The fact that we can't burglarize/invade those mansions is the big

[Raptomex]

I wish burglaries did come back. For a game focused on money I'm surprised it didn't return.

[ekhunter]

this thread just makes me sad. oh so very sad oif what coulda been!

[Revoemag]

R* needs to steal an idea from GTA's sister game APB:Reloaded..

 

where a simple animation of breaking into the window of a house leaves random items(TV, radio, bag of money) on the ground for you to collect.

Actual items you would need to carry to your car and put in trunk then go to local black market and sell the items.

Other players could steal your items and/or steal the car the items are in.

This was hours of random fun when not doing missions.

[AllenKS]

To the people saying the gang war stuff wouldn't make sense because Franklin doesn't want to be in a gang or he hates the gang life, didn't pay attention to the story.

 

Franklin doesn't hate the gang life, he even wants to start his own Families set with Lamar. He just hates the petty "soldier", gang life bullsh*t that Lamar and Stretch are into. Think about Johnny from TLAD or Stringer Bell from The Wire. THAT'S Franklin. If he's gonna be in a gang, he wants to make sure it's run right, doing major money deals, controlling half the cities buildings, being more like the mob than "stealing club house flags, and stupid kid's stuff". (Johnny)

 

That could have easily been the better story, than having Franklin ignore Lamar completely. Franklin trying to establish his own Forum Drive set with Lamar, trying to set up connections with a Mexican cartel or those Koreans that they did absolutely f*cking nothing with except for 2 missions, then later with Trevor since he gets sh*t done, and every now and then Lamar f*cking it up by going into other Families hoods to recruit, or because he's mouthing off to Vagos/Ballas/Aztecas about his OG status, causing you to have to go help him in "gang war" type situations like at the Paleto forest. Then there's an entire thing they could have done with Stretch coming back, trying to get a slice of the new gang, etc. etc.

 

There's so many better ways they could have did Franklin's story without changing his character at all. Infact, I'd go so far as to say that they even set it up, but then throw that sh*t away, like so many other plotlines. ("Hi I'm Martin Madrazo, I'm extremely crazy, angry, and powerful enough to outlaw you from my city completely, but if you give me a golden elephant statue, we're best friends. I'll even let you have sex with my wife!")

Edited October 22, 2013 by AllenKS

[The Made Man]

To the people saying the gang war stuff wouldn't make sense because Franklin doesn't want to be in a gang or he hates the gang life, didn't pay attention to the story.

 

Franklin doesn't hate the gang life, he even wants to start his own Families set with Lamar. He just hates the petty "soldier", gang life bullsh*t that Lamar and Stretch are into. Think about Johnny from TLAD or Stringer Bell from The Wire. THAT'S Franklin. If he's gonna be in a gang, he wants to make sure it's run right, doing major money deals, controlling half the cities buildings, being more like the mob than "stealing club house flags, and stupid kid's stuff". (Johnny)

 

That could have easily been the better story, than having Franklin ignore Lamar completely. Franklin trying to establish his own Forum Drive set with Lamar, trying to set up connections with a Mexican cartel or those Koreans that they did absolutely f*cking nothing with except for 2 missions, then later with Trevor since he gets sh*t done, and every now and then Lamar f*cking it up by going into other Families hoods to recruit, or because he's mouthing off to Vagos/Ballas/Aztecas about his OG status, causing you to have to go help him in "gang war" type situations like at the Paleto forest. Then there's an entire thing they could have done with Stretch coming back, trying to get a slice of the new gang, etc. etc.

 

There's so many better ways they could have did Franklin's story without changing his character at all. Infact, I'd go so far as to say that they even set it up, but then throw that sh*t away, like so many other plotlines. ("Hi I'm Martin Madrazo, I'm extremely crazy, angry, and powerful enough to outlaw you from my city completely, but if you give me a golden elephant statue, we're best friends. I'll even let you have sex with my wife!")

 

 

I agree that was the stupidest part of the game, and even made the protagonist look very weak.

[DildoDodo]

It's weird that we can stick up places for very little cash but can't go burglarize a house. Honestly there's a lot they could have done with this game that they didn't, for who knows what reason. If they did only spend 2 1/2 or 3 years working on it, I kinda wish they would have delayed it for another two years and just brought out another handheld GTA. Maybe the time was ripe for San Andreas Stories?

It's a 16 gigabyte game - I'm sure they just didn't have enough development resources or disk space to put in the feature. I would have loved to see it return, though: it was one of my favourite things to do in GTA:SA.

[spamtackey]

 

It's weird that we can stick up places for very little cash but can't go burglarize a house. Honestly there's a lot they could have done with this game that they didn't, for who knows what reason. If they did only spend 2 1/2 or 3 years working on it, I kinda wish they would have delayed it for another two years and just brought out another handheld GTA. Maybe the time was ripe for San Andreas Stories?

