Unpopular Opinions Thread

[PolishRye]

cover system in IV & V is janky (IV especially) and useless most of the time

its only good when blind firing, which is in itself pretty overpowered - u have pin-point accuracy without showing ur head to the enemies

Edited March 14 by PolishRye

[B Dawg]

6 minutes ago, PolishRye said:

its only good when blind firing, which is in itself pretty overpowered - u have pin-point accuracy without showing ur head to the enemies

Don't know about V, but that's not the case in IV (provided you have bulletspread fix on PC)

[Ifxfdh]

gta v is the best gta

 

[AkshayKumar]

Michael Townley is the best GTA protagonist

[Guest]

Niko says hi.

IV and V best games for me.

Edited March 16 by Saad21

[AkshayKumar]

Michael is just more interesting to me. I like that he can be both kind in his own way (like he was towards Franklin and even people he didn't know as much like Marnie and the guy he gave the gold brick to in that heist), while at the same time he can be a selfish treacherous con who you could see selling out his closest associates if it means he could save his skin. I like the take on a more villainous or flawed protagonist with Michael. He means well for those he loves like his family and even Franklin I'd argue, but those he considers reckless or a liability like Trevor and Brad he is ready to cut them off, past history be damned. The whole past flaws catching up with his model new life and him finding his new life isn't so model and having the urge for the past thrills, it makes him fascinating to me. 

 

I also just liked Michael's personality a lot, how he cares about Franklin like the son he never had, the uneasy bromance with Trevor, how he and Solomon play guess the movie lines on the phone, his rants to Dr Friedlander. I even didn't mind his interactions with his family so much tbh, his whole family arc in V makes him a bit more 'complete' to me than the other two protagonists imo. 

 

Really like Niko too, he's the protagonist who we arguably get to know the most but he's comparatively more strait laced as a character imo. There's nothing wrong with it as such, I just find Michael relatively more interesting after having more morally sound protagonists like Niko, CJ, Vic to have a seemingly similarly good natured yet hypocritical one.

 

I guess you can list out Nikos personality strengths like I did with Michael in the second para, he'll have a lot of favourable ones that make him interesting in his own way. I guess it's subjective, I find Michael more interesting and it's no fun to add 'in my opinion' to unpopular opinions

 

but after saying all this Tommy Vercetti is my favorite lol

Edited March 16 by AkshayKumar
Gotta be more concise bruhhhh

[The Artist]

1 hour ago, Saad21 said:

Niko says hi.

IV and V best games for me.

You don't like the 3d era games?

[Guest]

Just now, The Artist said:

You don't like the 3d era games?

Its love and hate, both of it, used to love 3d era games even on my phone but I dearly miss GTA 4. My pc gone kaput.

55 minutes ago, AkshayKumar said:

Michael is just more interesting to me. I like that he can be both kind in his own way (like he was towards Franklin and even people he didn't know as much like Marnie and the guy he gave the gold brick to in that heist), while at the same time he can be a selfish treacherous con who you could see selling out his closest associates if it means he could save his skin. I like the take on a more villainous or flawed protagonist with Michael. He means well for those he loves like his family and even Franklin I'd argue, but those he considers reckless or a liability like Trevor and Brad he is ready to cut them off, past history be damned. The whole past flaws catching up with his model new life and him finding his new life isn't so model and having the urge for the past thrills, it makes him fascinating to me. 

 

I also just liked Michael's personality a lot, how he cares about Franklin like the son he never had, the uneasy bromance with Trevor, how he and Solomon play guess the movie lines on the phone, his rants to Dr Friedlander. I even didn't mind his interactions with his family so much tbh, his whole family arc in V makes him a bit more 'complete' to me than the other two protagonists imo. 

 

Really like Niko too, he's the protagonist who we arguably get to know the most but he's comparatively more strait laced as a character imo. There's nothing wrong with it as such, I just find Michael relatively more interesting after having more morally sound protagonists like Niko, CJ, Vic to have a seemingly similarly good natured yet hypocritical one.

