Search the Community

It was too simplified. 1. Pedestrians and enemies take like 2-3 shots to kill. 2. The weapon wheel... (especially the time slowing down too) 3. Carrying multiple weapons of one type at a time! This made the weapons too repetitive, because you can go in AmmuNation, buy all of them and test them out in a few minutes. 4. Getting a sh*tton of cash in the end. Like, 5-7 million would've been enough, but almost 30 million?! 5. Special abilities... dafaq 6. GTA:O has turned into a Battlefield 4 and Saints Row/Star Wars cross-over. Flying cars, OP weapons, etc. 7. The 'skip' option in missions. 8. Saving your game anywhere with quick-saving makes the safehouse almost useless. Now for some other sh*t: 9. They removed(or downgraded) the Euphoria Ragdoll from GTA IV, making the funny ragdoll animations not fun at all in GTA V. 10. Agressive citizens. (e.g. waiting at a bus station, and a chick calls 911 on you for standing there, waiting). 11. Trains are also almost useless. At least let us destroy or control them. Even letting us ride in them would've been cool. 12. Agressive OP cops. 13. Shark Cards. 14. Lack of gang-related content and missions. 15. Franklin had potential to be an awesome character, but he's boring instead. 16. Trevor is way too over-powered sometimes. 17. Lack of side activities (e.g. vigilante, firefighter, etc. Like, they could have put them in but not make them needed for 100%). 18. Lack of forests/isolated areas. 19. Lack of interiors. 20. Not being able to buy new safehouses. 21. Paleto Bay is boring, it could have been much better. 22. Not letting us rob more stores in freeroam (even small Fleeca banks would've been cool). And so on.

I have never been able to really find anything wrong with Saints Row i have Saints Row 2 on my pc and IV on PS3 its not GTA and it doesnt pretend to be, my 2 kids love it i find it ok for a mess about on now and again. I just expected more from GTA5, dont get me wrong it looks great and i enjoy kicking around in places like Sandy Shores especially at night, it has an atmosphere all its own, but the game doesnt make me want to play the missions like GTA4 did, maybe its the characters ? i really dont know.

Yeah, GTA V feels too scattered, the story line way too chill, comical, and commercial, and gta online has turned into saints row online. smh Not enough substance for me, not dark enough, not enough character, but thats also partial due to how things are irl nowadays so i can kind of understand why its like this. Though still leaves alot to be desired.

If we talk of GTA V in some way we've to consider also GTA Online... The latest GTA Online updates are, at least for me, far far away from a "normal" GTA, flying cars, flying bikes, cars with mounted machine guns, tanks everywhere etc., it seems like I'm playing Battlefield 4, Just cause 3 or Saints Row! And I don't want to talk about Shark Cards... - GTA V: I liked it, the fact you can use multiple characters is something fresh and completely new in the series, in GTA IV if you wanted to play with another character you had to change also the game that you were playing. GTA V story is probably underrated by a lot of people, the missions are fun and not repetitive, the only thing I didn't like so much is how Michael's problems play a big role in the game. Another "thing" that I don't like about GTA V is Trevor: he is completely different from the other GTA characters and for me his craziness is too excessive in some scenairos. The vehicles are fun to drive and the map it's good... - GTA IV: This game is my favourite GTA of all time, practically I liked everything! The story is fantastic, the map is probably a bit smaller than San Andreas but it's well done, Liberty City seems full of life, the pedestrians react to Niko's actions, to the weather and to the environment. Some mission can be a bit boring, especially the ones needed for 100% ("Kill 200 flying rats around Liberty City!"), but I found GTA IV story very mature and unique, Niko was a great character. GTA IV Online didn't play a big role like GTA V Online, but it was good, no microtransactions and a lot of good modes: in other words, FUN. GTA V for me was completely fine until Gunrunning came out, before that we have had only a few special vehicles (added in Import/Export) that in some way could fit in the GTA world. Anyway I think the cities chosen by Rockstar reflect stories and characters: 1) Liberty City ----> More mature - GTA III (Claude) - GTA LCS (Toni) - GTA IV (Niko) - GTA TLAD (Johnny) - GTA TBoGT (Luis) 2) Vice City -----> Crazy and mature - GTA Vice City (Tommy) - GTA VCS (Victor) 3) Los Santos (or San Andreas State) -----> More crazy - GTA San Andreas (CJ) - GTA V (Franklin, Michael and Trevor)

