Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Why is GTA V hated so much

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
823 replies to this topic

Poll: Hater (248 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you like GTA V

  1. Yes (166 votes [66.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 66.94%

  2. No (82 votes [33.06%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.06%

Vote
Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#61

Posted 19 September 2017 - 11:31 AM Edited by Official General, 19 September 2017 - 11:31 AM.

I actually loved GTA V despite some of the flaws it had, just like every other game tbh. Single player wise, it's fun for messing around with mods and director mode. Story wise isn't that bad but I still prefer the darker GTA 4 one's.

Online wise? Unless I'm playing with friends or relatives which I don't then it's really boring and tedious to play. There's no reason to play GTA Online for me apart from messing around with new content for few moments before losing interest immediately.

I can't believe that I bought GTA V for three times...

 

Me too....considering I believe V is the worst GTA in the main series since III, I still find it very hard to believe I bought 3 times lol. But there are reasons for this :

 

1. Bought it for my PS3 when V was first released. That would have been expected, just like everyone else waiting to play it for the first time. As you already know, I was disappointed by it despite it being a good game. I even later gave my away my PS3 copy to someone for free. 

 

2. Bought it for the PS4 when I bought my PS4 console in a bundle, V came as part of it. I was hoping the better graphics and extra little features in the enhanced version would better the experience, which it slightly did - but was more or less still the same game that I'd found disappointing. 

 

3.Bought it for my PC to play with mods. 3rd time lucky, as V single player with mods is 10 times better than the original SP game on its own, so much better that Rockstar should be extremely ashamed of themselves. Right now, mods are the only thing that keep me playing V. 

  • ChiroVette, Algonquin Assassin and Misunderstood like this

ChiroVette
  • ChiroVette

    GTA V = The Anti-Snore (IV) AKA The Snore Killer!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • None

#62

Posted 19 September 2017 - 01:10 PM

Me too....considering I believe V is the worst GTA in the main series since III, I still find it very hard to believe I bought 3 times lol.


Just a couple of comments on this point:

While you and I would obviously disagree on GTA V's quality relative to the other games in the series, you purchasing the game three times (two after initial purchase, like you said) speaks volumes about GTA as a franchise. Think about it like this: GTA V is your least favorite GTA, right? But you grabbed a PS4 bundle with V, when you could have gotten another PS4 bundle with a different game, and, as you said, you bought the PC version for the mods.

This is in no way disparaging your opinion or saying you are a hypocrite or something. What this means to me, is that there is no game in the series you actually dislike, right? So, since you obviously a huge GTA fan, then even your least favorite game in the series is still probably a great game to you in many ways. Yes, I also agree about mods, AND about Rockstar/Take2 really being avaricious sc*mbags about using Online to rape all future SP content.

 

But I think that to say V is your least favorite game would probably be more accurate than to say "worst game," only based on your posts in this thread. If you hated the game or disliked it, then worst would be more accurate. But even your least favorite game in a franchise you love this much does not necessarily mean you are sorry you own three copies.

  • Gummy  likes this

Neon_Dreaming
  • Neon_Dreaming

    __________

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2016
  • None

#63

Posted 19 September 2017 - 02:55 PM

I don't hate Gta V, I wouldn't have played so much of a game I hated. I just think it didn't bring as much to the table as it's predecessors did and had some annoying features which took away from the overall experience.

It looked great but the story was lacking, gameplay mechanics were simplified e.g shooting and driving. Then you have annoyances such as terminator cops with rubberbanding and animals calling cops (which was never fixed on last gen) It really breaks immersion when you fire a few shots on a mountain, a bird calls the cops and a police car appears out of thin air at the base of the mountain.

Then you have online which seems to be Rockstars priority now, leading single player fans to wonder will we get the Gta experience that made us fans of Gta again? The fact that I had to specify single player fans tells it's own story, while IV had multiplayer you were either a gta fan or not, there was no split fanbase.
  • The Deadite, R3CON, Pink Pineapple and 1 other like this

The Deadite
  • The Deadite

    WE STILL LIVE

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2014
  • None
  • 2nd Prettiest Snowflake 2017
    Most Improved 2016
    Crew Poster Booby Prize 2016
    Most Unwanted Medal 2016
    Doggo-Chop Winner 2016

#64

Posted 19 September 2017 - 03:34 PM

Game does a lot of things and it's not particularly good at anything.

Plagued with stupid design choices (lol you have to finish the storymode just to be able to be topless)

Storymode is crappy and too short.

And holy sh*t, the protagonists are abysmal,Taking the fact that Trevor is amusing, he really doesn't fit the series at all and kils the credibility of any serious moment he's in, Franklin is terminally boring and Michael is an ill concept for an action based videogame like gta.


It's bad, but still better than other open world games out there (WD2, Mafia 3)

ViceOfLiberty
  • ViceOfLiberty

    Prankster

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2017
  • United-States

#65

Posted 19 September 2017 - 03:55 PM Edited by ViceOfLiberty, 25 September 2017 - 09:11 PM.

Can you guys believe that we got to play:

GTA III (2001)
GTA Vice City (2002)
GTA San Andreas (2004)
 
All within 4 years time.
 
