Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

My thoughts on GTAV versus GTA IV and San Andreas

68 replies to this topic
Charles Phipps
  • Charles Phipps

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2011

#1

Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:06 PM Edited by Charles Phipps, 16 January 2014 - 01:29 AM.

Grand_Theft_Auto_V.png

 

    The Grand Theft Auto series is the most successful video game series of all time, surpassing Mario and Pacman for importance to the medium. Grand Theft Auto V has made over a billion dollars since its release and while it's the most expensive video game of all time to produce, surpassing the production costs of Star Wars: The Old Republic, it's more than made back its money and will continue to do so as time passes.

 

    As usual, there were plenty of individuals calling it the greatest video game of all time while others said it was a massive disappointment. I'm not at the forefront of those reviewing video games but I'm going to throw in my two cents as to whether the hype was lived up to.
 

grand-theft-auto-v-gameplay_100432966_l.
 

    The trailers for Grand Theft Auto promised a massive open world experience with numerous new activities to enjoy. Rather than tell you about it in laymen's terms, I'll address it as a long-term fan of the series. Everyone can tell you what the game is like to the causal gamer but does it live up to the hype of Grand Theft Auto IV and its predecessor, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

 

    Is Grand Theft Auto V equal to the two most well-regarded entries in the series?

    Yes and no.

    Grand Theft Auto V is incredibly ambitious with a truly massive map, creating a stylized version of Los Angeles and Blaine County with a truly massive wilderness surrounding both. Not since San Andreas, ironically, have I felt there was so much to explore and see around the surroundings. On a purely visual level, Grand Theft Auto V is a technical achievement without equal (though Skyrim and Fallout: New Vegas are rivals in terms of ambition).
 

GTA-V-Grand-Theft-Auto-5-GTA-Gameplay-19
 

    Unfortunately, the game actually feels rather empty despite its massive size. I was reduced to making ample use of taxis to travel across the game world quickly. This eliminates some of the simple joy to be had traveling around locations, taking in the sights. Unlike Liberty City in GTA V, I felt Los Santos and Sandy Shores were too large to memorize. This is somewhat disappointing as I very much enjoyed doing so in previous games.

 

    The storyline for Grand Theft Auto V is one I'm going to have to rank behind Grand Theft Auto IV and above San Andreas but just barely. The story is significantly lighter and softer than GTAIV, with as much humor and zaniness as Vice City. Unfortunately, it lacks the emotional highs and tightly written plotting of its predecessor. Michael de Santa is a fascinating and fun character but his story doesn't have nearly the same level of resonance as Niko Bellic's. Michael is also the most interesting of the three major protagonists, too.

    I liken Grand Theft Auto V to a series of vignettes than a single linear plot. If Niko Bellic's story is one long tragic story of his (failed) attempt at fame and fortune, GTA V tells a bunch of stories about three protagonists who have vaguely related adventures. It's more like a television series than a movie if I were to draw a comparison. In the ending, everything is wrapped up but they never really come together like previous adventures. Stuff happens, stuff gets resolved, and life goes on. I can't even say the characters go through that much of a character arc, pretty much ending in similar positions where they started.

    Only richer.

 

grand_theft_auto_v_michael_yoga.png
 

    That doesn't mean the characters aren't entertaining, however. All three characters are archetypes with Michael de Santa filling the role of the smoothe professional criminal who finds money isn't all there is to life, Franklin as the young up-and-comer wanting to taste success like Michael, and Trevor serving as the comedy sociopath who does whatever he wants when he wants. Watching them interact is never boring and if Rockstar wanted to make Grand Theft Auto VI with the exact same protagonists, it'd probably be just as enjoyable.

    The missions reflect the episodic nature of the story. While there's missions which relate to Franklin's desire to become a bigger player, Michael's desire to cure his ennui, and Trevor's need for revenge--most are simply for fun. Franklin can spy on celebrities for the paparazzi, Michael can join the Epsilon program (Scientology) out of boredom, and Trevor stalk the famous to steal memorabilia. If you're expecting a deep examination of their tortured psyches and how they feel about being killers, like Niko or Johnny Kleibitz, this isn't the game for you.
 

Grand-Theft-Auto-V-015.jpg

 

    The most enjoyable missions in the game are the heists, which is to be expected since they were advertised as the heart of the game. Unfortunately, despite the hype, only a few of the heists were as well-designed or enjoyable as the initial jewelry store robbery. If the game had more choices in terms of personnel and options during these missions, I think the heist section would have been much better. This is, however, complaining about something I really liked. The bank robbery in GTAIV  was one of my favorite parts of the game and even the worst of these missions blows that away.