Same here, with only ONE exception. I totally understand this feeling even though we disagree. For me, IV was not only different, it was a horrible, boring, lackluster, limited and limiting, oppressive game that was like 5 steps backward from San Andreas. Honestly, after IV, I thought I was completely done with GTA and would have to get my sandbox fun from other franchises, like Just Cause, Saints Row, etc. But Rockstar went back to more old school GTA ideas AND they even managed to add awesome new stuff that is also still a lot of fun to this day. Not to mention, the story in V is much better, more alive and varied, and the physics of the game has been dramatically improved. I have some niggles about V, but given how boring I found IV, if nothing else, V is like ten steps in the right direction!

not gta 5, gta online lost gta feeling rockstar trying to create saints row experience in a gta game and rockstar bringing story dlc to the online we have one example right now and it is doomsday heist it was supposed to be in singleplayer not online

Don't all those "sci-fi" things belong in Saints Row?

Yeah I hear you on that one! I mean, I have literally never understand why Rockstar always, in every single GTA game, draws some completely arbitrary line in the sand like that. And V is not alone in that, either. I think Saints Row handles this well, Just buy whatever the hell you want from the gun shop and, by all means, have a f*cking blast! I have never understood the bizarre hoops that Rockstar devs jump through to create some ridiculous notion of random realism in a completely and totally unrealistic situation. I don’t get it either Chiro. It probably has more to just being an oversight rather than anything intentionally damaging.

Yeah I hear you on that one! I mean, I have literally never understand why Rockstar always, in every single GTA game, draws some completely arbitrary line in the sand like that. And V is not alone in that, either. I think Saints Row handles this well, Just buy whatever the hell you want from the gun shop and, by all means, have a f*cking blast! I have never understood the bizarre hoops that Rockstar devs jump through to create some ridiculous notion of random realism in a completely and totally unrealistic situation.

Edit: Ugh sorry about the triple posts. Not sure what's up with the forum. Usually when in rapid succession, the forum automatically adds them to my previous post when there are no posts in between mine. lol Not this time, I guess. There is something to this when you are talking about a game like Saint's Row IV, which is intentionally meant to be sophomoric, like a videogame frat party. However, let's be clear about something with V: The humor, violence, and sexual themes in the game may not be to your liking, but they are hardly the same as middle-school humor or even frat-boy humor. The truth is that the adult themes in V are pretty well done. You may find the game to be not as somber and ponderous as IV, and if that is your yardstick for "adult" then I can see why you might conclude V is immature. But I think it is important to realize that adult motifs and themes come in many forums. Action movies can appeal to adults, and V is definitely like a videogame action movie in some ways. In depth Mafia/Organized-Crime stories like IV can also appeal to adults. But I think the mistake people make here is to try and conflate their not liking V's story with it being inherently childish. It really isn't. There may be some silly and whimsical parts of the game, just as there are in literally every single GTA game I have ever played, but those parts are just parts, not the "whole" of the game. The family drama, the Governmental Intrigue, the heists, the murdering and assassinations, and the vast majority of V's story, in and out of the main storyline, are quite mature. As much as you guys may not like Trevor's murder of Johnny, it is not, in and of itself, immaturely implemented. I will say that I would also disagree with CG when he asserts that this proves V is more mature. Then again, I suspect he meant that more tongue-in-cheek.

Collectibles map was great back in the day. Even Saints Row has one in their latest games. But the truth is that VCS was the ONLY GTA that ever offered this. So while V doesn't have it either, either did IV or SA. So obviously this is not something Rockstar wants in the actual game, and I totally respect that. I have found the Social Club is generally very reliable, and worst case scenario, you have to wait a few minutes for your save to sync with the site. No biggie.

