Search the Community

GTA is changing and we have to live with it. R* is trying out new things with the doomsday scenario stuff. Avon and Bogdan are cringy at times but Cliffford is a nicely written AI gone self-aware style character What is wrong with Cliffford? And what makes doomsday heists lame, other than "belonging in saints row"

Well what in the name of all things holy?! Doomsday heist is the lamest thing that has happened to GTA. it doesn't belong to GTA. it belongs to saints row. The dialogues are cringey as f*ck.

Although I don't think "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" would have suited GTA V as much as a more Vice City-esque game that actually involves taking over businesses or entire swaths of the city, not just stealing money. It fit Saints Row 2's setting and story perfectly. If they ever do another GTA like that again, then it'd be awesome to have that song in it.

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.

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

This is very interesting, actually. I hadn't thought about it from this perspective. While I can't speak to how much better they or worse they were done in RDR, I will take your word that the deserts and wastelands are better even in the original RDR, I will say that GTA V is not a pre-industrial game whose entire map will invariably live and die by its small, undeveloped, western cities, its deserts, and its wilderness. I would expect that to be the case even without having to be told. GTA V is a game set in the modern era simulating Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Orange County, the LA beaches, and the outlying deserts that stretch north toward San Francisco and northwest toward Nevada. I certainly wouldn't try to compare the two maps based on my very limited knowledge of RDR. Maybe I will consider giving RDR2 a try when it comes out. No promises as I am not a fan of the gameplay I saw in the original RDR videos and even the descriptions of the game I read all about in the reviews, which admittedly were glowing with praise. Just not feeling the whole Western thing. Look, the reason I love Blaine County is because it is only part of the map in the game, is incredibly detailed and beautiful, definitely worthy of exploration, AND it has a ton of stuff that I actually enjoy doing. Now I repeat, I am not saying you have to like the map, only that I do, and I don't agree with a lot of the criticisms I read here. But putting that aside, a game, to me, is a whole not just a bunch of parts. So when I see videos, say of RDR, and people are hunting animals, skinning them, trading pelts, and about 100 other RPGish elements I came across when the game launched, at that point, the "world" itself is of little significance to me. Because I have always felt that a game world, whether III, VC, SA, IV, V, many of the Saints Row games, Just Cause, etc., is only as good as the game it housesfor lack of a better term. So when I enjoy V's map, it isn't only the map I am enjoying, its all of it, the whole kit-and-kaboodle, taken in that make the map sort of my playground. And V is a gorgeous map, and to me, an amazing playground. This is kind of what I was trying to say above. No matter how much I love V's map now, if it were, say a different game, instead of GTA V, in that very same map, and I was trading pelts, could only ride horses, and had access to nothing but 1899 technology as tools, I bet I wouldn't like the map at all. Well, that isn't true either. I would still admire Los Santos and Blaine County, BUT I would simply not feel connected to it and immersed into it the way I do now. Why do you think that even with all of the low res textures and blocky turn of the new millennium graphics I can still get totally lost in III, SA, and VC? Because even though booting those games up is a sort of culture shock now, because of the graphical weaknesses, I LOVE the games so much, I stop caring once my eyes get used to it. But for me, V is the best of both worlds, Amazing game, well designed map (like 3D Era GTA games) and awesome graphics. This is why I rarely agree with the critiques of the map for V I read in this forum. I can totally see how you can enjoy this! Well, let's be clear. I am a huge Rocktar fan, too! Just because I passed on RDR, and its interesting you mentioned Noir, because I passed on that, too, doesn't mean overall I don't love a lot of Rockstar games. The original Midnight Club game was literally the very first PS2 game I ever did 100% completion on, even though way back in 2000 when the game launched with the console, I don't think there was such a designation as "100% completion." I loved Midnight Club II enough to not only buy it and get 100% in that, also on the PS2, but when I saw it on Steam, a couple of years back, I snagged it and played 100% again. I was, and STILL AM, a huge fan of Midnight Club DUB Edition, and bought the REMIX version when it came out, all over again. I played both Smuggler's Runs to death on the PS2, and even bought it on the Gamecube when it launched for that little platform. I played Bully, and even bought the PC version later on. I played a couple of Max Payne games a while back. I bought the original State of Emergency when it launched, and played it. I still have Midnight Club Los Angeles, but for some reason I got sidetracked and stopped playing it fairly early on. I should probably boot it up and get deeper in. I think it was something with the Catch up AI and the really difficult AI drivers that bothered me about it, but I don't really remember. I played Manhunt, too. Though I wasn't crazy about it, the game was okay. I also played the original Mafia on Xbox, but I was not a huge fan. I finished it, but found it a little restrictive for my tastes, particularly with the cops chasing you for speeding, and I think blowing red lights. To be fair, I also own Mafia 3 (didn't play II for some reason, I can't remember why, but I think I may pick that up just for the lulz). The only reason I haven't played Mafia 3 is because I bought it dirt cheap on Steam, but even though my aging PC has the specs to play it, I really want to wait until I build my new high end gaming rig this summer. So I am holding off on that one for the moment. But rest assured, I am really looking forward to playing then when I build my system with either a GTX 1180 or settle for the GTX 1080 ti. Hey! Here's a Rockstar/Take2 blast from the past for you. Way back in the early Nineties, right before I started Chiropractic college and was still an undergrad, I played Lemmings. Ha I had NO IDEA who Rockstar was or even if they were technically even a company back then, and had no clue at all what GTA was going to be a half a decade later and beyond. But you can't say that I am not a fan of Rockstar because the TWO games you guys all love in this forum, which I believe share a lot of philosophical similarities with GTA IV, by the way, are ones I passed on. Just so you know. See, no. I ALWAYS say that GTA V is one of the very highest points in GTA. I never said it was even the best GTA game to date. I think a lot of things that I enjoy about V are the best in the series (for me) but there are things about the game that I still don't like, and things I honestly believe that the 3D Era GTA games do a lot better. And I have said all of this MANY times. I never, not once, tried to assert V's map superiority over a game I have never played. That would be ludicrous. I have played MC LA and I don't think that game has a better map than V. BUT, that said, I will boot up the game again and play it, just to see for myself. But again, I never said Los Santos is a better map than LA Noir's. How the f*ck would I possibly know, when that was one of the TWO Rockstar games I passed on? My argument with you guys, regarding the map, is NOT that I am trying to say V's map is better than games I have not played, BUT when you say things like "poorly designed," "wasted space," and on and on.

