The IV versus V debate

[Jimbatron]

One line summary at request of Osho: Fondness and preference (IV) versus technical superiority (V):

 

Ok, this subject has been banded around a lot, I’ve discussed in other posts, but I thought I’d summarise my opinion on the merits of IV versus V, and also observations on other views I’ve seen floating around the forum.

 

Let me first start by saying that I think a lot of other opinions here are rather extreme. A lot of people either seem to love IV and hate V, or vice versa. I think sometimes we do this subconsciously, because a polarising statement is a more effective way of starting a debate – it provokes a reaction, even if in a relatively gentle way.

 

I’m going to stick my neck out and say I like both games. Neither are perfect, I will say what I think is good and bad about each. I do have a view on which is the best game, and I do have a favourite. I will consider aspects of both Single Player and Multiplayer for each – whilst GTA Online may have been branded separately, and may spawn a life cycle of its own, it is currently free with GTA V and Los Santos is the only setting, so right now, I view the two as one and the same game.

 

I will begin by considering the plot and the characters in single player. V has come in for a lot of criticism from stalwart IV fans in terms of its plot and characters. I really enjoyed the sagas of Niko, Johnny and Luis (N, J, L), but I really don’t get how some people say that the three new protagonists Michael, Franklin, and Trevor (M, F and T) weren’t as well developed. I have to say I disagree totally. The IV gang weren’t wooden, but our V trio to me were more like real people. N, J and L were all quite rational in their reactions to circumstances (with a few notable exceptions). M, F and T felt like real criminals because they were more flawed. Trevor’s psychotic nature was given more a background with his abandonment issues, notably by his Mother and then by Michael. Michael himself, whilst being a clear organiser and leader in a combat situation clearly lacked emotional intelligence, visible in his relationship with his family and Trevor. Franklin whilst not being dumb is the new boy and whilst trying to do the right thing has a more naïve outlook to begin with.

 

So V’s protagonists for me felt more developed and more real. However, IV introduced a much wider supporting cast, and I would argue had a richer variety of characters in this area than V. In fact, V is predominantly supported by borrowing some of these from IV. I thought this was great, and worked well, but if you took these out, V did not really introduce as many new great characters besides the protagonists themselves, in my opinion. V also did not have a bad guy of the stature of Dimitri Rascalov, and I can’t see many people arguing with that.

 

The other area where IV is ahead for me on single player is simply that it is longer. V was too short for me, it needed more missions, although I think the quality is slightly better on average than its predecessor. I think some people confuse this with feeling the characters are underdeveloped in V. I don’t think that’s the case, we may feel more attached to Niko because he goes through more with us in the story, but that is not because he is a more complex, fleshed out character than M, F or T.

 

There are other reasons I see why people didn’t like V. I’ve noticed a strong correlation between those who prefer IV were also fans of TLAD but less so of TBOGT. There’s the style of the atmosphere, but also the action in TBOGT is more explosive/over-the-top (delete according to your view), and more similar to the V missions. Also JK fans were always going to react badly to “Mr Philips” – I found it quite shocking at the time and wondered if it would put me off playing as T. My view is though this shouldn’t detract from the game. All our protagonists are fundamentally bad people, who will all most likely come to a nasty end at some point.

 

If I move on to multiplayer, V is definitely more varied, and the sheer amount of different things to do keeps you entertained for a long time. However, do any of the activities on their own compare to the classics of Team Mafiya work and Cops ‘n Crooks? I would argue not. The latter is where my unashamed bias comes in Cops ‘n Crooks All for One was simply awesome if you had two teams who knew what they were doing. You really had to work together to win, and the reward co-operation and co-ordinating was so satisfying. I’ve played and Platinmumed V on the PS3 with some of my old CnC friends who migrated from the PC, and while it was great fun, it honestly didn’t reach the same heights. I also think they really messed up with the cash card system. It feels like the economy is to geared to encourage you buy these, with mission payouts seriously crippled following multiple updates. I do however like the idea of continual character progression – I just don’t think they’ve nailed it yet.

 

So, what’s my verdict?

 

Let me put it like this. My Football team is Coventry City (please don’t laugh). I love them because they are my team, and I would rather watch them than Barcelona. However, it would be plain daft for me to refuse to acknowledge that Barcelona are a more technically skilled team, and if City aren't playing, a Champions League match would still be an entertaining prospect.