I disagree that it doesn't apply. I think you are giving IV a pass that you are unwilling to give to V because you like IV better than you like V. Which is fine, by the way. We tend to be more willing to overlook fundamental complaints about a game we intrinsically like. Saying that IV's map is intentionally smaller and concentrated in a city sounds more like an excuse for it than a virtue. Just because IV's map is intentionally meant to be 100% urban does not make up for the fact that it came out after San Andreas, and many fans, myself included, were expecting a bonafide sequel to San Andreas. So just because IV was intentionally made NOT to be that sequel, in no way makes up for it. You are making excuses for IV based on your preference for the game, which, as I said, is fine. Its human nature. I do it with V because I am willing to accept flaws because I love the game. But let's at least call this what it is. You prefer IV so are willing to overlook the fact that it is small and (by your own logic) not as good as the map of San Andreas. Just because Rockstar made it intentionally "not as good" doesn't make it better. I would say that using your logic, Rockstar intentionally made the map SUCK. lol don't get upset. Obviously that is a straw man argument on my part, since you aren't saying IV's map sucks. But I think V's map is way better because of its variety, increased graphics, overall eye-candy, and NOT being just one postage stamp sized city and nothing more. I actually thought it was you that corrected me a few months back on my use of penultimate, lol which was why I was initially surprised at your use. But then before making my post above, I realized it was Cheatz who cleared that up for me. That said, I can completely respect what you are saying. Don't get me wrong, I, too, wish that Rockstar would have rendered three cities and THREE very separate and very distinct outlying areas for V, to sort of mirror SA the way that IV tries to mirror III's LC. Nothing would have made me happier. But you have to realize something you may not have contemplated: I was SO incredibly disappointed with IV, and after reading Houser's commentary in 2008 about how IV was "the new GTA" because they wanted to basically make "A movie game" that was far more realistic than previous GTA's, I thought GTA was dead to me from that moment on. At least the new games. I still played the 3D era games obsessively. But, as far as I was concerned, Saints Row and Just Cause were "the new GTA." So when V launched, and I grudgingly decided to give it a chance, I was fully expecting to be disappointed and let down. I thought the game would SUCK (to me) just like IV. So, I think that not only are you and I coming from two completely different philosophies regarding IV, I think that you enjoyed IV enough, and love the 3D era games enough, that I can totally see how V would be a let down for you. But to me, V will always be the game that brought me back to GTA and, in essence, redeemed the franchise for me. So, for me, V feels like a compromise between IV and San Andreas; a compromise I am more than willing to accept since I had written GTA off after IV. Edit: LMAO I don't want to put words in your mouth, BUT I think that you made the wrong argument for IV's map of LC. If I were a fan of the game, and was defending it to someone who didn't like the map, I would have said something to the effect of, "V was attempting to replicate San Andreas's map and failed because of its limiting itself to only Los Santos and Blaine County. IV was created NOT as a sequel to SA, but as a direct sequel to III. It even works out that way numerically, by the way. So LC in IV is meant to be more of a map sequel to the LC of III than anything close to a sequel of SA's map." You're welcome!

