Opinion on V after 5 months of playing!

[Dick Justice]

have the characters hang out once in a while it has a much better story than a lot of people realize.

 

This is a good point. There's also some great (if not totally important) moments when characters accidentally bump into each other. Michael will apologise for Franklin being fired, for example, and there's some great interactions while Michael and Trevor are fighting.

[LestersSiesta]

The story wasn't as good as RDR, well the whole thing isn't as good as RDR but makes several steps forward 9.5 out of 10 with RDR being a 10

[Algonquin Assassin]

Are you not part of the war anymore?

You misunderstood me. You implied I'm a lying fanboy, but I'm a fanboy that always tells the truth.

 

 

In all seriousness yeah it's pretty subjective. I find that whilst GTA IV has a great story it's just as fun as GTA V is.

Edited March 4, 2014 by SonOfLiberty

[Geralt of Rivia]

 

Are you not part of the war anymore?

You misunderstood me. You implied I'm a lying fanboy, but I'm a fanboy that always tells the truth.

Game on old man

 

Edited March 4, 2014 by TheMasterfocker

[GTAV360Philly]

Ok im actually beating GTA 5 on Xbox 360(which looks better on 360 anyway), so i have a few things to say about GTA 5 after not playing it for a couple months. Well, story mode anyway. Sometimes i just shoot people or do random stuff. I bought gta 5 when it came out too last year

 

My thoughts on GTA 5 now

 

-Story is awesome but some things you won't remember

-There are a lot of "let's do life stuff" missions. Some I like. Some i didn't care for.

-I wish there were more Franklin and Trevor Missions in the second half of the game

-Not a lot of interiors in GTA V. Maybe that was because of the fact that gta 5 was released on 360 and ps3.

-It doesn't need a definitive edition on Xbox One or PS4. If it did, i want more interiors and next gen things for sure

-The detail of los santos, blaine county, the people, cars, etc still blow me way.

-I want more Assasination missions

-Single Player DLC is needed with a lot of missions and weapons

-I don't care for GTA Online.

-The atmosphere of the world of GTA 5 is amazing. I can't believe Rockstar did this much on 360 and PS3.

-Again, I wnt more interiors in the single player dlc and more interactive things to do like buy tickets for a show, go into a casino, a bar, nightclubs, go into malls, airports, go into homes, etc.

-Finally, GTA 5 is an amazing game

[slvrcobra]

GTA V's story was just all over the place, and the characters suffered. They wanted to be serious here and then force a stupid reference or joke there, it's a mess. I mean, Franklin is probably the worst character in the game due to the fact that he's a protagonist with no backstory.

[BrettTheRenegade]

I wasn't the biggest fan of the story, as I felt it didn't fully explain the past or present of the 3 main characters and it felt rushed, but I am still playing the game it so I can't say I don't like it.

 

Do I wish there were more interiors? Obviously yes. Do I wish there were more cheats? Yes. Do I think there is alot of wasted space that could have been used for more interactive activities? Yes.

[PeriodZeroHero]

why do yall play only one game 5 months straight? Don't you guys buy other games?

[xboxshqip]

i can not say that it was rushed

i play it for 2 months straight and i saw quality in every dialogue that was possible

 

but yeah everyone have his expectations

 

for me is a 10/10 the voice acting is so over the top that for the durability of this game is just ridicules all from the start till the end epic epic work

there is no other game witch such a large cast that maintains quality not only on the main protagonist but on second charters as well

[PeriodZeroHero]

GTA V's story was just all over the place, and the characters suffered. They wanted to be serious here and then force a stupid reference or joke there, it's a mess. I mean, Franklin is probably the worst character in the game due to the fact that he's a protagonist with no backstory.

What i like to do with characters like Franklin is come up with my own. You know. Imagination.