Within 8 years time we received:
 
GTA III (2001)
GTA Vice City (2002)
GTA San Andreas (2004)
GTA Liberty City Stories (2005)
GTA Vice City Stories (2006)
GTA IV (2008)
GTA IV - The Lost and Damned (2009)
GTA IV - The Ballad of Gay Tony (2009)
 
In the 8 years since that we have received:
 
GTA V
GTA: Online
 
Do you think that the graphical fidelity is justified when weighed against the lost time? Has gaming gone overboard with graphics? 
We have the tech to make games more efficiently, and generally better, in a shorter amount of time than ever before. Are we wasting this potential by dragging out development times for the sake of pixel resolution?
  • B Dawg, simonp92, Coops95 and 1 other like this

StangOne50
  • StangOne50

    BEASTMODE

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 May 2013
  • United-States

#66

Posted 19 September 2017 - 04:03 PM

Cant blame the game for having scumbag developers.

  • anthony, GrudgefromSanAndreas and ViceOfLiberty like this

Tonesta
  • Tonesta

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2013

#67

Posted 19 September 2017 - 06:01 PM

It seems to me that the reason GTAV, and all GTA games for that matter, are so polarising in their opinions is because they're so many different things to so many different people.

 

Some people play them because they enjoy the characters and the storylines that R* create.

Some people couldn't care less about the story, and just want to go on massive rampages 24/7

A lot of people don't give a damn at all about SP, and just want to grind online for hours a day.

Some people care deeply about customisation, others can't be bothered with it; some love collecting packages, others hate it; some love side missions, sports and/or racing, others don't give a damn

Some want depth,detail and realism; others want wild variety and over-the-top crazy hijinx.

 

So how do you satisfy everybody? Answer is, you can't. GTA isn't a game where they're pandering to a specific gameplaying demographic, like a Call of Duty or a Madden. They're trying to sell GTAV to every gameplaying demographic - and from the sales figures, they clearly succeeded in that. But a sizeable proportion of the fanbase is always going to be disappointed by a game that does make an attempt to be all things to all people, like a GTA.

 

 

Personally, I'd classify myself mostly as an explorer. In a GTA, I want a big, varied world that I can immerse myself in and investigate; and periodically I want to mix it up with a random activity, a bit of story or a mission with some variety to it. I want a bit of a challenge, but nothing too difficult. I love collecting packages because I think it's a great way to see the world, but I have no interest in going on rampages.

 

So for me, GTAV was (despite a couple of slightly irritating storytelling flaws) almost ideal - I wasn't disappointed at all, in fact it's my favourite game of all time, and it's not especially close.

 

But others clearly like it less, or outright hate it, because their expectations and/or playing styles are very different from mine.

  • Official General and GTAFanClub like this

ViceOfLiberty
  • ViceOfLiberty

    Prankster

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2017
  • United-States

#68

Posted 19 September 2017 - 06:36 PM

It seems to me that the reason GTAV, and all GTA games for that matter, are so polarising in their opinions is because they're so many different things to so many different people.

 

Some people play them because they enjoy the characters and the storylines that R* create.

Some people couldn't care less about the story, and just want to go on massive rampages 24/7

A lot of people don't give a damn at all about SP, and just want to grind online for hours a day.

Some people care deeply about customisation, others can't be bothered with it; some love collecting packages, others hate it; some love side missions, sports and/or racing, others don't give a damn

Some want depth,detail and realism; others want wild variety and over-the-top crazy hijinx.

 

So how do you satisfy everybody? Answer is, you can't. GTA isn't a game where they're pandering to a specific gameplaying demographic, like a Call of Duty or a Madden. They're trying to sell GTAV to every gameplaying demographic - and from the sales figures, they clearly succeeded in that. But a sizeable proportion of the fanbase is always going to be disappointed by a game that does make an attempt to be all things to all people, like a GTA.

 

 

Personally, I'd classify myself mostly as an explorer. In a GTA, I want a big, varied world that I can immerse myself in and investigate; and periodically I want to mix it up with a random activity, a bit of story or a mission with some variety to it. I want a bit of a challenge, but nothing too difficult. I love collecting packages because I think it's a great way to see the world, but I have no interest in going on rampages.

 

So for me, GTAV was (despite a couple of slightly irritating storytelling flaws) almost ideal - I wasn't disappointed at all, in fact it's my favourite game of all time, and it's not especially close.

 

But others clearly like it less, or outright hate it, because their expectations and/or playing styles are very different from mine.

 

I think it's because we always expect the content to snowball throughout the sequels yet it seems like we always have to give and take, and break even at best. Players experience something they like and then it gets taken out of the sequel. Our possibilities haven't snowballed so that we can customize our freeroam experience, they just jump around each game. 


Rickzu
  • Rickzu

    Hay guys!

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2006
  • Finland

#69

Posted 19 September 2017 - 06:56 PM Edited by Rickzu, 19 September 2017 - 06:57 PM.

Players experience something they like and then it gets taken out of the sequel. Our possibilities haven't snowballed so that we can customize our freeroam experience, they just jump around each game.


I think we lost some of GTA IV:s physics features because V was released on last-gen systems first. All that euphoria stuff and car deformation was very CPU intensive and poorly optimized. They had to take some of that stuff out to free performance for graphical features. After the game was re-released for next-gen and PC they couldn't simply shoehorn that stuff back in because it would have probably required redoing a lot of the engine and scripting and such, wasn't worth the effort probably, if at all possible.

Other than some physics stuff, I don't really know what features from past games we are missing in V. Minigames and the like don't really count imo, those tend to vary naturally in different installments in all game series anyways.

Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#70

Posted 19 September 2017 - 07:08 PM Edited by Official General, 19 September 2017 - 08:53 PM.

 

Me too....considering I believe V is the worst GTA in the main series since III, I still find it very hard to believe I bought 3 times lol.