No I totally agree with you. I was simply offering another perspective and saying that I personally like the safehouses and am glad they are in the game. To me, it makes the city feel real to have a place to hang your hat, so to speak. But I would certainly not mind if Rockstar added more depth to safehouse ownership, such as customizing, ala Saints Row. So you are on point. There is NO HARM at all in wanting to see things improved. Its like the argument I am having now with Cheatz. I would NOT be opposed at all if Rockstar had added DLC that really beefed up the purchasable, asset properties in GTA V. I think it would be AWESOME! Anything to add to and improve the game is fine by me! And if VI has a much more fleshed out Property system, cool as well! My argument isn't to suggest that the things you (or he, or many other critics are suggesting) would be bad. Nor am I saying that there aren't things that could be added to V (like these two things) to make the game even better than it is now. ANYTHING, even a game as excellent as V or the 3D Era GTA games, can be improved. My only argument is saying that a thing sucks or has no place or is under-this or under-that is a matter of personal taste and opinion. Where some people try to preach opinion and conflate it with "objective" fact. In a videogame of all things! Sure, absolutely!! And I get what you are saying here. Some of this I would even agree with, at least insofar as ways V could improve. Again, though, you are being VERY clear that you are stating opinion. So this makes sense to me. You like the hangouts? Cool. So do a lot of people. Its a great addition from the standpoint of it "being there." But in V, I like it because it is less in your face and irksome. Whereas IV really is annoying with it. On the other hand, if I actually liked the characters in IV, the story, the gameplay, and the bar games and such, then maybe I would be more all right with it. As it is, I like that in V, like the Girlfriends in San Andreas, its not required for 100%, at least not directly. But again, if you and others tell me that the friend hangout and the other things you listed add to the immersion for you, then cool. I am happy it does! Just don't think you are going to repackage opinion as fact and expect me to nod and agree. Which you aren't doing, by the way. So we can agree, disagree, debate, and agree to disagree. Because you are sharing with me not preaching AT me. Hahaha the Barbie Dress-Up thing is tongue in cheek. Don't take it seriously. I, too, would LOVE for GTA to take a page out of Saints Row 2's book with character customization. At least insofar as clothing and vehicle. Maybe a "sex appeal slider" would be a road too far, though. So, yeah, I am with you on this, too. This I don't agree with, because there are a ton of things to do on the map. I mean, the Stunt Plane Time Trials alone are awesome. The Under Bridges, all the collectibles. But they are just collections. What about the tons of Trevor missions in the desert, all the Strangers & Freaks, the off road races, the Base Jumping, the Flight School missions taking you out there, Maude's Bail Jumping missions, the animals, hunting, all the TPI missions, the awesome scenery, and on and on. Now if you feel this isn't enough, I get it and respect that. But I just don't agree. As far as adding more stuff, I definitely agree that Rockstar missed an AMAZING opportunity to really dazzle us with post-release content. And I suspect they intended to, until they realized very quickly that the HUGE money from GTAO's shark card sales was a much easier path of least resistance, and so lucrative, they probably felt that SP content would be piddling in contrast. But let me be clear: MANY of the ideas you are talking about, as well as many ideas people are coming up with in this thread, I would totally support for future GTA games or for DLC, if we were going to get some, which we aren't, obviously. My only point of contention is people trying to sell their opinion as fact that "such and such a thing sucks to me, and you have to agree or you're just dumb!" lol

Morning wood is a very common dirty joke. It is also seen as the name of the cemetery in Saints Row 2.

These are good points! When you put it that way, I think you are right that I have been mistakenly blaming the Euphoria Engine itself for problems that could easily be alleviated by keeping the engine and tweaking the physics to make them more fun-friendly. IV may handle shooting damage better than V, you may be right about that. The truth is that when I played IV, the ability to stand off against the cops was so downgraded from past GTA games because, as Rockstar said, they wanted the gamer to have more "consequences for their actions" than past GTA games. So if V is downgraded even more from that, then that is unfortunate. If that is true, then Cheatz may be correct in what he is saying, at least insofar as the gunplay is concerned. (So I edited my previous response to him in accordance with this) I will say that the gunplay in neither game is nearly as much fun as Saints Row or past GTA games. But those games aren't meant to be as restrictive in this regard.

Why on earth would anyone want rid of Euphoria? For me it's one of the things that really make GTA stand out against the likes of Saints Row or Watch Dogs. I mean honestly what's your problem with it, Chirovette? It's an amazing ragdoll engine. What could be better? Realism is a very good thing when it doesn't affect your player's health to the same degree as it does everything else... It gives variety and greater interaction with the world through experimentation. How you'd want to go back to SA physics I don't really know.

Suddenly everything is stolen, let's completely ignore the fact that most of these names are pretty common and let's aim with the finger at everything and yell "STOLEN!" Isn't "Morningwood" used in Saints Row: The Third as well? I'm pretty sure that game is way more recent than that Simpsons episode.

While I don't like GTA V's modern timeframe, I am far from disappointed. I think the game is awesome and will be remembered for it's map, dialogue...and Trevor! Will it be as well remembered as San Andreas, GTA III, etc? Probably not but I'd say that's because of how the world has changed in those last 10-20 years. It's set in the modern world where San Andreas was the 90s and pretty much our childhoods, and GTA III was modern but not all the way there. I feel the game's mostly modern music/technology pissed off many fans including myself but it didn't get in the way of it's great story and so on. It's a problem most developers face in my opinion and it's a not like Rockstar f*cked up almost 20 years worth of GTA like Volition and THQ did with Saints Row. Rockstar's best option from here would be to go back to the 80's, 90's or early 2000's, but that's just how I see it.