 

    Ironically, one of the most interesting uses of game mechanics in storytelling is a subtle one. Almost none of the missions in GTAV pay rewards. In previous entries, all of the missions pay cash for a job well done. The majority of missions in GTAV do not, often leaving our heroes cheated for their efforts. This is compensated for the massive paydays from successful heists but feels more authentic as well as highlights the game's theme. Which is, much like in Niko's journey, about the American Dream.

 

468px-021a.jpg
 

    All of the characters in Los Santos, not just our protagonist, are searching for some form of meaning to their life. They attempt to find this through money, fame, or spiritual enlightenment. Others, like Trevor, abandon any quest for self-improvement and just attempt to live for the moment until they're killed. A stylized Los Angeles is the perfect place for this sort of analysis of America as it's the archetypal place for people to become victims of their own success.

 

     Which, come to think of it, explains why a disproportionate number of the game's targets are rich douchebags.

    The fact the game has three major protagonists should have impacted the story but, in my mind, they're all connected. Really, it's not too dissimilar to playing GTA IV with the DLC in rapid succession. The only difference is you'd have the ability to switch between Niko, Johnny, and Luis at will. Grand Theft Auto V feels like three video games in one and that's not counting the potential of Online (which is a separate review).
 

357221728.jpg

 

    Now, how was the customization in GTAV? Honestly, I'm of the mind a lot of it is hit and miss. In San Andreas, you could be fat or thin with all manner of tattoos and clothing choices. Much of that comes on but the game feels like it wants to "steer" you in certain directions. While I was able to get Franklin looking the way I wanted to, Michael and Trevor were much more limited in their appearance.

    Also, the characters frequently changed out of the clothing I'd spent time picking out for them. Even the much-welcomed car customization options were irritating as my modded cars would frequently disappear with the exception of the character's signature cars. The fact one of the characters loses his signature car for a significant portion of the game didn't give me any warm fuzzies either.

    One area where Grand Theft Auto definitely improved was the handling of vehicles. The cars took forever to master in GTAIV while air vehicles were impossible to use. While air vehicles are still extremely difficult to master, cars are much more fun to use. They aren't glued to the road like the vehicles in Saints Row or Sleeping Dogs, either, giving them a sense of challenge too.
 

maxresdefault.jpg .

 

    Weirdly, I also feel the need to praise Rockstar for its satire. GTAIV gave a nasty rebuttal to consumerism in America as well as the War on Terror but GTAV gave it a gigantic kick in the nuts. The infamous "torture" mission that has so many fans up in arms felt to me one of the few times gaming actually went into the "art" category because it firmly conveyed a message--and the message was done well. GTAIV was written so you could point at America and laugh while GTAV treated it more as a crashing wreck. Given a man who is passionate about certain issues in his country, I have to say I approve.

 

    Other gamers may not.

 

    I particularly liked the game's controversial handling of torture. A large number of gamers complained about the scene with the caveat, "I didn't finish it." The irony is the game goes out of its way to say how torture is pointless and ineffective--after you finish it. The visceral disgust Rockstar instills in players for the process is powerful and goes to show the developers think there's nothing "badass" or "cool" about torture.
 

    Finally, I'm going to have to say I think Rockstar overextended themselves in the music department. I found the radio was hard to use to get to my favorite radio stations using the D-pad and there were only a few songs I genuinely liked. In Niko's case, the Russian and Jamaican music complemented the missions as did more traditional rock. While the licensing costs for something like Vice City are prohibitive, I think they should have trimmed down things and kept a bigger emphasis on talk radio. It was frequently hard to find Lazlow Jones' trademark commentary, which is just awful.

 

    So, overall, what did I think? Great-great game. One of the finest ever made for consoles. Still, as with all games so massive, there's room for improvement. GTAV's lesson, for me, is bigger isn't always better--but it sure gives a lot more choices in a sandbox game.

10/10 (with a 8/10 and a 9.5/10 game in there as well)

  • Officer Ronson, MMC_BITW, rotnude and 5 others like this

Osho
  • Osho

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • None

#2

Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:11 PM Edited by Osho, 15 January 2014 - 01:15 PM.

Man, nicely done. I liked your presentation.

 

But, I also read it here

 

LoLz

  • sivaG and PkUnzipper like this

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#3

Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:13 PM Edited by Official General, 15 January 2014 - 01:14 PM.

Nice review.....

 

But my view remains the same. GTA V as it stands now, is a great game, but not as great as it should have been, and it did not fully meet my expectations. 

  • PkUnzipper and carmelo3 like this

Fluttershy Pony
  • Fluttershy Pony

    Yay.

