Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

The IV versus V debate

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2,788 replies to this topic
Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#1891

Posted 28 April 2014 - 04:46 PM Edited by Andreas, 28 April 2014 - 05:03 PM. Removed quote-train.

Not exactly. I haven't played V yet but I myself am disappointed with some of the absent features such as crouching and night clubs. Crouching is like a basic feature so when people say  "rushed" they don't necessarily mean rushed they mean it's just carelessness. If they do, I think carelessness is more appropriate.

@ AceKingston

 

I thought you had a played GTA V, because sometimes you do seem to defend quite strongly. Well all I gotta say is when you finally play it, you should hopefully fully understand what the big disappointment is all about. 


Tilemaxx
  • Tilemaxx

    POV City Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2008
  • None

#1892

Posted 28 April 2014 - 05:07 PM Edited by Tilemaxx, 28 April 2014 - 05:08 PM.

 

I'm just saying because I'm not experiencing anything game breaking at all at the moment. And yeah, I still remember the swing glitch in IV which was funny as hell :D


That's fine. Some people are lucky. Some aren't. At least you admit there are issues even though you haven't experienced them

 

I didn't experience anything abnormal in SP since day one. All missions went really smooth, no bugs, no glitches.


 

Not exactly. I haven't played V yet but I myself am disappointed with some of the absent features such as crouching and night clubs. Crouching is like a basic feature so when people say  "rushed" they don't necessarily mean rushed they mean it's just carelessness. If they do, I think carelessness is more appropriate.

 

 

Why the need to crouch when this time the cover system is decent and actually working?


Andreas
  • Andreas

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 27 May 2012
  • Austria
  • Most Helpful [GTA] 2014
    Best Avatar 2013
    Best New Member 2012
    Contribution Award [GTA V]

#1893

Posted 28 April 2014 - 05:08 PM Edited by Andreas, 28 April 2014 - 05:09 PM.

Hey guys, could you try to only quote the relevant parts of a post, and remove previous quotes? Because that way you could avoid these overly long quote-trains that arise here every couple of pages, which is particularly annoying when reading topics on a mobile device. Thanks.

  • Midnightz likes this

Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#1894

Posted 28 April 2014 - 05:50 PM Edited by Tycek, 28 April 2014 - 06:54 PM.

The main problem with Rockstar North is that they don't know when to stop. It's known that best way to perfection is through evolution, but they seem to not understand that fact. Instead they're trying to base everything on instant changes from left to right, which leads them nowhere, leaving them confused.

 

Up to 2004 we had one city in every game (I am going to exclude GTA 1 in that debate), which could be bigger or smaller, dark or sunny, full of high rised buildings or flat. Both LC and VC were detailed and despite their flaws, they became legendary and beloved (just look how many people still love LC from GTA III). Everything was working perfectly up to the point when R* decided to take different approach. Did they choose to give us one big city with some small ones? Or maybe two medium ones? No, instead they launched full scale attack givings us three big cities. Result was quite easy to predict on dated PS2 hardware - cities were empty, dull and lacked any kind of details that made LC and VC so great. It doesn't matter if there were three of them if not a single one was good enough to have its own game. After some time R* learn it was a mistake and they said that three cities were a bit too much and that they should make smaller number of them, but more detailed and interesting.

 

Then IV came out and R* changed approach again to more realistic. Before you jumped on me that it was bad move, I am going to say otherwise. GTASA started alienating people. The dragon of hate was still weak, but he was slowly raising its head. I know people (normal players), who played SA for a while coming back to VC, because it was not their piece of cake. They simply didn't like jetpacks, dildos, RPG elements and couple of things that were clouding the real GTA (III and VC). R* had no choice but to go back to save the series and it was lose-lose situation for them anyway. Since all people want more and better, what could be brought to take over SA? Even more cities, UFOs, laser weapons? SA was venturing into dangerous ground turning into SR, but skipping the first two parts and going straight to TT (dildo as a weapon, green goos, James Bond stuff). There were two choices - make game as based on the basics as possible (like VC) and alienate people or make SA 2 and alienate people. Of course, transition to new generation made this decision a bit easier.