 

It is the same for GTA. I think IV is my favourite (Cops ‘n Crooks and the longer stories swing it), and it probably always will be. However, whatever my preference, I don’t think I can refuse to acknowledge V is technically a better game. It has a bigger, detailed, more real feeling city, with more vehicles, people models, better graphics and is a step forward in many respects. Hopefully VI will combine the best of both (and maybe they’ll add CnC to V!)

Edited March 15, 2014 by Jimbatron

[.Ryan.]

There's no debate to discuss. GTA IV is better and anyone who disagrees can kiss my ass.

 

<<<<<<<<

Edited March 15, 2014 by SonOfLiberty

[Jimbatron]

Nice to see the first response was a balanced constructive view!!!

[Vanto]

Enjoyed reading.

[Osho]

(please don’t laugh)

 

Please put the TL;DR

I desire to know what the hell are you trying to say, in one sentence.

[Jimbatron]

 

(please don’t laugh)

 

Please put the TL;DR

I desire to know what the hell are you trying to say, in one sentence.

 

 

See this is something that saddens me these days. No one seems to have any time any more for a proper discussion. Everything has to be a one line paragraph: this is awesome, that's crap, the end.

 

Still I kind of sympathise with you. I've recently told my team at work to summarise their emails in bullet points because I don't have time to read them all. I've put in a subtitle at the top on your request.

[.Ryan.]

Nice to see the first response was a balanced constructive view!!!

 

Anyway I agree with everything you said. I too recognise that GTA V is technically better. GTA IV simply doesn't stack up against it as far as graphics and some other technical advancements go.

 

However I like GTA IV more as a game.

Edited March 15, 2014 by SonOfLiberty

[Osho]

One line summary: Fondness and preference (IV) versus technical superiority (V)

 

Where should I begin with, it has been talked about a great deal, the only thing I'd like to state is that GTA V is still better than GTA IV (except the story).

I actually find it difficult to sum up all the matters I've brought up a lot of times in IV v/s V debate (in the office, right now, can't go in details), But at the minute we are coming to a conclusion way early before looking at the promising future updates, and I'm not talking about just GTA ONLINE but incl. single player.

Also, GTA IV gave me some amazing play on PC, while GTA V is the only game that I've managed to make the most out of it on consoles despite PC my first love. I guess the same will repeat with GTA V once it arrives on PC, as it was the case during GTA IV, offer me with more quality time (and now there's GTA ONLINE) than GTA IV did.

In the end, every GTA you look at has something to pick, be it new or the not so cool idea(s), but that does not mean that we keep debating to the point, where conclude one did it right and the other being worst at it. So far, the series has offered me about great gaming sessions throughout with each new release, technically or creatively.

[Cyper]

Both GTA IV and GTA V does indeed have their good and bad sides.

 

The noticable difference between them though, is that one of these games is more aimed at the mainstream audience and focused on online than the other. That's what i don't like.

[HaythamKenway]

Well written post.

 

I don't think M,T and F aren't as complex as N, J and L. The problem is their inconsistenty (in case of Trevor) and lack of spotlight (Franklin).

 

Trevor is an amazing character. He really is. But I don't appreciate him for his wacky antics. I appreciate him when he's serious. It's a real shame that a character who has so many great serious moments (his monologue when arriving in LS and looking at the city, first meeting with Michael, Bury the Hatchet etc.) and chilling or "funny-but-I-shouldn't-be-laughing-at-this" psycho moments (meeing with Terry and Clay following Johnny's death, for example) also has to do antics that wouldn't be out of character for the Boss from Saints Row. I didn't want Trevor to be a wacky lunatic. It was really unnecessary.

 

Franklin starts out promising, even though a bit similar to Luis, but he's never expanded upon. After the first heist, he takes backseat on Michael's quest to keep Haines happy and plays no real role in a story driven by a conflict between Michael and Trevor.

 

Michael is the real star of the game and my favorite video game protagonist of all time. I don't need to say anything else.