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2010

#4

Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:19 PM Edited by Fluttershy Pony, 15 January 2014 - 01:22 PM.

You can't give a game 10/10 if you said it has flaws, that makes no sense... I could make a long comment about all the bad things in GTA V, but I've done that before. A laughable part is how you said the handling has "improved", no doubt you're a "casual gamer" who can't spend more than 5 minutes doing something without quitting, why is learning how to get used to vehicles a bad thing? Vehicles are glued to the ground in GTA V, and if they're not, they explode when they hit the ground. The handling is awful, and isn't realistic one bit, vehicles don't even have any suspension... If you think helicopters in GTA IV are "impossible" to handle, then how come GTA V's "fake turbulence every 5 seconds" system is better?

 

Also, it's Niko, not Nico... You can't compare a game if you haven't played it enough to know the main character's name...

  • Cyper, GTAfear, Charles Phipps and 6 others like this

Charles Phipps
  • Charles Phipps

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2011

#5

Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:28 PM Edited by Charles Phipps, 15 January 2014 - 01:33 PM.

You can't give a game 10/10 if you said it has flaws, that makes no sense... I could make a long comment about all the bad things in GTA V, but I've done that before. A laughable part is how you said the handling has "improved", no doubt you're a "casual gamer" who can't spend more than 5 minutes doing something without quitting, why is learning how to get used to vehicles a bad thing? Vehicles are glued to the ground, and if they're not, they explode when they hit the ground again. The handling is awful, and isn't realistic one bit, vehicles don't even have any suspension... If you think helicopters in GTA IV are "impossible" to handle, then how come GTA V's "fake turbulence every 5 seconds" system is better?

 

Also, it's Niko, not Nico... You can't compare a game if you haven't played it enough to know the main character's name...

 

I disagree.

 

It's kind of misleading to use a 10/10 to say only a game is "perfect in every little way" because you can have a four hour game which is entirely like that, such as Portal, but still enjoy much-much more a game which gives you significantly more "bang for your buck." I may have find the driving in GTA V boring as all get out traveling from Sandy Shores to LA (and vice versa) but that doesn't mean I haven't played 40+ hours of the game.

 

The good simply outweighs the bad by a large-large margin.

I thus grade 10 out of 10 on a level of "more than my money's worth by a significant margin."

 

Doing otherwise would skew the statistics. Max Payne 3, for instance, is a game I perceive as having no flaws but I can't say it's a better buy than Skyrim.

Re: Niko's name

 

I'd apologize for this but I used to spell my wife's name Cathy than Kathy.

 


Man, nicely done. I liked your presentation.

 

But, I also read it here

 

LoLz

 

MY GOD, THE SELF-PLAGARISM!

 

*gets a pitchfork and torch*

LETS GET THIS GUY!

 

:panic: :evilgrin: :beerhat:

 

No seriously, cool. Glad you liked the review.


Nice review.....

 

But my view remains the same. GTA V as it stands now, is a great game, but not as great as it should have been, and it did not fully meet my expectations. 

 

I think the game might have been better if they'd just stuck to Los Santos and created more buildings you could go into and interact with. As much as I love the "California meets Appallachian mountains" (spoken as a Kentucky born and raised who knows RL guys like Floyd and Wade) I've got to say there's no reason they couldn't have done shaved that stuff off.

 

It would have improved the game considerably, in my mind.

Not sure if they could have tightened the story up but Franklin's story goes nowhere.

  • Officer Ronson and SwingingSpidey like this

TheTechPoTaToCHIP
  • TheTechPoTaToCHIP

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2013

#6

Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:35 PM

In my small opinion, I think that GTA V is one of the only games I have been anticipating that actually lived up to my hype. And I am not an easy person to please. All the things people think are "Missing" I think are completely superfluous and wouldn't be missed at all if other entries in the series had them.

 

After Red Dead Redemption, I thought all the open world games that came before and after it felt small and insignificant. After GTA V, it made RDR feel small and insignificant. It is how I see it.

I think GTA V is so good that it actually made other GTA games in the HD era feel like lesser games. After playing it and going back to IV, everything felt wrong. The graphics looked more dated then they looked before i played V. The driving felt loaty and slow. And the shooting just felt totally broken. The transition was very jarring. 

  • Charles Phipps, Lucchese and OneManCrimeWave like this

The Odyssey
  • The Odyssey

    Save it for a rainy day

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012
  • Australia

#7

Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:36 PM Edited by The Odyssey, 15 January 2014 - 01:36 PM.



