Was Gta V the best R* Game This Gen?

[The Odyssey]

I just love how people are saying that V went back to GTA roots, when they personally don't have an idea what that even means. Another empty slogan making the V defenders even more "sophisticated" and better.

 

The reason why I think V went back to its roots is the change between the serious IV and the chaotic V. A dramatic GTA isn't bad, but there's no denying wacky, over the top chaos is what GTA had to begin with. I think the only thing GTA V doesn't have compared to 3d era GTA is the story, which isn't that bad imo, but isn't that familiar to the classic GTA's. Everything else seemed to make me feel at home, like vehicles, weapons, missions, etc.

[Jimbatron]

Not even close. If I had to rank all of R*'s game made this gen it would be GTA IV> RDR> MP3> GTA V> LA Noire> Midnight Club LA.

 

I know there's always been conjecture about whether LA Noire is R*'s game or not, but f*ck it. I'm including it any way.

 

My order: GTA IV> GTA V > RDR > MP3 > LA Noire (didn't play Midnight Club). There is not much of a gap between the first three for me, and even though I put LA Noire last, I would rate it as a fine game.

[AnDReJ98]

1. Elaborate.

2. V's SP is pretty solid.

3. Troll? RDR's map is less detailed than GTASA terrain.

4. No.

5. No.

6. V's characters are memorable unlike RDR ones.

7. Yep, it was a tech demo for V's Blaine County.

1. V's SP is just an unfinished & rushed work
2. First, i said R* focused on MP more than SP, not my opinion on SP, and when we are here, V's SP isn't good as i should have been.
3. I'm not trolling, but showing the truth, it has been discussed to the death. RDR's map is way more detailed than V's.
4. Simply yes
5. Simply yes
6. You misunderstand it. V's characters are not memorable unlike RDR's.
7. When i said it was released 3 years before, it just shows shame for V, nothing more.

[CantThinkOfOne2013]

V's SP is just an unfinished & rushed work

 

How is it?

[Official General]

My order: GTA IV> GTA V > RDR > MP3 > LA Noire (didn't play Midnight Club). There is not much of a gap between the first three for me, and even though I put LA Noire last, I would rate it as a fine game.

 

 

You put V over RDR ? Wow, that's a surprise, I did not think you were the type to consider V to be better than RDR. I think that's insane personally, but hey, it;s your opinion.

[HaythamKenway]

My personal order:

IV > V > LAN > RDR > MP3 (I haven't played Midnight Club either)

 

Though it's really close and every single of their games was excellent. Even latter R* games in this order (RDR and MP3) are among my overall favorite games I've ever played.

 

You put V over RDR ? Wow, that's a surprise, I did not think you were the type to consider V to be better than RDR. I think that's insane personally, but hey, it;s your opinion.

I can't speak for Jimbatron, but I put RDR so "low", because, albeit it's a beautiful and powerful game (whenever there is a "Games are art" argument, RDR just has to be mentioned) and the story (especially New Austin and North Elizabeth chapters) is one of the best in gaming, I personally liked LAN a little bit more for its originality and V has, at least for me, more lasting appeal. RDR is a game I replay from time to time and have a blast, but then I put it on a shelf and it collects dust for some time. On the other hand, GTAs (both IV and V) are a mainstay in my game selection. I have my gripes with V, but it is still a GTA. R* would have to work, really, really hard to f*ck it up so badly I wouldn't want to play it anymore.

Edited May 10, 2014 by SFPD officer

[Jimbatron]

@OG and SFPG, I guess it depends how you evaluate them. As I said, I think there is very little gap between my top three. RDR has got much to recommend it, but personally I prefer the modern day crime setting to a western (driving cars in particular), and that's pretty much it. There are definitely some things I think RDR does better than both GTA IV and V, but that would digress into a whole other thread.