It's a 16 gigabyte game - I'm sure they just didn't have enough development resources or disk space to put in the feature. I would have loved to see it return, though: it was one of my favourite things to do in GTA:SA.

 

San Andreas had all of its features on a darn 4gb disc. Now we have 16gb but we can't fit features on them. Sometimes I hate HD graphics.

[The Jungz]

 

 

It's weird that we can stick up places for very little cash but can't go burglarize a house. Honestly there's a lot they could have done with this game that they didn't, for who knows what reason. If they did only spend 2 1/2 or 3 years working on it, I kinda wish they would have delayed it for another two years and just brought out another handheld GTA. Maybe the time was ripe for San Andreas Stories?

It's a 16 gigabyte game - I'm sure they just didn't have enough development resources or disk space to put in the feature. I would have loved to see it return, though: it was one of my favourite things to do in GTA:SA.

 

San Andreas had all of its features on a darn 4gb disc. Now we have 16gb but we can't fit features on them. Sometimes I hate HD graphics.

 

Oh god, imagine what would gaming be like today if, instead of using the PS3 and Xbox to their limits with HD graphics, we had used this power to add more complex content. Wow .. that hurts doesn't it ?

[spamtackey]

 

 

 

It's weird that we can stick up places for very little cash but can't go burglarize a house. Honestly there's a lot they could have done with this game that they didn't, for who knows what reason. If they did only spend 2 1/2 or 3 years working on it, I kinda wish they would have delayed it for another two years and just brought out another handheld GTA. Maybe the time was ripe for San Andreas Stories?

It's a 16 gigabyte game - I'm sure they just didn't have enough development resources or disk space to put in the feature. I would have loved to see it return, though: it was one of my favourite things to do in GTA:SA.

 

San Andreas had all of its features on a darn 4gb disc. Now we have 16gb but we can't fit features on them. Sometimes I hate HD graphics.

 

Oh god, imagine what would gaming be like today if, instead of using the PS3 and Xbox to their limits with HD graphics, we had used this power to add more complex content. Wow .. that hurts doesn't it ?

 

Sometimes more than others. When I look at GTA IV I can accept the compromise of HD graphics and gameplay because I felt they did their best on the gameplay that they could at the time, so the detailed HD world feels like a bonus. Small details make GTA IV better because it's a solid game to begin with. With GTA V all I see is lost potential because they wasted it on the HD graphics and little details that we really didn't need and I would exchange for better base gameplay and more usable features. I think that's why I'm pretty hard on GTA V. It's not a bad game but after GTA IV Rockstar was supposed to work on building up the gameplay features again.

 

III set up the engine and the base gameplay for 3D.

VC expanded upon it with some minor improvements.

SA polished everything up as best as that engine could and added a ton of things to do and see.

 

IV set up the engine and base gameplay for HD.

V fixes up some things from IV but removes almost as much as it adds and reworks the base gameplay in ways that weren't needed. If that's not bad enough there's the whole fiasco with online.

 

Imagine the HD universe if they hadn't used the jump to HD to make it look all pretty. GTA IV might have had more features from the get go and GTA V could have easily bested San Andreas in number of features and quality of features.

[Lelouch The Zero]

Imagine if we could do burglaries like on GTA SA with that black truck, I'd love to rob people's houses and sell there stuff for big cash! Just think of how much money we'd make!

[Osho]

GTA V is 4 times bigger than GTA SA and still short on many key areas that made SA Sweet and So Much Fun!

[The Jungz]

GTA V is 4 times bigger than GTA SA and still short on many key areas that made SA Sweet and So Much Fun!

The main difference I think between V and SA is the fact that San Andreas only expanded upon previous games while V took many beloved features and scrapped them completely. So when you first played SA, you were amazed by everything that composed the game. GTA V, although it did had that ''wow factor'' on me for a couple of days, it was only then that I realised how much sh*t and corners we're cut. I honestly think developpers pushed the graphics too hard on this generation of console. Yes, they can handle it, but it does come with a price. It seems back in the days, they would balance Content or Gameplay with Graphics. And now, it seems they push the consoles to the limit with amazing graphics, advertise their game, realise the consoles can't handle for sh*t, cut corners and content, DOWNGRADE some graphical areas ( like trees in V for example ) and then release the game. So it's a double loss, because now you have a game with missing content AND a game that doesn't look like how it was advertised, pissing the double amount of people.

[Vatus]

I don't think it'll be hard to code for R*, but it wasn't their priority. I don't think they'll include burglar in the game with the DLCs either. But they may. They just have to make it make sense within the context of the story.

[Vatus]

 

GTA V is 4 times bigger than GTA SA and still short on many key areas that made SA Sweet and So Much Fun!