 

But I wouldn't say they are any more human or real than IV's trio. Niko, Johnny and Luis were pretty miserable and with a lot of negative traits too. Niko was a revenge-obsessed hypocrite who just didn't care whose lives he ruined along his path to revenge, Johnny let the greed get the better of him and had some loyalty and authority issues (Billy's drug-fueled insanity notwithstanding) and Luis had a huge ego and thought he was better than everyone else. The thing is, R* presented all of them in positive light, so their negative traits weren't as obvious as with M, T and F.

 

I personally think GTAs were actually too long. I like long stories, but GTAs used to be too long for their own good. My favorite story is TLaD, which was, what, 10 hours long? Anyway, GTAs always lost their pace in the second act - be it countryside in San Andreas or Bohan/early Algonquin in IV. They always suffered from needless filler too. V solved both of those problems, but while vanilla IV would only benefit from the same, if you tried to cram IV + Episodes into a single, V-sized game, Niko, Johnny and Luis and their stories would suffer just as much as M, T and F did. Franklin became a glorified supporting character and we didn't see Trevor building and managing his drug empire. Like you said, more time spend with these characters would flesh them out more for the audience.

Edited March 15, 2014 by SFPD officer

[Guest]

V only needed two things for me to prefer it over IV.

 

All they needed was IV driving mechanics and proper car customisation. But nope, seems we didn't get that. Everything in V just doesn't have any long lasting value. The driving gets boring quickly, the car customisation is shallow so once you've spent 5 mins picking options for a car, you're done with it. There's no feeling of vehicle ownership.

 

The story is short with barely any characters, multiplayer has loads of fancy stuff like "own a car and house" but that gets boring when you find yourself gridning Rooftop Rumble for money instead of playing fun competitive modes like TMW and CnC.

 

Damn...

[Tikhung]

V is a very good game, it would be the best in the series to me, but only if it has GTA IV's Euphoria and a combination of GTA IV and GTA SA driving mechanics.

And... the ending...Rockstar, why?

[TheTechPoTaToCHIP]

Here is a funny thing, people kept on saying that GTA IV was the worst most overrated game and san andreas is better, and now that GTA V is out, they say IT is the one that is overrated and worst game ever and IV was a total masterpiece that can never be beaten.

 

Don't give me the "its just my opinion" bullsh*t excuse. Because not a lot of people have the balls to say this but OPINIONS CAN BE WRONG!

 

It is proven by the fact that each and every major GTA release turns the entire fanbase into complete and utter hypocrites! They always cling to the last major release and totally bitch about the new one because they are like old people that despise change.

 

Jeb's Law states that no matter how small the change is, someone will always complain about it. And that just sums up this whole BS debate.

 

If you look at it logically, without spite, without prejudice, without conflict of interest. You would come to the conclusion that the series is getting better with each and every new release. Gameplay wise. GTA V IS a superior game, IV's mechanics feel outdated. While I could somewhat understand the split between the driving mechanics. All the other mechanics (shooting, mechanics, character movement and overall combat) are all improved and are all better than IV and you have to have a huge spite towards V or very thick nostalgia goggles to say otherwise.

 

And this is where my argument of "opinions CAN be wrong" kicks in. I would give you an example. Two people did one lap around a race track. The first one crashed into everything and the second one drifted the corners like a boss but you say "The first one is better and thats just my opinion" That is basically where this debate is coming from. Saying "its just my opinion" isn't and instant get out of jail free card so that your "opinion" automatically is indisputable.

 

And again, with the driving, I would understand the debate as they do feel very different but shooting? If you defend that clunky system then you really are drowning in a huge nostalgia bath.

 

Story wise, Well, this is where the debate is more justified as IV did have a compelling story and protagonist but V has sharp and funny humor told in a very unique point of view. Or points of view as I should say.

 

In the end, comments like "GTA IV is better and you are an idiot for saying otherwise a-derp a-derp a-derp" could go suck my fatty because its people like you who bitch and whine about the smallest things, clinging onto the older games and turn into a complete hypocrites. Because as soon as a new one comes out, you WILL praise GTA V and sh*t on the new one.

Edited March 15, 2014 by TheTechPoTaToCHIP

[InfernoV]

GRAND THEFT AUTO SAN ANDREAS

[Sami Uso]

V is a very good game, it would be the best in the series to me, but only if it has GTA IV's Euphoria and a combination of GTA IV and GTA SA driving mechanics.

