Which had Better storyline? Gta 4 or Gta 5?

[Theodore93]

I really like V's story, but IV's is far better.

[Mr. New Vegas]

I loved V's story up until Trevor comes into the game, I wish V was just about Michael.

[Tilemaxx]

GTA IV had too many fillers (missions and story wise), storyline was great but the pace of it was horrendous. It'd like a better structured plot, and fewer filler missions.

GTA V had a "lighter" more hollywood-ish storyline, but i think the writting and voice-acting were better this time.

[Official General]

I loved V's story up until Trevor comes into the game, I wish V was just about Michael.

 

Trevor's early parts of the game were actually quite cool. I really enjoyed his beef with the Lost MC, the O'Reillys, and the Mexican drug traffickers. But once Trevor links up with Michael, his part began to go downhill, as so did his character.

 

I would have just really liked if there had been more to Franklin's story regarding the hood and gangs, along with related side missions for replayability. And I just wished Michael had more side missions relating to crime.

 

For me, the story got even much worse once the cops and FIB get involved.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Official General

[am30]

If had been all about Michael I'd have stopped playing. He's far too dull and one dimensional. Trevors antics help make the game exciting.

 

Michael and his family are just terrible.

[Mr. New Vegas]

GTA IV had too many fillers (missions and story wise), storyline was great but the pace of it was horrendous. It'd like a better structured plot, and fewer filler missions.

 

GTA V had a "lighter" more hollywood-ish storyline, but i think the writting and voice-acting were better this time.

Big time, it was brilliant when they'd just shoot the sh*t, felt so natural.

 

 

I loved V's story up until Trevor comes into the game, I wish V was just about Michael.

 

Trevor's early parts of the game were actually quite cool. I really enjoyed his beef with the Lost MC, the O'Reillys, and the Mexican drug traffickers. But once Trevor links up with Michael, his part began to go downhill, as so did his character.

 

I would have just really liked if there had been more to Franklin's story regarding the hood and gangs, along with related side missions for replayability. And I just wished Michael had more side missions relating to crime.

 

For me, the story got even much worse once the cops and FIB get involved.

 

Ah fair enough, man. You're right actually, I just felt ever since he came onto the scene every just went frantic but that's not a good or bad thing, just preference, and I really prefer a slower paced story.

[user14]

True

[HaythamKenway]

 

Trevor's early parts of the game were actually quite cool. I really enjoyed his beef with the Lost MC, the O'Reillys, and the Mexican drug traffickers. But once Trevor links up with Michael, his part began to go downhill, as so did his character.

 

I would have just really liked if there had been more to Franklin's story regarding the hood and gangs, along with related side missions for replayability. And I just wished Michael had more side missions relating to crime.

 

For me, the story got even much worse once the cops and FIB get involved.

Yup. I don't know how could R* mess up Trevor and Franklin so bad. Both of them suffered from the fact that V was Michael's story first and foremost. Once both of them met Michael, their respective concerns (Trevor's bloody takeover of Blaine County's criminal underworld and Franklin's problems concering his old friends from the hood) took backseat to Michael's shenanigans with FIB. They weren't much more than glorified supporting characters most of the game.

 

I guess that comes from trying to squeeze IV + Episodes sized story into one vanilla IV sized game. It would have been much better if V's story was much longer and both Franklin and Trevor should have gotten Johnny's and Luis' treatment, even if Michael stayed as V's central character, it's Niko, if we keep on with this IV parallel.

 

Funny thing is, IV, including Episodes also took about five years to make (2004/early 05 - late 2009). And R* had to struggle with brand new hardware, make a new engine and push vanilla IV on the shelves and THEN finish up TLaD and TBoGT. Yeah, something just went wrong with V.

[Official General]

 

 

Trevor's early parts of the game were actually quite cool. I really enjoyed his beef with the Lost MC, the O'Reillys, and the Mexican drug traffickers. But once Trevor links up with Michael, his part began to go downhill, as so did his character.

 

I would have just really liked if there had been more to Franklin's story regarding the hood and gangs, along with related side missions for replayability. And I just wished Michael had more side missions relating to crime.

 

For me, the story got even much worse once the cops and FIB get involved.