 

I guess you can list out Nikos personality strengths like I did with Michael in the second para, he'll have a lot of favourable ones that make him interesting in his own way. I guess it's subjective, I find Michael more interesting and it's no fun to add 'in my opinion' to unpopular opinions

 

but after saying all this Tommy Vercetti is my favorite lol

Vice city was my first GTA on ps2 and I do love Tommy Vercetti because he rose from nobody to somebody.

[Leather Rebel]

On 3/4/2022 at 1:27 PM, B Dawg said:

Channel X is just a bad version of IV's LCHC. It's missing everything that made LCHC great: the energy, the aggression, the epic guitar solos. It's just boring low tier punk.

 

Well Channel X has like basic-primitive hardcore but LCHC is literally hardcore punk in effect of thrash so you have all galloping riffs and everything also hardcore is where you don't want guitar solos.

Edited March 16 by Leather Rebel

[AkshayKumar]

GTA IV and GTA V are not that good to have metacritic scores of 98 and 97.  Likely neither game will enter into a conversation of top 10 games either in an IGN/GameSpot Best Of article or even in a general discussion on a random gaming fansite. Yet their scores indicate GTA V is top 10 and GTA IV top 3.

[Space Cowboy]

18 minutes ago, AkshayKumar said:

GTA IV and GTA V are not that good to have metacritic scores of 98 and 97.  Likely neither game will enter into a conversation of top 10 games either in an IGN/GameSpot Best Of article or even in a general discussion on a random gaming fansite. Yet their scores indicate GTA V is top 10 and GTA IV top 3.

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2021/09/god_of_war_wins_igns_big_best_video_game_of_all_time_poll

GTA V actually lost the title of the best game of all time only to God Of War (2018) in the poll organized by IGN lol. But I see what you mean. If you ask hardcore GTA fans, you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks it's the best game in the series, let alone the best game of all time. Even though the game went on to sell much, much more copies than past titles.

GTA IV, on the other hand, is often regarded as one of the best installments in the series by hardcore fans. I wouldn't call it the best game of all time personally, but I think it did a lot of things right, much more than V.

[AkshayKumar]

16 minutes ago, 0909090 said:

GTA V actually lost the title of the best game of all time only to God Of War (2018) in the poll organized by IGN lol.

Lmao! That is very impressive ngl, even if it was likely just propped by the popularity of Online

 

Tbh its stupid to use metacritic scores to either blindly praise a game or even bash it for being too high as its just one subjective measure (even if a reputed one) over many others, its just fun to do so  and I do think GTA IV and V are excellent titles, just not that good

Edited March 20 by AkshayKumar

[The Artist]

1 hour ago, AkshayKumar said:

GTA IV and GTA V are not that good to have metacritic scores of 98 and 97.  Likely neither game will enter into a conversation of top 10 games either in an IGN/GameSpot Best Of article or even in a general discussion on a random gaming fansite. Yet their scores indicate GTA V is top 10 and GTA IV top 3.

Judging them by their scope and big scale, polish/very few bugs, the amount of details, good voice acting, lots of complex animations all in one package which other games don't usually offer. They are very impressive on a technical level compared to other games that's how they are rated

Edited March 20 by The Artist

[AkshayKumar]

30 minutes ago, The Artist said:

Judging them by their scope and big scale, polish/very few bugs, the amount of details, good voice acting, lots of complex animations all in one package which other games don't usually offer. They are very impressive on a technical level compared to other games that's how they are rated

I don't have the necessary expertise to judge these terms. Would you say GTA IV and V do all these things better than other games? And even if so does being better on a technical level make them better games? I don't know

 

Fallout 3 doesn't have that great voice acting and may have it's share of bugs but I don't think GTA IV is objectively superior just because of that

 

 MGS IV has all those things you mention except perhaps the scope of a GTA would that make it lesser than GTA IV? 

 

What about for GTA V and games released around that timeframe? is V definitively better than TLOU, Witcher 3 and MGS V? 