In Algonquin's defense, he may be a IV fan and certainly likes IV better than V, but that just makes him a tasteless douche with a Mommy complex someone who doesn't agree with us about IV versus V. All joking aside, he and I disagree about a lot of things in V and IV, but he always beings good points to the table, even when we find ourselves on opposite sides of the debate. In point of fact, he is right about this. Car-surfing was never really a thing in GTA. You could kind of, sort of do it, granted, but it is more of a weird or odd happenstance than anything Rockstar did intentionally. You can tell this is true because even when you can make it work, its quite loose and sloppy and never really feels right. Saints Row is the only sandbox series I have seen actual car surfing in, and it is a lot of fun, far more so than trying to artificially make it happen in any GTA game. This is because, unlike GTA, Volition actually created not only a mini-game for vehicle surfing, BUT added the gameplay aspect of it to the physics.

I understood what you meant, but every great game, GTA included, has to copy and paste things, particularly when you have a huge, expansive map, and a weapon set that is, to a certain extent, grounded in realism. Let's be honest, this isn't Ratchet & Clank or Saints Row, where the games make their living by providing the most insanely creative weapons imaginable. In a GTA context, there is only so much wiggle room Rockstar allows themselves assault rifles, sniper rifles, shotguns, etc. So if you have 5 different machine guns in your SMG slot, they will all be similar in ways. Then again, there are cool weapons like the Rail Gun. But my point is cut and pastes are inevitable and have never been unique to GTA V. Go back to San Andreas and look at things like trees and some of the similar houses in similar neighborhoods. Also, other GTA games have less variety of weapons. My point is I don't see having cut and pastes as necessarily a bad thing. Huge, awesome game worlds like GTA V cannot have every, single, little element designed uniquely. Time has to be saved by using a certain amount of conservation of design. I don't want to make a huge, massive quote tree, so I will respond to your points without most of your quotes. I have never been a fan of zombie games at all. But that said, I really like the way Volition added it to Saints Row 2. I would have liked it more in SRTT, but I was not happy that Arapice Island was permanently infested with Zombies after the zombie mission for Mayor Reynolds. I liked the way SR2 handled it better. But that said, it could be fun if ROckstar implemented it right. We are definitely on the same page on a lot of things. I will say that in terms of actual, gameplay the safehouses in GTA V are useless, BUT then again, remember our conversation about interiors? Aren't they, quite honestly, gameplay useless as well? Are you suggesting that GTA V have even less enterable interiors than it does by eliminating safehouses because of the quick save feature on the phone? Two words I said before about interiors I think also apply to the safehouses: Role Play. Also having each protagonist with their own home that the player can enter and explore really adds to the immersion of the story, even if the game no longer requires saving by sleeping. I think that had Rockstar removed the safe houses from V that even though they have dubious gameplay value, it would have stripped a large part of the feeling that the player is part of the world. Not to mention that in GTA games, safe houses are more than just being about gameplay. They are a tradition, dating back 17 years to GTA III. Could they have made them more useful in some way, such as with SR like customizing and maybe having more cool stuff happen there? Sure. But I don't think that this was even close to a priority in V. There is a huge amount of content, and at some point, developers have to prioritize what can and can not be developed in the game. As I already said, GTA absolutely suffers from too little garage space in SP. It isn't a comfort to console players, BUT you can get all the garages in the SP game on the PC with a mod, and then you have space for literally HUNDREDS of vehicles for each protagonist. Why Rockstar never brought this to the vanilla game is absolutely beyond me, and a bit of a disgrace, to be honest. I agree with you about the clothes. They are definitely absurdly repetitive. With very few notable exceptions, every single suit I bought as Michael looks like every single other suit. Franklin and Trevor get a little bit more variety, but not much. I remember when I had to buy nerd clothes for Lester in "Friend Request" and it was ridiculous how all the cargo shorts and vests he needed looked exactly the same. This is one of the few areas I would actually agree with ATP2555 about cut and pastes. The clothing just has no creativity. To be honest, and to repeat, I don't boot up GTA so I can play Barbie Dress-Up, so this isn't a big deal to me, literally at all. That said, however, I can see how this would be obnoxious to some players. I think that Rockstar intentionally scaled back on the friend and hangout stuff because, lets be honest, so many GTA fans, me included, complained so much about this. I think Rockstar wanted to keep this aspect of the game and simply made it a lot less intrusive. But I also think that this meant that players like yourself, who like this aspect of GTA waaaaaaay more than I do, were going to be disappointed. It never bothered me that Michael couldn't "sleep with" Amanda in the same way that Franklin could befriend and seduce a stripper or they could pick up prostitutes and get booty calls. Crap like this, in my opinion at least, is highly overrated nonsense in a GTA game, and it wouldn't bother me one little bit if it was completely abandoned. I don't get the allure. I like the idea of it, but not the ridiculously annoying obtrusiveness of it all and how in-your-face it is. And not just IV with the stupid, obnoxious,, relentless bromance date crap and the "like" stat that I wanted to slit my wrists every time I saw. San Andreas is truly obnoxious with the girlfriends, too. Denise is the ONLY girl who just likes CJ for who he is, but even she gets terribly annoying. For Helena, you have to be fat with little muscle, for Barbara, you have to be husky and muscular, for Katie you have to be skinny. And God f*cking forbid you are trying to max them to 100% and keep them there with "maintenance" dates when you are dating them all at one time and have to change your body type. Like I said, the picky, fastidious girfriends in SA and the Bromance, clingy, needy, annoying-ass friends in IV are a good idea in theory, but if this is how Rockstar needs to implement them, then me personally, I would rather they just be eliminated completely than have to endure one more, "Cousin, you vant we go bowling?" and then if you are busy, you know, actually playing the f*cking game, you get a little minus-like. To answer your question about the property missions, YES I do like driving the weed truck of the booze truck for a Paleto bar, or fending off robberies, or doing taxi and tow truck missions. Why? Because, they are innocuous, random, can be turned down with little penalty other than a couple of dollars, unneeded anyway by that point in the game. PLUS, you mentioned rolelay several times already. That is what those missions are for. They add a sense of time and emotional investment in property ownership in the same way that a lot of enterable interiors would add to the roleplay of whatever you want to do inside them, The businesses are NOT meant to be deep, long, sophisticated missions. Here is another thought for you to consider about V's businesses: Aren't they an awful lot like MOST OF the main career missions in all the previous GTA missions, even including IV? "Drive person A to location B, take them home" or in this case deliver weed or booze of be a taxi driver (another staple in previous GTA games). Properties in V take a lot of heat in this forum, but I don't get it. They just add a little extra bonus missions. Simple? Absolutely. But they are not meant to be more than that. Do them, don't do them, or completely ignore them. But them just "being in the game" is certainly no worse than "Cousin, you vant we go bowling?" as at least there is no real penalty for blowing them off. I totally agree with you about the sharks, but I would also say that the attacking animals are just as bad. Look, one of my favorite things about GTA games is the relaxing, hedonistic enjoyment of exploration. When your life is in danger from animals, whether coyotes and cougars on land or sharks in the sea, it really breaks immersion for me. Because I don't want to ALWAYS have to be alert and ready to defend myself. Don't get me wrong. The predator animals in GTA V are easy enough to deal with, but it requires much, much more vigilance than I want to have while trying to kick back and just explore. San Andreas may have been the best game for pure, unadulterated sightseeing for this very reason. Realistic to have no predators in the forest and desert and mountains? No, but I think realism needs to be subordinated to fun in videogames like GTA.

