that! I'll be sure to never take anyone seriously ever again! Thanks for the advice!

 

:facedesk:


Scaglietti
  • Scaglietti

    Italia

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • Italy

#427

Posted 23 November 2013 - 11:26 PM

 

 

prove that what R*, the creator, has said multiple times is BS.

 

They've lied before, dude. Remembers buyable properties shown in the first gameplay trailers?

So because you couldn't buy properties through a website like shown in the trailer (They didn't lie, you could still buy real estate.) everything they say is BS? Okay, you have fun entertaining that idea.

Don't go jumping to conclusions saying that I think like that, because I don't nor did I say that. Don't overreact, but unfortunately that is what you do on the norm.


Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#428

Posted 23 November 2013 - 11:46 PM Edited by TheMasterfocker, 24 November 2013 - 12:22 AM.

 

 

 

prove that what R*, the creator, has said multiple times is BS.

 

They've lied before, dude. Remembers buyable properties shown in the first gameplay trailers?

So because you couldn't buy properties through a website like shown in the trailer (They didn't lie, you could still buy real estate.) everything they say is BS? Okay, you have fun entertaining that idea.

Don't go jumping to conclusions saying that I think like that, because I don't nor did I say that. Don't overreact, but unfortunately that is what you do on the norm.

 

You tried to use the fact that they lied before** as proof that they lied about GTA: Online being its own entity. I didn't jump to conclusions, I just misread.

 

But you trying to use one lie** as proof of them lying about this is absolutely, 100% retarded. There's literally nothing to back it up. It falls flat on its face immediately.

 

**I'd say they didn't lie, that they had it so you could buy property through the website, but it got cut. That's my guess, because there's literally no reason to have that misrepresentation on the video if there was no plans on having it in the first place.


Scaglietti
  • Scaglietti

    Italia

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • Italy

#429

Posted 24 November 2013 - 12:30 AM

 

 

 

 

prove that what R*, the creator, has said multiple times is BS.

 

They've lied before, dude. Remembers buyable properties shown in the first gameplay trailers?

So because you couldn't buy properties through a website like shown in the trailer (They didn't lie, you could still buy real estate.) everything they say is BS? Okay, you have fun entertaining that idea.

Don't go jumping to conclusions saying that I think like that, because I don't nor did I say that. Don't overreact, but unfortunately that is what you do on the norm.

 

You tried to use the fact that they lied before** as proof that they lied about GTA: Online being its own entity. I didn't jump to conclusions, I just misread.

 

But you trying to use one lie** as proof of them lying about this is absolutely, 100% retarded. There's literally nothing to back it up. It falls flat on its face immediately.

 

**I'd say they didn't lie, that they had it so you could buy property through the website, but it got cut. That's my guess, because there's literally no reason to have that misrepresentation on the video if there was no plans on having it in the first place.

 

You're not getting the point. I used that example as proof that you can't trust them 100%. Use your brain and understand that I didn't use that as proof that they were lying about Online, only that they can lie.


Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#430

Posted 24 November 2013 - 12:45 AM Edited by TheMasterfocker, 24 November 2013 - 12:50 AM.

 

 

 

 

 

prove that what R*, the creator, has said multiple times is BS.

 

They've lied before, dude. Remembers buyable properties shown in the first gameplay trailers?

So because you couldn't buy properties through a website like shown in the trailer (They didn't lie, you could still buy real estate.) everything they say is BS? Okay, you have fun entertaining that idea.

Don't go jumping to conclusions saying that I think like that, because I don't nor did I say that. Don't overreact, but unfortunately that is what you do on the norm.

 

You tried to use the fact that they lied before** as proof that they lied about GTA: Online being its own entity. I didn't jump to conclusions, I just misread.

 

But you trying to use one lie** as proof of them lying about this is absolutely, 100% retarded. There's literally nothing to back it up. It falls flat on its face immediately.

 

**I'd say they didn't lie, that they had it so you could buy property through the website, but it got cut. That's my guess, because there's literally no reason to have that misrepresentation on the video if there was no plans on having it in the first place.