Just a couple of comments on this point:

While you and I would obviously disagree on GTA V's quality relative to the other games in the series, you purchasing the game three times (two after initial purchase, like you said) speaks volumes about GTA as a franchise. Think about it like this: GTA V is your least favorite GTA, right? But you grabbed a PS4 bundle with V, when you could have gotten another PS4 bundle with a different game, and, as you said, you bought the PC version for the mods.

This is in no way disparaging your opinion or saying you are a hypocrite or something. What this means to me, is that there is no game in the series you actually dislike, right? So, since you obviously a huge GTA fan, then even your least favorite game in the series is still probably a great game to you in many ways. Yes, I also agree about mods, AND about Rockstar/Take2 really being avaricious sc*mbags about using Online to rape all future SP content.

 

But I think that to say V is your least favorite game would probably be more accurate than to say "worst game," only based on your posts in this thread. If you hated the game or disliked it, then worst would be more accurate. But even your least favorite game in a franchise you love this much does not necessarily mean you are sorry you own three copies.

 

 

* Lets get this straight first - I have never said I disliked V. Yes I dislike many things about V, but as a whole game in general, no I don't dislike it, it's good, but still disappointing and underwhelming. 

 

* Of course it speaks volumes for GTA as a franchise. I'm a huge GTA fan in general, so me buying multiple copies of a GTA title for different reasons should come as no surprise. I bought V in a PS4 bundle as it was a good deal that came with 3 other games, not just V, and I was also hoping for more SP DLC at the time when it had been announced by Rockstar it was coming - now we know it did not happen. I also bought IV and SA again on the PC for modding purposes, not just V, so there is nothing special about me buying V on the PC specifically. 

 

* I never said I was sorry for owning 3 copies of V. I'm just saying that it seems strange at first, because it's my least favourite GTA in the series, but the power and great appeal of mods saved the day for my SP experiences and saved the day for my interest in V. That's what I said, didn't say nothing about being sorry. 

 

* Yes, V is my least favourite game in the main series, and I say it's the worst in the series because of that reason - it does not mean I dislike it in general. 


B Dawg
  • B Dawg

    The Mystic Peephole

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2008
  • Bosnia-and-Herzegovina

#71

Posted 19 September 2017 - 07:48 PM Edited by B Dawg, 19 September 2017 - 07:49 PM.

I think we lost some of GTA IV:s physics features because V was released on last-gen systems first. All that euphoria stuff and car deformation was very CPU intensive and poorly optimized. They had to take some of that stuff out to free performance for graphical features.

Then they should have sacrificed graphical features, as they are far less important than physics and overall any gameplay feature. Honestly, the last-gen systems can't be blamed for anything, only the developers for having wrong priorities.

  • Tycek, Official General, Piggsy pls and 3 others like this

Tonesta
  • Tonesta

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2013

#72

Posted 19 September 2017 - 08:16 PM

 


 

I think it's because we always expect the content to snowball throughout the sequels yet it seems like we always have to give and take, and break even at best. Players experience something they like and then it gets taken out of the sequel. Our possibilities haven't snowballed so that we can customize our freeroam experience, they just jump around each game. 

 

 

Is that sort of snowballing really a reasonable expectation though?

 

Yes, the game snowballed from III to VC to SA as they learned to get the most out of the PS2 (although some people still prefer the earlier games for storytelling and coherence reasons).

 

But then from SA to IV, you had an order of magnitude shift in the quality of the graphics and the detail of the world. That involved a colossal amount of work on R*'s part, and in turn they had to substantially reduce the features.

 

From IV to V, they've expanded on the number of features from IV, and expanded the size and variety of the world substantially, but that's come with further technical (and time) costs (some of which Rickzu has described better than I could hope to) which has necessitated the removal of a few other features of the game.

(plus of course there's a massive tonal shift from IV to V, which people are going to have very different responses to).

 

Now I absolutely get that a bunch of the features from IV that went missing in V are things that a lot of people really liked (wounded NPCs, fast food interiors, realistic car physics, friends & girlfriends etc. etc.), and therefore those players were likely to be pissed by their removal. I'm one of the lucky players, I guess, in that I never cared about any of that stuff, and everything I liked about IV was carried over to V, and then built upon. And so I get why some players were disappointed with V.

 

But when the games are consistently getting more ambitious in their graphical and technical complexity, and the scope of their worlds, I just don't think it's realistic yet to expect R* to only add, and not replace features. They're going to be replacing for many GTA generations still.....and that's going to keep annoying a fraction of their fan base every iteration. Hell, next time it might be me!


Tonesta
  • Tonesta

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2013

#73

Posted 19 September 2017 - 08:27 PM

 

I think we lost some of GTA IV:s physics features because V was released on last-gen systems first. All that euphoria stuff and car deformation was very CPU intensive and poorly optimized. They had to take some of that stuff out to free performance for graphical features.

Then they should have sacrificed graphical features, as they are far less important than physics and overall any gameplay feature. Honestly, the last-gen systems can't be blamed for anything, only the developers for having wrong priorities.

 

 

This is kind of illustrating my point.....because I just don't agree.

 

I love the detail and variety in the world that R* have built in V, and if the physics and some elements of the gameplay have been simplified a little to achieve that - then that's the right trade off for a gameplayer like me.

 

There isn't some holy grail of gameplaying that every developer is trying to achieve - or at least there isn't yet, and won't be for several more generations of technology. There's a complete spectrum of gameplayers, and the GTA developers are trying to hit as wide a chunk of them as they can with every game. I was clearly right in the middle of their target audience for V, others were missed altogether. It could easily be the other way around by the time VI comes out.