The main difference I think between V and SA is the fact that San Andreas only expanded upon previous games while V took many beloved features and scrapped them completely. So when you first played SA, you were amazed by everything that composed the game. GTA V, although it did had that ''wow factor'' on me for a couple of days, it was only then that I realised how much sh*t and corners we're cut. I honestly think developpers pushed the graphics too hard on this generation of console. Yes, they can handle it, but it does come with a price. It seems back in the days, they would balance Content or Gameplay with Graphics. And now, it seems they push the consoles to the limit with amazing graphics, advertise their game, realise the consoles can't handle for sh*t, cut corners and content, DOWNGRADE some graphical areas ( like trees in V for example ) and then release the game. So it's a double loss, because now you have a game with missing content AND a game that doesn't look like how it was advertised, pissing the double amount of people.

 

 

Haha! Wow. What did you think of GTA 4 then? It didn't have any of the features that SA and V has.

 

I feel like GTA V took some features of GTA: SA, but didn't include others. RPG elements are water down from GTA: SA as well. But they have improve on others. Like gun and car customizations are better than they ever been. Businesses are much more active and have side missions constantly.

 

But I agree that GTA V could've had more features. Online has more features than the single player mode of GTA V. And it just seems that R* are saving for DLCs.

[ShinobiFixer]

Don't get me wrong, I love GTA, but in all honesty they did waste time on making pointless side-activities, they should have focused on CRIME. Criminal side-activities in GTA Online with RPG elements, giving people choices in what they can specialize in. Instead, we have people who will reach 100 and everyone will be the same high level character with no variation. Instead, we have glitchers who all have tanks. No specialization in abilities, meaning no one will be unique after rank 100. Everyone has the same f*cking skills and they can master them all. This type of atmosphere will disrupt balance.

 

They should have made our avatars more unique in that regard and they really could have went deeper with crime. They need to fire some people because clearly they have lost touch with the franchise.

 

They should have let us case places longer, have more details on the planning board, and to make every decision down to the last detail. Such as seeing when places close and when they open, giving us the opportunity to give us all night to break the safe open. Cutting wires to turn cameras off, tools such as saws and what have you. How REAL criminals really open up safes.

 

They could even bring back the drug dealing mini-game from Chinatown Wars, they NEED to bring that back to GTA Online. A casino and poker would have been better than f*cking tennis. Don't even get me started on their f*cking stealth, its a f*cking joke.

 

Even gloves, every criminal should be scared to leave fingerprints at the scene. They focused on "realism," but didn't think how a criminal would act. I know, they are veterans when it comes to this sh*t so idk why this GTA doesn't have as much crime.

 

If anyone at rockstar games is reading these forums, I hope what they get out of it is that we want more CRIME. Period, end of story.

Edited October 23, 2013 by ShinobiFixer

[The Jungz]

 

 

GTA V is 4 times bigger than GTA SA and still short on many key areas that made SA Sweet and So Much Fun!

The main difference I think between V and SA is the fact that San Andreas only expanded upon previous games while V took many beloved features and scrapped them completely. So when you first played SA, you were amazed by everything that composed the game. GTA V, although it did had that ''wow factor'' on me for a couple of days, it was only then that I realised how much sh*t and corners we're cut. I honestly think developpers pushed the graphics too hard on this generation of console. Yes, they can handle it, but it does come with a price. It seems back in the days, they would balance Content or Gameplay with Graphics. And now, it seems they push the consoles to the limit with amazing graphics, advertise their game, realise the consoles can't handle for sh*t, cut corners and content, DOWNGRADE some graphical areas ( like trees in V for example ) and then release the game. So it's a double loss, because now you have a game with missing content AND a game that doesn't look like how it was advertised, pissing the double amount of people.

 

 

Haha! Wow. What did you think of GTA 4 then? It didn't have any of the features that SA and V has.

 

I feel like GTA V took some features of GTA: SA, but didn't include others. RPG elements are water down from GTA: SA as well. But they have improve on others. Like gun and car customizations are better than they ever been. Businesses are much more active and have side missions constantly.

 

But I agree that GTA V could've had more features. Online has more features than the single player mode of GTA V. And it just seems that R* are saving for DLCs.

 

GTA IV was forgivable. It was their first try on a new engine, on a new console. They we're going for a much realistic approach. Yes, it didn't have all the countless features of SA, but it took me a while to get bored of the amazing environment , of the fun physics, of the new driving, everything. It made up enough for what it lost. Plus, it had an amazing story ( not missions, STORY ) which V doesn't have one.bit. Also, even though people keep bitching about IV's gritty and dark atmosphere, it's what Rockstar wanted it to be. The game wouldn't had worked if it was all colorful and happy. And, for me, honestly, GTA IV has MUCH more succeeded in making the player feel the vibe of the game, to the point where IV is depressing. Getting your players depressed might not be the best way to market your game, but R* got it right. V on the hand, I don't know what the f*ck the vibe is supposed to be. I don't feel attached to the characters and for the first time in a GTA game, I don't hate the antagonists. They we're just .. assholes .. who were there. That's it.