Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

The IV versus V debate

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2,788 replies to this topic
heroe
  • heroe

    V

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2009

#1831

Posted 25 April 2014 - 08:11 PM

One negative aspect of gta v to me is its rushed feeling, the game feels like its a beta version.

  • Scaglietti likes this

Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#1832

Posted 25 April 2014 - 08:19 PM Edited by Andreas, 25 April 2014 - 11:27 PM. Removed unneeded quotes and IMG tag.

Dude, don't use my post as an insult. I am trying to stop the insults.

 
Edit: In fact, I found the perfect image to sum up what I just quoted.
 
http://www.quickmeme...a1046dfaea3.jpg

How was that an insult? That was not an insult to me, if you saw it that way it's up to you. It's my observation.


Jimmy_Leppard
  • Jimmy_Leppard

    DYOM mission designer/user

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2010
  • None

#1833

Posted 25 April 2014 - 08:39 PM

Both IV and V drop to their knees in front of SA, that's the first thing, so it doesn't really matter which of these two finishes second, but I'd take V over IV simply because out of over-reaching in both IV and V, V was a little less over-reaching.


Jimbatron
  • Jimbatron

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2009
  • United-Kingdom

#1834

Posted 25 April 2014 - 09:50 PM

I read the opening post and am responding directly to that so please forgive me if anything I say is off (or back to) topic.

 

I don't really think of it in terms of what's better between GTA IV or GTA V. I REALLY fell on love with the fourth game when I played it. I loved Nico Bellic, loved the story and even loved little things like getting something to eat at "Cluckin' Bell". I loved it so much that I thought I could never love another GTA game as much.

 

Now when GTA V came out I fell in love with that but for completely different reasons than I fell in love with the previous one. I enjoyed all three characters and each one of their stories and I feel a lot of the missions had a very bombastic kind of feel that made it feel really satisfying. 

 

There is one way though in particular that I think was better than IV. In IV I did get a little invested in Bellic's quest but the fact that it was a computer game kind of put a barrier to that. However totally SMASHED that barrier. I did all three endings of V. Ending A didn't bother me too much but Ending B totally broke my heart. That's why I found Ending C such an amazing experience. Loved it! 

 

But again both games for different reasons were great experiences and I'm really hoping Rock Star do go ahead with a sixth one. 

 

Nice post.

 

In terms of the endings, I know some people on here found the ending(s) for V unsatisfying. What I really liked about the options was you got very different outcomes to the Trevor/Michael conflict - one could end up dead, or they could end up making peace and becoming friends - but not by either of their choices. Franklin makes a snap decision and that determines their future. As I've got older I can't help but feel that life is often like that - two people can end up being either friends or enemies, not because of the people they are or by their own design, but the circumstances chance lands them in together. It's sometimes an uncomfortable thought that we might all have such little control over outcomes, but I think it is more frequently the case than we like to admit.


NinjaWJ
  • NinjaWJ

    Just trying to get by

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2008

#1835

Posted 25 April 2014 - 11:19 PM

 

Wait but why? Michael and Trevor have a past, therefore he is perfect for the role. If you can't give a reason, don't bother complaining.


What? I'm not sure how you got that I was complaining just from that post.

For me I could only tolerate Trevor in small doses. Had he been the only protagonist I'm not even sure I would've completed the game. Michael had all the makings of a singular protagonist and I believe Franklin was too underdeveloped and his potential was wasted. It's a shame because I don't think he's that bad. I like him, but it feels like there was more to him that wasn't explored in the story. Hopefully some story DLC may help develop him.

I just don't like Trevor much at all really and IMO is the most overrated protagonist in the series.

 

 

 

CJ was a much better protagonist than Trevor and you still didn't finish SA (if i am not mistaken) :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:


woggleman
  • woggleman

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012
  • None

#1836

Posted 25 April 2014 - 11:39 PM

I don't agree that Niko is boring at all. He calls it like he sees it and walks the walk instead of just talking a bunch of garbage. Outside of Tommy Vercetti he is probably the most gangster out of all the protagonists. I just wish they let him at least get a taste of the good life in the game even if they decided to take it away at the end. He seemed like he had what it takes to be a boss.