  • Am Shaegar likes this

Rickzu
  • Rickzu

    Hay guys!

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2006
  • Finland

#74

Posted 19 September 2017 - 08:50 PM

Then they should have sacrificed graphical features, as they are far less important than physics and overall any gameplay feature. Honestly, the last-gen systems can't be blamed for anything, only the developers for having wrong priorities.


It would have gone wrong either way. Some people like physics and others like graphics. They had to make compromises.

Also you have to consider the fact that first impressions matter, in this case I mean trailers and screenshots and stuff. If they released a game in 2013 that looked same as the game they released in 2008 they would have gotten a lot of criticism for it. Not everyone agrees, but as whole the gaming industry and most customers are graphics centered these days.

I personally think the fact GTA V looks so good even today is one of the contributing factors to its longevity.

Algonquin Assassin
  • Algonquin Assassin

    We're all looking for that special someone

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Most Obsessive Name Changer 2016 (My unofficial GTAF annual award)
    Biggest Fanboy 2013, 2014, 2015
    Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#75

Posted 20 September 2017 - 04:36 AM

Plagued with stupid design choices (lol you have to finish the storymode just to be able to be topless)

 

This is probably the thing that disappoints me the most. I mean I can stomach now that it didn't include every feature from the other games because they all remove things for the better (or worse. However you interpret), but some of the decisions made with its own content just come across as bizarre to me.

 

Like when you win a Moto X/ATV race and winning the outfit despite that it lets you know it's been awarded and added to the wardrobe it's withheld to use until the story's finished. Maybe it's a trivial thing in the grand scheme, but this principle is what annoys me about most AAA games now undercutting themselves and holding back for weird and nonsense reasons and as I've stated before they added phone cheats to the current gen and PC versions, but didn't add a way to save them..

 

I think in general a lot of ideas are well executed such as customisation, but others kinda feel haphazard and rushed such as the properties giving a feeling of inconsistency during the game's development. 

  • B Dawg, Tycek and Misunderstood like this

Am Shaegar
  • Am Shaegar

    Chartered Accountant

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2017
  • None

#76

Posted 20 September 2017 - 09:08 AM

 

I think we lost some of GTA IV:s physics features because V was released on last-gen systems first. All that euphoria stuff and car deformation was very CPU intensive and poorly optimized. They had to take some of that stuff out to free performance for graphical features.

Then they should have sacrificed graphical features, as they are far less important than physics and overall any gameplay feature. Honestly, the last-gen systems can't be blamed for anything, only the developers for having wrong priorities.

 

Even then there's no guarantee that the last gen would be able to handle the complex physics system. The Natural Motion physics engine is not the same as any other physics engine. Its a lot complicated.

Why don't you post some open world games on Natural Motion that were able to run smoothly on the last gen systems before making a sweeping statement as there are a lot of factors associated in optimizing the game engine??

GTA V was set in an optimized version of the entire engine.

GTA IV wasn't some optimized version of the Natural Motion physics effects. It had a very bad performance on the last gen. The effects were limited to only a set of objects, deformation and combat actions. A majority of the game outside the scripted sequences, and missions didn't utilize it, at all. 


CGFforLife
  • CGFforLife

    GTA V:A Huge improvement over snore (GTA IV)

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2017
  • Indonesia

#77

Posted 20 September 2017 - 12:45 PM

Spoiler

Agreed

IV mission mostly used static death animation. V however has ragdoll in mission

ChiroVette
  • ChiroVette

    GTA V = The Anti-Snore (IV) AKA The Snore Killer!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • None

#78

Posted 20 September 2017 - 10:10 PM

* Lets get this straight first - I have never said I disliked V. Yes I dislike many things about V, but as a whole game in general, no I don't dislike it, it's good, but still disappointing and underwhelming. 
 
* Of course it speaks volumes for GTA as a franchise. I'm a huge GTA fan in general, so me buying multiple copies of a GTA title for different reasons should come as no surprise. I bought V in a PS4 bundle as it was a good deal that came with 3 other games, not just V, and I was also hoping for more SP DLC at the time when it had been announced by Rockstar it was coming - now we know it did not happen. I also bought IV and SA again on the PC for modding purposes, not just V, so there is nothing special about me buying V on the PC specifically. 
 
* I never said I was sorry for owning 3 copies of V. I'm just saying that it seems strange at first, because it's my least favourite GTA in the series, but the power and great appeal of mods saved the day for my SP experiences and saved the day for my interest in V. That's what I said, didn't say nothing about being sorry. 
 
* Yes, V is my least favourite game in the main series, and I say it's the worst in the series because of that reason - it does not mean I dislike it in general.


I think you should re-read my post. I jumped through several hoops to exclude you from the V-haters I was referring to, as you clarified your position very nicely. I am not sure why you are interpreting what I said as meaning:

-You were sorry for owning 3 copies.
-You disliked or hated V


I was VERY clear to even defend your position by saying that just because V is your least favorite game does not make you a hater, or some "butthurt fan" of a past game.

I mean, I really thought I was very clear about all of that. So I am not sure how you got the impression that I was still lumping you in with a group you clearly don't belong in.

Dee.
  • Dee.

    Happy Holidays!