No. We'd get a much stronger student/mentor relationship between Franklin and Michael (Which is what the early portion of the story was building towards) before it got all f*cked up and Trevor came into the picture. Things got bad up when Trevor arrived to LS and decided to start hovering on Michael's balls. Truly all went to New Alderney when Davey knocked Fatty and that sh*tty FIB angle sh*t started, it all had to do with Michael, not Trevor. Michael is the reason that V's story sucks. Nope. Everything was going smoothly up until the first heist. Admittedly (besides the poor excuse for a shock value fiasco killing Johnny) Trevor's introduction strand wasn't that bad, but as soon as he stepped in Los Santos and decided to screw with Merryweather for the lolz that's when the story started to turn to sh*t. Atleast to me it did. It's really Trevor that's the reason for the story not living up to its potential and for it ultimately "sucking". Trevor's better suited to a Saints Row game.

This isn't Saints row IV Knock on wood, dude. he does every morning

This isn't Saints row IV Knock on wood, dude.

This isn't Saints row IV

It's gotta be Trevor for me. Michael is amazing, one of my favorite protagonists in gaming history, and Frankling (oh my god that still makes me giggle every time I see it) is underdeveloped but shows a lot of potential. While there wasn't enough buildup between Franklin breaking into Michael's house and M and F becoming besties, I really loved their relationship, and the almost father/son dynamic that was hinted at gave the game some much-needed heart. (Of course, you can throw that right out the window in Ending B, but that's beside the point.) And like I said, Franklin was underdeveloped but he had his moments, I liked that he was basically the "straight man" in this cast of a**holes and psychos. I wasn't really gripped by his "gangbanger wants to get out of the hood, finally does, but realizes that he needs to be loyal to his old friends and roots" story (felt like a retread of CJ's story) - personally, I'd have made him more of a Sweet Johnson type who is all about his home, friends and family no matter what, and takes part in heists to better his family and 'hood - but as it is, it's alright. Now Trevor, Trevor is... complicated. It's been said before, but he'd make a fantastic supporting character/antagonist. But putting us in his shoes throws a monkey wrench into things, as despite his history with Michael, he feels pretty... detached from M and Franklin's world. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as I loved his Blaine County chapter, but Trevor just doesn't feel of a piece with Michael and Franklin. I think it's the writing. While I can't deny that Steve Ogg did a fantastic job (I'm really glad he's finding more work, guy's a great actor), Trevor just feels written too broadly and played for laughs too much compared to the more grounded Michael and Franklin. If they had played him straight, just had him as this terrifying murderous psycho who happens to be a da*n good bank robber and pilot and have a bit of a soft spot towards his friends, he'd have been fine. Instead, we get the cannibalism. And the cross-dressing. And the pi**ing and shi**ing in public. And Mr. Raspberry Jam. And that horrible "romance" with Patricia Madrazo. And his weird little "friends" (except Chef; Chef is cool, and I really wish they'd made him Trevor's right-hand man instead of f*cking Wade). Ogg acts his a** off and when Trevor works, he really works, but overall he just doesn't fit the other two protagonists. It's like Michael and Franklin would have fit in perfectly in IV, while Trevor feels like he was brought in from Saints Row. So yeah, for me it's Trevor. That said, he definitely has his moments though. Like his whole Blaine County chapter (though I really wish it had been the AoD instead of the Lost that got sh*t on), his reunion with Michael in "Fame or Shame", "By the Book" (minus the "LOL TREVOR'S TAKIN' A SH*T IN PUBLIC SO FUNNY" opening if you start the mission as Michael, and the really on-the-nose and uncharacteristic anti-torture speech at the end), "Bury the Hatchet", the opening of "Fresh Meat".. basically, moments where he's played mostly straight as this kind of funny but terrifying murderous, sadistic, and unpredictable psychopath. That's the Trevor I wish we got the whole game. Anyway, I'd make Trevor a major supporting character/antagonist that you choose whether or not to make up with or kill in the end, and fill that third character slot with a Hispanic gang member who would be involved with the cartels and Vagos or Aztecas, which could get more Madrazo in the story and have him trying to expand into Blaine County. It would also be interesting to have Franklin and this new character start as basically rivals or even enemies (he wouldn't be as friendly towards Franklin at first as Cesar was to CJ), but put their gang affiliations to the side and become allies and even friends as they work more together. Meanwhile, Franklin's side of things would be significantly expanded (and we'd see more Families members than just Lamar and Stretch), and Michael would get even more focus with the movie studio, etc. Alternately, just having two protagonists, Michael and Franklin, could have worked. Kinda like Jacob and Evie in Assassin's Creed Syndicate, only they're much different and experience two different sides of the LS underworld. Maybe it'd be a step down from IV+EfLC having three protagonists (minus the switching), but it would have still been impressive to switch between these two vastly different characters at any time.