Yup. I don't know how could R* mess up Trevor and Franklin so bad. Both of them suffered from the fact that V was Michael's story first and foremost. Once both of them met Michael, their respective concerns (Trevor's bloody takeover of Blaine County's criminal underworld and Franklin's problems concering his old friends from the hood) took backseat to Michael's shenanigans with FIB. They weren't much more than glorified supporting characters most of the game.

 

I guess that comes from trying to squeeze IV + Episodes sized story into one vanilla IV sized game. It would have been much better if V's story was much longer and both Franklin and Trevor should have gotten Johnny's and Luis' treatment, even if Michael stayed as V's central character, it's Niko, if we keep on with this IV parallel.

 

Funny thing is, IV, including Episodes also took about five years to make (2004/early 05 - late 2009). And R* had to struggle with brand new hardware, make a new engine and push vanilla IV on the shelves and THEN finish up TLaD and TBoGT. Yeah, something just went wrong with V.

 

 

Spot on bro

 

I just think Rockstar should have made the story's much more than a very modest 69. There would have been much more room for Franklin and Trevor to shine.

[feckyerlife]

GTA5 has a story? I thought its just 2men taking estrogen pills and crying over the way they feel about each other, with a 3rd guy that seems to have no story.

[cityspud]

I think I liked GTA 4 story more as it was based around just one character... I know V's has tangled all three in with each other and it was surprisingly enjoyable. Thought it would ruin it but I was mistaken.

 

I suppose I just prefer the one character and more focus on him.. or her... you never know lol

[fac316]

V's til Trevor just ruined it w/ his antics (like him as a character, but he dragged down the story)

[Near137]

In my opinion, GTA IV's story is far better than V. Niko Bellic is the best protagonist imo, always loyal, smart and he has a very well written past. V story did well until Trevor showed up, especially how Michael and Franklin met. Don't get me wrong, Trevor is a good character but that's just me. If I were to choose, I'd want GTA V with only Michael. His quotes and actions are amazing, well, some of them.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

 

GTA 4 didn't have a story line. It had annoying characters, bad voice acting and pigeons. That's why GTA V went back to the style that sold games and made fans happy.

 

The little kids new to GTA liked 4. Their opinion doesn't count though.

Oh noes. GTA IV has upset an escaped mental patient again.

 

LOL You hate it when someone (me) rags on GTA 4 in the GTAV forum. I expect another one of your "completely unrelated" warning posts in the next few days because you're so bloody petulant. If you don't like GTA4 being criticized in a GTAV forum, you need to check yourself. You're acting like the mental patient, kiddo.

 

And I think it upsets you more that I'm actually right about it. Why would Rockstar move away from the GTA4 model completely and go back to the more traditional style of San Andreas and Vice City and 3? Because the majority enjoyed those games. I think GTA V is proof of that. Otherwise we'd have another game more like GTA4. But we don't ,do we?

 

Just sayin'. Anyway, I'll keep an eye out for that warning post.

 

I have never given you a warning so why are you talking out of your ass?

 

Anyway this thread is interesting. I remember when people bashed GTA IV's story for being too dark and serious, but now it seems people have come to appreciate it for what it is.

 

So what does that tell you? Also criticism against GTA IV doesn't upset me. Unlike you I can respect peoples' opinions whether they're positive or negative.

[SmoothGetaway]

GTAIV's story was much much slower to get going, as far as serious action is concerned. The Hove Beach section was great, it acted as a nice setup for the spiral of crime Niko finds himself involved in, because its a stark contrast to the rest of the game. With the Algonquin skyline waiting in the distance, I knew the more explosive moments were still ahead.

 

GTAV on the other hand doesn't beat around the bush. It isn't long before we are chasing yachts, getting into gun battles, and rappelling down buildings. But it does feel like its Mike's story first and foremost. I could have done with a little less Trevor and a bit more Franklin myself but that's a different subject. The heists are great though, and the team dynamic is new for GTA, and adds a lot of great scenes in the process.

 

I've got to give it to IV though, if only for the way it's ending made much more sense and felt fuller. V left me with too many questions. What about Franklin/Lamar and the Vagos for instance?

 

As far as videogame story telling both games are great. IV's just felt more complete.