 

And then V came out, which is the example of R* lack of evolution. They basically threw out everything that was good in IV and decided to make some monster, being not loved child of SA or IV, which is not good as any of them. Which is even worse they didn't take a step back, they made a whole leap, adding things dated back to Super Nintendo (cheat system) and mixing every part of their previous games (abilities from RDR and MP, weapon wheel, driving from MCLA - although it was better there), which is not exact way to success. Another mistake of theirs is the protagonists system. Up to the point we had one (again GTA 1 doesn't count), but here they decided to make something different. Do we have two of them? Of course not, we needed three, but the result is exactly the same as in SA. None of them is interesting and none of them is good enough to have its own game. 

 

Perfect way to build V would be evolve from IV. People were moaning about driving - fix it instead of throwing away (TBoGT got almost perfect physics), missions were repetitive - let's make amount of them so small, people will end it before dinner, people doesn't like cheats (lack of stupid ones) which were available in phone for quick use - let's use system from SNES and add two new cheats.

 

If R* have exist and a house renovation company I wouldn't let them near my house. Sure there is problem here and there, but with them I could end up with home that is bigger than the last one, but the doors are not opening ( and I have to crawl through the window) and there is no heating, but maybe it will be fixed soon...

  • llllI1llllI1, Donut, Scaglietti and 2 others like this

Scaglietti
  • Scaglietti

    Italia

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • Italy

#1895

Posted 28 April 2014 - 06:11 PM Edited by StingrayX, 28 April 2014 - 06:18 PM.

It always makes me cringe when people say that way too many people had way too high expectations. Indeed, hoping for a game as big as two current-V-maps with more than 3 cities, more than 300 cars alone, and more than 150 missions altogether is an expectation that is too high.

But hoping for a sense of seclusion in the countryside, a car list with most of the cars from IV returning like the Stallion or the Dukes or the Turismo, a few cars like the Jester to return similar to the way they were in previous games, a map that actually looks interesting outside of the main city and Mt. Chilliad, a map with a decent amount of interiors that are actually interesting for immersion, and an interesting economy with the ability to purchase safehouses and garages and any car you want is NOT too much to ask for. It's not too much to ask for from a company like Rockstar, it's not too much for a game that was developed within 3 years, and it's not too much for a game as highly anticipated as V.
  • Official General, Darth_Starkiller, Donut and 2 others like this

Donut
  • Donut

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013
  • None

#1896

Posted 28 April 2014 - 06:21 PM

@General

I've been playing IV a couple of days ago and I'm pretty sure Niko and Roman escaped from Europe because Bulgarin was after their asses.

Then he went to LC to find the special someone.

And you simply ignore every badass thing Trevor has done just because of that moment at the end, because either he was luring F into a trap or he was out of character as f*ck (you can't deny the latter), and it's probably not even canon to the story?

Even if Niko ran away, I still think he is badass too. I was just messing with SOL.

Characters DOING badass things doesn't make them a cool character. If that's so, then the SR protagonist is the greatest character of all time. Look at him, was a henchman in a gang turned into leader turned into social icon turned into president FIGHTING ALIENS! HE'S A BADASS!!!! *jk

Him and Trevor are like the same thing to me: poorly written and made out to be awesome because Rockstar said so. You can do all these badass things in a story, but if your written like sh*t, which T and the SR guy is, then those badass things are meaningless to me.

  • Official General, Niobium and leldoge like this

llllI1llllI1
  • llllI1llllI1

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2011

#1897

Posted 28 April 2014 - 06:33 PM

@Tycek you've summed it up perfectly. Bravo. 


HaythamKenway
  • HaythamKenway

    Scavenger

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2012
  • Czech-Republic

#1898

Posted 28 April 2014 - 06:48 PM Edited by SFPD officer, 28 April 2014 - 06:51 PM.

You know what else came to my mind as to why V is so short on missions?

 

What if R* intentionally cut out some missions because they didn't have protagonists co-operating? How many solitary missions are there, post-Fame or Shame? Vast majority of missions have at least two protagonists teaming up. What if R* were afraid that people wouldn't like protagonists on their own? What if they thought that people would criticize V if it didn't have protagonists working together all the time?

 

I can imagine people going "Why did R* waste so much time with this switching system, when it's used in only one out of four missions!1!!!!"