 

Bottom line is, for me, there isn't a game R* have produced in this era that I haven't hugely enjoyed. IV pips it with Cops 'n Crooks and the plot for me.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Jimbatron

[Official Destroyer]

You never put it across like that. You said you found it so hard to understand why quite a number of people felt IV and RDR had more replay value over V. To me, that indicated that you appeared to have some kind of a problem accepting this. Not everyone has to give a detailed reason, but you have been on here long enough to see the many reasons why some people felt that IV and RDR had more replay value.

 

I was just curious to know what those things are which make people feel that IV had more replay value....Is it forbidden to ask for that here? I thought this is a forum where we can exchange our thoughts and opinions freely.

 

It's not always about quantity (which V has a lot of), it's about quality

 

 

Which for me definitely was delivered the most in GTA V. By a long way.

 

IV offers much more replay value since it has a better range of crime related side missions

 

 

Well, if that's how you see it, OK. But it is just an opinion and not a fact (just to make it clear). I personally have more fun with the crime related activities in V (robbing stores, arms smuggling on Land+Air, illegal street racing, gang shootouts, etc. etc.) than in IV.

 

V hardly had any crime side missions

 

 

That's not true. I feel like there are even more varied crime related side activities in contrast to IV where it gets really repetitive after a while. To name some of them from V which I know by know:

 

- Shop robberies

- Arms smuggling on Land + Air

- Illegal Street Racing

- Weed Farm Raids

- Structured armoured vehicle robberies

- Bounty Hunter Missions

- Altruist Cult Deliveries

- Rampages

- Shootouts with whole gangs

- Random Events

 

- *maybe some other stuff I didn't know about yet*

 

And I have played almost none of the Strangers and Freaks missiones yet.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Official Destroyer

[Raavi]

I'm going to have to go with No, whilst it was a good game and I enjoyed it it isn't my favourite nor in my opinion best game this console generation. If it were up to me that honour would be split between Red Dead Redemption and Grand Theft Auto IV.

[Filip]

Theoretically, GTA V is pre-gen with next-gen graphics

[Official General]

@ Official Destroyer

 

Relax and stop exaggerating things, I never said you could not ask about anyone else's opinions. All I stated was that you appeared to have an issue with the fact that some people prefer IV and RDR over V. That is all it was, you cleared it up and said it's not true and it's cool, so don't make it out to be anymore than it really is, thank you.

 

* Ok you believe that V offers more quality than IV and RDR. I think that's a joke and I strongly disagree, but it's your opinion.

 

* I'd say that IV having a better range of crime related side missions is a mixture of opinion and fact. The fact remains that IV has very good crime side missions that are not seen in V - Drug deliveries/runs, Car theft import/export and Police Database vigilante missions. IV has an armed back up/bodyguard feature or gang recruitment feature. This a fact, of the crime stuff I've just mentioned, V cannot boast anything like this, so therefore IV already has an advantage if a better range if crime activities.

 

As for list comparison :

 

* I admit Vs shop robberies were good and I hated the fact that IV don't have this. But you do realise in IV you can still rob the Internet cafes of cash ? IV still has a rob store feature even if it's inferior, so add that to its list.

 

* Arms smuggling was ok, but the big flaw here is only Trevor can do that. If I don't wanna play as Trevor it's useless to me (which I don't).

 

* Illegal street racing ? Come on that's pathetic, all GTAs have this as standard, you should not even mention this.

 

* Weed farm raid is good, but they are very short and once again only Trevor can do them, which is very restricting.

 

* Armoured vehicle robberies can be done in IV. You see one, you rob it and take it to Packie, he makes a bomb to blow it up open, and you get lots of cash from it (once you gain Packie's full friendship).

 

* V's bounty hunter missions number like 4, compared to IV's infinite police database vigilante missions and it's most missions that probably number over 50 or more.

 

* Altruist Cult missions ? Kinda boring to be honest, just about qualifies as crime.

 

* Rampages ? Well again, only Trevor can do them, more restrictions. To be honest rampages can be done by yourself in free roam, no need to have a side mission for that. Pick up a gun and kill as many as you can.