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.

Same here! GTA is one of the most amazing games in the history of gaming, and one of the best GTA games in the franchise's history. But the lack of SP support leaves so much wasted potential. This is one of those things where, even though I could honestly care less about interiors, there is no reason Rockstar shouldn't have added them, particularly since they are already in the game and modders were able to give us access to a huge amount of them. I cannot, for the life of me, fathom why Rockstar wouldn't have simply added them to the game and not let the modders do it instead. Makes no sense to me. Aren't all GTA games like this, though? Unless you are criticizing GTA in general. Honestly, Saints Row III and III are the only games I can think of where you can customize your safe houses. Seems weird to me that this game doesn't allow the same kinds of clothing option as San Andreas. The only thing I can think of is that this was streamlined because maybe the devs felt like this is a sandbox crime game, not Barbie Dress-Up? lol Like the interiors, I personally don't care about this. I am not a huge fan of tons of clothing in GTA and I only ever choose the stock outfits anyway. But that said, I think Rockstar knows that GTA fans love to roleplay, and things like this, and interiors, seem to facilitate that. And adding clothing is just a bunch of stupid skins anyway. They could have had one or two people spend a couple of days going to town on cool clothing. While it wouldn't have mattered to players like me at all, I am in the minority because I know for a fact GTA fans, en masse, are huge advocates of more clothing options. I always felt like the Bromance Playdate thing was annoying enough in San Andreas, with the girlfriends ALL being so high maintenance, and it became completely absurd in IV. I am glad that this was stripped out or really streamlined in V. But I can understand that if people like this part of the game, I guess. As for property missions, I respect your opinion, but can't agree with this. I like the property missions in this game. Although I will definitely grant that Vice City had far and away the BEST Asset property missions in GTA history. So if you are comparing it to that then I feel your pain. But I am comparing it to IV and San Andreas, since they are the previous two games, and V really is much better in this regard. Again, though, VC was amazing. Oh and the Empire Building in VCS was insanely cool! If they had expanded upon that in V, I would be soooooo happy. As it is, I see the Property missions as kind of filler, but fun at the same time. NOTHING compared to VC and VCS, though. And I am just SO HAPPY that I don't have to WIN at pool, Air Hockey (Episodes) and other of these moron bar games to get 100%! Oh and bowling! BARF! lol Its bad enough that they have Yoga, which would have been fine as a voluntary diversion, where you can skip them and choose other things to get your 100% contribution from. I hate the tennis, golf, and all that. I like that they are in the game, but I am glad the player doesn't have to actually do them to get 100%. I never, never got the allure of Pool in SA or IV. I think that with all the radio stations, more TV would really be pushing it. But hey, if it could be done, it would be fun. This game is STUPID CHEAP with garage space. And the worst part is that all the Online properties with ten car garages is like a real slap in the face to SP GTA fans. ANother thing I never understood, unless Rockstar us using stuff like this to bully people to play online in the hopes of getting us all to buy Shark Cards. And insult to injury for non PC players is that there is a mod to bring ALL the properties from Online to SP with almost endless garage space. To me, how the Rockstar devs can sleep at night knowing this is beyond me. I think the weapons in V are a massive improvement, NOT just compared to IV but all GTA games. I love the weapon wheel and carrying every weapon in the game, as well as having a much more generous ammo cap. But I also see your point as some of the weapons really do feel a little repetitive. To be honest, this is a problem afflicting not only every single GTA game but every sandbox game. Don't get me wrong, it could have been a lot different had Rockstar made good on their promise of continued, ongoing SP support and not abandoned SP for their online cash cow. Other than trying to entice people to go online by withholding SP support, I can't think of a single reason why SP DLC and updates didn't continue to this day, particularly since it is now coming up on 5 years since V was released and there hasn't been so much as a peep from Rockstar about GTA VI.

What I mean is, GTA V SP is actually a very good game, but the problem is, many people say that it's a Saints Row copy because of GTA Online, where they added all the futuristic crap, which isn't available in GTA V SP.