 

It's just hard to come up with excuses to make protags team-up all the time. And imagine, additional plot lines that V didn't have and needed (Michael and his family and working in the film studio, Franklin in the hood, Trevor in Blaine County) are also ones that would be more solitary. So, we ended up pretty much with just heists, FIB and Weston - because those plotlines offered missions in which it was easiest for R* to squeeze in switching.


woggleman
  • woggleman

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012
  • None

#1899

Posted 28 April 2014 - 07:14 PM

The thing is that to this day SA is probably the most loved GTA all over. It has it's critics but many people really love that game and when IV came out as great as it is people felt let down because many things they loved from SA weren't there. IV is a masterpiece of a game but the difference between it and SA is like night and day so it is understandable why so many people felt let down. They tried to please the people were letdown with V and as much as I love the game one of it's weaknesses is that it seems like they went down a list of things people hated about IV and tried to please those critics. About the only things they didn't add to please them was the jetpack and purchasable safehouses. In past games they did what they wanted instead of trying to please people and I hope they go back to that since V shows there is no pleasing everybody.

 

The reason V is short is because less than 30% of people actually finished IV. If IV didn't receive the hate that it did V probably would have been a very different game.

  • Tilemaxx likes this

Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#1900

Posted 28 April 2014 - 07:21 PM Edited by Tycek, 28 April 2014 - 07:30 PM.

As I said before, start cutting Bible, because I highly doubt many people read it. 

 

Problem with V isn't the length itself, but the fact it's weak. You could trim IV a little and it still would be strong, but V even longer would be still weak. You can put small amount of missions in the game (VC got like 27?) and have a great story and you can make 150 missions game, which will be weak anyway. The argument that V is short because not many people actually finished IV is crap, because it doesn't actually explain why story is so bad.

  • fac316 and Niobium like this

Jimbatron
  • Jimbatron

    Gangsta

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

#1901

Posted 28 April 2014 - 08:07 PM

I think I've figured out why V's story is so lacking.

It's the heists.

You've got six heists. Now it might not apply to every one but:

 

you select your crew. En route, the conversation might change with each member. Packie talks about LS, for example. And the dialogue throughout the missions are different for each crewman.

Then there's the variations in the heists themselves. Hire one driver and he might not be on time on picking you up or not know the route on how to escape. Hire a better one and it'll go better. Hire a lame gunman and he freaks out. A good one shoots better.
So each heist is scripted in several different ways, and it varies depending on who you chose.

Then all of that work and space is doubled with the heist's second method.

I suspect that's where Rockstar's efforts have gone. The story lacks because Heists took more work than we thought.

Or not, i dunno, just thought i'd voice that.

 

I think that's definitely a factor. The combinations of ways the heists can be done is large if you include the different approaches and the crew options. There's also way more random encounters and strangers and freaks, which are completely separate to the main plot. Still, IV had tons of secondary dialogue (e.g. if you failed a mission). My hunch is the overall IV script is still longer. Also I don't think they are financially constrained much, or in terms of physical hardware limitations when it comes to the plot. It's constructing the world that takes all the money and the console power up - if they'd wanted to make the plot longer, I think they cold have done so without breaking sweat. Nevertheless, I think you're right in principle - there's a lot of the V story material that isn't visible in a single play through.

 

 

As I said before, start cutting Bible, because I highly doubt many people read it. 

 

Problem with V isn't the length itself, but the fact it's weak. You could trim IV a little and it still would be strong, but V even longer would be still weak. You can put small amount of missions in the game (VC got like 27?) and have a great story and you can make 150 missions game, which will be weak anyway. The argument that V is short because not many people actually finished IV is crap, because it doesn't actually explain why story is so bad.

 

I disagree the V's plot is weak overall. If you highlight specific areas, I'll say what I think about each.

 

The argument about it being shorter, well R* made a conscious decision to make it shorter. One possible explanation for why they chose to do so is not a lot of people didn't finish V. Any reason has to be speculation unless you know Dan Houser and Rupert Humphries, but I fail to see how that's a crap argument - it sounds eminently plausible to me. Whether you agree shortening the story was the RIGHT thing to do or not is another matter (and as I've been at great pains to point out, I don't think it was).


woggleman
  • woggleman

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012
  • None

#1902

Posted 28 April 2014 - 08:27 PM

Weak is a subjective term. There are people who feel that IV is very boring. We all have opinions.

  • Jimbatron likes this

Scaglietti
  • Scaglietti

    Italia

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • Italy

#1903

Posted 28 April 2014 - 08:33 PM

The reason V is short is because less than 30% of people actually finished IV. If IV didn't receive the hate that it did V probably would have been a very different game.


@woggleman: What is your purpose for saying this?