[DrunkenGerbils]

I liked GTA V's story better than GTA IV's main story but Lost and Damned is still my favorite GTA story line so far. With that said I actually think every story after GTA III has been solid, well written and generally pretty bad ass.

[Uncle Cletus]

 

 

 

GTA 4 didn't have a story line. It had annoying characters, bad voice acting and pigeons. That's why GTA V went back to the style that sold games and made fans happy.

 

The little kids new to GTA liked 4. Their opinion doesn't count though.

Oh noes. GTA IV has upset an escaped mental patient again.

 

LOL You hate it when someone (me) rags on GTA 4 in the GTAV forum. I expect another one of your "completely unrelated" warning posts in the next few days because you're so bloody petulant. If you don't like GTA4 being criticized in a GTAV forum, you need to check yourself. You're acting like the mental patient, kiddo.

 

And I think it upsets you more that I'm actually right about it. Why would Rockstar move away from the GTA4 model completely and go back to the more traditional style of San Andreas and Vice City and 3? Because the majority enjoyed those games. I think GTA V is proof of that. Otherwise we'd have another game more like GTA4. But we don't ,do we?

 

Just sayin'. Anyway, I'll keep an eye out for that warning post.

 

I have never given you a warning so why are you talking out of your ass?

 

Anyway this thread is interesting. I remember when people bashed GTA IV's story for being too dark and serious, but now it seems people have come to appreciate it for what it is.

 

So what does that tell you? Also criticism against GTA IV doesn't upset me. Unlike you I can respect peoples' opinions whether they're positive or negative.

 

 

 

Yes, you're very respectful.

 

And just in case you want to continue calling me a liar, here you go Tiger. I think you ought stop lying.

 

[Osho]

^ ^

Just saying, Moderator had issued me a warning long back for no reason either

 

And after a lot of PM's he accepted it was a mistake (according to me) misunderstanding (according to the mod) but there was no reversal of the action till date. You are lucky to have it!

 

*oh, btw it's not the moderator in question Uncle Cletus talking about in my case, just to avoid any confusion*

Edited December 17, 2013 by Osho

[Uncle Cletus]

As far as mods go, he's pretty dodgy. He turns mongrel on people who completely dislike GTA4. I've seen him go other people as well. But the icing on the cake is the denial after calling me a mental patient for my earlier anti GTA4 comment. And even in his last post he's still pushing the pro GTA4 agenda telling me people now appreciate GTA4.

 

Hilarious. Anyway, he'll issue me with a warning and say it's for something else.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

 

 

 

GTA 4 didn't have a story line. It had annoying characters, bad voice acting and pigeons. That's why GTA V went back to the style that sold games and made fans happy.

 

The little kids new to GTA liked 4. Their opinion doesn't count though.

 

Oh noes. GTA IV has upset an escaped mental patient again.

 

LOL You hate it when someone (me) rags on GTA 4 in the GTAV forum. I expect another one of your "completely unrelated" warning posts in the next few days because you're so bloody petulant. If you don't like GTA4 being criticized in a GTAV forum, you need to check yourself. You're acting like the mental patient, kiddo.

 

And I think it upsets you more that I'm actually right about it. Why would Rockstar move away from the GTA4 model completely and go back to the more traditional style of San Andreas and Vice City and 3? Because the majority enjoyed those games. I think GTA V is proof of that. Otherwise we'd have another game more like GTA4. But we don't ,do we?

 

Just sayin'. Anyway, I'll keep an eye out for that warning post.

I have never given you a warning so why are you talking out of your ass?

 

Anyway this thread is interesting. I remember when people bashed GTA IV's story for being too dark and serious, but now it seems people have come to appreciate it for what it is.

 

So what does that tell you? Also criticism against GTA IV doesn't upset me. Unlike you I can respect peoples' opinions whether they're positive or negative.

 

 

Yes, you're very respectful.

 

And just in case you want to continue calling me a liar, here you go Tiger. I think you ought stop lying.

 

Well I admit I overlooked that fact, but that warning was for an unrelated matter and you know it too.

 

Also why do you keep expecting me to give you a warning? I'm not an idiot. I can see exactly what you're doing. You're trying to get me to warn you so you have some sort of case, but all you're doing is pissing into the wind with nothing to stand on.

 

In that tiny brain of yours you may think I go Napoleon on anyone who doesn't like GTA IV, but with confidence I think most of this forum will agree that I don't.