You can't give a game 10/10 if you said it has flaws, that makes no sense... I could make a long comment about all the bad things in GTA V, but I've done that before. A laughable part is how you said the handling has "improved", no doubt you're a "casual gamer" who can't spend more than 5 minutes doing something without quitting, why is learning how to get used to vehicles a bad thing? Vehicles are glued to the ground in GTA V, and if they're not, they explode when they hit the ground. The handling is awful, and isn't realistic one bit, vehicles don't even have any suspension... If you think helicopters in GTA IV are "impossible" to handle, then how come GTA V's "fake turbulence every 5 seconds" system is better?

 

Also, it's Niko, not Nico... You can't compare a game if you haven't played it enough to know the main character's name...

I understand arguing against his points, but can you do it in a way that doesn't make you look like a dick? "Blah Blah Blah, I don't like the handling so YOU'RE wrong!"

  • IveGotNoValues and SwingingSpidey like this

TheTechPoTaToCHIP
  • TheTechPoTaToCHIP

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2013

#8

Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:39 PM Edited by TheTechPoTaToCHIP, 15 January 2014 - 01:40 PM.

You can't give a game 10/10 if you said it has flaws, that makes no sense... I could make a long comment about all the bad things in GTA V, but I've done that before. A laughable part is how you said the handling has "improved", no doubt you're a "casual gamer" who can't spend more than 5 minutes doing something without quitting, why is learning how to get used to vehicles a bad thing? Vehicles are glued to the ground in GTA V, and if they're not, they explode when they hit the ground. The handling is awful, and isn't realistic one bit, vehicles don't even have any suspension... If you think helicopters in GTA IV are "impossible" to handle, then how come GTA V's "fake turbulence every 5 seconds" system is better?

 

Also, it's Niko, not Nico... You can't compare a game if you haven't played it enough to know the main character's name...

I think its ignorant to think that a 10 instantly means its perfect. NOTHING is perfect. And it is absolutely pointless to have a score that is totally unobtainable. Then it would just be pointless. People still give Ocarina of Time a 10 and it definitely had flaws. For me and as well as for what other people should be. A 10 doesn't mean its perfect, it merely means its the best of the best. And with the crap we get nowadays. It would be outlandish to claim that GTA V isn't. 

  • iainspad likes this

Charles Phipps
  • Charles Phipps

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2011

#9

Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:42 PM Edited by Charles Phipps, 15 January 2014 - 01:43 PM.

 



You can't give a game 10/10 if you said it has flaws, that makes no sense... I could make a long comment about all the bad things in GTA V, but I've done that before. A laughable part is how you said the handling has "improved", no doubt you're a "casual gamer" who can't spend more than 5 minutes doing something without quitting, why is learning how to get used to vehicles a bad thing? Vehicles are glued to the ground in GTA V, and if they're not, they explode when they hit the ground. The handling is awful, and isn't realistic one bit, vehicles don't even have any suspension... If you think helicopters in GTA IV are "impossible" to handle, then how come GTA V's "fake turbulence every 5 seconds" system is better?

 

Also, it's Niko, not Nico... You can't compare a game if you haven't played it enough to know the main character's name...

I understand arguing against his points, but can you do it in a way that doesn't make you look like a dick? "Blah Blah Blah, I don't like the handling so YOU'RE wrong!"

 

Eh, I'm glad they pointed out the whole Nico thing. As for the handling of vehicles, that's their opinion and they're welcome to it. I'm a big boy.

However, the causal vs. hardcore distinction is kind of interesting to explore. I have dozens and dozens of video games in my collection and devoted the time necessary to complete MANY sandbox games from Bioware to Bethesda to Ubisoft to Rockstar. My blog has over sixty entries in the video games review section for a reason.

Yet, I freely admit I play for fun than challenge. I *HATE* repeating missions and used the "skip mission" button twice (during the plane ride with Trevor and landing it with Michael). So is there a special ranking for lifelong gamers who...kinda suck?

B+ gamers?


Fluttershy Pony
  • Fluttershy Pony

    Yay.

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2010

#10

Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:48 PM

 



You can't give a game 10/10 if you said it has flaws, that makes no sense... I could make a long comment about all the bad things in GTA V, but I've done that before. A laughable part is how you said the handling has "improved", no doubt you're a "casual gamer" who can't spend more than 5 minutes doing something without quitting, why is learning how to get used to vehicles a bad thing? Vehicles are glued to the ground in GTA V, and if they're not, they explode when they hit the ground. The handling is awful, and isn't realistic one bit, vehicles don't even have any suspension... If you think helicopters in GTA IV are "impossible" to handle, then how come GTA V's "fake turbulence every 5 seconds" system is better?