Jimbatron
  • Jimbatron

    Gangsta

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

#1904

Posted 28 April 2014 - 08:37 PM

Weak is a subjective term. There are people who feel that IV is very boring. We all have opinions.

 

Agree. I think though "boring" is a more qualified language. It's clearly an opinion and emotive at its core - and that's fine. I someone said either IV or V was weak in general though my instinct would be to disagree. I think both are better than the average TV series of Movie. Not up there with the Breaking Bads or Godfathers of this world, but still, comfortably above average for me, and they are still computer games!


woggleman
  • woggleman

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012
  • None

#1905

Posted 28 April 2014 - 08:51 PM

 

The reason V is short is because less than 30% of people actually finished IV. If IV didn't receive the hate that it did V probably would have been a very different game.


@woggleman: What is your purpose for saying this?

 

I am trying to explain to people why they made V the way they made it.

  • Thalyn likes this

Jvaz615
  • Jvaz615

    Homeboy

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

#1906

Posted 28 April 2014 - 09:23 PM

V made it's billions but the cracks have been showing for a while. I really don't think it will stand the test of time like past GTA games. There's too much wrong and not enough right. It's like a turd wrapped in a shiny box with a pink ribbon on it
  • Donut likes this

heroe
  • heroe

    V

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2009

#1907

Posted 28 April 2014 - 09:25 PM

 

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.

 

 

Why would I not mention the "story" when its clearly one of the rushed portions. It's definitely not the only aspect watered-down in this game but it is one of the most detrimental parts of it.

  • Donut and Scaglietti like this

Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#1908

Posted 28 April 2014 - 09:26 PM Edited by Official General, 28 April 2014 - 09:28 PM.

 

 

The reason V is short is because less than 30% of people actually finished IV. If IV didn't receive the hate that it did V probably would have been a very different game.


@woggleman: What is your purpose for saying this?

 

I am trying to explain to people why they made V the way they made it.

 

 

@ woggleman

 

Your explanation and reasoning, once again is poor, and does not really make much sense. GTA V had a short story that many people thought was weak, there is really no point in trying to blame GTA IV and the fans once again, as you keep doing. V's story is the way it is because Rockstar chose to make it that way, what makes you think the fans and IV had total influence in it's development ?? You just gotta accept when something is not well-received because of what it is. 

 

It always makes me cringe when people say that way too many people had way too high expectations. Indeed, hoping for a game as big as two current-V-maps with more than 3 cities, more than 300 cars alone, and more than 150 missions altogether is an expectation that is too high.

But hoping for a sense of seclusion in the countryside, a car list with most of the cars from IV returning like the Stallion or the Dukes or the Turismo, a few cars like the Jester to return similar to the way they were in previous games, a map that actually looks interesting outside of the main city and Mt. Chilliad, a map with a decent amount of interiors that are actually interesting for immersion, and an interesting economy with the ability to purchase safehouses and garages and any car you want is NOT too much to ask for. It's not too much to ask for from a company like Rockstar, it's not too much for a game that was developed within 3 years, and it's not too much for a game as highly anticipated as V.

 

Exactly one would imagine this was the case.....to the people who say this, DURRRRRH!!!!!

 

I think it's a simple case of certain die-hard V fans finding it hard to swallow the fact that V just was not the huge critical success it was expected to be. 

  • Donut likes this

heroe
  • heroe

    V

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2009

#1909

Posted 28 April 2014 - 09:29 PM Edited by heroe, 28 April 2014 - 09:32 PM.

The main problem with Rockstar North is that they don't know when to stop. It's known that best way to perfection is through evolution, but they seem to not understand that fact. Instead they're trying to base everything on instant changes from left to right, which leads them nowhere, leaving them confused.

 

Up to 2004 we had one city in every game (I am going to exclude GTA 1 in that debate), which could be bigger or smaller, dark or sunny, full of high rised buildings or flat. Both LC and VC were detailed and despite their flaws, they became legendary and beloved (just look how many people still love LC from GTA III). Everything was working perfectly up to the point when R* decided to take different approach. Did they choose to give us one big city with some small ones? Or maybe two medium ones? No, instead they launched full scale attack givings us three big cities. Result was quite easy to predict on dated PS2 hardware - cities were empty, dull and lacked any kind of details that made LC and VC so great. It doesn't matter if there were three of them if not a single one was good enough to have its own game. After some time R* learn it was a mistake and they said that three cities were a bit too much and that they should make smaller number of them, but more detailed and interesting.