 

I'm still a regular member like anyone else on here. I can voice my views and yes I'm very pro-GTA IV, but so what? Just because I'm a moderator doesn't mean I have to be an emotionless robot.

[Dick Justice]

IV for story.

V for characters.

[Uncle Cletus]

Yup an "unrelated matter". Of course it was. Totally. Nothing to do with anything other than the post you warned me for. I'm not trying to get you to warn me to bolster some falsity.You've done that already, then denied it, then confirmed what I've been saying - that my warning wasn't about you feeling the need to lash out at a GTA4 hater. Considering denying the warning didn't work out I guess you'll have to use another tact. That huge brain of yours is just too clever for me. You know, because I must have a tiny brain.

 

Anyway, I'm happy to move on. Wouldn't want you to find another unrelated matter to warn me over, would we.

 

Edit - Should also point out that if criticism of GTA4 doesn't bother you, why call me a mental patient. Then say I've got a tiny brain? Because it says to me you do get quite bothered by GTA4 criticism. Enough to throw pathetic insults around. Doesn't matter what I said. It wasn't directed at you. But you felt the need to go on the attack. You do seem to have a problem.I'm actually a bit embarrassed for you now. I wonder if I threw similar unsolicited insults at you and your uninteresting opinion would you be able to just cop it sweet? Obviously not. You've been unable to so far.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Uncle Cletus

[Official General]

IV for story.

V for characters.

 

Your're right about the story. Wrong about the characters.

 

GTA V characters were nothing special compared the characters in GTA IV. I honestly don't know you can think that. Michael was alright, but that family thing was not all it was cracked up to be, made the game feel like The Sims. Franklin started off fine, but just before halfway through the game, his presence fades into the background. Trevor, well as funny as his some of moments sometimes were, was a such despicable, repulsive idiot. And Trevor was not 'badass' at all like some people think he is - he was just a loudmouth, drug-crazed, homicidal bully who thought he was indestructible, only for Franklin to give him what he deserved. Haines and Weston were the worst antagonists in GTA ever known. I did not even care whether those guys lived or not, I did not even wanna deal with them for most part of the game.

 

IV's characters were first class. Niko was a brilliant protagonist, he had a very interesting background, he was fearless and cold-blooded when he needed to be, but he also had a decent set of morals and was very loyal. Dimitri was a great antagonist - he very treacherous, and backstabbing antics were so well expressed that it made me wanna kill him so bad. IV got the character thing so right in many places.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Official General

[Wolfhuman]

 

IV for story.

V for characters.

 

Your're right about the story. Wrong about the characters.

 

GTA V characters were nothing special compared the characters in GTA IV. I honestly don't know you can think that. Michael was alright, but that family thing was not all it was cracked up to be, made the game feel like The Sims. Franklin started off fine, but just before halfway through the game, his presence fades into the background. Trevor, well as funny as his some of moments sometimes were, was a such despicable, repulsive idiot. And Trevor was not 'badass' at all like some people think he is - he was just a loudmouth, drug-crazed, homicidal bully who thought he was indestructible, only for Franklin to give him what he deserved. Haines and Weston were the worst antagonists in GTA ever known. I did not even care whether those guys lived or not, I did not even wanna deal with them for most part of the game.

 

IV's characters were first class. Niko was a brilliant protagonist, he had a very interesting background, he was fearless and cold-blooded when he needed to be, but he a decent set of morals and was very loyal. Dimitri was a great antyagonist - he very treacherous, and backstabbing antics were so well expressed that it made me wanna kill him so bad. IV got the character thing so right in many places.

 

 

May i ask you something, and be honest if you will. Did you thought about gta iv the same way when it came out?

[Official General]

 

 

IV for story.

V for characters.

 

Your're right about the story. Wrong about the characters.

 

GTA V characters were nothing special compared the characters in GTA IV. I honestly don't know you can think that. Michael was alright, but that family thing was not all it was cracked up to be, made the game feel like The Sims. Franklin started off fine, but just before halfway through the game, his presence fades into the background. Trevor, well as funny as his some of moments sometimes were, was a such despicable, repulsive idiot. And Trevor was not 'badass' at all like some people think he is - he was just a loudmouth, drug-crazed, homicidal bully who thought he was indestructible, only for Franklin to give him what he deserved. Haines and Weston were the worst antagonists in GTA ever known. I did not even care whether those guys lived or not, I did not even wanna deal with them for most part of the game.