 

* * Shootouts with gangs ? Where have you been ? You can do this in IV too. In fact IV does it even much better - the gangs in IV carry more than just pistols, they also carry SMGs, shotguns and assault rifles. In V gang members only carry pistols. Now which game sounds more exciting in which to have a gang shootout ? IV crushes V with this feature even more, as in IV you can call armed back up to engage in these gang shootouts - in V this is not possible at all.

 

* Random events are found in IV, but they are scripted - like a majority of the ones found in V. The only real random events in V are the same, very simple robbery victim ones, which got repetitive fast.

 

IV wins crime activities over V easily. And I say a good part of this is supported by fact, though not all.

 

@ Jimbatron and SFPD

 

Fair enough I can understand you thinking V is better than RDR if you prefer modern crime and action stuff over Western-themed similar stuff. That's enough explanation. RDR won't appeal as much to people like you guys, but it was so good that even many people I personally know who thought the same as you got so drawn in by the game.

[Ben73]

Never played rdr or mp3 so yes V is my favourite. I should try rdr since everyone goes on about it all the time.

[Chips237]

I've seen videos of RDR and it's not that bad.

Why not a GTA set in the 1910's like RDR?

[Geralt of Rivia]

Unfinished? Nope. Andrej, your point's a joke.

[Jimbatron]

@ Jimbatron and SFPD

 

Fair enough I can understand you thinking V is better than RDR if you prefer modern crime and action stuff over Western-themed similar stuff. That's enough explanation. RDR won't appeal as much to people like you guys, but it was so good that even many people I personally know who thought the same as you got so drawn in by the game.

 

It's more a question of degree. Westerns can still be good fun. The horses were animated superbly, but it's obviously it's very different to driving a car. RDR would still come in as one my favorite games of all time, and I'd definitely buy another one. The setting didn't stop me getting drawn in, GTA is always going to have a slight edge for me.

[Staten]

I've seen videos of RDR and it's not that bad.

Why not a GTA set in the 1910's like RDR?

That's basically what they did with RDR. That is to all intents a GTA game, except with horses instead of cars and more wilderness. I'd recommend playing RDR; it's better than IV, and almost as good as V.

[Sunrise Driver]

 

My order: GTA IV> GTA V > RDR > MP3 > LA Noire (didn't play Midnight Club). There is not much of a gap between the first three for me, and even though I put LA Noire last, I would rate it as a fine game.

 

 

You put V over RDR ? Wow, that's a surprise, I did not think you were the type to consider V to be better than RDR. I think that's insane personally, but hey, it;s your opinion.

 

You should check my post on the previous page.

[Tycek]

 

I just love how people are saying that V went back to GTA roots, when they personally don't have an idea what that even means. Another empty slogan making the V defenders even more "sophisticated" and better.

The reason why I think V went back to its roots is the change between the serious IV and the chaotic V. A dramatic GTA isn't bad, but there's no denying wacky, over the top chaos is what GTA had to begin with. I think the only thing GTA V doesn't have compared to 3d era GTA is the story, which isn't that bad imo, but isn't that familiar to the classic GTA's. Everything else seemed to make me feel at home, like vehicles, weapons, missions, etc.

 

So SA is the beginning of GTA series and the so called roots? Thanks for proving my theory even further.

[Tikhung]

GTA V is great, but i always think GTA IV is the best game of all time...

[DANIEL3GS]

Played every R* game of this Gen. But my favourite was Red Dead Redemption. (probaly the best game i ever played) Max Payne 3 and GTAIV were amazing too. Then there was L.A Noire, which wasnt really a Rockstar game but pretty good to. Id say GTAV is the 2nd best.

I've seen videos of RDR and it's not that bad.

Why not a GTA set in the 1910's like RDR?

Thats why RDR is there?!?! You can be bad there.

[kj2022]

Not really, I love the game, but it's just missing something, I think personally for me, it'd be LA Noire > GTA IV > Max Payne 3> Red Dead Redemption > GTA V > Midnight Club LA.