[TJGM]

there is no other game witch such a large cast that maintains quality not only on the main protagonist but on second charters as well

The Last of Us.. I'd even say it has better voice acting than GTA V, since it always felt in character. Where as a lot of the times in GTA V, the conversations felt forced. Oh and this isn't me being a fanboy or anything, but I think its quite obvious from even watching The Last of Us that the voice acting is incredible and the entire game feels like a movie.

 

 

why do yall play only one game 5 months straight? Don't you guys buy other games?

You do realise just because I said I've been playing it the past 5 months, doesn't mean I'm not also playing other games? In fact, I slowed down on playing it through December and January.

 

Think I'll update the op later, wanna talk about missions too and add more about the characters and story.

Edited March 5, 2014 by TJGM

[Coral_City]

- Weak, rushed story

- Little to no character development

- Not enough f*cking heists

[PhillBellic]

If I went back to playing GTA IV (and have not looked back) that is my opinion of GTA V.

[geckits4301]

I think the game is great and getting better with each update (minor hiccups aside).

 

One of the things that has kept this game fresh is running with a fun crew full of good people. We take advantage of the creator, create playlists, are working on video capture options and overall just have a great time.

[Eutyphro]

The map in GTA V is vastly huge compared to previous GTA games, San Andreas comes to a close second. While the map might be big in V, it's also pretty empty outside of the city.

 

Los Santos is full of little details that most won't pick up, it really does make you feel like you're in LA. Every area seems detailed and well done. Not much complaints since its pretty well done, but its the outside of Los Santos that has its problems.

 

Outside of Los Santos is a different story, what should be a forest is instead a bunch of mountains with nothing on them and a lack of vegetation and detail lets the entire thing down. R* seemed to have added a desert based on the fact that it was in San Andreas, which was a mistake. The desert is located around a bunch of empty mountains and its pretty small.

 

The map, while detailed in Los Santos, isn't very well done outside of Los Santos and its sad because it has great potential, but it just isn't what I personally expected.

 

Rating - 7/10

 

 

7/10? What are your standards concerning map? What game does it better? While I agree that San Andreas had a better map, the cartoony 3 city map set up would not work in HD. Giving GTA V a 7/10 for map is just completely ridiculous. Sorry. If GTA V gets a 7/10 for the map then most other games would end up 1/10. I'd give V a 10/10 for map hands down, eventhough the countryside feels like a waste with no city on the other side. So I have a criticism, but the detail and the quality is so high that not giving it 10/10 is stupid.

[Wylight]

 

The map in GTA V is vastly huge compared to previous GTA games, San Andreas comes to a close second. While the map might be big in V, it's also pretty empty outside of the city.

 

Los Santos is full of little details that most won't pick up, it really does make you feel like you're in LA. Every area seems detailed and well done. Not much complaints since its pretty well done, but its the outside of Los Santos that has its problems.

 

Outside of Los Santos is a different story, what should be a forest is instead a bunch of mountains with nothing on them and a lack of vegetation and detail lets the entire thing down. R* seemed to have added a desert based on the fact that it was in San Andreas, which was a mistake. The desert is located around a bunch of empty mountains and its pretty small.

 

The map, while detailed in Los Santos, isn't very well done outside of Los Santos and its sad because it has great potential, but it just isn't what I personally expected.

 

Rating - 7/10

 

 

7/10? What are your standards concerning map? What game does it better? While I agree that San Andreas had a better map, the cartoony 3 city map set up would not work in HD. Giving GTA V a 7/10 for map is just completely ridiculous. Sorry. If GTA V gets a 7/10 for the map then most other games would end up 1/10. I'd give V a 10/10 for map hands down, eventhough the countryside feels like a waste with no city on the other side. So I have a criticism, but the detail and the quality is so high that not giving it 10/10 is stupid.

 

Nah it's stupid to give it a perfectscore for the map. The countryside is poorly detailed, low textures and poor vegetation

[Eutyphro]

Nah it's stupid to give it a perfectscore for the map. The countryside is poorly detailed, low textures and poor vegetation

 

Are you kidding me? What other map has this size and better quality textures? It's a f*cking joke this.. Poorly detailed? wtf..