And... the ending...Rockstar, why?

Hey, at least you're given a choice to live in GTA IV, quit complaining Roman!

[Detective Phelps]

There should have been more choices on who to kill or spare in V. I really wanted to kill Karen during three's company.

 

I prefer Vs driving, flying, and the map over IVs, but IV has a better story IMO. V should have had more than 69 missions, since it has 3 protags.

 

Niko is better than Trevor, but Michael is my favourite GTA protagonist.

[Captain Arthur]

There's no debate to discuss. GTA IV is better and anyone who disagrees can kiss my ass.

 

<<<<<<<<

Fu*k off, fanboy. We don't care about your opinion here.

 

[[µT]]

Aside from graphics, clothing, car mods, some other cool minor things and (very arguably) driving, which I still think is better in IV even though it has the laughable suspension... how is V the technically superior game? Cops will shoot at old ladies for minor traffic violations instead of attempting to arrest them, pedestrians will call the cops on you for looking at them a certain way, barely any repeatable side missions, map is more diverse but serves no purpose, f*cking gang members under David Blaine's apprenticeship that can some how magically hit you while driving 190 mph swerving through traffic with their precision aim, a world that feels like a shell due to the lack of interiors for it's size, your car you spent thousands modding will still vanish into dust if you drive a few feet away from it and turn the camera, barely ever will you find a patrolling police car and even more rarely will you find an officer on the street... I can go on and on and on AND ON but at the end, for me at least, IV and it's episodes have a bit more strength to win this arm wrestle. It all boils down to what you value in a game, so I don't think you're wrong if you prefer V to IV though.

[.Ryan.]

Here is a funny thing, people kept on saying that GTA IV was the worst most overrated game and san andreas is better, and now that GTA V is out, they say IT is the one that is overrated and worst game ever and IV was a total masterpiece that can never be beaten.

 

Don't give me the "its just my opinion" bullsh*t excuse. Because not a lot of people have the balls to say this but OPINIONS CAN BE WRONG!

 

It is proven by the fact that each and every major GTA release turns the entire fanbase into complete and utter hypocrites! They always cling to the last major release and totally bitch about the new one because they are like old people that despise change.

 

Jeb's Law states that no matter how small the change is, someone will always complain about it. And that just sums up this whole BS debate.

 

If you look at it logically, without spite, without prejudice, without conflict of interest. You would come to the conclusion that the series is getting better with each and every new release. Gameplay wise. GTA V IS a superior game, IV's mechanics feel outdated. While I could somewhat understand the split between the driving mechanics. All the other mechanics (shooting, mechanics, character movement and overall combat) are all improved and are all better than IV and you have to have a huge spite towards V or very thick nostalgia goggles to say otherwise.

 

And this is where my argument of "opinions CAN be wrong" kicks in. I would give you an example. Two people did one lap around a race track. The first one crashed into everything and the second one drifted the corners like a boss but you say "The first one is better and thats just my opinion" That is basically where this debate is coming from. Saying "its just my opinion" isn't and instant get out of jail free card so that your "opinion" automatically is indisputable.

 

And again, with the driving, I would understand the debate as they do feel very different but shooting? If you defend that clunky system then you really are drowning in a huge nostalgia bath.

 

Story wise, Well, this is where the debate is more justified as IV did have a compelling story and protagonist but V has sharp and funny humor told in a very unique point of view. Or points of view as I should say.

 

In the end, comments like "GTA IV is better and you are an idiot for saying otherwise a-derp a-derp a-derp" could go suck my fatty because its people like you who bitch and whine about the smallest things, clinging onto the older games and turn into a complete hypocrites. Because as soon as a new one comes out, you WILL praise GTA V and sh*t on the new one.

This can work both ways as far as I'm concerned. What about the people who were "fans" of the previous game only to ditch it and jump on the nutsack of the latest one?

 

Although I joined this site as a VC fan before GTA IV came out I still love the game very much, but what I mean is the people who claim to be "fans" of the previous game (this can be applied to anything) only to jump on the bandwagon of the latest one and start acting like they were never "fans" of the previous one at all.

