So how long will it be until GTA V has that old feel?
When the new GTA comes out?
Probably. I mean, look at this forum: up until V's release, most people complained about how terrible IV is, now it's apparently this amazing classic. Once VI comes out, most if not all of the people hating on V will move onto that. Then again, things may change sooner, perhaps if a new RDR or Bully is released. They're going to get a metric sh*t-ton of hate.
I'd just like to point out I always defended GTA IV against the haters - many of whom merely wanted GTA SA V2, and they got it with V, and still aren't happy. I think simply, they follow trends. The same kind of people who wear "Keep Calm..." T shirts - they go with the flow instead of forming their own opinion. I bet they read and believe game reviews.
Me, I played the game and, for a while, I listed GTA IV as the best game ever - in my own opinion and world. In GTA games, it's still the best imo, although VC isn't far behind. V hasn't changed that. I hoped it would, i expected it to, but it really missed the target.
I actually just started another play-through of San Andreas today soooo.....
OT: I don't know what it is about V but like I've probably stated in other threads...I played IV (and the DLCs) for hours and hours and hours and never got tired of it even though it lacked the "features" V has today and V is already blah to me (read: can't play for more than 30 minutes without getting a little snoozy)
I think it's focus. IV was this focused thing - it was what it was. Fair sized map, great characters and good story. All this combines to create a weight behind the city - the city is a staging area for the story, and thus reflects it.
V lacks all of that weight - the brad/michael saga was not that strong in impact, and the entire story was lacking, and the map reflected that. That and I feel that Rockstar had zero focus - they spread themselves too thin with O and a huge map etc.
It's sad how people say GTA V already feels old for them because they've given us a huge map and plenty of easter eggs and locations to go to and enjoy. People don't realize that GTA V is a sandbox game.
Gta 4 barely gave us anything, 2 attack helicopters, no planes etc. but that never got old in the first few months of release?
Well to me there's more to a game than just features and a big map. I don't know what it is with GTA IV, but everytime I start a new save it feels like everything resets itself and the "experience" of Niko arriving in LC feels as fresh and grand as it was 6 years ago.
With GTA V I've played through it 4 times (working on a 5th), but I really don't get a feeling like that. Probably because everything is so fast paced, the map is unlocked from the start and most things are given to us at the beginning.
Even moreso now with the new updates. You can have supercars and powerful weapons as soon as you start the game.
I've always admired GTA IV's slow pacing as every time I feel like I'm gradually making my way through the dredges of LC as Niko is looking for "That Special Someone". There's no feeling like this in GTA V IMO.
I hate how V forces you to have certain weapon. The game forgets what weapon you have "selected" I presed LB to draw my pistol .50 and instead I pulled out an RPG and blew myself up (was being shot at and had to rush so i quick-fired). RDR had it nailed - press LB and it'd draw whatever weapon you wanted, not some random one.
Pacing is very important in a story. It can be hard to get right, and also consider the dynamic of action - you can not have a story that's wall to wall action. You need quite periods, you need calmness. IV delivered this well - this is why three leafed clover was such an epic mission, because the dynamic of the story. V lacks that dynamic. I loved the "calm" missions in IV that suited Niko's character. Jacob's first one, where he gives you a gun - you drive at your own pace, Park up, then there's this nice shootout - nothing OTT, but it pulled me in, and I felt Niko was a calm guy, popping off guys here and there. Then you drive off. Simple, but no less fun.
Rockstar got this idea that explosions and chaos equate fun - Play the first 3/4 Splinter Cell games and tell me if that's true. V's "stealth" is an example of this - they just have no concept of it.
The map being unlocked isn't an issue for me - the whole locking was getting old tbh. I praise that decision, but the thing is, the map is empty and mostly pointless; it doesn't go anywhere really, apart from a "town" which is smaller than a village i visited which literally was on top of a hill and consisted of a church, a few shops and a dozen houses. Adding countryside, there's two things Rockstar missed out:
1 - a second or third city - we need that for the countryside to feel like it goes somewhere. The main highway in V goes in a circle, nowhere other than a tiny "town". Most of the map is a cheat with mountains. Sure, it looks great but like a stunning blonde essex girl, there's nothing behind it.
2 - a large/long story to make use of the map. SA, while the story was poor, did this really well. The story justified the map and made use of it all. V's "story" is more a statement "lets rob sh*t and not get paid, then shoot everyone for the hell of it." There were golden moments, and potential, but V missed it all. GTA IV, imo, managed to have the story fill the city. V didn't