V's storyline isn't as bad as people say: its misunderstood

[Kampret]

 

 

 

Story was average, but execution and dialogue were flawless. In contrast, IV's story had more potential, but execution was troubled. It's a matter of perspective anyway.

Why do you think it was "troubled"? Just curious that's all.

More like a pace thing. I loved GTA IV, but there's no doubting that the game felt kinda slow to me, whilst V felt way too fast for a GTA.

I didn't think there was anything wrong with the pacing. It made the story more cohesive rather than jumping all over the place.

 

 

Well, that's true. A long, slow story helped character development.

 

IMO, a long story is nice, but too long and it'll make the whole story went boring. IV is perfect, not too long like SA, but not too short like V.

[Trevorphilipjfry]

The "troubled aspect" for me, was Nikos desire to stop being a hired gun, yet that's all the player does in fres roam, made big disconnect, and the way in which rockstar let us know Niko was depressed was the way in which he literally says, Im depressed, and moans.

 

It was a great story, but I couldn't ignore the inconstancies in that game.

[Algonquin Assassin]

The "troubled aspect" for me, was Nikos desire to stop being a hired gun, yet that's all the player does in fres roam, made big disconnect, and the way in which rockstar let us know Niko was depressed was the way in which he literally says, Im depressed, and moans.

It was a great story, but I couldn't ignore the inconstancies in that game.

Fair enough.

[Fuzzknuckles]

The "troubled aspect" for me, was Nikos desire to stop being a hired gun, yet that's all the player does in fres roam, made big disconnect, and the way in which rockstar let us know Niko was depressed was the way in which he literally says, Im depressed, and moans.

 

It was a great story, but I couldn't ignore the inconstancies in that game.

Nailed it. It never rings true.

 

In fact, all three of IV era characters. Niko, wants to change, murders millions. Johnny, wants to change, murders millions. Luis, wants to change, murders millions.

 

You could draw a clever parallel between the futility of their stories and the futility of arguing on GTAF, but that might be a bit much for some of the tiny, oh-so-narrow minds around here.

[thatstupidbug]

The "troubled aspect" for me, was Nikos desire to stop being a hired gun, yet that's all the player does in fres roam, made big disconnect, and the way in which rockstar let us know Niko was depressed was the way in which he literally says, Im depressed, and moans.

 

It was a great story, but I couldn't ignore the inconstancies in that game.

 

It's been a while since I played GTA IV, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the "disconnected" aspect didn't happened even it the storyline? because I remember that niko had NO REASON to kill for brucie (a great character, but a weak boss... ), but he did it without a blink of an eye. The same goes for manny (niko wasn't exactly happy, but he just didn't care if it was right or wrong). Even killing Vladimir was a bit too much (he was "just" having an affair with Mallorie), and Niko acted like the old, raging self...practically he moans about being in an horrible situation, while he was HIS actions that put him in that spot...

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

In my opinion it is as bad as I say it is. It has fun gameplay but no substance, it's stupid rubbish made to appeal to IV whiners.

[Tilemaxx]

 

Story was average, but execution and dialogue were flawless. In contrast, IV's story had more potential, but execution was troubled. It's a matter of perspective anyway.

Why do you think it was "troubled"? Just curious that's all.

 

 

Mostly pacing issues and filler missions, as Kampret stated. IV with 69 missions could have been a much better game. With that in mind, i really need to replay the whole EFLC saga, it's almost 5 years since my last playthrough.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Tilemaxx

[kj2022]

I don't think that V's is "bad" per say, like it's no Transformers 4, it's just that it felt incredibly disjointed and inconsistent. It never seems to focus on the larger points, there was no overall threat, it didn't make you feel like everything could go wrong at a milliseconds notice, and it should've. It was supposed to be about heists, and the family aspect, how does Michael get away with 5 heists and nobody thinks "oh, lets target his family, he's obviously good at heists, we could make a quick buck here?" There just isn't enough threat, there should've been. Madrazo should've came after him more, Haynes should've been going after Mikes family behind his back and f*cking up his home life. They're supposed to be surrounded by people they can't trust, and yet they still go home at night and sleep it off like nothing happened at all. There just didn't seem to be enough emotion, yeah, there is some incredible scenes in there, some incredible motion caption work, and tiny little things like Mike stepping between Trev and the family. But there wasn't enough, and that personally is why I didn't enjoy it as much as I could've.