For the record, Domac and I probably disagree about most things regarding GTA, but to take his defense in a sort of devil's advocate kinda way, I don't think he means it literally when he says that V's special abilities are like Saint's Row. I think he is using more of an analogy and hyperbole to make his point, not asserting that they are exactly the same. You are correct, the special abilities are nothing like Saint's Row, not TT or IV. But I kind of see his point at the same time. For the record, I DO NOT agree with his point, but I do see the position he is advocating. He is basically saying that V, particularly the special abilities, are too over the top, and resemble Saints Row more than GTA. Is it a hyperbolic statement? Absolutely. And as I said, I don't agree with him, but do see his point. Bringing up IV again, I can absolutely understand that if one is coming off of IV and thinking that this is, in fact, the ultimate GTA experience, then it follows that V is just a little too batsh*t crazy to them because they were expecting the next game, after IV, to be more grounded, realistic, and more Sandbox-Crime-Sim than what GTA V actually is. I am so familiar with the IV-Better-Than-V argument that I could probably regurgitate it for you here, but I won't. I want to see what he comes up with in response to your query. They never do! Kidding. Sort of. My serious point is that waaaay back in 2008 when I was making the same complaint about IV and all the awesome stuff Rockstar removed from San Andreas, I was met with a ton of opposition and rhetoric from IV fans, explaining to me, sometimes angrily, how IV was more of a movie game, and the things they removed were just filler anyway, and blah, blah, blah. I suppose if I were a IV fan and loved that game, and again, was disappointed in V for its non-IV-ness, I would be thinking that all the stuff they added to V (that so many fans, myself included) detract from the game. V removed a "dark, immigrant story," and even though I prefer V's story, I can see that if someone thinks that IV is the epitome of GTA storytelling, that V would appear "less than." I could see how he might be complaining about the cop car Vigilante missions in IV, for instance. I can see how, if he loves the Euphoria engine, that V may seem watered down to him. If he loves the driving in IV, that I quite frankly hate with a passion, he might consider V's driving a step down. IV does a lot of things different than any other GTA game. Which is both what Rockstar wanted AND what some fans loved and are disillusioned that V didn't follow much more in IV's footsteps. That, and a few other things (like superior hand to hand combat, more realistic vehicle deformation, more "weighty" and heavy character movements, and on and on. If I were a real fan of IV and expected V to be its direct sequel, which LMAO clearly is not the case, then I would feel as they do. Preach it, Brother .Smaher! Testify! Can I heaaaah ya saaaaaay Amen! This is something I would sort of say that I wouldn't mind these things in the game, BUT that I don't think the game is worse for not having them either. Judgement call on Rockstar's part. When you make a game, you CANNOT put everything in it. Time, budget, system resources, last gen consoles limiting the mix, and just prioritizing for and against some things all play a role. In the end, there are many things that GTA fans are ALWAYS disappointed that are "left out" from previous games. But we move on. Well, some of us do. Want some examples? -I was very disappointed that 6 Police bribes spawning at every hideout was a feature left out of Vice City. -I was disappointed that, other than '80's backstory, Donald Love NEVER had his fate or story resolved. TO THIS DAY. -I was disappointed that we never got to "See Ray in Miami" as he yelled to us when he was leaving town at the end of Marked Man -I was disappointed we NEVER saw Catalina again after SA. But this I understand because Fido killed her at the end of The Exchange. lol So that one's on me. -I am disappointed that other than a ghost bomb shot e Ball was left out of EVERY GTA after III -I was disappointed that even with all the flyables then never brought back the challenging-to-fly half-wing Dodo -I was disappointed that they didn't bring back vehicle spawning in the Import/Export Garages -I was disappointed they never brought back the EV Crane and the spawning of GTA pickups for all those vehicles And on and on. All of those examples were not things I was disappointed in IV for, BUT things I was disappointed in 3D Era GTA games. You know what? In the end, I loved the games, and got over it. There are a lot of things I wanted to see in GTA V that didn't make it into the game for whatever reason. I got over it. And before anyone gets mad, I am NOT suggesting anyone just STFU and get over it. I am merely saying that "things being left out" of a GTA game from the last game really is nothing new. It wasn't new in 2008 and wasn't new in 2013. Totally agree! I mean, if Michael, Trevor, and Franklin don't feel like criminals to him, then clearly he's not paying attention! Correct! That has been a staple of every single GTA game since III. I mean, if Fido wasn't an errand boy, starting out after 8-Ball breaks them out of custody, as an errand boy for Luigi, then I don't know who was! His first mission is to pick up Misty from the clinic! I mean, what the hell is more errand boy than that? Fido spends the entire game being an errand boy for Luigi, Joey, Tony, and Sal before Maria screws him with the Mafia. Then he is an errand boy for Asuka, Kenji, Ray, and Donald Love. And what do you call his menial tasks for El Burro, the Yardies, and D-Ice? All errand boy stuff, right up until the end. Tommy? After 15 years in jail, he gets out and is basically Sonny Forelli's errand boy, intimidating jurors, and trying to balance his loyalty to the family with getting out of the mess he was in. He is an errand boy for Carrington and pretty much everyone else, including Diaz and Cortez. Same for CJ. And don't even get me started on all the mind-numbing errand boyish, tedious tasks Niko had to perform both at the behest of his cousin, to save his life many times, and for all the characters he meets. In fact, I would argue that the player is more buffed in IV than in V, with the exception of Trevor's Rage, of course. But this is actually a wash, because the player in IV also has enemies that are a lot tougher. So it evens out in this regard. Plus V has MORE heists, and as good a mission as Three Leaf Clover is, it can't compare to any of V's heists. Which in fairness to IV, you can't expect it to. IV's heist was a prelude to what was coming in V. From that standpoint, Three Leaf Clover was a great starting point from which to build the heists in V to a much more complex and innovative level. Not the least of which being alternate approaches that literally change the entire mission in most cases!