 

Poor vegetation? Hardware limits. This map is everything it ever could be. They poured 265 million in this game and it shows, no other current gen game has a map this amazing, and you guys won't give it 10/10, completely laughable.

[redx165]

 

Nah it's stupid to give it a perfectscore for the map. The countryside is poorly detailed, low textures and poor vegetation

 

Are you kidding me? What other map has this size and better quality textures? It's a f*cking joke this.. Poorly detailed? wtf..

 

Poor vegetation? Hardware limits. This map is everything it ever could be. They poured 265 million in this game and it shows, no other current gen game has a map this amazing, and you guys won't give it 10/10, completely laughable.

 

I'm sick of seeing GTA fanboys use that excuses about hardware limits? Even the houser brothers said there were no limits.

[Eutyphro]

'm sick of seeing GTA fanboys use that excuses about hardware limits? Even the houser brothers said there were no limits.

 

Well.. the Houser brothers are full of sh*t commercial c*nts who want to sell videogames... When I play GTA V there is consistent pop in. And it doesn't even have to do with my specific set up, because I see consistent pop in on any version of GTA V. It's a no brainer that this would limit vegatation.

Edited March 14, 2014 by gtaxpert

[Official General]

 

Nah it's stupid to give it a perfectscore for the map. The countryside is poorly detailed, low textures and poor vegetation

 

Are you kidding me? What other map has this size and better quality textures? It's a f*cking joke this.. Poorly detailed? wtf..

 

Poor vegetation? Hardware limits. This map is everything it ever could be. They poured 265 million in this game and it shows, no other current gen game has a map this amazing, and you guys won't give it 10/10, completely laughable.

 

 

I agree with Skizzo, there is no way the map gets an overall 10/10 score from me.

 

For graphics, visual effects and textures, the GTA V map gets 10/10. The map size was great, it's huge and vast, but I felt quite a bit of it was wasted, so it gets a 9/10.

 

The map's design, and structure gets a 7 out of 10. It was not as good as should have been, it was an awkward layout, and there could have been at least another major city and more towns. The countryside was not properly implemented on the map either, too much mountainous areas, hardly any real forest and desert that felt remote and very natural.

 

Overall the map gets an 8/10 from me.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Official General

[Algonquin Assassin]

The map gets a big fat zero from me because it isn't LC.

 

*Eats popcorn like Michael Jackson*

[Lethal Vaccine]

@SonOfLiberty, I just want to know why you enjoy IV's map so much?

 

I actually think IV is one of the worst maps created. I liked the city, tbh, but not the actual map. It seemed like every 20 feet there was a 90 degree, right angle, turn which forced you to NEVER drive your vehicle fast. Whereas in GTA III's Liberty City the roads were a lot wider with less traffic and congestion and you were able to drive in some locations at top speed. Same goes for GTA V. I wouldn't give V's map a 10/10, but probably an 8/10. Whereas I'd give IV's map only a 5/10, maybe even a 4/10. To this day, I am STILL trying to get used to that map, whereas III, VC, SA and V I basically memorized where to turn and what streets to take to get to my destination. In IV, I always gotta use GPS and I hate tapping the gas and then within a few feet jamming on the breaks to make that 90 degree, right angle turn. Not to mention the cars' mass felt extremely heavy and your car would drift so far. I've said this in another thread, that I actually like the car mechanics in IV also the drifting, but still, having to turn every 10 feet 90 degrees and having a boat that doesn't stop doesn't sit well with me. I'd rate the maps like this:

 

GTA III - 7/10

GTA: Vice City - 7/10

GTA: San Andreas - 6/10

GTA IV - 4.5/10

GTA V - 8/10

 

GTA V's map is one of the main things I like about this game, actually. There is a lot of flaws, imo, but certainly not the actual map and road sizes.