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2015
  • United-States

#79

Posted 23 September 2017 - 02:56 AM

overrated, unsupported, weak short story with a barebones map with no compelling activities, sh*t ai and physics and no interiors

  • anthony likes this

ChiroVette
  • ChiroVette

    GTA V = The Anti-Snore (IV) AKA The Snore Killer!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • None

#80

Posted 23 September 2017 - 03:28 AM

overrated, unsupported, weak short story with a barebones map with no compelling activities, sh*t ai and physics and no interiors

 

I completely disagree. as do the vast majority of GTA fans and pro reviewers. If anything, it was underrated. The story is one of the strongest in GTA history, and the map is pure, unadulterated, gorgeous eye-candy with boundless scenery. The activities were varied and excellent, and still keep me and most GTA fans engaged to this day. The physics are awesome and most important, FUN.

 

The interiors I will give you, but interiors were never a priority for me with GTA games as I like to spend all my time outdoors.

  • Algonquin Assassin, Meekail and straightupmenace like this

CGFforLife
  • CGFforLife

    GTA V:A Huge improvement over snore (GTA IV)

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2017
  • Indonesia

#81

Posted 23 September 2017 - 06:25 AM

overrated, unsupported, weak short story with a barebones map with no compelling activities, sh*t ai and physics and no interiors

Overrated? every pro reviewer, GTA fans, and anyone who had good taste in gaming will find this masterpiece underrated

Unsupported? kinda agree

Weak story? the story was strong, and amazing

Barebones map? the map was great, detailed, beautiful, gorgeous, pure eyecandy with boundless scenery

No compelling activites? the activities were varied, fun, and enjoyable

sh*t AI? ped AI were intellegent, Especially driver AI, we can finally stop at redlight without anyone smashing our car, and it's easier to cross the road without getting runover

sh*t physics? the physics are awesome

No interior? kinda agree, but I rarely enter interior, as I mostly spend my time outdoor, and exploring the beautiful map


Ash_735
  • Ash_735

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2005
  • None
  • Contribution Award [GTAF Weekly]
    Contribution Award [Mods]
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA] 2013
    Best Map 2013 "ViceCityStories PC Edition"

#82

Posted 23 September 2017 - 09:28 AM

For me, I don't hate V, but I do see it as a let down. The story being the main reason, it starts off great but dwindles and becomes disjointed after the first heist. The map design didn't feel as good as previous games, I was actually disappointed with it but I also blame myself because I played L.A.Noire before GTAV (which has an amazingly detailed downtown/Hollywood map), but also areas like the desert were pathetically small, barely matching the size of Bone County in SA. It really is a game that could have used some fleshing out with DLC, and if they followed their original outline it would've been amazing. Radio was also a mess but that's been documented enough already how much they went through multiple changes over the years.
  • Algonquin Assassin, Tycek, Official General and 3 others like this

Am Shaegar
  • Am Shaegar

    Chartered Accountant

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2017
  • None

#83

Posted 23 September 2017 - 10:24 AM

The map design didn't feel as good as previous games

 

Sorry to ask, but what's wrong with the map? I think the map is the strongest aspect of the game. Its beautifully crafted with a lot of variety between different landscapes. We even have the underwater areas further to explore which is also really cool. 

  • CGFforLife likes this

Algonquin Assassin
  • Algonquin Assassin

    We're all looking for that special someone

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Most Obsessive Name Changer 2016 (My unofficial GTAF annual award)
    Biggest Fanboy 2013, 2014, 2015
    Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#84

Posted 23 September 2017 - 10:41 AM

For me, I don't hate V, but I do see it as a let down. The story being the main reason, it starts off great but dwindles and becomes disjointed after the first heist.


Yeah. I like the story more at the start. It starts to lose pace IMO when they start working for the FIB.
  • Official General and Misunderstood like this

Ash_735
  • Ash_735

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2005
  • None
  • Contribution Award [GTAF Weekly]
    Contribution Award [Mods]
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA] 2013
    Best Map 2013 "ViceCityStories PC Edition"

#85

Posted 23 September 2017 - 11:31 AM

Sorry to ask, but what's wrong with the map? I think the map is the strongest aspect of the game. Its beautifully crafted with a lot of variety between different landscapes. We even have the underwater areas further to explore which is also really cool. 

Hollow would probably be my best word to use for it. I expected more, Liberty City is a great representation of New York City and parts of New Jersey for example. L.A.Noire captures more of LA despite being set in the past (seriously if you guys haven't drove around the map in that game, do so). LA is supposed to be sprawling and I find it sad that San Andreas in 2004 somehow nails this feeling more and even includes more landmarks (which were present in L.A.Noire too but missing from GTAV). The focus feels too much on Beverley Hills, Venice Beach and LAX, with Downtown slapped in connecting them, it's like a flip side of San Andreas 2004 which had a lot of hoods, projects, Hispanic and Latino districts, etc but seemed less focused in Beverly Hills and Hollywood. But San Andreas 2004 got the balance a bit more right.

And now for me, the desert, I love Sky Valley and the Joshua Tree area with Cathedral City, it's representation in GTAV is, well, beyond pathetic and they might as well have not bothered. Not to mention geographically it's in the wrong place (again unlike Liberty City where they tried to be accurate).

There's also the extreme lack of interiors and the forest areas (which I don't know much about honestly). But yeah, for me it was a let down coming from Liberty City's accuracy and the brilliant map they helped with for L.A.Noire, GTAV's map just fell flat for me, it does have good areas and the detail is great but I felt like it could've been better and more.
  • Algonquin Assassin, Tycek, Official General and 4 others like this

ChiroVette
  • ChiroVette

    GTA V = The Anti-Snore (IV) AKA The Snore Killer!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • None

#86

Posted 23 September 2017 - 12:14 PM

 

For me, I don't hate V, but I do see it as a let down. The story being the main reason, it starts off great but dwindles and becomes disjointed after the first heist.