 

You're not getting the point. I used that example as proof that you can't trust them 100%. Use your brain and understand that I didn't use that as proof that they were lying about Online, only that they can lie.

 

Well, next time say that.

 

You using the response: "They've lied before, dude. Remembers buyable properties shown in the first gameplay trailers?"

 

to my challenge: "prove that what R*, the creator, has said multiple times is BS."

 

makes it sound like you're using that to prove that they lied about GTA: Online.


Scaglietti
  • Scaglietti

    Italia

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • Italy

#431

Posted 24 November 2013 - 12:53 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

prove that what R*, the creator, has said multiple times is BS.

 

They've lied before, dude. Remembers buyable properties shown in the first gameplay trailers?

So because you couldn't buy properties through a website like shown in the trailer (They didn't lie, you could still buy real estate.) everything they say is BS? Okay, you have fun entertaining that idea.

Don't go jumping to conclusions saying that I think like that, because I don't nor did I say that. Don't overreact, but unfortunately that is what you do on the norm.

 

You tried to use the fact that they lied before** as proof that they lied about GTA: Online being its own entity. I didn't jump to conclusions, I just misread.

 

But you trying to use one lie** as proof of them lying about this is absolutely, 100% retarded. There's literally nothing to back it up. It falls flat on its face immediately.

 

**I'd say they didn't lie, that they had it so you could buy property through the website, but it got cut. That's my guess, because there's literally no reason to have that misrepresentation on the video if there was no plans on having it in the first place.

 

You're not getting the point. I used that example as proof that you can't trust them 100%. Use your brain and understand that I didn't use that as proof that they were lying about Online, only that they can lie.

 

Well, next time say that.

 

You using the response: "They've lied before, dude. Remembers buyable properties shown in the first gameplay trailers?"

 

to my challenge: "prove that what R*, the creator, has said multiple times is BS."

 

makes it sound like you're using that to prove that they lied about GTA: Online.

 

If I was in your shoes, I wouldn't have viewed it that way in all honesty.


Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#432

Posted 24 November 2013 - 01:02 AM Edited by TheMasterfocker, 24 November 2013 - 01:03 AM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

prove that what R*, the creator, has said multiple times is BS.

 

They've lied before, dude. Remembers buyable properties shown in the first gameplay trailers?

So because you couldn't buy properties through a website like shown in the trailer (They didn't lie, you could still buy real estate.) everything they say is BS? Okay, you have fun entertaining that idea.

Don't go jumping to conclusions saying that I think like that, because I don't nor did I say that. Don't overreact, but unfortunately that is what you do on the norm.

 

You tried to use the fact that they lied before** as proof that they lied about GTA: Online being its own entity. I didn't jump to conclusions, I just misread.

 

But you trying to use one lie** as proof of them lying about this is absolutely, 100% retarded. There's literally nothing to back it up. It falls flat on its face immediately.

 

**I'd say they didn't lie, that they had it so you could buy property through the website, but it got cut. That's my guess, because there's literally no reason to have that misrepresentation on the video if there was no plans on having it in the first place.

 

You're not getting the point. I used that example as proof that you can't trust them 100%. Use your brain and understand that I didn't use that as proof that they were lying about Online, only that they can lie.

 

Well, next time say that.

 

You using the response: "They've lied before, dude. Remembers buyable properties shown in the first gameplay trailers?"

 

to my challenge: "prove that what R*, the creator, has said multiple times is BS."

 

makes it sound like you're using that to prove that they lied about GTA: Online.

 

If I was in your shoes, I wouldn't have viewed it that way in all honesty.

 

If you were in my shoes, you woulda viewed it in the same way, because that's how it sounds. It doesn't sound like that to you because you knew what you were trying to say, you just didn't say it right.

 

If we were to switch positions, it woulda happened the same exact way as it did now.

 

It's just a case of you saying something the wrong way, then me using the wrong way to argue, which confuses you because it wasn't what you were trying to say, etc. It's a cycle.


PhoenixJedi
  • PhoenixJedi

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2013

#433

Posted 24 November 2013 - 01:25 AM Edited by PhoenixJedi, 24 November 2013 - 01:29 AM.