 

Also, it's Niko, not Nico... You can't compare a game if you haven't played it enough to know the main character's name...

I understand arguing against his points, but can you do it in a way that doesn't make you look like a dick? "Blah Blah Blah, I don't like the handling so YOU'RE wrong!"

 

Did I once ever say that my opinions were facts? No, but it is a fact that the handling in GTA IV is more realistic than GTA V's, there's no denying that, but what he said was that GTA V improved vehicles in every way, which isn't true, I don't mind if he enjoys it more, but in no way was it an "improvement".


Charles Phipps
  • Charles Phipps

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2011

#11

Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:50 PM Edited by Charles Phipps, 15 January 2014 - 01:51 PM.

Yes, but should Rockstar strive for realism or fun?

 

I loved Los Santos in GTAV but, at times, it felt a little "too real" when I think I prefer the stylized ****hole of previous games.

 

Also, NO ONE would have fun if gunshots and gunplay was treated "real."

I mastered GTAIV's car handling. I just found it easier and more fun in GTAV.


The Odyssey
  • The Odyssey

    Save it for a rainy day

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012
  • Australia

#12

Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:56 PM

 

 



You can't give a game 10/10 if you said it has flaws, that makes no sense... I could make a long comment about all the bad things in GTA V, but I've done that before. A laughable part is how you said the handling has "improved", no doubt you're a "casual gamer" who can't spend more than 5 minutes doing something without quitting, why is learning how to get used to vehicles a bad thing? Vehicles are glued to the ground in GTA V, and if they're not, they explode when they hit the ground. The handling is awful, and isn't realistic one bit, vehicles don't even have any suspension... If you think helicopters in GTA IV are "impossible" to handle, then how come GTA V's "fake turbulence every 5 seconds" system is better?

 

Also, it's Niko, not Nico... You can't compare a game if you haven't played it enough to know the main character's name...

I understand arguing against his points, but can you do it in a way that doesn't make you look like a dick? "Blah Blah Blah, I don't like the handling so YOU'RE wrong!"

 

Did I once ever say that my opinions were facts? No, but it is a fact that the handling in GTA IV is more realistic than GTA V's, there's no denying that, but what he said was that GTA V improved vehicles in every way, which isn't true, I don't mind if he enjoys it more, but in no way was it an "improvement".

 

Maybe in his eyes it is. Should he really be shunned just because he has a different view on the driving mechanics? 

  • Charles Phipps likes this

SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Tainted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Antarctica

#13

Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:59 PM

To me the driving physics are something completely subjective because it's all to do with feel. To me GTA V didn't really improve all that much on GTA IV's physics other than the exaggerated body roll, but it depends on the player.

Some people may think it improved with every aspect while others may feel it didn't.
  • Charles Phipps, IveGotNoValues, The Odyssey and 1 other like this

Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    Generic GTA Username™

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India

#14

Posted 15 January 2014 - 02:07 PM

 

 



You can't give a game 10/10 if you said it has flaws, that makes no sense... I could make a long comment about all the bad things in GTA V, but I've done that before. A laughable part is how you said the handling has "improved", no doubt you're a "casual gamer" who can't spend more than 5 minutes doing something without quitting, why is learning how to get used to vehicles a bad thing? Vehicles are glued to the ground in GTA V, and if they're not, they explode when they hit the ground. The handling is awful, and isn't realistic one bit, vehicles don't even have any suspension... If you think helicopters in GTA IV are "impossible" to handle, then how come GTA V's "fake turbulence every 5 seconds" system is better?

 

Also, it's Niko, not Nico... You can't compare a game if you haven't played it enough to know the main character's name...

I understand arguing against his points, but can you do it in a way that doesn't make you look like a dick? "Blah Blah Blah, I don't like the handling so YOU'RE wrong!"

 

Did I once ever say that my opinions were facts? No, but it is a fact that the handling in GTA IV is more realistic than GTA V's, there's no denying that, but what he said was that GTA V improved vehicles in every way, which isn't true, I don't mind if he enjoys it more, but in no way was it an "improvement".

 

 

Look, I hate to say it mate but you're clearly acting like a GTA IV fanboy. IV is a great game and all but everytime someone praises V you come in and start comparing V with IV all the time and you take your opinion as a 'fact'. I'm not saying it's wrong to criticize to V but I'm not saying it's right to act like a GTA IV fanboy either.


Gta_V_Fan_101
  • Gta_V_Fan_101

    My posts are brought to you by Chuckola Cola Drinks.