  • Jimbatron, Official General and Thalyn like this

Nem_Wan
  • Nem_Wan

    The Artist Formerly Known As Magic_Al

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2006
  • United-States

#1837

Posted 26 April 2014 - 02:30 AM

If you played to 100% of GTAIV and EFLC, listened to everything on the radio, watched everything on TV, and read everything on the in-game Internet (if that's even possible), then any time you play in Liberty City you sense a lot of depth because you just know so much about it. It's a huge amount of interconnected story content. The more you've absorbed, then the more likely you are to think GTAIV is a deeper game, in a certain way, than GTAV. One, you have all that stuff in your head, and two, you are a person who was inclined to spend the time to put all that in your head. GTAV does not give you as much of certain things as GTAIV does, and the more you miss those things, the more you prefer GTAIV.

  • Jimbatron, Official General, namor and 4 others like this

qfs
  • qfs

    Quffy

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2013

#1838

Posted 26 April 2014 - 03:23 AM Edited by qfs, 26 April 2014 - 04:20 AM.

V only needed two things for me to prefer it over IV.

All they needed was IV driving mechanics and proper car customisation. But nope, seems we didn't get that. Everything in V just doesn't have any long lasting value. The driving gets boring quickly, the car customisation is shallow so once you've spent 5 mins picking options for a car, you're done with it. There's no feeling of vehicle ownership.

The story is short with barely any characters, multiplayer has loads of fancy stuff like "own a car and house" but that gets boring when you find yourself gridning Rooftop Rumble for money instead of playing fun competitive modes like TMW and CnC.

Damn...

I don't remember customizing my cars in the past GTA titles. Wait.. car repair and respray makes the auto-shop functionality in gta v meaningless. I never drove in gta v, but driving in gta iv ain't an awesome feeling either.  *edit - wait I've been a bit harsh here, I had to go back to gta iv after this post and drive around in a Sports car like the porsche and convertte. It's a nice driving experience, though at high speeds is kinda jumpy on some highways. What I was remembering were the normal cars. But I'm still mixed, I think I prefer the arcade driving from all gta titles except iv. From the videos I've seen on youtube for gtav, the driving the cars seem very fitted for the game itself. The driving in IV is very characteristic of this game title and resembles best that game's environment. But GTA V is different, feels different and everything is in harmony/conformity between all the game aspects.  


Midnightz
  • Midnightz

    Populus vult decipi.

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Feb 2007
  • United-States

#1839

Posted 26 April 2014 - 04:15 AM

Car customizations were available in GTA San Andreas. LOTS of them too.  I'm glad they've made a return in V.

  • Thalyn likes this

qfs
  • qfs

    Quffy

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2013

#1840

Posted 26 April 2014 - 04:51 AM

Car customizations were available in GTA San Andreas. LOTS of them too.  I'm glad they've made a return in V.

Damn yes it did, I don't know why I haven't explored that. Now I know how it was cause I saw something on youtube. I think I only used nitro but never did spoilers and such. You're right :/

 

Still, GTA V focuses more every aspect, I feel it as more complete, but also mainly because technology advanced so is natural to always have more complete games with more features than before. Ok, every new title has its own experience and mood. The mood it creates is important for every version of GTA.


Jimbatron
  • Jimbatron

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2009
  • United-Kingdom

#1841

Posted 26 April 2014 - 06:46 AM

If you played to 100% of GTAIV and EFLC, listened to everything on the radio, watched everything on TV, and read everything on the in-game Internet (if that's even possible), then any time you play in Liberty City you sense a lot of depth because you just know so much about it. It's a huge amount of interconnected story content. The more you've absorbed, then the more likely you are to think GTAIV is a deeper game, in a certain way, than GTAV. One, you have all that stuff in your head, and two, you are a person who was inclined to spend the time to put all that in your head. GTAV does not give you as much of certain things as GTAIV does, and the more you miss those things, the more you prefer GTAIV.

 

I would generally agree with this. I think it primarily comes back to, again, that the V story is shorter. This said, we've had a lot of time to explore the details of the IV era. I'm still finding out stuff about V. On my replay the other day I only realised if you return to Los Santos between "Caidre Libre" and "Monkey Business" as Trevor or Michael then Madrazo will send some hoods after you in SUVs. Or if you force Trevor and Michael to meet between "Bury the Hatchet" and "The Wrap Up" you'll get a very aggressive conversation. I'm also still noticing a lot of interactions that go on in LifeInvader during the plot. It took me a good couple of years to appreciate all the little details in IV. When you throw EFLC into the mix, think about how long "The Possible Trinity" took to build. Of course, that kind of detail is not there at the moment because we don't have any DLC for V - but hopefully this will be something between TLAD or TBOGT and V in length to give the depth a lot of us would like.