 

IV's characters were first class. Niko was a brilliant protagonist, he had a very interesting background, he was fearless and cold-blooded when he needed to be, but he a decent set of morals and was very loyal. Dimitri was a great antyagonist - he very treacherous, and backstabbing antics were so well expressed that it made me wanna kill him so bad. IV got the character thing so right in many places.

 

 

May i ask you something, and be honest if you will. Did you thought about gta iv the same way when it came out?

 

 

I will admit I used to be very critical about GTA IV. Not for the story, but for the omission of certain popular features in past GTA titles. However I played it again and liked it more because I discovered new things and the addition of EFLC definitely improved the experience because there were newer features added.

[Algonquin Assassin]

Yup an "unrelated matter". Of course it was. Totally. Nothing to do with anything other than the post you warned me for. I'm not trying to get you to warn me to bolster some falsity.You've done that already, then denied it, then confirmed what I've been saying - that my warning wasn't about you feeling the need to lash out at a GTA4 hater. Considering denying the warning didn't work out I guess you'll have to use another tact. That huge brain of yours is just too clever for me. You know, because I must have a tiny brain.

 

Anyway, I'm happy to move on. Wouldn't want you to find another unrelated matter to warn me over, would we.

 

Edit - Should also point out that if criticism of GTA4 doesn't bother you, why call me a mental patient. Then say I've got a tiny brain? Because it says to me you do get quite bothered by GTA4 criticism. Enough to throw pathetic insults around. Doesn't matter what I said. It wasn't directed at you. But you felt the need to go on the attack. You do seem to have a problem.I'm actually a bit embarrassed for you now. I wonder if I threw similar unsolicited insults at you and your uninteresting opinion would you be able to just cop it sweet? Obviously not. You've been unable to so far.

Well thus far I've allowed you to voice your view so I'm clearly not as bad as you're trying to make me seem.

 

Anyway I'm done here. If you wish to continue this discussion send me a PM. If not I'm willing to move on also.

[Bertanius]

It's kind of odd when a moderator goes off topic... Oh well. I'm not sure if this topic is meant to be a joke... How could GTA V's poorly done, rushed story be better than IV's? GTA IV's story had deep emotion, fantastic characters, and it really made you become one with Niko. GTA V's story is some happy Hollywood style movie that always has the happy ending. The story is bland, boring, rushed, makes no sense, forgotten, and badly written. Characters are forgotten about too quickly, which means you have no idea which character is meant to actually be in the story, they just finish it.

 

GTA IV's story showed so much, Niko is an amazing character, his personality really shows, the same for the antagonists, you get to know them, you get character development, and you get a great story that made sense, they even managed to weave all three stories onto the same timeline. So if GTA IV did the three character system, why can't GTA V do it right? It would be easier in GTA V, because in GTA IV, these characters were always doing their own thing, not bunched together for most of the missions.

 

Then there's the antagonists, they were a joke... Who were they? Haines and Weston? They were terrible, they didn't even feel like antagonists, just filler characters like the rest that somehow made the three protagonists act like robots... "Yes, you told us to do this, we will", both of them play no significant part, they're easily forgotten, and don't show any character, they just tell the characters what to do, they just don't feel like they could actually be the antagonists, they're like Madrazo, he could have been something, but nope, they just end his story all of a sudden. The story itself is too short, there's less than 69 missions, a bunch of them are so basic they shouldn't be missions. Buy masks? Park a car? Take a rubbish truck? Why were they full missions? I could do that out of mission... The short story meant everything was rushed, we get some action-packed missions with no story behind it, much like a modern Hollywood movie - all explosions and no story.