 

 

 

 

 

None of the playerbase wants their secret XP nerf either. So f*ck rockstar, they're going to get a BBB boot in the ass. Also, nerfing that in secret does fall under the statutes of the law... It's called FALSE ADVERTISEMENT. When something you bought isnt as advertised, it is actually illegal.

Well, guess what? You didn't buy multiplayer. You bought Single Player. Multiplayer is its own separate entity, which you got for free with your GTA 5.

 

Not only that, how can it be false advertising if it's in a patch? There was no advertising to be had! Not only that, but it was free. And it wasn't the f*cking game itself!

 

The definition of false advertising: False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising

 

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Have fun getting your refund of $0.00 because you never even paid for multiplayer though. Oh, and the fact that R* never did any of the sh*t you're spewing, since, like I said before, they announced they did it right after they did it.

 

Oh, and umad?

 

Multiplayer was announced before GTA 5 went on sale, therefore it IS part of the purchase price of GTA 5. As well, false advertising includes more than just that, in patch notes, on a update to a paid product, if they change something without telling you, that is false advertising as there is no documentation to support the change, therefore no way for a person to make a decision whether or not to buy the game based on lack of information.

 

"Multiplayer was announced before GTA 5 went on sale, therefore it IS part of the purchase price of GTA 5."
 
No. 
 
 
Some quotes from the article:
 
"As it stands now, however, Grand Theft Auto Online is a free “add-on” for GTA 5"
 
And from R* themselves: “We don’t have any plans to sell GTA Online separately. It will come free with every copy of GTA V and doesn’t require a code, online pass, or anything like that.”
 
So no, it wasn't part of the price. You bought GTA 5. GTA: Online is a separate entity that you have access to for free when you bought GTA 5. You didn't pay for GTA: Online.

That is utter BS I'm sorry, I don't care about those "official statements" that is BS.

 

Oh really? Prove it's BS then. Prove that GTA: Online (Notice how it's not called GTA 5 Multiplayer) isn't its own entity. I'd love to hear it! I'd love to hear you, some random dude on GTAF, prove that what R*, the creator, has said multiple times, is BS.

 

Because it requires GTA 5 (A $59.99 purchase) to play. Requiring purchase of one product to play its free add-on isn't not paying for the add-on. Also, on the back of GTA V it says: online multiplayer 2-16. Therefore online multiplayer is part of GTA 5, therefore any laws broken by rockstar under GTA online are them breaking the law in terms of GTA V as well.

 

It's very simple, just because you paid for GTA 5, doesn't mean you're not paying them for GTA Online. It's part of the GTA 5 purchase price, even though they call it a free add-on. Online requires GTA V to play. I guarantee you, the same GTA online will NOT work with GTA 6.


Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#434

Posted 24 November 2013 - 01:36 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

None of the playerbase wants their secret XP nerf either. So f*ck rockstar, they're going to get a BBB boot in the ass. Also, nerfing that in secret does fall under the statutes of the law... It's called FALSE ADVERTISEMENT. When something you bought isnt as advertised, it is actually illegal.

Well, guess what? You didn't buy multiplayer. You bought Single Player. Multiplayer is its own separate entity, which you got for free with your GTA 5.

 

Not only that, how can it be false advertising if it's in a patch? There was no advertising to be had! Not only that, but it was free. And it wasn't the f*cking game itself!

 

The definition of false advertising: False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising

 

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Have fun getting your refund of $0.00 because you never even paid for multiplayer though. Oh, and the fact that R* never did any of the sh*t you're spewing, since, like I said before, they announced they did it right after they did it.

 

Oh, and umad?

 

Multiplayer was announced before GTA 5 went on sale, therefore it IS part of the purchase price of GTA 5. As well, false advertising includes more than just that, in patch notes, on a update to a paid product, if they change something without telling you, that is false advertising as there is no documentation to support the change, therefore no way for a person to make a decision whether or not to buy the game based on lack of information.