Mokrie Dela
  • Mokrie Dela

    Killed by drones.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 01 May 2009
  • None
  • Most Talented Writer 2015
    Most Talented Writer 2014
    Most Talented Writer 2013
    Best Story/Poem 2013 "The Storm"
    Story/Poem of the Year 2011 "Justice in Flames"
    Story/Poem of the Year 2010 "City of Lies"

#1842

Posted 26 April 2014 - 10:08 AM

One negative aspect of gta v to me is its rushed feeling, the game feels like its a beta version.

I'd agree with this
  

If you played to 100% of GTAIV and EFLC, listened to everything on the radio, watched everything on TV, and read everything on the in-game Internet (if that's even possible), then any time you play in Liberty City you sense a lot of depth because you just know so much about it. It's a huge amount of interconnected story content. The more you've absorbed, then the more likely you are to think GTAIV is a deeper game, in a certain way, than GTAV. One, you have all that stuff in your head, and two, you are a person who was inclined to spend the time to put all that in your head. GTAV does not give you as much of certain things as GTAIV does, and the more you miss those things, the more you prefer GTAIV.

This is one of the truest things I've read in this topic
Bang on the money


To those saying Trevor and cj are better protags than niko, sorry but I find that funny
Trevor's an over the top cliche, and cj was a whining hypocrite. I liked cj but he was annoying at times
Niko has the most depth to his character and backstory and he was the stro test gta protag for me - up with tommy
  • MiamiViceCity and SingularSoul like this

Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#1843

Posted 26 April 2014 - 01:01 PM

I don't agree that Niko is boring at all. He calls it like he sees it and walks the walk instead of just talking a bunch of garbage. Outside of Tommy Vercetti he is probably the most gangster out of all the protagonists. I just wish they let him at least get a taste of the good life in the game even if they decided to take it away at the end. He seemed like he had what it takes to be a boss.

 

Ah sh*t, something we can agree on.

 

I don't know how people can say Niko is boring. He's definitely one of my favorite protagonists in GTA.

  • Jimbatron and EM_JAY_86 like this

woggleman
  • woggleman

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012
  • None

#1844

Posted 26 April 2014 - 01:20 PM

Michael and Trevor both have a lot of depth even if they overdid the crazy on Trevor. I do wish they went more in depth with Franklin. I liked him but they didn't spend enough time with him. 

  • Jimbatron and CantThinkOfOne2013 like this

Jimbatron
  • Jimbatron

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2009
  • United-Kingdom

#1845

Posted 26 April 2014 - 03:45 PM

Trevor's an over the top cliche, 

 

I would disagree that Trevor is a cliche. Over the top, well, it would be hard to argue otherwise. However, cliche? I'm struggling to think of other fictional characters that I think Trevor comes from the same mould. Whether you like him or not, I think Trevor is one of the most original characters R* have come up with.

  • EM_JAY_86 likes this

Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#1846

Posted 26 April 2014 - 04:30 PM

Michael and Trevor both have a lot of depth even if they overdid the crazy on Trevor. I do wish they went more in depth with Franklin. I liked him but they didn't spend enough time with him. 

 

I just don't agree with Trevor having a lot of depth. Michael did have some depth, but Trevor ? Just no. All Trevor was about was extreme violence, crazy behavior stupidity, there was nothing deep about him at all. Like I said before Trevor would have made an amazing non-playable main character, but he should never had been a protagonist. 

 

I agree with what you stated about Franklin though. I liked him, but Rockstar really ruined his character by letting him waste away in the game. 


Jimbatron
  • Jimbatron

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2009
  • United-Kingdom

#1847

Posted 26 April 2014 - 04:58 PM

I just don't agree with Trevor having a lot of depth. Michael did have some depth, but Trevor ? Just no. All Trevor was about was extreme violence, crazy behavior stupidity, there was nothing deep about him at all. Like I said before Trevor would have made an amazing non-playable main character, but he should never had been a protagonist. 

 

This is an interesting one - "depth" can be quite a broad description. It's certainly the case that he acts highly impulsively - so his actions don't have "depth" to them in that sense.