Yeah. I like the story more at the start. It starts to lose pace IMO when they start working for the FIB.

 

 

 

Two things: I think that the intent was to expand the storyline with DLC, and not just episodes with completely different protagonists like they did with IV. I think V was left with some questions and even though it is a huge campaign to 100%, that Rockstar wanted to continually add new content to sell to us. They did make statements about how players could "continue the adventures of Franklin, Michael, and Trevor." This is another way SP GTA fans got screwed, because while I don't agree with you at all about the story losing pace with FIB plot-line because I love the government intrigue, my gut feeling is that was OVER after the final missions, and that "continuing the adventures" meant more time with the protagonists doing heists, even more development in their personal and criminal lives, and continued criminal empire-building. But when they saw what a cash cow V was, they scrapped all of this, realizing that they would actually have to do a lot more work to develop new storylines, not to mention spend a lot of money on more voice acting, mission development, and so on.

 

It is so much easier when you can re-skin a bunch of vehicles and weapons and tweak a crapload of online modes and dump them into the multiplayer, keeping players in GTAO and buying those Shark Cards than taking a leap of faith on future V support for SP.


D T
  • D T

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2010
  • None

#87

Posted 23 September 2017 - 12:35 PM Edited by D T, 23 September 2017 - 12:36 PM.

Sorry to ask, but what's wrong with the map? I think the map is the strongest aspect of the game. Its beautifully crafted with a lot of variety between different landscapes. We even have the underwater areas further to explore which is also really cool.

As a Burbank native, I was legit triggered when I saw Blaine County behind the Vinewood sign.

ChiroVette
  • ChiroVette

    GTA V = The Anti-Snore (IV) AKA The Snore Killer!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • None

#88

Posted 23 September 2017 - 12:51 PM Edited by ChiroVette, 23 September 2017 - 01:12 PM.

 

Sorry to ask, but what's wrong with the map? I think the map is the strongest aspect of the game. Its beautifully crafted with a lot of variety between different landscapes. We even have the underwater areas further to explore which is also really cool. 

Hollow would probably be my best word to use for it. I expected more, Liberty City is a great representation of New York City and parts of New Jersey for example. L.A.Noire captures more of LA despite being set in the past (seriously if you guys haven't drove around the map in that game, do so). LA is supposed to be sprawling and I find it sad that San Andreas in 2004 somehow nails this feeling more and even includes more landmarks (which were present in L.A.Noire too but missing from GTAV). The focus feels too much on Beverley Hills, Venice Beach and LAX, with Downtown slapped in connecting them, it's like a flip side of San Andreas 2004 which had a lot of hoods, projects, Hispanic and Latino districts, etc but seemed less focused in Beverly Hills and Hollywood. But San Andreas 2004 got the balance a bit more right.

And now for me, the desert, I love Sky Valley and the Joshua Tree area with Cathedral City, it's representation in GTAV is, well, beyond pathetic and they might as well have not bothered. Not to mention geographically it's in the wrong place (again unlike Liberty City where they tried to be accurate).

There's also the extreme lack of interiors and the forest areas (which I don't know much about honestly). But yeah, for me it was a let down coming from Liberty City's accuracy and the brilliant map they helped with for L.A.Noire, GTAV's map just fell flat for me, it does have good areas and the detail is great but I felt like it could've been better and more.

 

 

 

I completely and totally disagree with this. I have been to So Cal many times and not just LA, but the surrounding areas. I also live in NY City, Brooklyn to be exact, and have my whole life. So I can speak with some authority on how the maps of both IV (which you brought up) and V are with regard to their real life counterparts. I never played LA Noir, but I have logged an ungodly amount of hours in San Andreas since it launched in 2005.

 

Yes, while I disliked IV immensely, Rockstar did a very good job on the map, at least for what they chose to give us. Though it is ridiculously small, to be honest. Not to mention it really only has FOUR of the 5 boroughs, with no representation of Staten Island, which is a little ridiculous. LMAO but they added in Industrial North Jersey? I think someone on the Rockstar staff maybe watched one too many episodes of the Sopranos and vastly overthought the map, erroneously believing than New Jersey is a helluva a lot more important to New York lore than it actually is. Okay, though, whatever. They added Jersey, and for reasons passing understanding, omitted Staten Island.

 

But the thing I really found disappointing about IV's map, since you brought it up, was its size and its lack of outlying suburban areas! I mean, hell, even the LC in GTA III had Shoreside Vale, which had a very "Staten Island" feel to it. Although it is unclear whether or not Shoreside is supposed to be The Bronx. Given that they named LC's version of Manhattan in III "Staunton Island," my guess is they were trying to get a two-fer there, and sort of intellectually combined Manhattan and Staten Island by naming it Staunton. lol Okay, so in reality, then, Shoreside Vale is probably The Bronx, which actually makes more sense. Although there is no airport in The Bronx, in real life, my feeling is that Francis International is supposed to be the in-game equivalent of JFK or Laguardia, even though they are in Queens. Their location on the map would suggest that the lower tip of Shoreside is meant as an extension of Queens. But Shoreside is interesting, because if you look at Pike Creek, it is very reminiscent of the South Bronx, whereas Cochran and Cedar Grove are more like the North Bronx with a lot of green.