 

Edit: San Andreas for me was nearly a damn perfect game, but it's map really bothered me. Just the other day I booted SA up and had to use that slow as f*ck Jetpack just to fly around to all my safehouses to see what I had stored there as I haven't played the game in months. And before playing it a few months ago, I haven't played it since 2007, lol

Edited March 14, 2014 by Militia

[Official General]

I'd rate the maps like this:

 

GTA III - 7/10

GTA: Vice City - 7/10

GTA: San Andreas - 6/10

GTA IV - 4.5/10

GTA V - 8/10

 

GTA V's map is one of the main things I like about this game, actually. There is a lot of flaws, imo, but certainly not the actual map and road sizes.

 

Edit: San Andreas for me was nearly a damn perfect game, but it's map really bothered me. Just the other day I booted SA up and had to use that slow as f*ck Jetpack just to fly around to all my safehouses to see what I had stored there as I haven't played the game in months. And before playing it a few months ago, I haven't played it since 2007, lol

 

I'd rate the maps for each main GTA game since III like this :

 

San Andreas 10/10 - To me it's the best GTA map ever. Huge in size, 3 very different major cities, lots of towns, vast countryside and wilderness. So much to see and explore, hardly any space was wasted - I can't ask for more. Pure GTA excellence.

 

Vice City 9.5/10 - A bit smaller than most GTA maps, and it could have been bigger, but it was so well-designed as a brilliant, near perfect re-creation of 1980s Miami. The magical feeling and great immersion in VC's environment was legendary stuff.

 

GTA IV 9/10 - IV's Liberty City was the best and most realistic re-creation of New York City ever seen in a video game. LC was a stunning work of art. The place really did look and feel like the NYC metro area. It could have been slightly bigger in some areas (Broker and Dukes) and it could have done with more suburbs though. However, Rockstar made a brilliant effort and should be applauded for it.

 

GTA III 8.5/10 - The map was big enough for it's day and it was the map's design that set the template for the entire GTA series and it's road to greatness and success.

 

GTA V - 8/10 See more in-depth reasons for my verdict in my previous comment above.

[Fuzzknuckles]

For graphics, visual effects and textures, the GTA V map gets 10/10. The map size was great, it's huge and vast, but I felt quite a bit of it was wasted, so it gets a 9/10.

 

 

 

 

Don't think I'm saying this just because it's you... I've made this point elsewhere.

 

Go outside and go to the countryside. You'll notice that a lot of it is empty. You might say wasted. That's how country side is. Filling it with stuff would have been nonsensical, because it wouldn't be countryside then. It would just be side.

[~Tiger~]

 

Go outside and go to the countryside. You'll notice that a lot of it is empty.

 

 

On a related subject, I think a lot of people were puzzled by the Alamo sea.

 

For one thing, it isn't a sea, its a lake and for another it is clearly a way of making the map a 'donut' (in the american sense), that is, very very nice but nothing at all in the middle.

 

(In the UK doughnuts have jam or cream in the middle, but I digress.)

 

The cynics are quick to point out that the Alamo Sea is, in fact, a device for increasing the size of the map area by inserting what is technically, a big hole in the middle.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Barefoot Tiger

[Eutyphro]

 

I'd rate the maps like this:

 

GTA III - 7/10

GTA: Vice City - 7/10

GTA: San Andreas - 6/10

GTA IV - 4.5/10

GTA V - 8/10

 

GTA V's map is one of the main things I like about this game, actually. There is a lot of flaws, imo, but certainly not the actual map and road sizes.

 

Edit: San Andreas for me was nearly a damn perfect game, but it's map really bothered me. Just the other day I booted SA up and had to use that slow as f*ck Jetpack just to fly around to all my safehouses to see what I had stored there as I haven't played the game in months. And before playing it a few months ago, I haven't played it since 2007, lol

 

I'd rate the maps for each main GTA game since III like this :

 

San Andreas 10/10 - To me it's the best GTA map ever. Huge in size, 3 very different major cities, lots of towns, vast countryside and wilderness. So much to see and explore, hardly any space was wasted - I can't ask for more. Pure GTA excellence.