Edited May 10, 2014 by kj2022

[Pliskin Femto]

Voted yes. Redemption hold that #1 position until GTAV came.

The only Rockstar game I still haven't played is LA Noire. Max Payne 3 was great and I loved it but it wasn't anything groundbreaking (at least gameplay-wise) so it doesn't rank too high if you ask me.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Pliskin Femto

[Spaghetti Cat]

NO swing-glitch no GoTG.

 

Also, I miss pushing peds into trains and off bridges.

[tomuk3]

Whatever, you guys mostly hate on the game because of GTAO but forget how good the SP is.

 

GTA V #1

RDR #2

[godforgivesthelostdont]

I still don't get how Red Dead Redemption is a masterpiece.

 

The story is weak and John Marston is a totally unexceptional character. That, and most of the gameplay just consists of fetch quests you turn in. RPG's tend to give you loot/exp/upgrades for completing grinds but Red Dead just feeds you cutscenes. That, and the linear drive-shoot-drive formula is even worse than it was in GTA IV.

[Official General]

 

No, RDR is and here's why:

 

1. Finished game (unlike V)

2. Equal focus on SP and MP (Unlike V only on MP)

3. More detailed map (Unlike V which has many unused, less detailed areas, p.s: city feels plastic in some areas)

4. Far better story (No words needed)

5. Better animals (Obviously)

6. Memorable characters (Same as above)

7. Plus it's released 3 years before V.

 

1. Elaborate.

2. V's SP is pretty solid.

3. Troll? RDR's map is less detailed than GTASA terrain.

4. No.

5. No.

6. V's characters are memorable unlike RDR ones.

7. Yep, it was a tech demo for V's Blaine County.

@ StreetMix

 

Ok since you insist :

 

1. Sorry bro, but I agree with Andre, RDR felt more like a finished game compared to GTA V. RDR brilliantly accomplished everything it set out to do, with very little missing and very few flaws to criticise it for. Can't be bothered to go too deep into that right now.

 

2. V's SP is dirt on the ground that RDR's SP walks on. V's SP is just ok, it was nothing special, RDR's was phenomenal.

 

3. I'd say it's a draw on the look of the natural land terrain for both games, they both look great. However RDR has a much better variety if natural habitat - at least it has what you can call decent expanses of a proper forest, grassy plain, and desert. Can't say the same for V, which was like 75 percent mountainous terrain.

 

4. Yes for sure. GTA V's story is among Rockstar's worst in their entire catalogue of games. RDR's story was obviously much better.

 

5. No offence, but you must be such a big fool not to see that RDR's wildlife SH*TS all over V's. RDR's wildlife is the best and most realistic seen in a video game ever, along with Far Cry 3 (whose own wildlife appeared to be influenced by RDR itself).

 

6. Yes. Marston is a legend. I think RDR's protagonists and characters are much better than V's without going too much into it. Better than the despicable Trevor, Steve Haines, Devin Weston and the rest of them bland fools

 

7. Tech demo or not, both look great, graphics-wise.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Official General

[Bonnano]

 

 

No, RDR is and here's why:

 

1. Finished game (unlike V)

2. Equal focus on SP and MP (Unlike V only on MP)

3. More detailed map (Unlike V which has many unused, less detailed areas, p.s: city feels plastic in some areas)

4. Far better story (No words needed)

5. Better animals (Obviously)

6. Memorable characters (Same as above)

7. Plus it's released 3 years before V.

1. Elaborate.

2. V's SP is pretty solid.

3. Troll? RDR's map is less detailed than GTASA terrain.

4. No.

5. No.

6. V's characters are memorable unlike RDR ones.

7. Yep, it was a tech demo for V's Blaine County.

@ StreetMix

 

Ok since you insist :

 

1. Sorry bro, but I agree with Andre, RDR felt more like a finished game compared to GTA V. RDR brilliantly accomplished everything it set out to do, with very little missing and very few flaws to criticise it for. Can't be bothered to go too deep into that right now.