Edited March 15, 2014 by SonOfLiberty

[ViceCityStalker]

I just hope VI goes more towards IV than V,cause if it gets more casual than it is i`m gonna just probably do nothing and buy it anyway but I will be rude to the clerk.

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

Both GTA IV and GTA V does indeed have their good and bad sides.

 

The noticable difference between them though, is that one of these games is more aimed at the mainstream audience and focused on online than the other. That's what i don't like.

Agreed. I honestly don't care much for multiplayer modes, they're like an unnecessary bonus for me.

[HellPriest]

Gta v has to many flaws. Things that only a an idiot would consider a good idea. IV is better because there is more freedom. You can eat at resturants, go bowling and all kinds of fun stuff. V has almost no interiors, the gameplay is really bad at some points and a week storyline. IV had none of those. Atleast in IV the cop chases ae fun. In V they just smash your car up until the armor wares off and stance your tires making you go very slow so the car is basically useless. IV is just a far better game to me , V seems like a downgrade compared to IV.

[B Dawg]

V would have been better if it took everything good from IV and past GTAs instead of all the bad things from IV and other R* made games (Max Payne, Midnight Club) One of it's main problems is trying to appeal to the mainstream audience with features other games already have. Why couldn't GTA stay unique without health regen or 'special abilities' and have some decent game mechanics. What's up with the forced X marker and kill flash? They already had auto-aim, they don't need even more useless features. While San Andreas has an outdated physics engine, it still has better driving mechanics than GTA V. It threw away everything past GTA games did well. Even multiplayer is a huge step back. Who in their right mind though being able to throw sticky bombs 360 degrees around the car was a good idea? It's cheap and takes no skill. The weapons in V already have a lot less bulletspread than IV weapons, and that wasn't enough? It seems to me that IV was so well balanced without even trying to be balanced. The only place the Annihilator helicopter was overpowered is the Airport, because it's an open space and it makes sense. V seems to be all about tanks, buzzards with annoying rockets, voting, scores, ranks, locking away weapons and customization for low ranks, and all other useless bullsh*t. It's starting to look like a Open World Battlefield 4. They should have just patched in the Content Creator into GTA IV.

 

I can list a lot of other things but you know what I'm talking about.

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

Yeah but you have to consider the game would be dead if it wasn't for online. I mean yes, it was very buggy and disastrous on launch and whatnot, but it's definitely mostly fixed now and they will improve the online constantly. For example, why do you think we are getting online heists? We are also getting major SP DLC so therefore they also care about the SP too. Remember, they were very ambitious with their target, and they are going to achieve that target by keeping us entertained and releasing more better DLC's/add ons for both SP and online.

 

Give them a f*cking chance. You also have to remember they are working with such limited consoles.

[BLOOD]

Okay my favourite game in the Franchise is V,but i will totally neutral and unbias on this thread.

GTA 4 back in 2008 Revolutionised HD openworld games and set a New standard that has been in many openworld games since then either it a GTA game or Sleeping Dogs etc.IV brought alot of innovative gameplay mechanics to the Series and Genre and it won many awards.

 

GTA 5,for me is a Masterpiece,it a Technical Achievement and it a Monster of an installment,yeah it has it flaws but it has alot of excellences to it,The game is the first game since GTA started in 1997 to have a 3 Protagonists-System to switch to in Real-Time,and that a new thing to the Genre,no other openworld game have made us take control of 3 different people with total control,it was so Innovative that it even won BAFTA's Award for Best Game Design and was nominated for Game Innovation (Even TLoU wasnt nominated for that).The Story Missions are 69,yeah it not that much for 3 Protags and yeah it not that Long as Previous GTAs,but every mission as SO Diverse i had to do a 4 Playthroughs,and none were repetitive.GTAO won BAFTA's Award for Best Multiplayer even with all it flaws;Glitches,Hacks,Lack of Heists etc,but as a new MMO-like game and a game that will continue to expand in future that a treamendous achievement.

In Conclusion IV and V are Great Installments,with the former starting the 3rd GTA Universe and Gen and the Latter Perfectly Solidifying GTA as the "Most Successful Game Franchise of All-Time" and both game turning GTA into a Megablockbuster esp. V's All-Time Record Breaking Success ($1bn in just 3 days).