 

Then IV came out and R* changed approach again to more realistic. Before you jumped on me that it was bad move, I am going to say otherwise. GTASA started alienating people. The dragon of hate was still weak, but he was slowly raising its head. I know people (normal players), who played SA for a while coming back to VC, because it was not their piece of cake. They simply didn't like jetpacks, dildos, RPG elements and couple of things that were clouding the real GTA (III and VC). R* had no choice but to go back to save the series and it was lose-lose situation for them anyway. Since all people want more and better, what could be brought to take over SA? Even more cities, UFOs, laser weapons? SA was venturing into dangerous ground turning into SR, but skipping the first two parts and going straight to TT (dildo as a weapon, green goos, James Bond stuff). There were two choices - make game as based on the basics as possible (like VC) and alienate people or make SA 2 and alienate people. Of course, transition to new generation made this decision a bit easier.

 

And then V came out, which is the example of R* lack of evolution. They basically threw out everything that was good in IV and decided to make some monster, being not loved child of SA or IV, which is not good as any of them. Which is even worse they didn't take a step back, they made a whole leap, adding things dated back to Super Nintendo (cheat system) and mixing every part of their previous games (abilities from RDR and MP, weapon wheel, driving from MCLA - although it was better there), which is not exact way to success. Another mistake of theirs is the protagonists system. Up to the point we had one (again GTA 1 doesn't count), but here they decided to make something different. Do we have two of them? Of course not, we needed three, but the result is exactly the same as in SA. None of them is interesting and none of them is good enough to have its own game. 

 

Perfect way to build V would be evolve from IV. People were moaning about driving - fix it instead of throwing away (TBoGT got almost perfect physics), missions were repetitive - let's make amount of them so small, people will end it before dinner, people doesn't like cheats (lack of stupid ones) which were available in phone for quick use - let's use system from SNES and add two new cheats.

 

If R* have exist and a house renovation company I wouldn't let them near my house. Sure there is problem here and there, but with them I could end up with home that is bigger than the last one, but the doors are not opening ( and I have to crawl through the window) and there is no heating, but maybe it will be fixed soon...

 

I don't know what you guys saw but I could definitely argue that San Andreas was more detailed than VC and LC from an infrastructure point of view.

 

Also, I highly doubt Rockstar made GTA V short because only 30% of people won GTA 4. Just because you don't finish a game doesn't mean its was too long, the game could honestly just suck.

  • Midnightz and Official General like this

Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#1910

Posted 28 April 2014 - 09:30 PM Edited by Official General, 28 April 2014 - 09:34 PM.

V made it's billions but the cracks have been showing for a while. I really don't think it will stand the test of time like past GTA games. There's too much wrong and not enough right. It's like a turd wrapped in a shiny box with a pink ribbon on it

 

Yep, you hit the nail on the head. Once the smoke cleared from the initial victorious gunfire of V's cannon's, the gaps and holes in it's armor were totally exposed. Many people now see more of what V really is on closer inspection.

 

@ Tycek

 

San Andreas had it's flaws (the stupid Torneo missions and sometimes too over-the-top stuff like jetpacks), there is no doubt, but technically it was and still is the best GTA game. The huge size of the map, environment variation, RPG elements, 3 different major cities, the numerous interiors, side missions, content and more was incredible for what it was. SA did way more things right than it did wrong. If anything Rockstar were heading in the right direction with SA and kinda lost their way feature and content-wise with GTA IV, while making great strides with IV at the same time. With GTA V, they just took steps backwards and fell flat on their asses. 

  • Donut likes this

woggleman
  • woggleman

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012
  • None

#1911

Posted 28 April 2014 - 09:38 PM Edited by Andreas, 29 April 2014 - 04:50 PM. Removed quote-train.

@ woggleman

 

Your explanation and reasoning, once again is poor, and does not really make much sense. GTA V had a short story that many people thought was weak, there is really no point in trying to blame GTA IV and the fans once again, as you keep doing. V's story is the way it is because Rockstar chose to make it that way, what makes you think the fans and IV had total influence in it's development ?? You just gotta accept when something is not well-received because of what it is. 

I am blaming IV critics instead of fans. They wanted to make the game as unlike IV as possible. If there wasn't the backlash against IV V would have been a very different game and despite the revisionist history there was a time when IV was just as hated as V is now.