 

Vice City 9.5/10 - A bit smaller than most GTA maps, and it could have been bigger, but it was so well-designed as a brilliant, near perfect re-creation of 1980s Miami. The magical feeling and great immersion in VC's environment was legendary stuff.

 

GTA IV 9/10 - IV's Liberty City was the best and most realistic re-creation of New York City ever seen in a video game. LC was a stunning work of art. The place really did look and feel like the NYC metro area. It could have been slightly bigger in some areas (Broker and Dukes) and it could have done with more suburbs though. However, Rockstar made a brilliant effort and should be applauded for it.

 

GTA III 8.5/10 - The map was big enough for it's day and it was the map's design that set the template for the entire GTA series and it's road to greatness and success.

 

GTA V - 8/10 See more in-depth reasons for my verdict in my previous comment above.

 

Man... I don't want to rehash another topic over here but giving V's map lower than VC is a big joke.

And concerning SA, it sure was a great map, but I don't know if an extra city was really feasibly again in the detail they wanted to do it in and on current gen. Same with vegatation. I think they really pushed everything someone could ever get out of current gen, and it blows my mind what they made. No other game can compete with V's map.

Edited March 14, 2014 by gtaxpert

[woggleman]

IV is a very realistic recreation of New York. The only thing is that the real NYC is not a great driving city and neither is the GTA version. I love it but it sometimes feels like commuting in New York.

[Lethal Vaccine]

IV is a very realistic recreation of New York. The only thing is that the real NYC is not a great driving city and neither is the GTA version. I love it but it sometimes feels like commuting in New York.

 

Yeah, man. That is what I was trying to say above ^^^

 

The actual city is amazing, and it's a perfect re-creation of a true New York City. I just had problems with the road congestion and so much clutter all around the city. There was also many roads with construction on them, which even decreased the size besides from so many vehicles on the roads. I just hated having to turn left, turn right, turn right, turn right, turn left, turn left, it just annoyed me and like you said, I felt like I was literally driving in a city in real life, and not at all playing a video game. That is why I rate the map so low for IV. No other reasons besides this reason. But this reason is a big one, at least for me. As I love driving around in ALL the GTA games and IV gives me the most trouble. Not the car physics or anything related to vehicles, either. Just that there is always a 90 degree turn coming up within 10 feet it seemed. Really bothered me...

 

Cuz as a whole, I rate IV higher than V and III, but in another topic, I stated I love every GTA game more or less the same, but just for different reasons.

[gevans81]

Still the greatest video game I have ever played.

 

Love everything about it, especially the map and the minute detailing of the world Rockstar have created. Simply awesome work!

 

Easily the best GTA game to date.

[Official General]

 

For graphics, visual effects and textures, the GTA V map gets 10/10. The map size was great, it's huge and vast, but I felt quite a bit of it was wasted, so it gets a 9/10.

 

Don't think I'm saying this just because it's you... I've made this point elsewhere.

 

Go outside and go to the countryside. You'll notice that a lot of it is empty. You might say wasted. That's how country side is. Filling it with stuff would have been nonsensical, because it wouldn't be countryside then. It would just be side.

 

Point taken, but it's a game bro, there has to be some compromise. Let's not lose sight of the fact. When it comes to a game, huge swathes of countryside with little to do or see is a waste in my view. I don't mind empty countryside if there are interesting or fun things to see and do, but in V's case, this was lacking. The wildlife was mediocre, random events were very few and far between, and once again, hardly any crime- related regular side activities. Don't tell bother tell me to use my imagination and do stuff like riding bikes on mountains, off-roading or doing stunts off cliffs, that stuff don't really interest me. Now if there were other cities on the map, the empty countryside would have been a great way to provide a difference of atmosphere and feel between urban areas, even if it had little to see or do . In RDR, the wildlife was so abundant, vibrant and amazing that I would walk in the wilderness just to look at it. V don't have stuff like that.