Because those games featured it in the first place. Maybe if RDR2 removes the dead-eye ability, no one will say it lost the originaL RDR feel because RDR1 is the only RDR besides the coming RDR2. GTA is a series that have lasted for 21 years now, and they all had something unique that made them feel like GTA. GTA V put some new features, and removed some all the original GTAs had (TommyTheMan said some of them). In old GTAs you felt like you were a criminal that had lots of problems and stuff, and you had to rob people and do missions to get to the top and kill the bad guys. In GTA V you don't because, you are invincible, you can kill like 1000 cops throughout the heists, but you can't kill an FIB agent that is right next to you with a gun and escape. The heists aren't even that realistic as they were in past GTAs. There is also too many of them. What games featured it? Saints Row? Once again, no they didn't. Those comparisons for Rockstar games were showing that the special abilities were more tied to all three of them, than they were to Saints Row, a non-Rockstar game that doesn't even have those special abilities. Saints Row is a game where you can become a superhero. Those three Rockstar games are grounded, and have similar abilities V has. No, it's not a good comparison. You need to name me those vital features, and make sure they change the scope of GTA, in a bad way, because just saying it removed stuff "all" the GTAs had doesn't cut it. You didn't even mention how IV removed lots of stuff that were in the other GTA games. Lots of the fun. It removed the "wasted" and "busted" symbol from the old games, which GTA V brought back. It removed planes, which V brought back. It removed vehicle customization, which V brought back. It removed the tank, which V brought back. It removed a couple of fun weapons, which V brought back (like the minigun). IV was too focused on trying to be the "grounded" GTA to actually keep the fun, and wackiness the older games had. It was too focused in taking itself seriously, and it suffered in lots of aspects because of that. V did the opposite, and knew that lots of GTA fans liked the fact that GTA was also supposed to be fun. The fact that V added new stuff that other games didn't (the new hud, special abilities, multiple characters, animals, massive online) have gives it an identity, and I know you know that. What vital stuff is V missing? Burger Shot interiors? It's not the end of the world, grocery stores still exist. The circle hud? How many people are really complaining about that? The gym, and getting fit? It seriously has no use in V, either way. Gambling? There are other ways to make money. I don't get your criticism here. When, in GTA, weren't you a criminal, who robbed people? GTA V is all about that aspect. The characters are literal criminals, and it's a large part of their story. It's what you start off the game doing. My dude, in every GTA game, you're someone's errand boy. That's one of the main driving forces for the missions. You do work, because you have to, and want to. Even if who you're taking work from is right in front of you. You aren't invincible in V. Just because you can plan out, and survive heists, because of plot armor, doesn't make you invincible. Going off that, every GTA character is literally invincible, because they can mow down enemies, come out, and do the same thing in the next mission. The only mission in V where you're actually "invincible" is the Paleto Score, and it's already explained why that is. Either way, I'm failing to see how this one's a problem. Because it's a mission where you can shoot at cops, and cause mayhem, like you always could in GTA? There is no way the older heists were more realistic. Older GTAs are self explanatory, but in IV, you robbed an entire bank, while shooting dozens of cops, improvising an escape through a subway system where cops are waiting for you, run through it in and out, and driving off in a car home. At least V added in the aspect of planning out the heist, and how to actually escape. That's a level of realism the other GTAs didn't bother to have. The older GTAs, and their mission setups were all campy, and were piled on with scenarios that were too much to call "realistic". If I'm missing something here, then explain what you meant by this.

I'm sorry to double post, but lemme just point out that, we are talking about G. T. A. Not any of the other games. Red Dead Redemption took the slo-mo ability from Red Dead Revolver the previous game. Midnight Club is a racing game. And Max Payne is a whole different game, which revolves around the Bullet Time mechanic. You couldnt have missed my point more. I said those games were more comparible to the special features than Saints Row of all games. The fact that theyre not GTA, like Saints Row, is my point. Also, to respond to your GTA V couldve been a great game, I know thats your opinion and all, but being the third best selling video game ever, and making more money than any movie ever ($6 billion) would constitute it as a great game to the majority, at the most.

In my honest opinion, V could have been a great game... But it turned out to be a big disappointment for me. It starts off with a new and fun concept: 3 Protagonists. Great! This means more missions, and a great story! Missions: Mostly boring and pointless Story: Iffy You don't know how many times I have played GTA 5 and literally turned off the console while playing, because I got so bored while playing some missions. (Obviously I saved.) And after the sh*t ton of boring missions you have the Strangers and Freaks, Races, and other cool stuff to do. But of course, after every GTA game it does get boring after a while. Completing all the S&F missions, stunt-jumps, and races, obviously there is nothing else to do. So? What do we do now? Online of course! Online was probably the biggest let down for me. I would have been fine with single-player, but if it wasn't for online, I wouldn't have the same views I would have on it right now. It was a cool way to mix the online story-line to the single-player story-line (Lamar, Lester, and such.) but even playing those missions were absolutely boring, (especially either waiting people to play with you, or begging your friends to get off of what other games they're playing, and play the mission with you.) Heists were actually pretty good. Pretty fun in my experience. All the other "DLC's" were just cars I spent money on, or the business offices and sh*t. Now, onto game-play mechanics, and such. GTA V, has some good mechanics and fun physics. I love the rocket cars (online), and blowing stuff up, probably the most entertaining thing to do. But the most annoying thing ever, are the pedestrians, the police, and gang members (which I guess belong to the pedestrian group lol ) Literally standing around will get you 1 star. (And if you don't know they shoot at 1 star.) Now if I just started out, New game and all. If I bump into someone and just listen to what they say (Something I loved to do in SA, the voice lines were hilarious!) I will have 1 star, and a cop on my ass shooting me. "Why don't you just get a car and drive away?" Well, that means I would have to steal one, which then would give me 2 stars. "But you can evade the police..." Maybe I don't want to evade the f*cking police, maybe I just want to listen to some funny f*cking voice lines. The "feel" of GTA V? Well there isn't really a feel to it. It just feels like a regular 3rd-Person shooter, open-world game. I would honestly play Saints Row IV over 5, and thats just because SR IV has the super powers. GTA V doesn't feel like a GTA, and that's because of the reasons above. There's no humor like the old GTA's, no freedom, and no fun. IV was almost just as bad. (YOU COULDN'T EVEN PARACHUTE IN IV? WTF?) IV had the grimy feeling of LC, which I give props for remaking. Even though IV is the exact opposite of V, IV's story was pretty whack. I'm not going into detail as this is about V not IV. But of course you can't please everybody. Let's just all look forward to RDR II coming in October

How do you compare the special abilities to Saints Row first, and not Red Dead Redemption, Midnight Club, or Max Payne? That wasn't a good analogy.