 

"Multiplayer was announced before GTA 5 went on sale, therefore it IS part of the purchase price of GTA 5."
 
No. 
 
 
Some quotes from the article:
 
"As it stands now, however, Grand Theft Auto Online is a free “add-on” for GTA 5"
 
And from R* themselves: “We don’t have any plans to sell GTA Online separately. It will come free with every copy of GTA V and doesn’t require a code, online pass, or anything like that.”
 
So no, it wasn't part of the price. You bought GTA 5. GTA: Online is a separate entity that you have access to for free when you bought GTA 5. You didn't pay for GTA: Online.

That is utter BS I'm sorry, I don't care about those "official statements" that is BS.

 

Oh really? Prove it's BS then. Prove that GTA: Online (Notice how it's not called GTA 5 Multiplayer) isn't its own entity. I'd love to hear it! I'd love to hear you, some random dude on GTAF, prove that what R*, the creator, has said multiple times, is BS.

 

Because it requires GTA 5 (A $59.99 purchase) to play. Requiring purchase of one product to play its free add-on isn't not paying for the add-on. Also, on the back of GTA V it says: online multiplayer 2-16. Therefore online multiplayer is part of GTA 5, therefore any laws broken by rockstar under GTA online are them breaking the law in terms of GTA V as well.

 

It's very simple, just because you paid for GTA 5, doesn't mean you're not paying them for GTA Online. It's part of the GTA 5 purchase price, even though they call it a free add-on. Online requires GTA V to play. I guarantee you, the same GTA online will NOT work with GTA 6.

 

Even so, R* has broken no laws, or else they would've been sued already, or something would've been done.


PkUnzipper
  • PkUnzipper

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2013

#435

Posted 24 November 2013 - 02:55 AM

This game is so big yet completely void of anything of interest. I remember the days of GTA where there would be bats, knives, pistols and uzzis littered around the streets, shotguns in cop cars, all sorts of interesting things littered around the world for you to collect and play with that were useful and beneficial to playing the game. Golf clubs, dildos. GTAV is just so big yet so poorly thought out I'm honestly bored of it in less than a week. It feels like there's no progression or exploration, you get everything thrown at you with heists and all of a sudden you've got enough money to buy all the guns and ammo you'd ever need. There's nothing esle to do but drive around, get chases, do missions and wait for stuff to unlock, which quite frankly is boring the life out of me. I want to actually explore the environment with some sort of benefit, with things to find and use, I honestly couldn't care how big the map is if there's nothing in it to care about. And this isn't even getting started on money progression, like this sh*t is so unbalanced having robberies give little money, heists giving huge payoffs and one time missions bringing in the billions off the stock exchange, I can't even believe they went ahead with it without actually making the stock exchange useful and an integral component of the games design. This is probably the most disapointing GTA of them all, despite the driving actually being an improvement over its predecessor.

 

I suspect the reason why R* hasn't made BAWSAQ active yet is because of the money glitchers.  With that many billions of counterfeit GTA$ floating around in the SA economy, the glitchers would have an unfair advantage in buying stock and investing over other players who played the game via missions etc.. 


Rizqan
  • Rizqan

    Formerly known as Rizqan7

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013
  • Indonesia

#436

Posted 24 November 2013 - 05:14 AM

I'm also think the Skimmer isn't back

Brian359
  • Brian359

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2013

#437

Posted 24 November 2013 - 06:17 AM

By my reckoning the 40 pound GTA V pricetag was for GTA V and not online which could be deemed as free.

I have paid 40 pound for most PS2 GTA's with no online capabilities whatsoever meaning I paid 40 for singleplayer.

Glad people don't hate the game as much as this forum.

Somebody tell me a better open world game on the market and don't say GTA IV because thats ridiculous.

Mukaparska
  • Mukaparska

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013

#438

Posted 24 November 2013 - 10:50 AM

Crashing to a police car is considered just as bad crime as shooting bunch of civilians. 


Ixnay
  • Ixnay

    bizarro starter kit

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2013
  • None

#439

Posted 24 November 2013 - 12:42 PM

I like that you don't have to adjust the camera so much whilst driving, but in past iterations driving was more fun.