Edited March 20 by AkshayKumar

[The Artist]

2 minutes ago, AkshayKumar said:

I don't have the necessary expertise to judge these terms. Would you say GTA IV and V do all these things better than other games? 

 

Fallout 3 doesn't have that great voice acting and may have it's share of bugs but I don't think GTA IV is objectively superior just because of that

 

 MGS IV has all those things you mention except perhaps the scope of a GTA would that make it lesser than GTA IV? 

 

What about for GTA V and games released around that timeframe? is V definitively better than TLOU, Witcher 3 and MGS V? 

1- IV is superior here in that it's more polished. Not that it's a better game objectively but it gets more points here due to more polish

 

2- You said it yourself there...mgs iv is not as big as gta in scope. Again this doesn't make it a 'lesser game', but reviewers will give more points to GTA because of the technical achievement

 

Overall reviewers give great scores to GTA because Rockstar's scale, polish and presentation are really good and the games are big technical achievements with big budgets etc. This doesn't mean they're objectively 'better games' than all the others of course

[AkshayKumar]

1 hour ago, The Artist said:

- IV is superior here in that it's more polished. Not that it's a better game objectively but it gets more points here due to more polish

Polish as in less defects or bugs? I think it's good if a game is less buggy but saying GTA IV gets a higher score simply because of less bugs/more polish... I don't know what the exact parameters to judge games should be but there's got to be more than that. And to give it a higher score because of more polish assumes it fares better/equally in every other criteria which likely isn't the case, not just with Fallout 3 

 

1 hour ago, The Artist said:

- You said it yourself there...mgs iv is not as big as gta in scope. Again this doesn't make it a 'lesser game', but reviewers will give more points to GTA because of the technical achievement

So open world games have a headstart over other games because of being greater in scope? I said MGS IV because it got lauded for being a technically superb game, I don't see GTA IV being better in this regard simply because of bigger 'scope'. Also is the scope of a game simply how big a game is? I ask because not sure what it means in a gaming context but this would put open world games at an advantage over linear games everytime. 

 

And what about GTA V, Witcher 3 and MGS V are of similar scope I guess, is V a better technical achievement than these as well? 

 

1 hour ago, The Artist said:

Overall reviewers give great scores to GTA because Rockstar's scale, polish and presentation are really good and the games are big technical achievements with big budgets etc. This doesn't mean they're objectively 'better games' than all the others of course

I think if a low budget indie game happens to be this crazy fun game with a rich legacy it should absolutely be better rated than better presented, bigger budgeted games that aren't as fun or don't have the same legacy

Edited March 20 by AkshayKumar
lol I typed a lot of gibberish

[The Artist]

1 hour ago, AkshayKumar said:

 Polish as in less defects or bugs? I think it's good if a game is less buggy but saying GTA IV gets a higher score simply because of less bugs/more polish... I don't know what the exact parameters to judge games should be but there's got to be more than that. And to give it a higher score because of more polish assumes it fares better/equally in every other criteria which likely isn't the case, not just with Fallout 3

It just contributes to the higher score. It's one of the major things reviewers look at... a game that is buggy at launch will take a hit on its scores even if it's great in other areas

 

1 hour ago, AkshayKumar said:

 

[QUOTE] So open world games have a headstart over other games because of being greater in scope? I said MGS IV because it got lauded for being a technically superb game, I don't see GTA IV being better in this regard simply because of bigger 'scope'. Also is the scope of a game simply how big a game is? I ask because not sure what it means in a gaming context but this would put open world games at an advantage over linear games everytime.[/QUOTE] 

True but that's how reviewers think. A big polished game like gta is more impressive than a polished linear game like TLOU. Reviewers are impressed because of the technical achievements of GTA games. GTA manages to pack in many systems in a polished big package. Not many game do that. Witcher 3 is good but are its horse physics as good as RDR1? No. These are the things where Rockstar wins out. MGS IV is a great game and all but is at as complex and big as GTA? Of course not. So GTA gets the higher score. This does not mean GTA is superior in every area, it simply means that GTA is a more impressive technical achievement due to being bigger polished and more complex.