 

2. V's SP is dirt on the ground that RDR's SP walks on. V's SP is just ok, it was nothing special, RDR's was phenomenal.

 

3. I'd say it's a draw on the look of the natural land terrain for both games, they both look great. However RDR has a much better variety if natural habitat - at least it has what you can decent expanses of a proper forest, grassy plain, and desert. Can't say the same for V, which was like 75 percent mountainous terrain.

 

4. Yes for sure. GTA V's story is among Rockstar's worst in their entire catalogue of games. RDR's story was obviously much better.

 

5. No offence, but you must be such a big fool not to see that RDR's wildlife SH*TS all over V's. RDR's wildlife is the best and most realistic seen in a video game ever, along with Far Cry 3 (whose own wildlife appeared to be influenced by RDR itself).

 

6. Yes. Marston is a legend. I think RDR's protagonists and characters are much better than V's without going too much into it. Better than the despicable Trevor, Steve Haines, Devin Weston and the rest of them bland fools

 

7. Tech demo it not, both look great, graphics-wise.

 

I don't think you should take him seriously. He hates everything that has to do with RDR.

[CantThinkOfOne2013]

 

 

I just love how people are saying that V went back to GTA roots, when they personally don't have an idea what that even means. Another empty slogan making the V defenders even more "sophisticated" and better.

 

The reason why I think V went back to its roots is the change between the serious IV and the chaotic V. A dramatic GTA isn't bad, but there's no denying wacky, over the top chaos is what GTA had to begin with. I think the only thing GTA V doesn't have compared to 3d era GTA is the story, which isn't that bad imo, but isn't that familiar to the classic GTA's. Everything else seemed to make me feel at home, like vehicles, weapons, missions, etc.

 

So SA is the beginning of GTA series and the so called roots? Thanks for proving my theory even further.

 

Over the top stiff did not start in GTA San Andreas.

For example, in GTA III, you could fly a plane with clipped wings, in GTA Vice City, you blew up a building with an RC Helicopter, even in GTA 1, you could blow up school buses.

And also, every GTA before GTA IV kept on improving the vehicle and weapon variety as well as featuring the military.

[The Odyssey]

 

 

I just love how people are saying that V went back to GTA roots, when they personally don't have an idea what that even means. Another empty slogan making the V defenders even more "sophisticated" and better.

 

The reason why I think V went back to its roots is the change between the serious IV and the chaotic V. A dramatic GTA isn't bad, but there's no denying wacky, over the top chaos is what GTA had to begin with. I think the only thing GTA V doesn't have compared to 3d era GTA is the story, which isn't that bad imo, but isn't that familiar to the classic GTA's. Everything else seemed to make me feel at home, like vehicles, weapons, missions, etc.

 

So SA is the beginning of GTA series and the so called roots? Thanks for proving my theory even further.

 

Hm.. Remember a game called GTA 1? Remember how you could massacre a town with flamethrowers and tanks? I guess that isn't over the top and chaotic.

[JeffreyDahmer]

I still don't get how Red Dead Redemption is a masterpiece.

 

The story is weak and John Marston is a totally unexceptional character. That, and most of the gameplay just consists of fetch quests you turn in. RPG's tend to give you loot/exp/upgrades for completing grinds but Red Dead just feeds you cutscenes. That, and the linear drive-shoot-drive formula is even worse than it was in GTA IV.

i disagree with most of what you said but its nice to see some Criticism aimed at it its not the perfect Masterpiece that some of its Fanboys Claim it to be the hero worship it gets at times is Really annoying and the cattle missions are Hands Down the most boring/ irritating missions in any R* Game and this coming from a guy who still rates it Highly.

 

and back OT After thinking long and hard about it My List is Like This

 

1.Grand Theft Auto IV

2.Max Payne 3

3. Red Dead Redemption (Barely Over V)

4.Grand Theft Auto V

5. Bully Scholarship Edition

Edited May 14, 2014 by JeffreyDahmer