 

Michael, Franklin, and Trevor as characters weren't portrayed as good as they could have been, Franklin is forgotten too much, and we get too much of the same thing with the other two: Complaining about the present, and complaining about the past, it's repetitive and boring. I didn't feel any connection to the characters, the closest being Franklin, because he showed the most character, but even then, he's no Niko. If they didn't obsess over online, then maybe, just maybe, we would have gotten something decent. Their focus on online meant they wanted to quickly finish the story, and since you can't rush art, we get a pretty poorly done story with lots of bugs. Look at any rushed game. What happens when you rush a game? It's barely playable, as they're loaded with bugs, bugs the company know of but had to get the game out, it just won't work, they wanted to release GTA V before the new consoles came out, and that was a mistake, did they think they could rush something and release it without major problems? Did they fix them? Not at all! Online is their only focus now, no single player bugs will be fixed.

 

No, I'm not hugging IV, GTA IV has its fair share of problems and bugs, but you can easily see how GTA V felt rushed in so many aspects, the story makes no sense, it's just too short, they could make a huge story involving all three characters, but the shortness and of it meant it all feels rushed... Wooden characters, non-existent antagonists, poor character development, all of it adds up to a bad story, sure many of the missions themselves were fun, but the story behind it either doesn't exist, or is poorly done. What were they thinking? Why did they think the story was acceptable? Rockstar, a company who made the stories for GTA IV and Max Payne 3, decided that one of their most anticipated games would have some B-grade feeling to it, it makes no sense. it's like they didn't even try. The game seriously has no memorable characters, they're all bland and forgotten about immediately. Combine that with lots of the broken gameplay elements, and the game turns into a scrambled mess. Now, it's not like they had to make another GTA IV story, but they could easily write the current story into something better, with characters that start and finish their arcs, not start and disappear.

 

Please don't reply to me if you're going to complain to me, if you want to reply, accept my opinion and give me a respectable response as to why you agree/disagree with parts... Please don't complain about the length too, get an attention span and then read it.

[DarkDayz]

The storyline of GTA IV was far superior to that of GTA V because of one thing, three characters. In IV, there was on character, for all of the core game, not including DLC. You spent all the time with that character, and at no time was storytelling 'put on hault' to explore the life of another character. It was fully realised, I feel as though the three characters were rather empty, character building didn't go deep into the morals and charactertistics of them individually, it all felt very surface. I remember everything about Niko and his decisions, I've played it through twice. I've played V through twice too, and it still feels like I haven't really played a Grand Theft Auto through recently, which is hugely dissapointing as a fan of storytelling in video games. I think V was a bold direction from Rockstar as described in pre-release press, but wether than pushed the franchise forward I don't know. It pushed it forward in terms of gameplay mechanic without a doubt. Every aspect of the games build was leaps and bounds beyond was IV achieved. But for storytelling, the life of the game, it just doesn't beat GTA IV. Which leads back to the question, what is the key focus, a good story, or bold new game play directions. I told everyone that the story would suffer because of three characters pre-release, but everybody insisted story wasn't important to the GTA franchise, well, GTA V is my answer to that.

 

Importantly for me is that the game did well, which means we'll have more. It might be a while, but we'll have more.

Edited December 17, 2013 by darkdayz

[TheDominion]

IV's was boring as f*ck

[PoeticWhisper]

What damn story progression did Niko have? Honestly, I played through that boring game and I could not see any progression in characters. You had this eastern dude, new to America talking about how war is stupid and killing does not solve anything. Then, boom you have to kill people with no f*cks given. If that's story progression then hell, I must hate good story's. Honestly, I could not stand all the "go here, kill this guy, come back" missions in IV. Yet, every time someone brings down V's story they talk about how the FIB had them dragging ass. V was far from "go here, do this, come back" it had missions that were actually FUN. In a place that is sunny and luxurious, but dark at the same time. I'm sorry if I "just couldn't handle the cold streets of Liberty City" but that place was so boring. And I hated the fact that almost every person you met was an immigrant of some kind. Almost always had an accent, it's like nobody that grew up in this place was relevant. The characters were boring and you can just refer to my signature.

If you think V's story sucks in comparison, whatever it's honestly your loss. However, as somebody said on the last page they went back to how GTA (IMO) is supposed to be and it worked. I had, and will continue to have 10x more fun with GTA V than I ever did with GTA IV. Sorry I don't toss my sperm all over when I see some interiors and some sh*tty car handling. I will never, ever go back to the gross cold boring place that is Liberty City, because Los Santos is 10,000,000x more fun and better looking.

Edited December 17, 2013 by PoeticWhisper