 

 

Clearly. Now, I would have been willing to overlook the lack of Staten Island, the inclusion of industrialized Jersey areas like LMAO Elizabeth and Bayonne, except that the four boroughs were so damned small. I would have understood making Brooklyn (Broker) so small you can walk from end to end in a couple of minutes, since these games are more microcosms than actual scale, if there were outlying suburban areas like there are in V, or even San Andreas, a game that came out on a much weaker console, 3 years earlier. Upstate NY is every bit as important to NY real estate as the Big Apple is, just as the deserts and the suburban counties are to Los Angeles and So Cal. Yet the map of IV is like a postage stamp, whose size most closely feels like the LC of III. The thing that felt like a total abomination to me is that in real life, the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges are considered lower Manhattan (the Financial District and Chinatown, respectively), but the Empire State Building, Met Life Building, Chrysler Buildings, and Central Part are in Midtown and Uptown.

 

Yet in GTA IV, LMAO the Empire State building is literally a block or two from the Manhattan Bridge! Central Park is like a couple of blocks north of that. I mean, come on! I get that the map is supposed to be a microcosm, but they couldn't fatten that up a bit, adding in at least the illusion of the real life MILES between Chinatown and the Garment Distric and the Theater District? Again, had they compensated for this by adding in some Upstate areas, like they did in V and San Andreas, I would have been a lot more interested in the map of IV. But that is completely pathetic. The least they could have done, given that the square footage of the map is so damned small, and they didn't give us any Upstate real estate, was to add a little fluff between the major areas of the FOUR boroughs that they could actually be bothered to attempt to represent in the game. The way they did Jersey I could care less about as I think it is a little absurd that is even in the game, but whatever. In real life I try to avoid Bayonne and Elizabeth as much as possible, and only drive through them when I am going home and need to take the Goethals Bridge or Bayonne Bridge back to NY City, when I want to avoid the tunnels. I am still amazed that ANYONE would even consider adding in Industrial Jersey to this game. I might have given them a pass on this, except that Sam Houser lives in Brooklyn and works in Manhattan, and like me, he cycles all over NY City. If anyone knows how trivial and unimportant f*cking Bayonne and Elizabeth are to the Big Apple, he should.

 

But as someone who lives in Brooklyn, and knowing that IV had no suburban extensions to the map, when they put the in-game represetations Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Prospect Park, Downtown Brooklyn, South Brooklyn (like Mill Basin and Canarsie) all within seconds of one another, and reduce the entire map of The Bronx to a little industrial dot ONLY encompassing the South Bronx, the map is VERY weak.

 

Even more than that, though, was the disgusting, brownish haze that permeated the entire air and environment like the air was made of vaporized feces! I mean, not for nothing, but I have lived in the Big Apple my whole life, and even on the worst day when we have smog warnings, the air doesn't look anything like that. NY City is bright, vibrant, colorful and one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Although, big whoop and happy-happy-joy-joy, they did manage to render the litter and pigeons. So, yeah, that makes up for everything.

 

Now looking at the map of V, it is just gorgeous, and much more detailed. It has that busy metropolis of LA Proper, with South Central ghettos, the more upscale areas, even industrial LA and the beaches. They also added in Hollywood, of course, which one would expect.

 

But what you and other V critics who are so willing to give IV's map a pass on these vagrancies are not considering is that unlike IV's map, which is all urban all the time, as if NY is nothing more than one tiny, postage stamp sized city, V's map adds in the awesome representations of suburban LA areas like Orange County, San Bernadino, Beverly, Hills, etc. AND they added in a huge desert sprawl with green wooded areas and a massive desert, which. by the way is exactly what you find if you drive in any direction from LA except for straight south toward San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico.

 

You admonished people to drive the map and see it. Well, I have been driving, flying, and cycling that map for three years, and I can't get enough.

 

While I might agree about a couple of the landmarks, to me, Los Santos in V feels very accurate when taken in its totality. Much more so than the little dot of a map of New York's representation in IV.

  • GTAFanClub likes this

Ash_735
  • Ash_735

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2005
  • None
  • Contribution Award [GTAF Weekly]
    Contribution Award [Mods]
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA] 2013
    Best Map 2013 "ViceCityStories PC Edition"

#89

Posted 23 September 2017 - 01:31 PM Edited by Ash_735, 23 September 2017 - 01:35 PM.

ChiroVette I think it's clear you disagree with anyone who has kind of criticism with GTAV, you go as far as including me as a V hater despite me saying it was a let down.

As for your words about Liberty City,I know it's small, but it still did a better job of trying to be accurate compared to Los Santos, hell they even go out of their way to state in game that there's more to Liberty City, we just don't see it such as the long island place (name escapes me right now) east of Dukes.

You mention III's rendition of Liberty City, well the step up from GTA3 to GTA4 is what I was also expecting of Los Santos compared to GTA SA, and they didn't deliver, I think that's the simplest way I can break it down.

Edit: I see you changed the wording to not call me a V hater, I didn't see that edit when I posted.
  • Official General, theGTAking101, Pink Pineapple and 1 other like this

ChiroVette
  • ChiroVette

    GTA V = The Anti-Snore (IV) AKA The Snore Killer!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • None

#90

Posted 23 September 2017 - 02:41 PM Edited by ChiroVette, 23 September 2017 - 02:50 PM.

ChiroVette I think it's clear you disagree with anyone who has kind of criticism with GTAV, you go as far as including me as a V hater despite me saying it was a let down.