Jvaz615
  • Jvaz615

    Homeboy

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

#1912

Posted 28 April 2014 - 09:42 PM

@Official General Very true. I'm not a big SA fan but I can see the things they did right with that game. I'm a big IV and I can see what they did wrong. With V it's like they just didn't know what they wanted it to be so the story was shortened and the content was, IMO, crap compared to what they given us in the past. And yes I mean story. V has some great features that end up falling flat because they just stopped without taking it to the next level like we all know Rockstar can do. V feels like a half a game and all their focus is on the online portion now which just pisses me off
  • Mokrie Dela and Official General like this

Tilemaxx
  • Tilemaxx

    POV City Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2008
  • None

#1913

Posted 28 April 2014 - 09:45 PM Edited by Tilemaxx, 28 April 2014 - 09:46 PM.

 


I think it's a simple case of certain die-hard V fans finding it hard to swallow the fact that V just was not the huge critical success it was expected to be. 

 

It was. Critically and financially, a major hit. And very well received from fans, with higher user metascore than IV. (and other places too)

  • Midnightz, Geralt of Rivia and CantThinkOfOne2013 like this

Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

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

#1914

Posted 28 April 2014 - 09:49 PM Edited by TheMasterfocker, 28 April 2014 - 10:04 PM.

http://www.examiner....etails-revealed

 

  • Btw, it will last less than the one in GTA IV with Nico because they know that a lot of people didn't finish the story because it was too long.

 

Less than 30% of people finished GTA 4. Thirty. Percent.

 

If you don't think that's the reason V's story is shorter, that's just ignorance.

 

I really should not have to explain why.


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"

#1915

Posted 28 April 2014 - 09:59 PM

 their focus is on the online portion now

This genuinely worries me.


Jvaz615
  • Jvaz615

    Homeboy

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

#1916

Posted 28 April 2014 - 10:21 PM


 their focus is on the online portion now

This genuinely worries me.

Me too. My GTA V collectors edition is sitting collecting dust. Rockstar really bamboozled me into dropping $150 bucks on an online game with a smidge of story mode thrown in
  • Official General and Donut like this

Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

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

#1917

Posted 28 April 2014 - 10:46 PM

A smidge? That's laughable.

 

First the "Glitches = rushed game" nonsense, and now this?

 

Jesus.


Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#1918

Posted 28 April 2014 - 10:53 PM Edited by Official General, 28 April 2014 - 11:03 PM.

 

 


I think it's a simple case of certain die-hard V fans finding it hard to swallow the fact that V just was not the huge critical success it was expected to be. 

 

It was. Critically and financially, a major hit. And very well received from fans, with higher user metascore than IV. (and other places too)

 

 

You don't need to state V was financially a great success we all knew that was gonna happen. As for critical success, yeah on the face of it initially yes, but then like someone said earlier, the cracks began to show, and they came thick and fast. I saw many gaming sites change their mind about V's high scores very soon after it's release. It's clear that many fans and industry critics alike are not as impressed with V as they hoped to be, but if you wanna sugar-coat this fact with boasts of huge sales and over-hyped scores, then fine. More keener observers of GTA know the real deal.

 

 

I am blaming IV critics instead of fans. They wanted to make the game as unlike IV as possible. If there wasn't the backlash against IV V would have been a very different game and despite the revisionist history there was a time when IV was just as hated as V is now.

 

That's all irrelevant to me personally, I don't care to get into all that bullsh*t. All I know is that Rockstar made V the way it is and I see it as a letdown regardless of whatever critics had to say about IV. I'm pretty sure not too many people even care to notice this meaningless stuff you bring up. If they think V is sh*t, it's because of Rockstar, not because of IV's critics. 

  • Donut likes this

woggleman
  • woggleman

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012
  • None

#1919

Posted 28 April 2014 - 10:57 PM

V certainly has it's critics but away from this board is more liked than IV. That is what I see in other forums and offline.


Jimbatron
  • Jimbatron

    Gangsta

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

#1920

Posted 28 April 2014 - 11:02 PM

 

 their focus is on the online portion now

This genuinely worries me.

 

 

Well, whether people liked the story or not, the Official Trailer was about 90% or thereabouts focuses on SP cut scenes. They might have had game play and online trailers too, but that wasn't their primary marketing push.

 

I think while the Housers are involved there will always be a story to GTA. What worries me more precisely is that they think commercially a shorter story will get them more sales.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users