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2013
  • Bahrain

#15

Posted 15 January 2014 - 02:09 PM

Hah! Really? San Andreas wins, no doubt. It's the GOD of video games and CJ is better than Niko, Franklin, Michael, Tommy or whoever you wanna pick. He even stole a jetpack for a hippie which is totally awesome and part of his objective.


Charles Phipps
  • Charles Phipps

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2011

#16

Posted 15 January 2014 - 02:15 PM Edited by Charles Phipps, 15 January 2014 - 02:18 PM.

The short short version of my essay boils down to this.

 

* GTA IV had much tighter gameplay and storytelling. It also had a much stronger narrative.

 

* San Andreas customization was much better and the size of it never served as a deterrent, unlike in GTA V.

 

* I felt GTA V improved on GTA IV's gameplay as well as appearance.

 

* GTA V's beauty is a kind of empty beauty in places, though. It's great there's hunting in GTA V but who wants to do it?

* GTA V's satire is much better than GTA IV's and San Andreas' too, even though the latter is about a different subject. I approve of the criticism.

 

* I also felt there was more enjoyment in terms of fun missions but the missions writing wise were all over the place.

 

* I preferred the vehicles in GTA V but not significantly much better.

* Nico and CJ have more emotional journeys, even though CJ doesn't change any more than the trio in this game. All three of GTAV's protags are great, though. Just SA and GTAIV's protags edge them out.

 

Hah! Really? San Andreas wins, no doubt. It's the GOD of video games and CJ is better than Niko, Franklin, Michael, Tommy or whoever you wanna pick. He even stole a jetpack for a hippie which is totally awesome and part of his objective.

 

Eh, CJ was a great character but nostalgia filters things a bit. As much as I love CJ, you have to think he would have capped Tenpenny much earlier and the mission with his sister and the construction crew was just creepy. The game also lacked an option to smack Sweet for calling Carl out on "leaving the hood" after all the crap CJ did for him.

 

Franklin, much as I dislike him, at least called Stretch out on all of the crap Sweet spoke to CJ at the beginning and end of SA.

CJ doesn't have much of an arc either. He's here in LS as a wisecracking gangbanger and then he ends...as a wisecracking gangbanger.


Gta_V_Fan_101
  • Gta_V_Fan_101

    My posts are brought to you by Chuckola Cola Drinks.

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2013
  • Bahrain

#17

Posted 15 January 2014 - 02:19 PM

 

Hah! Really? San Andreas wins, no doubt. It's the GOD of video games and CJ is better than Niko, Franklin, Michael, Tommy or whoever you wanna pick. He even stole a jetpack for a hippie which is totally awesome and part of his objective.

 

Eh, CJ was a great character but nostalgia filters things a bit. As much as I love CJ, you have to think he would have capped Tenpenny much earlier and the mission with his sister and the construction crew was just creepy. The game also lacked an option to smack Sweet for calling Carl out on "leaving the hood" after all the crap CJ did for him.

 

Franklin, much as I dislike him, at least called Stretch out on all of the crap Sweet spoke to CJ at the beginning and end of SA.

Man, I was just joking. CJ isn't the best protagonist for me, I already stated in another thread that I dislike his character and I agree about what you said about him.

  • Charles Phipps likes this

Charles Phipps
  • Charles Phipps

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2011

#18

Posted 15 January 2014 - 02:22 PM Edited by Charles Phipps, 15 January 2014 - 02:24 PM.

Ah, my mistake.

 

I think the game really didn't give much room for the characters to change in GTAV. Everything felt so...unresolved.

 

Michael is the only one who really has a full arc and it's kind of unsatisfying.

 

At least give us the option of KILLING his family!

 

Trevor sort of completes his arc too. In the "Trevor ending" at least he goes out with a tragic bang.

But poor Franklin never quite breaks with the Hood or fixes it or whatever.


iProinsias
  • iProinsias

    Chen Zhen

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2013

#19

Posted 15 January 2014 - 02:22 PM

Hah! Really? San Andreas wins, no doubt. It's the GOD of video games and CJ is better than Niko, Franklin, Michael, Tommy or whoever you wanna pick. He even stole a jetpack for a hippie which is totally awesome and part of his objective.

 

 

 

Way to be objective, guy.


Charles Phipps
  • Charles Phipps

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2011

#20

Posted 15 January 2014 - 03:16 PM

Random Aside.

I hated Random Events and wished they'd all been scripted in.


Fluttershy Pony
  • Fluttershy Pony

    Yay.