I don't think it lost all of it, but it definitely lost some of the original feel of working your way up through the ranks of criminals and unlocking new islands to explore etc... Not to mention the old 'fundamentals' of older classic GTA's like paramedic and vigilante that this game has left out completely whereas in GTA IV we at least got the Most Wanted and criminals in police computer that were somewhat reminiscent of the older GTA's vigilante-system. The only one this game has kept are Taxi-missions which are completely optional and frankly not really worth it compared to the many ways you can make cash in this game (stock-market). I'd also have to say the special abilities the protagonists have are not really something I'd expect from a GTA-game but rather from Saint's Row, which could also be applied to all of the over-the-top stuff this game has introduced (mostly for online) like flying cars and motorcycles with rockets etc. (not to mention the ability to roll cars when upside down which has absolutely nothing to with realism). So in other words, I think GTA V has just taken a big backstep towards it's other competitors and forgotten the fundamentals which made the series so special and one of the greatest game-franchises of all time. I'm honestly very concerned about the future of the series and if and when there will be next GTA, I don't think it will be something that could truly be labeled as GTA anymore (with The Benz gone and all).

Rage GTAs are lacking features from the old games and the number of things you could do has been reduced. I can hardly call it an improvement for a sandbox game. Making the graphics nicer is not enough, Mafia, Just Cause and Saints Row have that as well. You need to have a distinctive filler to fill your world with, and that is something that is lacking from GTA 4/5. The features it's lacking are things the games can survive without. Just because they "miss features", doesn't make them ultimately inferior to the older games. Just because there's no get fit sim, and one had multiple cities, doesn't mean they're not improved over the Rage game. The stuff missing from the old games are replaced with stuff either missing from, or improved upon the stuff from the old games. More planes, more helicopters, much more cars, more and better weapons, jobs, properties, animals, robbing stores, car and gun customization, custom license plates, swimming, ped interaction, random events, special abilities, jet skis, Online, first person, way more easter eggs, etc. It looks like you're stretching GTA SA over GTA V since the features you liked didn't make it in. If SA somehow came after V, with graphics being its only improvement, then people would say the same thing about SA. Actually outweigh what the old GTA games do against the new ones, and let me show you how much of a misconception thinking "graphics" is V's only noticeable improvement really is. The bottom line is that if you feel you need a distinctive filler for a GTA game, then that's either true, or you aren't using your imagination enough to have fun.

Rage GTAs are lacking features from the old games and the number of things you could do has been reduced. I can hardly call it an improvement for a sandbox game. Making the graphics nicer is not enough, Mafia, Just Cause and Saints Row have that as well. You need to have a distinctive filler to fill your world with, and that is something that is lacking from GTA 4/5.

To each his own, I guess! I had to suck it up and deal with a GTA I hated and whinged about in 2008. So I get your consternation, I really do. Now its your turn to not be happy with a GTA game. I can attest to the fact that, it happens. Oh well. Not trivializing your position at all, because I am actually sympathetic. I obviously don't agree with you, though. Really? You can get all the weapons as free pickups, including the RPG, Snipers, assault rifles, sticky bombs, and even molotov's which are not available in Ammuniations: http://gtaforums.com/topic/696088-weapons-locations/ Money is only a little on the cheap side early in the game. But I had lots of fun with the re-spawning briefcases. Also, unless you are trying to buy the Golf Course, some of the high priced Theaters as Michael, or the really expensive online purchases, most stuff in V can be bought really early on. I never felt like money was ever a struggle when I was playing the game on the PS3. Obviously not counting my PC save where I have Native Trainer installed. But even on the PS3 GTA V, I always bought the vast majority of the things I wanted when I wanted them without cheats. Look, if you are comparing V to SA and saying it isn't as free, you're preaching to the choir, my friend. I agree. In many ways, only Saints Row games give you that kind of freedom. Maybe Just Cause 2, if you count the Parachute + Grapple Hook and add in the thrusters, and of course, Just Cause 3, which adds the wingsuit. But I NEVER claimed that V was as uninhibitedly free as San Andreas. We can agree to disagree about IV, because, while I am gutting my way through the Episodes, and almost done, I am definitely NOT feeling the freedom or the love. lol