 

I don't like that vehicles seem glued to the ground; if you don't hit one just right you get stopped in your tracks. Especially disappointing when you've got a bigger vehicle than the one you hit.

 

The game looks great. Animations are a lot better. But SP is just too short. And overall it is a bit more dull than the previous games; if you're not following the main story, there's just not enough alternatives, in my opinion.

 

Half the fun used to be just going on a rampage, but with cops the way they are now, they put the kibosh on that way too quickly.

 

I kinda liked the "friends call wanting to do things" approach; this time around I've got a ton of contacts and nobody ever calls, aside from mission-related stuff. Are there any dating options here like in IV?

 

A SR-type vehicle saving system would have been great.


PhoenixJedi
  • PhoenixJedi

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2013

#440

Posted 24 November 2013 - 10:29 PM

Anyway, if you consider GTA Online free, its also fraud...


Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#441

Posted 24 November 2013 - 10:59 PM

Anyway, if you consider GTA Online free, its also fraud...

:facedesk:

 

Oh really? And how is that?


pokemon123
  • pokemon123

    stuff

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2013
  • None

#442

Posted 24 November 2013 - 11:52 PM

well i finally got to play it yesterday. It was meh. I played for like 6 or 7 hours. I thought i hated 4s driving but i find this games even worse. I reeally liked the city. I disliked the cop system. There are a ton of stuff i could go on but i have decided not to buy it overall.


PhoenixJedi
  • PhoenixJedi

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2013

#443

Posted 25 November 2013 - 04:42 AM

 

Anyway, if you consider GTA Online free, its also fraud...

:facedesk:

 

Oh really? And how is that?

 

Its not fraud to consider it free, its fraud what rockstar did. Rockstar forced an update upon us that wasn't documented. That is known as fraud.


gunziness
  • gunziness

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2010
  • Argentina

#444

Posted 25 November 2013 - 05:03 AM

^ get a life, seriously.

OOM 313
  • OOM 313

    Thug

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2013

#445

Posted 25 November 2013 - 05:06 AM

They f*cked up multiplayer beyond belief. Did away with the awesome cop cars we could have and reduced the mission payoffs to pathetic pennies. Unless you are a loser that plays 24/7 then you won't be able to get money easily.

PhoenixJedi
  • PhoenixJedi

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2013

#446

Posted 25 November 2013 - 10:44 AM

They f*cked up multiplayer beyond belief. Did away with the awesome cop cars we could have and reduced the mission payoffs to pathetic pennies. Unless you are a loser that plays 24/7 then you won't be able to get money easily.

Not to mention, noone can reach a decent level.


Brian359
  • Brian359

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2013

#447

Posted 25 November 2013 - 11:13 AM

If you play then you level up.

jdbug28
  • jdbug28

    RP - Simmer

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2011

#448

Posted 25 November 2013 - 05:20 PM

Not disappointed, just my complaints

I don't like how, even a brief press of L2 causes the rear wheels to lock up every damn time causing that "screech" when im just slowing down for a corner, not slamming on the brakes to avoid a truck coming through an intersection. Its stupid and not normal.

And how my owned cars always get impounded for no good reason, like apparently leaving it in a car park just to go in a store across the street really means I am abandoning it. I dont really want to leave it right up at the door lol


Scaglietti
  • Scaglietti

    Italia

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • Italy

#449

Posted 25 November 2013 - 05:54 PM

Why the HELL can't we pick up random items anymore. I'm currently playing IV and I just picked up a cup and threw it at someone. Seriously, removing shove was bad enough, but I just now noticed that V doesn't allow you to pick up bricks no cups -- but hell then again, with the laziness and lack of f*cking interiors, it'll be hard to find a cup.


Grievous
  • Grievous

    Wall of Text Armada

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2013

#450

Posted 25 November 2013 - 06:16 PM

But why are you so insistent on wanting to pick up bricks and cups? I've seen you complain about this before, and perhaps I haven't toyed around much with this gameplay mechanic in IV, but I don't consider it as much of a loss, at all.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users