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2010

#21

Posted 15 January 2014 - 04:21 PM

 

 

 



You can't give a game 10/10 if you said it has flaws, that makes no sense... I could make a long comment about all the bad things in GTA V, but I've done that before. A laughable part is how you said the handling has "improved", no doubt you're a "casual gamer" who can't spend more than 5 minutes doing something without quitting, why is learning how to get used to vehicles a bad thing? Vehicles are glued to the ground in GTA V, and if they're not, they explode when they hit the ground. The handling is awful, and isn't realistic one bit, vehicles don't even have any suspension... If you think helicopters in GTA IV are "impossible" to handle, then how come GTA V's "fake turbulence every 5 seconds" system is better?

 

Also, it's Niko, not Nico... You can't compare a game if you haven't played it enough to know the main character's name...

I understand arguing against his points, but can you do it in a way that doesn't make you look like a dick? "Blah Blah Blah, I don't like the handling so YOU'RE wrong!"

 

Did I once ever say that my opinions were facts? No, but it is a fact that the handling in GTA IV is more realistic than GTA V's, there's no denying that, but what he said was that GTA V improved vehicles in every way, which isn't true, I don't mind if he enjoys it more, but in no way was it an "improvement".

 

 

Look, I hate to say it mate but you're clearly acting like a GTA IV fanboy. IV is a great game and all but everytime someone praises V you come in and start comparing V with IV all the time and you take your opinion as a 'fact'. I'm not saying it's wrong to criticize to V but I'm not saying it's right to act like a GTA IV fanboy either.

 

The key word here is "acting", you say I'm simply "acting" like one, but that's your view, so you need to stop trying to make it out as if though your views apply to others. I never take my opinions as facts, but here on the Internet, others like to think their opinions are facts, so you need some work on identifying those kinds of users. It is funny though, you try to push your views as facts, but tell others to stop acting like what they say are facts. How hypocritical...


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#22

Posted 15 January 2014 - 05:37 PM

@ Charles Phipps

 

 

I think the game might have been better if they'd just stuck to Los Santos and created more buildings you could go into and interact with. As much as I love the "California meets Appallachian mountains" (spoken as a Kentucky born and raised who knows RL guys like Floyd and Wade) I've got to say there's no reason they couldn't have done shaved that stuff off.

 
It would have improved the game considerably, in my mind.
 
Not sure if they could have tightened the story up but Franklin's story goes nowhere.
 

 

I totally agree bro.

 

I personally thought most that lovely countryside and wilderness in GTA V went to waste. They should have cut down all that stuff, made LS bigger, and with way more interiors and things happening within it. 


carmelo3
  • carmelo3

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013

#23

Posted 15 January 2014 - 05:41 PM

Nice review.....

 

But my view remains the same. GTA V as it stands now, is a great game, but not as great as it should have been, and it did not fully meet my expectations. 

 

Precisely this.

 

/

 

Will read OP's review later on.


Lazyboy.
  • Lazyboy.

    y r ur posts purple u stupid fgt

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#24

Posted 15 January 2014 - 06:22 PM

"One area where Grand Theft Auto definitely improved was the handling of vehicles. The cars took forever to master in GTAIV while air vehicles were impossible to use. While air vehicles are still extremely difficult to master, cars are much more fun to use. They aren't glued to the road like the vehicles in Saints Row or Sleeping Dogs, either, giving them a sense of challenge too."

This is where I stopped reading. By calling IV's air vehicles impossible to use, you've just pretty much stated you're bad at games and therefore your opinions on a game are irrelevant. If it was so impossible, I wonder how so many many many people managed to fly a helicopter. I also wonder how I managed to win so many races with IV's car handling, I mean after all it's extremely difficult because Charles here says so.

I guess I'm some sort of god. :/
  • /Tuomaz and matajuegos01 like this

Charles Phipps
  • Charles Phipps

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2011

#25

Posted 16 January 2014 - 01:02 AM

"One area where Grand Theft Auto definitely improved was the handling of vehicles. The cars took forever to master in GTAIV while air vehicles were impossible to use. While air vehicles are still extremely difficult to master, cars are much more fun to use. They aren't glued to the road like the vehicles in Saints Row or Sleeping Dogs, either, giving them a sense of challenge too."

This is where I stopped reading. By calling IV's air vehicles impossible to use, you've just pretty much stated you're bad at games and therefore your opinions on a game are irrelevant. If it was so impossible, I wonder how so many many many people managed to fly a helicopter. I also wonder how I managed to win so many races with IV's car handling, I mean after all it's extremely difficult because Charles here says so.

I guess I'm some sort of god. :/

 

Yes, you're ability to manuever controls on a joystick makes you powerful.

You have reached the 11th level of the Epsilon Program.

Seriously, I own up to the fact I'm crap with the helicopter.