Hahahaha yep yep. Some people think its the Hip thing to hate on the current GTA game ... Not authentic & whatnot. Similar to BMW over at jalopnik ... Wanna join the Kool kids? Hate BMW -__- Yeah, I actually understand the criticism of V from fans like Osho, and to a very large extent, I agree with them. To the more militant IV-fans, GTA V isn't serious enough, dark enough, somber enough, and realistic enough. But to the San Andreas fans, like Osho, the game isn't quite enough like San Andreas. By the way, that is my one major complaint about V. If I had my druthers, it would be more like San Andreas in several ways (and VC, and III, and VCS, and LCS). But I give GTA V a lot of latitude, perhaps more than I should. The reason being that after GTA IV and its Episodes, I honestly thought I was irrevocably DONE with GTA. That game, to me, was in many ways "the anti-GTA" or at least the antithesis of everything I love in GTA. So when that game came out, and was followed by the episodes, I turned to Saints Row and Just Cause 2 for my wild, over-the-top Sandbox fun, as well as the 3D era GTA games, which I still play. So when I started really getting into V, even though it was still a little too"IV-ish" for my tastes, it still had that "old school GTA feel" and so I tend to give GTA V more of a pass on certain "too much like IV for my taste" issues than I would if, say V was the direct sequel to San Andreas, and hypothetically if IV never existed. The truth is that if V was the direct sequel to SA with no IV coming in between them, I would be a helluva lot more critical of V that I am. But it is a profound relief that, while it is a sort of a compromise, at least to some extent, "I have my GTA back!" and no longer have to get my sandbox jones from 3D era GTA, SR, and JC. I think part of the problem is that Rockstar tries to experiment & change things a bit from one GTA to another to give each one its unique atmosphere & flover. Not all respond well to change. The jump from San Andreas to IV is the best example of that.

Hahahaha yep yep. Some people think its the Hip thing to hate on the current GTA game ... Not authentic & whatnot. Similar to BMW over at jalopnik ... Wanna join the Kool kids? Hate BMW -__- Yeah, I actually understand the criticism of V from fans like Osho, and to a very large extent, I agree with them. To the more militant IV-fans, GTA V isn't serious enough, dark enough, somber enough, and realistic enough. But to the San Andreas fans, like Osho, the game isn't quite enough like San Andreas. By the way, that is my one major complaint about V. If I had my druthers, it would be more like San Andreas in several ways (and VC, and III, and VCS, and LCS). But I give GTA V a lot of latitude, perhaps more than I should. The reason being that after GTA IV and its Episodes, I honestly thought I was irrevocably DONE with GTA. That game, to me, was in many ways "the anti-GTA" or at least the antithesis of everything I love in GTA. So when that game came out, and was followed by the episodes, I turned to Saints Row and Just Cause 2 for my wild, over-the-top Sandbox fun, as well as the 3D era GTA games, which I still play. So when I started really getting into V, even though it was still a little too"IV-ish" for my tastes, it still had that "old school GTA feel" and so I tend to give GTA V more of a pass on certain "too much like IV for my taste" issues than I would if, say V was the direct sequel to San Andreas, and hypothetically if IV never existed. The truth is that if V was the direct sequel to SA with no IV coming in between them, I would be a helluva lot more critical of V that I am. But it is a profound relief that, while it is a sort of a compromise, at least to some extent, "I have my GTA back!" and no longer have to get my sandbox jones from 3D era GTA, SR, and JC.