Edited March 15, 2014 by Blood-Is-in-Diamond

[Detective Phelps]

Okay my favourite game in the Franchise is V,but i will totally neutral and unbias on this thread.

GTA 4 back in 2008 Revolutionised HD openworld games and set a New standard that has been in many openworld games since then either it

a GTA game or Sleeping Dogs etc.IV brought alot of innovative gameplay mechanics to the Series and Genre and it won many awards.

 

GTA 5,for me is a Masterpiece,it a Technical Achievement and it a Monster of an installment,yeah it has it flaws but it has alot of excellences to it,The game is the first game since GTA started in 1997 to have a 3 Protagonists-System to switch to in Real-Time,and that a new thing to the Genre,no other openworld game have made us take control of 3 different people with total control,it was to Innovative that it even won BAFTA's Award for Best Game Design and was nominated for Game Innovation (Even TLoU wasnt nominated).The Story Missions are 69,yeah it not that much for 3 Protags and yeah it not that Long as Previous GTAs,but every mission as SO Diverse i had to do a 4 Playthroughs,and none were repetitive.GTAO won BAFTA's Award for Best Multiplayer even with all it flaws;Glitches,Hacks,Lack of Heists etc,but as a new MMO-like game and a game that will continue to expand in future that a treamendous achievement.

In Conclusion IV and V are Great Installments,with the former starting the 3rd GTA Universe and Gen and the Latter Perfectly Solidifying GTA as the "Most Successful Game Franchise of All-Time" and both game turning GTA into a Megablockbuster esp. V's All-Time Record Breaking Success ($1bn in just 3 days).

You do realise that GTA V isn't the only game with more than one playable character, right? I still remember playing as that hitman in Scarface: the world is yours, by using the phone. You could also switch back to Tony. This was back in 2006.

 

As for the missions in V, not all of the 69 missions are good. Remember the mission "masks"? That was a terrible mission, and only takes 2 minutes. There was also a mission called "boiler suits", which, like "masks", can be completed in a minute or less.

 

IV has a better story, hands down, but V has better gameplay.

[Geralt of Rivia]

There's no debate to discuss. GTA IV is better and anyone who disagrees can kiss my ass.

 

<<<<<<<<

Your fanboyism is as futile as this guy trying to get his hand in his pocket:

 

[BLOOD]

@LSPD

Yeah but in Scarface,you didnt play as 3 main people you could switch to in Missions and Off-Missions in Real-time and Unscripted Moments,Lol i am sure the Hitmen were just AIs you could use to Kill NPCs and nothing more unlike GTA 5's Innovative 3-Protags-Systems

 

These are what you call Innovations,even though V didnt win that Award but was nominated unlike TLoU (and i guess Scarface wasnt nominated for this cus it was just another underrated "GTA Clone" back in 2006):

 

Edited March 15, 2014 by Blood-Is-in-Diamond

[richard1997jones]

GTA V has better graphics, better missions and a bigger map as well as planes. GTA V gives us more side activities like going to the cinema and playing darts. You also have businesses which make money and better customization of cars as well as the ability to buy more things online. You also have multiple characters to play.

 

GTA IV has a better online which is simple and straight forward and I thought the ballad of gay tony had some good missions. Also we could make millions gambling. It was easier to get girl friends. You could go to night clubs.

 

It's a shame rockstar couldn't have put it all into GTA V. I'd say offline GTA V is better but online GTA IV is better.

[Detective Phelps]

@LSPD

Yeah but in Scarface,you didnt play as 3 main people you could switch to in Missions and Off-Missions in Real-time and Unscripted Moments,Lol i am sure the Hitmen were just AIs you could use to Kill NPCs and nothing more unlike GTA 5's Innovative 3-Protags-Systems

 

These are what you call Innovations,even though V didnt win that Award but was nominated unlike TLoU (and i guess Scarface wasnt nominated for this cus it was just another underrated "GTA Clone" back in 2006):

 

Man, you really hate other open world games. You say that they are all "GTA Clones". You can call GTA VC a scarface clone as well, remember that.

 

Oh, and please improve your English. I was only pointing out that GTA V isn't the first game with multiple protags. You also called GTA V a masterpiece, but in the same post you mentioned that it has flaws. GTA V is a good game, but not a masterpiece.