1 hour ago, AkshayKumar said:

 

And what about GTA V, Witcher 3 and MGS V are of similar scope I guess, is V a better technical achievement than these as well? 

 

I think if a low budget indie game happens to be this crazy fun game with a rich legacy it should absolutely be better rated than better presented, bigger budgeted games

Witcher 3 and MGS V are not as big as GTA V in scope lol. Witcher 3 doesn't even have full motion capture cutscenes. It also had tons of bugs when it came out despite being smaller than V. Nobody can say which game is better objectively of course but reviewers gave GTA V higher scores because of the bigger size, polish, presentation etc.

Edited March 20 by The Artist

[Space Cowboy]

1 hour ago, AkshayKumar said:

So open world games have a headstart over other games because of being greater in scope? I said MGS IV because it got lauded for being a technically superb game, I don't see GTA IV being better in this regard simply because of bigger 'scope'. Also is the scope of a game simply how big a game is? I ask because not sure what it means in a gaming context but this would put open world games at an advantage over linear games everytime. 

I think the main reason why Rockstar games pretty much always get top scores are the production values (which really are unrivaled because frankly not many studios can afford to put the time and resources into one project), detailed and well-polished open worlds where basically every inch of the map is treated with lots of detail etc. Plus the fact that Rockstar games are extremely accessible to anyone, they are not some niche products for very specific audiences, quite the contrary. GTA is what the mainstream wants.

Or take a look at RDR2, it sold over 40 million copies now and it's a western. I'd bet that a large portion of people who got interested in that game got it precisely because of the features I described above (production values, polished open world etc.). It's not because of the western theme. Not a lot of games can provide those production values and frankly nothing comes close in that regard to RDR2. That's why it gets perfect scores almost everywhere, and if it does have some flaws that are being pointed out, they are vastly overshadowed by its positives.

It's a complex matter really, and entirely subjective too (who has the authority to say what's the best?) but these constituents that are present in Rockstar games are highly valued by the mainstream, so it's no wonder they get perfect scores. Then you also have some games that don't have these features, but offer something really unique and innovative that push their respective genres to something new. Zelda: Breath of the Wild definitely doesn't have a budget of a Rockstar game or its visuals, but it offers a refreshing take on the open world genre and that resonated with many reviewers.

So yeah, in short I think the production values and/or doing something unique that also resonates with lots of people is what gets the top scores.

[AkshayKumar]

I cannot get my head around the fact that bigger budgets/better production values mean better scores, but I just got to acknowledge I don't know much about this and defer to those with more well informed opinions. I still don't think GTA IV and V are worth that much higher scores if at all than a Fallout 3 or a Witcher 3 or God of War etc but what the heck I've mostly played only the GTAs and they're fun games so won't grudge their score too much

 

Edit: also artist IIRC Witcher 3 is bigger in terms of map size than GTA V though Im not sure which game has more going on in its world so idk which game has the bigger scope (whatever that means lol) 

Edited March 20 by AkshayKumar

[Space Cowboy]

4 minutes ago, AkshayKumar said:

I cannot get my head around the fact that bigger budgets/better production values mean better scores, but I just got to acknowledge I don't know much about this and defer to those with more well informed opinions. I still don't think GTA IV and V are that much better if at all than a Fallout 3 or a Witcher 3 or God of War etc but what the heck I've mostly played only the GTAs and they're fun games so won't grudge their score too much

Bigger budgets do not equal better (or even good) scores, it's more like a combination of multiple factors: production values, well-designed open worlds, attention to detail and so on.

The whole issue has to be understood holistically, but the production values do stand out and in combination with the attention to detail, well-designed open worlds, themes that appeal to the mainstream etc. they did create a winning formula for Rockstar. There's not just one thing that makes those games high-rated among reviewers.