I literally couldn't finish TBOGT's helicopter missions and had to finish watching on Youtube. Which was tragic.

Here, I didn't have to, so kudos to Rockstar.


iainspad
  • iainspad

    Souled Out to The New World Order

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Scotland

#26

Posted 16 January 2014 - 01:18 AM Edited by iainspad, 16 January 2014 - 01:29 AM.

You can't give a game 10/10 if you said it has flaws, that makes no sense... I could make a long comment about all the bad things in GTA V, but I've done that before. A laughable part is how you said the handling has "improved", no doubt you're a "casual gamer" who can't spend more than 5 minutes doing something without quitting, why is learning how to get used to vehicles a bad thing? Vehicles are glued to the ground in GTA V, and if they're not, they explode when they hit the ground. The handling is awful, and isn't realistic one bit, vehicles don't even have any suspension... If you think helicopters in GTA IV are "impossible" to handle, then how come GTA V's "fake turbulence every 5 seconds" system is better?

 

Also, it's Niko, not Nico... You can't compare a game if you haven't played it enough to know the main character's name...

  1. He can, because there's this thing we have called 'understanding'. If a game this detailed has small flaws, it can be forgiven subjectively. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
  2. How can you make such an assumption? This review shows me he likes the series and knows it well.
  3. This is my main gripe; why are you questioning him on learning to get used to the vehicles yet you give negative viewpoints as if the controls are even worse? In my opinion, they need to get used to, but the controls are excellent afterwards.
  4. It's more challenging than San Andreas' flying, that's for certain.
  5. Big wow, he made a spelling mistake like people do to my name every f*cking day. Do you expect a prize or some sh*t?

Like AceKingston said, you sound like a GTA IV fanboy, but what's more, you're contradicting yourself and you also sound like you can't take someone's feelings who are opposite to yours on a game, so I hate to break it to you but your opinion is as subjective as Charles' is. If you don't like V, that's fine, more power to you, but let other opinions be when they're giving their feedback on a game.
 

It's fine if you don't like V. Being a bitch about it is not.

  • Charles Phipps likes this

killahmatic
  • killahmatic

    JB

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2008
  • None

#27

Posted 16 January 2014 - 03:12 AM

Unfortunately, the game actually feels rather empty despite its massive size.

 

I felt Los Santos and Sandy Shores were too large to memorize. This is somewhat disappointing as I very much enjoyed doing so in previous games.

 

Firstly, I don't see how anyone can say V is empty, especially if you say San Andreas was packed full. 

 

and I'm not sure I understand that second point. Sandy Shores is too big to memorize? That makes no sense to me. I have most of the city of Los Santos memorized, faster than I had Liberty City memorized. 


Blood-Is-in-Diamond
  • Blood-Is-in-Diamond

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2013
  • None

#28

Posted 16 January 2014 - 03:41 AM Edited by Blood-Is-in-Diamond, 16 January 2014 - 03:41 AM.

Great Review Bro,I also rate the game a 10/10 plus i am on my 4th Playthrough.

iProinsias
  • iProinsias

    Chen Zhen

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2013

#29

Posted 16 January 2014 - 03:51 AM

This is where I stopped reading. By calling IV's air vehicles impossible to use, you've just pretty much stated you're bad at games and therefore your opinions on a game are irrelevant. If it was so impossible, I wonder how so many many many people managed to fly a helicopter. I also wonder how I managed to win so many races with IV's car handling, I mean after all it's extremely difficult because Charles here says so.
 

 

Wow, to feel superior over a video game. Does it get more pathetic?


Charles Phipps
  • Charles Phipps

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2011

#30

Posted 16 January 2014 - 03:52 AM

My opinion on San Andreas is there was lengthy travel times between everything but I felt the various settings were small enough that when you visited a place, they were new and exciting. Los Santos in GTAV is a place with lots and lots of stuff but there's hundreds of shops which are just sort of there that it doesn't feel like there's as many 'new and interesting sights.' The realism impacts the enjoyment factor.

Your Mileage May Vary.

One thing where the previous games did have a stronger sense of storytelling was consequences. In San Andreas, you have the consequences of Carl's brother being imprisoned with Tenpenny going to have him killed if you go against him (which is pretty BS as I'm sure no one would care if Tenpenny was killed along with his buddy--still, it's a consequence). We also see CJ try to deal with the betrayal of his friends from the GSF as well as how that impacts him.

Grand Theft Auto IV and TL&TD had suitably high emotional stakes too. Johnny is against his best friend and Nico has all of his various problems.

There's no real "stakes" in GTA V other than the PCs lives.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users