 

What I liked about Trevor was his interactions with Michael, and also, the fact that there's an undertone that he really wants to be like Michael. The Merryweather Heist being case in point. Trevor was clearly feeling in his element, wanting to plan and take charge himself rather than Michael calling the shots. The trouble he lacked the organisational skills. Also, his lackeys generally followed him because he bullied them into submission, and were generally not that competent (Wade, Floyd, and Ron - Ron was intelligent but too much of a wimp to question him). It is also noticeable that Trevor, in wanting to do everything, mapped out the options and planned them himself. Michael was always comfortable delegating that to Lester and trusting him, but then making the final call himself. Trevor wanted to do both - ending in what can only be described as a colossal f*ck up.

 

Whether you'd call that deep or not, I don't know, but it was the variation in personality across the protagonists I found engaging.

 

But as I've said before, I think it was risky making a protagonist like Trevor. I have this theory that a lot of players want the protagonist to be a competent criminal - because it fits with completing the game being skillful. I think a protagonist who is something of a walking disaster can go against this. This is probably ones reason why my own stats show I've spend over 50% of the time playing as Michael (it might also be partially because I left the controller wedged with him walking in circles while I left the house to complete "Exercising the Truth", but I digress).

  • Cutter De Blanc likes this

FranklinDeRoosevelt
  • FranklinDeRoosevelt

    32nd President of Los Santos

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2013

#1848

Posted 26 April 2014 - 05:04 PM Edited by FranklinDeRoosevelt, 26 April 2014 - 05:04 PM.

You can't call Trevor a cliche since there's never been a character like him in any video game at all, heck, most movies don't even have characters like that. That was their target from the get go, to make him as crazy and unpredicatable at all times. The hate on Trevor is absolutely crap and unjustified. He was created the way he is.

  • EM_JAY_86 likes this

EM_JAY_86
  • EM_JAY_86

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#1849

Posted 26 April 2014 - 05:36 PM Edited by EM_JAY_86, 26 April 2014 - 05:37 PM.

You can't call Trevor a cliche since there's never been a character like him in any video game at all, heck, most movies don't even have characters like that. That was their target from the get go, to make him as crazy and unpredicatable at all times. The hate on Trevor is absolutely crap and unjustified. He was created the way he is.

I agree, I found it hard to like Trevor as a protag at first, but with more play throughs his character begun to grow on me. As crazy as he is, he's a smart and calculating criminal at the same time. He takes scores for the love of taking scores, and not just for money. His emotional inbalance has more depth to it than I first thought also (we just have to go on a few man dates to get some backstory on him). All in all he's an interesting and consistent character, yet unlikable and repulsive at the same time. 


Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#1850

Posted 26 April 2014 - 06:22 PM

You can't call Trevor a cliche since there's never been a character like him in any video game at all, heck, most movies don't even have characters like that. That was their target from the get go, to make him as crazy and unpredicatable at all times. The hate on Trevor is absolutely crap and unjustified. He was created the way he is.

 

I don't really see what's so unjustified about it. Okay, so there's not been too many protagonists like Trevor in the history video gaming, his creation was something very different from what Rockstar normally produce for GTA, and they chose to make him like that - guess what ? Does not mean we must automatically warm to him or really like him. Trevor has his fans and his haters, just as you say this, I equally don't see why some people are so fascinated and enthralled by him.


Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#1851

Posted 26 April 2014 - 06:28 PM Edited by Official General, 26 April 2014 - 06:40 PM.

This is an interesting one - "depth" can be quite a broad description. It's certainly the case that he acts highly impulsively - so his actions don't have "depth" to them in that sense.

 

What I liked about Trevor was his interactions with Michael, and also, the fact that there's an undertone that he really wants to be like Michael. The Merryweather Heist being case in point. Trevor was clearly feeling in his element, wanting to plan and take charge himself rather than Michael calling the shots. The trouble he lacked the organisational skills. Also, his lackeys generally followed him because he bullied them into submission, and were generally not that competent (Wade, Floyd, and Ron - Ron was intelligent but too much of a wimp to question him). It is also noticeable that Trevor, in wanting to do everything, mapped out the options and planned them himself. Michael was always comfortable delegating that to Lester and trusting him, but then making the final call himself. Trevor wanted to do both - ending in what can only be described as a colossal f*ck up.

 

Whether you'd call that deep or not, I don't know, but it was the variation in personality across the protagonists I found engaging.