Personally, I do like Witcher 3 much more than both V and IV, but I see why GTAs are higher rated than Witcher. To me, Witcher stands out with its quests and writing, but it falls short in areas like combat, it's arguably a bit janky etc. I don't think the whole package is as well-polished as Rockstar games tend to be, so that might be the reason why it's not up there in the highest rated games. GTAs might be deeply flawed games, but they have pretty consistent quality across all aspects of the games (gameplay, world design etc.), which I think is the reason why reviewers favor them more.

It's really all subjective, but I think you can spot a few recurring elements that make the game favourable in the eyes of a reviewer.

[AkshayKumar]

Appreciate the in depth explanation

 

Another one, I would prefer a new IP from Rockstar a little bit more than a new GTA

 

I'm not a GTA hater I swear. It has definitely been a while since the last GTA but purely from my pov I'm happy playing the older GTAs and would like to see something new instead. There's no chance of the next title from Rockstar being a non GTA though, and I'm certainly not going to complain if there's a new GTA, I'll just be a bit more excited if that title is a brand new IP I think. 

 

Kind of like how I was more interested in the announcement of Starfield than Elder Scrolls VI even if I think Elder Scrolls is great

[Americana]

I need more urban crime games, I can't stand all those lame fantasy games.

[AkshayKumar]

It feels like I've seen this opinion many times on this forum, seems not too many fantasy fans here. I like fantasy content though, even though I've played GTA much more extensively than Elder Scrolls I like them both almost equally, TES... something about it is... magical. 

Edited March 21 by AkshayKumar
GTA is still top dog though

[psxdriverplayer]

Whenever someone says they haven't played a game (let's say some GTA gaem) and there's a REMAKESTER out and they plan to play that remakester to experience "that game / those games" me 2 reactions are - 1: "That doesn't count" (GUESS WHY) und 2: "How the hell does that even work"*

* = REMAKESTERS ARE REMAKESTERS, YOU CAN'T SAY YOU HAVE PLAYED THOSE ORIGINALS (IF YOU'VE ONLY PLAYED THEM REMAKESTERS, THAT IS) as you've only played those remakesters which are not the same game as them originals, no matter how you look at things. (DISCLAIMER FOR THOSE WHO DON'T GET WHAT I AM SAYING: Even if it would be exact liek original but made from scratch using some scrap metal it's still not the same original creation and never can be.)

 

What I mean to say is never understood this hype around remakester introduces older vidyan gaemz to newer peoples. NO THEY DON'T! THEY INTRODUCE THE REMAKESTER TO NEWER PEOPLES. IS NOT THAT ORIGINAL GAEM.

 

 

"Explain that if you can."

[AkshayKumar]

I prefer the map to be fully explorable from the start to unlocking the map as we play through the story

[Donald Lov]

2 hours ago, AkshayKumar said:

I prefer the map to be fully explorable from the start to unlocking the map as we play through the story

I guess the option to explore the entirety of the map right from the get go should indeed be available as it's up to the player to decide, but for players such as myself with an OCD of sorts where we just have to explore as much as we can as soon as possible it's a living nightmare. The fact that Rockstar's open-world games do not at all reward any early-game exploration(arguably, any exploration at all) and want you to go through the story first also doesn't help. I completely screwed up my introduction to Saint Denis in RDR 2 that way. It was supposed to be this major turning point in the story, but I had wandered off into the swamps early game and stumbled upon an NPC who needed a lift to a hospital. The GPS led me to a place yet unknown, and there I was.... just casually discovering civilization by giving a dude a lift...

[H-G]

I kinda like having the whole map unlocked (in fact I love it), but I also really like having the map landlocked... getting to explore newly-unlocked areas of the game is great too.

 

Somebody sold a modded SA to me once, it was pretty much the same as vanilla except some random custom mission mod was installed onto it and the whole map (plus most of the side-activities) was fully unlocked from the start. That was great...

[PhilPerlmutter]

GTA VI has been hyped for quite a while, I assume for many it has to be the most promising title.