GTA has ALWAYS had a zillion filler missions. Or are you really going to blast yoga (admittedly boring) and extol the virtues of IV, when that game not only brought BORING ass nonsense to the table like bowling, pool (SA too), and darts, but force you to take ALL your bromance, clingy, ass-wipe "friends" to every one of them to unlock rewards and get 100%, AND forced you to win at least one game for contribution to 100%? Now THAT can be argued to not feel like GTA, but I get that Rockstar was trying something new. I actually almost gave up on BOTH Episodes of LC when I had to WIN an air hockey game on each episode. It was bad enough to have to take these needy, bromance jackoffs to these places, but I wanted to pull my f*cking hair out when I had to spend time out of my day WINNING every single one of these sports. Yes, V brings them back, and ups the stupidity ante with Yoga, but at least V is less intrusive in that you can pick and choose in many instances what you want to use for your 100%. Although I am forced to concede that adding a full session of Yoga to an actual story mission is a level of stupidity that actually manages to surpass some of IV's stupidity. Going back to filler missions, do I really need to bring up all the filler missions in III, VC, and SA, not even IV? Marty Chonks: pure filler. Hell, half the Mafia missions and Asuka and Kenji's missions feel like filler. San Andreas was stocked to the brim with fillers, as was Vice City. lol Dancing? Low Rider challenge? Import/Export in all 3D GTA's? I cn go on and on, and I also LOVE those old games, and love the fillers. But you are really reaching with this one. yes gta has always had filler missions, but let me stop you there GTA san andreas has 100 missions GTA 4 has 91 missions GTA V has 69 missions I disagree. The story is one of the best in GTA franchise history, and the map is absolutely gorgeous! I love it, and even though I am a New Yorker, and have lived in NYC my whole life, AND I couldn't wait for IV just to see what ROckstar would do with that map, I am reminded how much I hate the way they rendered the Big Apple in IV. But, I am also aware that this is opinion. Just like YOUR statement about V's map. i was born, raised and still live in New York. everytime i play gta 4 i am amazed at how detailed liberty city is, no its not an exact copy of any borough but it gets the atmosphere right. in my opinion no other game has gotten new york city as best as gta 4 has what other game can you name that has a better representation of new york. I think V's physics are WAY better than IV, in that they are more fun and more fitting with old school GTA, like from the 3D era. IV was not held back by technical limitations, it was held back by Rockstar's cringeworth need (at that time at least) to tether the gameplay to a long, drawn out, boring story, and force the player to be limited in a sandbox that felt like it was made out of cast iron. I am reminded, while soldiering through the Episodes, how oppressive the gameplay is in IV, how plodding and like an elephant man the characters move, how god awful the vehicles handle, and how Rockstar in 2008 was so fetishizing "realism" that they added realistic "weight" to everything. V improves SO MANY things, and its biggest virtue is that Rockstar, THANK GOD, realized they needed to compromise between IV and the 3D era. THANK GOD they improved the car physics and brought back the FUN of driving I remember from SA, III, VC, LCS, and VCS! GTA is not a driving SIM. You want heavy, limiting driving with cars flying all over the road, then play games like Gran Turismo or FORZA. I get they they try to be overly realistic. Because they are driving SIMS that........................wait for it......................try to simulate real driving. Which is fine for that genre. If anything, GTA IV was the odd man out in this regard. GTA NEVER had realistic or "heavy car weight" kind of driving physics before IV, and thankfully not after IV. I get it if you prefer the physics in V over IV but i cannot stand how it feels like im driving toy rc cars. i like the feeling of weight, its not a sim, its the HD era of gta and everything was improved with gta 4. gran turismo and forza are nothing like the driving in gta 4. there is no difference between the way cars handle in gta v and the way they handle in other open world games like sleeping dogs, saints row, watch dogs and saying that gta never had realistic or heavy car weight before IV is like saying gta never had 3 protagonists before V so its the odd man out. as technology improves so do the games in a series. i dont want gta 4 to play the same as previous gta games, the grand theft auto series is not like call of duty, every game should be an improvement from the last and gta v went backwards in places that gta 4 went forwards.

Sorry for the double post, but this site limits the number of quote blocks, so I had to break this up into two posts: Rockstar ALWAYS borrowed outside influences and gameplay motifs. Some of them serious additions and some meant as satire. V is no different in this regard. San Andreas brought in level up features for character abilities, skills, and weapons that were already in use for years in RPG titles. That was derivative, but fun. "Dancing" in San Andreas was lifted from Dance, Dance Revolution. Weapon upgrades by "simply using them" was being done even by action games like Ratchet & Clank for several years, but also many RPG's. Asset properties in both SA and VC were heavily borrowed from RPG games like the SIMS. Hell, GTA III itself took a lot of ideas from the original Driver game, which was actually the first 3D era sandbox game. The reason III is so famous is because it did it so much better and really took all the ideas from SO MANY other games and made it its own. This is not to suggest that GTA games are all derivative from top to bottom, by the way. BUT one of the things I loved so much back in 2001, and still love about GTA III, is that the game felt like ten games in one. It felt like a shooter, it felt like a driver, it felt like a crime sim, it felt like an RPG in some ways, and on and on. This is, in part, because of the fact that Rockstar has always used GTA as a platform to borrow a f*ck ton of ideas from everywhere all over gaming, combine those ideas with their own motifs, add a fun story and a beautiful world, shake it all up, and create a GTA game. V is definitely NOT the odd man out in this regard. It follows the same pattern as all GTA games. One of my biggest complaints about GTA IV is that it's all show, no go. And this is partially why. Rockstar spent so much time with that new engine getting every single little detail right, from creating physics with like ten million ways to ragdoll and die, all sorts of vehicle deformation, NPC actions when being bumped into, dropping things, and falling. IV got all these details right, but in doing so, Rockstar forgot to bring the fun. Its like they were so focused on creating what they thought would be some Mecca of a physics engine, that they either had no time to make a fun game after that or they were too busy ogling at all the cool dents and dings to be bothered to actually create, ya know, a fun game. I mean, don't get me wrong, if they could do both, fine. But one of the problems I had in IV that I suspect caused it to not be fun, is that the physics were so meticulous that they became restrictive and oppressively tied the hands of players. As I also said above, maybe some of the details (like vehicle deformation) could have been brought into V from IV, and sure, this would have been cool. But I don't think this was, nor should it have been, a priority when creating a massive videogame world and jam-packing it with a lot of fun. The only reason I ever notice car damage in V is when I read this forum and some fans complain about it. It isn't something I even remotely care about while driving at 200 miles per hour down the street and take a sports car off road lol. I just don't think that this level of detail in crash physics adds enough to a game that it needs to be prioritized. V has incredible attention to detail in many ways. Just not in precisely the same ways as IV Because it is a different game. V's graphics are more detailed, for instance, as are the overall visuals and colors. And not just on the PC or the PS4/XBone. Even on the PS3 or 360, same console as IV. Again, V has incredible attention to details in many ways, but not all ways. And neither did IV. Personal taste. I actually hated that in IV and now in the Episodes, which I am forcing myself to play through. Also, remember that IV is the odd man out in this regard. It is literally the only game in the series that buffs AI enemies that way. San Andreas, III, VC, LCS, and VCS, as well as V all have much lower TTK, and I think GTA is a better game going this route. I think the thing to remember here is that GTA is NOT a shooter, by definition. It is a sandbox crime game, with many, many, many varied gameplay ideas. I expect a shooter (whether FPS or just a regular shooter) to meticulously craft its shooting and cover mechanics. I don't expect this in GTA, nor do I believe it is either appropriate or fun. GTA V takes shooting and adds it into so many other things more seamlessly because the shooting is a part of a greater whole, NOT the final goal. In GTA, at least the GTA that I know and love, combat mechanics are a means to an end, NOT an end to a means. The thing I LOVE about the gunplay in V is that it is meant to be more fast paced, fluid, and action-packed. One thing I HATED ten years ago in IV, and really hate all over again with the Episodes, is everything happens soooooooo slooooooooooow. It all feels clunky, plodding, and there is no sense of Adrenalin. This is because everything is so calculating and strategizing that the combat feels like a strategy game more than anything else. I agree that the Episodes are even more clunky than regular IV, but still. IV was way too slow moving and plodding, as well, and the cover system was absolutely AWFUL, just as it is in the Episodes. In V, everything feels like a rush when I am in combat. Its fast, furious, feverish, and heart pounding. As was SA, VC, and III. And this is, in part, due to a lower TTK, where the pace is really stepped up. As for regenerative health, I love the idea, AND I think only partial regeneration without a health pack, soda, or food is a great compromise. MANY games do it, and I think its about time GTA did as well. I agree that it is a bit of a let down to get such a huge chunk of money from a mission so close to the end that money is no longer useful to the player. But, for better or wrose, ALL sandbox games are like this. Saints Row, one of my favorite franchises, is guilty of this, too. So was San Andreas and Vice City. I mean, all the 100% completion rewards for SA and VC were cool, but once you have 100% completion, who cares? This is an unfortunate quality of almost all sandbox games. It is what it is. IV, as you said, simply has crappy rewards across the board, and this takes away a lot of the fun. I think you are glossing over how V, like SA, does incrementally reward the player: Go to the gun range, and your ammo carrying ability goes through the roof, especially with Franklin. There is enough money to buy all the ammo and weapons you please, and MANY or most of the properties as you progress. lol Just not the Golf Course or the really expensive theaters. I think that the reward system of V, in terms of progression through the story and the side missions, is very satisfying overall. I love ALL the SR games, including The Third, SRIV, and Gat Out of Hell. GTA Online is nothing like SR. In fact, from the little I have seen of GTAO it is one of the most spectacular Online experiences in gaming history. My reason for boycotting it isn't because it is too over the top. lol If anything, I see that as AWESOME and a draw, not a deterrent. But I have been boycotting GTAO for 5 years because Rockstar has used it as a platform to gut the SP DLC and post-launch support. Not that my little boycott of one is going to hurt Take2's profits. I just refuse to support that policy of freemium corporate thuggery. Again, in my opinion, GTAO is detrimental not necessarily to GTA. It may, in fact, be the natural outgrowth of the freemium business model, which, unfortunately is inherently corrupt. But the windfall profits that are generated from Online may cause Rockstar to become lazy with future GTA SP games, and my greatest fear for GTA is that the SP will devolve into NOTHING MORE than a transparent scheme to entice people en masse to go online.