 

But as I've said before, I think it was risky making a protagonist like Trevor. I have this theory that a lot of players want the protagonist to be a competent criminal - because it fits with completing the game being skillful. I think a protagonist who is something of a walking disaster can go against this. This is probably ones reason why my own stats show I've spend over 50% of the time playing as Michael (it might also be partially because I left the controller wedged with him walking in circles while I left the house to complete "Exercising the Truth", but I digress).

 

I respect your deeper look into Trevor's character, but Trevor just does not interest or intrigue me in anyway. I'm just not the kind of guy that easily impressed by the whole shock factor effect expressed purely through violence and craziness, which exactly the image Trevor was supposed to portray.  All that stuff got old a long time ago. What you said about competent criminal protagonists is true. Many GTA players like myself seek that in a protagonist, not some crazy, psycho who has no real objective or constructive aim as a consequence of his actions. 

 

Sorry for the double post.


FranklinDeRoosevelt
  • FranklinDeRoosevelt

    32nd President of Los Santos

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2013

#1852

Posted 26 April 2014 - 06:36 PM

 

You can't call Trevor a cliche since there's never been a character like him in any video game at all, heck, most movies don't even have characters like that. That was their target from the get go, to make him as crazy and unpredicatable at all times. The hate on Trevor is absolutely crap and unjustified. He was created the way he is.

 

I don't really see what's so unjustified about it. Okay, so there's not been too many protagonists like Trevor in the history video gaming, his creation was something very different from what Rockstar normally produce for GTA, and they chose to make him like that - guess what ? Does not mean we must automatically warm to him or really like him. Trevor has his fans and his haters, just as you say this, I equally don't see why some people are so fascinated and enthralled by him.

 

Same way why people like me are not "allowed" to criticize Niko because apparently there is "nothing" to critisize about him, right? I never said you have to like him or not, but calling him a cliche just shows how people do not even know what the word means. A crazy and unpredictable character suits the genre of GTA, because it's about criminals and evil people. 

  • Cutter De Blanc likes this

Jvaz615
  • Jvaz615

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2014
  • United-States

#1853

Posted 26 April 2014 - 06:45 PM

The actions of Trevor are not deep but the reasons behind them and what made him the way he is, that's what I mean when I say he's a deeper character than people give him credit for.

Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#1854

Posted 26 April 2014 - 07:09 PM Edited by Official General, 26 April 2014 - 10:13 PM.

 

 

You can't call Trevor a cliche since there's never been a character like him in any video game at all, heck, most movies don't even have characters like that. That was their target from the get go, to make him as crazy and unpredicatable at all times. The hate on Trevor is absolutely crap and unjustified. He was created the way he is.

 

I don't really see what's so unjustified about it. Okay, so there's not been too many protagonists like Trevor in the history video gaming, his creation was something very different from what Rockstar normally produce for GTA, and they chose to make him like that - guess what ? Does not mean we must automatically warm to him or really like him. Trevor has his fans and his haters, just as you say this, I equally don't see why some people are so fascinated and enthralled by him.

 

Same way why people like me are not "allowed" to criticize Niko because apparently there is "nothing" to critisize about him, right? I never said you have to like him or not, but calling him a cliche just shows how people do not even know what the word means. A crazy and unpredictable character suits the genre of GTA, because it's about criminals and evil people. 

 

 

You can criticize Niko if you like bro. I don't know why you even saying this to me, because I've never said Niko was the perfect protagonist. If you don't like Niko, then fine, not everybody was really feeling the whole Eastern European immigrant/foreigner thing, they could not relate it. Some people see Trevor as cliched in the sense that he represents that played-out, shock factor image of extreme violence, craziness and eccentricity - ok not in video games so much, but it's been done to death in the movies, adult cartoons etc. I can understand Trevor being labelled as cliche for this reason.


jondean31
  • jondean31

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#1855

Posted 26 April 2014 - 07:21 PM

I think Trevor could have been a better protagonist if his decisions made more sense. For example in the torture mission he says at the end that it is wrong, however it is plain for all to see that he was enjoying torturing Mr K, if he was slightly more reluctant about it or less critical about it, it would have made more sense.

Also he kills Debra and Floyd...

Why?

He could have moved to the strip club and not killed those two, this made me dislike Trevor, when prior to this I had agreed with what he had done and he seemed to have some vague principles, and it seemed like R* just made Trevor do these two things for no good reason.