I personally do not look at it that way though, I cannot say that I am in anyway equally excited as in the period between GTA 3 and GTA Vice City or GTA Vice City and San Andreas.

In fact, my view is rather pessimistic due to the following factors that have become more and more obvious looking at the series starting at GTA San Andreas to GTA V and as well GTA Online.

• Mission has become more linear with each title, in GTA V / Online very annoying with stupid fail conditions.
• In GTA Online, they started to introduce this Political Correctness nonsense lately (not being able to shoot certain Pedestrians in missions).
• With Online, they introduced some sort of pay to win and I do not see a way to rule out that it will not be introduced in  Singleplayer part in some way.
• The story in GTA V was not that great in my opinion (loved Strangers and Freaks though, so at least a glimpse of hope).
• Multicharacter system, seems that they want to reduce the risk that a protagonist is not liked at all, so they sort of split it to a few different ones to have something for everyone. They either forget or simply ignore the fact that this fundamentally changes the player's perception: While you were sort of one with the Protagonist in the previous titles (although in third person perspective), in GTA V this perception got changed to the one of a narrator, you even zoomed in from the sky (even in the very beginning of the game). The consequence certainly is a more distanced feeling of all the events of the game.
• Map design: Outside of Los Santos, the design was not that great over large areas. I am sure they had limits because of the consoles, but same counts form GTA San Andreas, where they used very clever map design (slow roads, smart road paths, smart use of fog,...) to make it appear bigger and to create a certain feeling. Due the fact that it certainly will be developed for consoles first, I do not see any potential here, the higher performance will probably be needed by graphic advancements mainly.

I will be really happy if I am wrong here, I have played GTA since GTA I, and it would really disappoint me if the last still good game series from my childhood would have a similar faith as other ones that used to be good (Battlefield, Command and Conquer,....).

[The Artist]

24 minutes ago, PhilPerlmutter said:

GTA VI has been hyped for quite a while, I assume for many it has to be the most promising title.

I personally do not look at it that way though, I cannot say that I am in anyway equally excited as in the period between GTA 3 and GTA Vice City or GTA Vice City and San Andreas.

In fact, my view is rather pessimistic due to the following factors that have become more and more obvious looking at the series starting at GTA San Andreas to GTA V and as well GTA Online.

• Mission has become more linear with each title, in GTA V / Online very annoying with stupid fail conditions.
• In GTA Online, they started to introduce this Political Correctness nonsense lately (not being able to shoot certain Pedestrians in missions).
• With Online, they introduced some sort of pay to win and I do not see a way to rule out that it will not be introduced in  Singleplayer part in some way.
• The story in GTA V was not that great in my opinion (loved Strangers and Freaks though, so at least a glimpse of hope).
• Multicharacter system, seems that they want to reduce the risk that a protagonist is not liked at all, so they sort of split it to a few different ones to have something for everyone. They either forget or simply ignore the fact that this fundamentally changes the player's perception: While you were sort of one with the Protagonist in the previous titles (although in third person perspective), in GTA V this perception got changed to the one of a narrator, you even zoomed in from the sky (even in the very beginning of the game). The consequence certainly is a more distanced feeling of all the events of the game.
• Map design: Outside of Los Santos, the design was not that great over large areas. I am sure they had limits because of the consoles, but same counts form GTA San Andreas, where they used very clever map design (slow roads, smart road paths, smart use of fog,...) to make it appear bigger and to create a certain feeling. Due the fact that it certainly will be developed for consoles first, I do not see any potential here, the higher performance will probably be needed by graphic advancements mainly.

I will be really happy if I am wrong here, I have played GTA since GTA I, and it would really disappoint me if the last still good game series from my childhood would have a similar faith as other ones that used to be good (Battlefield, Command and Conquer,....).

These are actually popular opinions on here

[PhilPerlmutter]

54 minutes ago, The Artist said:

These are actually popular opinions on here

Ohh really? My impression was always the opposite.
Wrong thread then I guess XD.