With just about every major GTA release, R* makes changes that makes the new game feel almost-entirely separate from the last game. The same goes for GTA V. However, the reason why GTA V is singled out is likely due to its newly-implemented features. You see, when R* added new features to older GTA titles, they generally did something that no other developers were doing. R* ended up taking far more outside influences than with previous titles. For instance, I have yet to see another AAA budget game with GTA IV's level of vehicle crash physics and AI reactions to impacts (Euphoria is more than just simple ragdolls, it's a "simulated" nervous and psychological system). Meanwhile, with GTA V, the changes that are seen are pretty "mainstreamed" by most other AAA developers. Of course, I'm talking about the likes of regenerative health, special character abilities, and a low TTK (Time To Kill). I actually feel that a high TTK suits GTA much better. GTA IV still allowed you to dispatch AI very quickly with a single well-placed headshot, but it also allowed players to utilize the slower method if they want (whether to torture or just simply incapacitate, not kill, the AI). However, I do feel that GTA EFLC's combat was inferior to vanilla GTA IV's combat. GTA TLAD has even clunkier movement than the vanilla game. GTA TBOGT is slightly less clunkier in terms of movement, but the added feature of the player's auto-aim breaking away from an incapacitated AI ruined a bit of the pace in what's supposed to be the fastest-paced story of the GTA IV Trilogy (it screws up the target switching almost entirely). GTA V's combat seems to have been more geared towards a sort of "competitive" online component, but even then, its combat still falls way too short to be considered as such. In addition to the low TTK, the weapon balance isn't good, the first-person mode is clunky on consoles, the third-person shoulder aim is way too far off to the right, there's no shoulder-switch button as there is in Red Dead Redemption and Max Payne 3, auto-aim is still way to prevalent in the multiplayer, and so many other issues. That's not to say that all of the "mainstreamed" features are bad, though. The weapon and radio wheels have been long overdue! If those existed in GTA SA and GTA IV (kind of does in the latter, but in a not-so-well-known and more archaic form), that'd have just been an extra button freed up for an additional feature. That's a godsend. As mentioned earlier, GTA IV's reward system was pretty crap, but so is GTA V's. You literally get over 95% of your campaign money from a single heist while most other missions don't even net you a single penny, and most of the side stuff gives you zilch also. The only good side rewards are the $2,100,000 from the Epsilon missions and the Space Docker from finding all the UFO parts. The "rewards" for finding all the submarine pieces and letter scraps is a total dick-slap to the player. In contrast, GTA SA gave you a significant reward for completing almost-literally every side activity. There is actual worth in getting all gold medals in the schools in GTA SA. And yeah, GTA Online is essentially Saints Row: The Turd. Even the splendid Saints Row 2 (still the best in the franchise) hasn't jumped the shark THAT much. GTA SA? GTA SA has the common courtesy to keep the downright absurdity to cheat codes. GTA V is great, but I do feel some of the negative influences from the lesser-received online portion may have tainted the core experience. GTA V came out a little over five years after GTA IV, but it was so ambitious that it could have used even more time to flesh out some aspects of gameplay, story, and overall design. Of course, any longer, considering five years is an eternity for video gaming, and the community would have probably burnt down R*'s HQ. So, I will give R* the benefit of doubt that GTA V's reputation (separate from financial success) among the fans was perhaps on a slippery slope since beginning.

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)