I think it's clear that you are creating a Straw Man argument, by characterizing my disagreement with you as conflating you with "V haters" and further misrepresenting my position on V, trying to fictionalize my posts as disagreeing with ALL criticisms of V. when clearly that isn't the case.

This seems to be a tactic you are employing of justifying your position rather than actually taking the time to defend it, as if your accusations somehow repudiate my assertions.

Moreover, subliminally accusing me of basically being a "blind fanboy," while leaving those exact words out to equivocate, also does nothing to rebuff my position.

Stated another way, I have plenty of criticisms of V, I just don't agree with the ones I responded in your post.
 

As for your words about Liberty City,I know it's small, but it still did a better job of trying to be accurate compared to Los Santos, hell they even go out of their way to state in game that there's more to Liberty City, we just don't see it such as the long island place (name escapes me right now) east of Dukes.


Really? So basically the game saying the map is too small and weak is enough for you to give them a pass on it? I disagree that it did a better job of fictionalizing NY City.

First off, the detail in V's map is better, as are the graphics. Which, while one would expect from a game released 5 years later, is still, nonetheless a factor in evaluating the two maps side by side, in comparison and contrast. Second, as someone who LOVES both real life cities as I do NY and Los Angeles, I can tell you that you are falling victim to a misconception here. Even though I love LA, let's be honest, it has no Empire State Building; it has no Chrysler Building or Central Park or Broadway or the Theater District or even the Brooklyn or Manhattan Bridges.

I am sorry to any LA residents here, but while it is a beautiful city, it simply DOES NOT have the kinds of storied landmarks of the Big Apple to easily render to make the city as recognizable.

The Manhattan Skyline is easily one of the most famous visual landmarks in the world, and while LA is a wonderful city, it has NOTHING that is so obviously recognized.

Yes, there is the Hollywood Sign, and that is stunning, in real life as it is the game. But lol, what the Convention Center? Who cares? Other than gamers dreaming of going to E3 and convention goers, who gives a crap if a game properly renders that building? You think anyone but perhaps a garter of ONE percent of the world's population would even be able to pick that building out of a randomly chosen group of 20 similar buildings?

Yet I bet that if you show 100 people from all over the world a picture of the Empire State Building, the Brooklyn Bridge, that ANY of them would not only be able to pick them out of similar buildings but would be able to name them without help. NY City is like Landmark Central, it really is.


The people who built my city unintentionally made it very easy for Rockstar to create a fictionalized version in a game. Just add in the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges, the colorful, angular Neon-filled Broadway cutting through a Theater District, Central Park, and throw in the Chrysler Building and Met Life, and away we go! Make it shaped like an oblong island, and you have Manhattan, easy peasy!

LA is a city that does NOT have the recognizable features of Manhattan. This takes nothing away from the beauty and history of the city. Not every city can be Manhattan.

Yet, Rockstar still did a beautiful job with the famous sign, the ghettos of South Central, the stunning beaches with the amusement park, which, by the way is a famous LA landmark. They added in a beautiful rendering of Hollywood, the outlying suburbs, the desert. I thought the other representations you mentioned were fine, by the way. I really like the way V handles the Joshua Tree and Cathedral City, but clearly that is a matter of taste. So we can agree to disagree.

It isn't that I disagree with ALL criticisms of V, I just find yours to be....well, let's just say a bit of a stretch.
 

You mention III's rendition of Liberty City, well the step up from GTA3 to GTA4 is what I was also expecting of Los Santos compared to GTA SA, and they didn't deliver, I think that's the simplest way I can break it down.


Okay, first of all, that is a faulty comparison. The reason why is that while I absolutely LOVE GTA III to this very day, it was the very first 3D Era GTA game. After that, they had VC, and yes, San Andreas, to really flesh out what that engine could do. They were also MUCH LESS experienced at making sandbox games in 1999 to 2000, while III was being created than they were by the time development for SA started.

So the HUGE LEAP one would expect from the LC of III to the LC of IV cannot be compared to the leap we got from SA to V. If for no other reason than the devs and Housers were already really experienced by the time they created SA. The point is that V still delivers as a huge upgrade from SA, though it is understandable that IV would seem like even more of an upgrade from III, since III was so primitive, even compared to SA.

Here is where your logic fails, as far as I am concerned. You are making the wrong comparison in my opinion. If you really want to be fair, it would be a far more accurate comparison to look at IV's map compared to the last PS2-exclusive GTA game, which is San Andreas. While they fictionalize different cities, that is making it too easy for you to try and pull the wool over our eyes by comparing IV to a game that started development at the end of the last millennium on a PS2 that had not even been released yet, while bashing V's map for not being upgraded enough from San Andreas, even though it was plenty upgraded in all the most important ways.

I will agree with you in one area, from a previous post you made. I think that had Rockstar created DLC like they intended, this would be a completely different conversation we are having. Had they added in more missions, maybe even selling us more real estate in the form of San Fierro, Las Venturras, huge, green forests like Red County and the Back-O-Beyond, it would be even better.

But to try and sell the lack of DLC as a reason why you think the map of V sucks or is mediocre, is fallacious. And NOT because you are criticizing V. As I said, I have plenty of criticisms of V. I just don't agree with yours.


 

Edit: I see you changed the wording to not call me a V hater, I didn't see that edit when I posted.


What are you talking about? I never called you a V hater in that post. I may have referred to V haters, but not once did I accuse you of being one, and certainly did not edit such an accusation out.
  • GTAFanClub likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users