  • Official General likes this

Jvaz615
  • Jvaz615

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2014
  • United-States

#1856

Posted 26 April 2014 - 07:45 PM

I think Trevor could have been a better protagonist if his decisions made more sense. For example in the torture mission he says at the end that it is wrong, however it is plain for all to see that he was enjoying torturing Mr K, if he was slightly more reluctant about it or less critical about it, it would have made more sense.
Also he kills Debra and Floyd...
Why?
He could have moved to the strip club and not killed those two, this made me dislike Trevor, when prior to this I had agreed with what he had done and he seemed to have some vague principles, and it seemed like R* just made Trevor do these two things for no good reason.


Trevor didn't like doing the torture for the Feds. He obviously likes torture but only for his own reasons and enjoyment. Debra and Floyd...I wasn't too happy that he killed them but, as we've seen, he's fragile mentally and will snap at a moments notice and I think that's what happened there. I still don't like it but oh well. You see when he leaves the apt covered in blood that he almost immediately regrets it but that's what he always does. He does something extreme without thinking and then regrets it after
  • Geralt of Rivia likes this

llllI1llllI1
  • llllI1llllI1

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2011

#1857

Posted 26 April 2014 - 08:41 PM Edited by sibs44, 26 April 2014 - 08:42 PM.

It's hard to criticize Niko. Players complained he didn't want to kill people, but then killed anyway. But I think the point Rockstar was trying to make in the end was: How far will you go for your family (Roman) and those you care about (Kate)? What is the limit? And this is executed perfectly at the end.
 
Deal, because Roman wants more money
 
No Deal, you walk away, you're done because Kate said not to. 
 
And the choice was ultimately yours in the end. 

  • EM_JAY_86 likes this

FranklinDeRoosevelt
  • FranklinDeRoosevelt

    32nd President of Los Santos

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2013

#1858

Posted 26 April 2014 - 10:07 PM Edited by FranklinDeRoosevelt, 26 April 2014 - 10:11 PM.

Precisely though. Niko's problem was he was a hypocrite, not matter how much he tried to make himself a better man, in the end he was the same guy who burned down villages, killed innocent people while he was in the army and his list only got bigger when he came to LC. He promised to never go back down the route and what did he do? Went against his word and this is where cliche comes into place. Niko wanted to look for a betrayer, he comes to Liberty City to hunt him down, but at what cost? Living through his past once again and turning into a "hitman" or "criminal" as you say. Then he doesn't want to kill him and finds out he's a changed man so this was just a whole waste of time. And then blah blah blah, he works for other criminals and starts developing a sh*t career. There are so many damn movies out there that use this cliche, and IV's story was one of them although Rockstar did to it in their own way. It was good which I am not denying.

 

It is in no way easy in any way to criticize Niko.


Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#1859

Posted 26 April 2014 - 10:16 PM

I do wish Niko did experience a taste of the American Dream life though. Like he could have at least been allowed to purchase and own businesses and a few nice, luxury properties of his choice. 


CantThinkOfOne2013
  • CantThinkOfOne2013

    If anyone is wondering why I don't post anymore, it's be

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2013
  • Australia

#1860

Posted 26 April 2014 - 10:24 PM Edited by CantThinkOfOne2013, 26 April 2014 - 10:24 PM.

 

you can't really compares two games like this when one is 5 years older than the other. Shooting mechanics, camera angles, variety of vehicles and graphics will all naturally get better. The only thing you can really compare is the story line in a fair manner. They did drag out the fib missions and I didn't like the way they only pay the big bucks right at the end making you rush through the story too quickly, but on the other hand I did find myself drifting off when listening to roman go off on one about his troubles. Overall I think the storyline has improved, V has a bit more going on and has three playable characters which makes it more exciting.

 

Well variety of vehicles was actually better in older games than in GTA IV so that doesn't come down to age, it comes down to the developers effort, as for other things like graphics and shooting mechanics, your right that those get better over time.

Story is actually the one thing that I think needs to be left out of the debate because it's subjective (things like vehicle variety are not) and with story in the debate, nothing else gets discussed.

 

One negative aspect of gta v to me is its rushed feeling, the game feels like its a beta version.

 

How? and don't mention the word 'story', like everyone else who I have seen say this.

 

Michael and Trevor both have a lot of depth even if they overdid the crazy on Trevor. I do wish they went more in depth with Franklin. I liked him but they didn't spend enough time with him. 

 

I agree, I felt that Michael and Trevor were just as deep as Niko, they were just every different characters so it's hard to compare, Franklin could have done with more development but Michael and Trevor had more interesting missions so it didn't bother me too much.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users