[Cebra]

69 missions for 3 characters is just not enough.

It didnt cut it. When i finally got into the characters i was like "oh damn, the story is over."

 

GTA SA had like 160 missions or so?

Even vice city had 100ish.

GTA SA had 100 main missions.

GTA VC has 35 main missions.

 

Anyway, the biggest problem in GTA V's story was that characters are horrible inconsistent. To start, we've got the constant mentioning of Tanisha. She's who's driving Franklin to commit the events of the game, and we see her once. And you know what she does in that one appearence? Chastises Franklin for abandoning his friends from "da hood" when the only reason she broke up with him was because he couldn't get out of the hood. Same thing with Madrazo; in Marriage Counseling we see what a dangerous guy he is. Franklin knows he's got important connections and he's very deadly to mess with. So when Michael tears his house town, he beats him with a baseball bat and makes him raise 2.5 million dollars. That's fine. Then, for some reason, he later contacts Michael for a job. Mike and Trevor do it, then Trevor inexplicably kidnaps Madrazo's wife. But what does the big, bad, dangerous mobster do? He makes a couple of threats throughout the months they're hiding in Blaine County (which is so small that it's pathetic Madrazo can't find them), and when Trevor finally decides to give Patricia back, Madrazo is apologetic. Why? Nobody knows.

 

And there's also Forum Drive Gangsters. Franklin and Lamar talk about it in The Long Stretch and some friend activities, but what becomes of it? Nothing. Like Tanisha, it's something that should have been really important just thrown aside. Don't even get me started on the inconsistency of Trevor's character. He finds out Michael's alive, kills Johnny out of rage, vows to kill Michael and weeks later, when he finally gets to Los Santos and meets Michael after 10 years...he helps him intimidate Lazlow because he was crude to Tracey. And despite all the talk about killing Michael, they leave after this missions with Trevor saying "Ah, how did you do it without me, old friend?". What?!

 

The real problem with V's story was the fact that it was 95% inconsistent.

Edited September 27, 2014 by PhilosophicalZebra

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

 

Story was average, but execution and dialogue were flawless. In contrast, IV's story had more potential, but execution was troubled. It's a matter of perspective anyway.

 

Why do you think it was "troubled"? Just curious that's all.

 

Mostly pacing issues and filler missions, as Kampret stated. IV with 69 missions could have been a much better game. With that in mind, i really need to replay the whole EFLC saga, it's almost 5 years since my last playthrough.

Thanks for explaining and I definitely recommend playing through GTA IV as well as EFLC. It might help with some of the issues that you feel plagues the vanilla game.

 

Getting back on topic..

 

Everytime I try to get into GTA V I always abandon my save around the middle part of the game. I don't understand why the start is so strong, but doesn't seem to hold together very well towards the end. Of course it's just a subjective point of view, but yeah..

[Geralt of Rivia]

 

 

 

Story was average, but execution and dialogue were flawless. In contrast, IV's story had more potential, but execution was troubled. It's a matter of perspective anyway.

 

Why do you think it was "troubled"? Just curious that's all.

 

Mostly pacing issues and filler missions, as Kampret stated. IV with 69 missions could have been a much better game. With that in mind, i really need to replay the whole EFLC saga, it's almost 5 years since my last playthrough.

Thanks for explaining and I definitely recommend playing through GTA IV as well as EFLC. It might help with some of the issues that you feel plagues the vanilla game.

 

Getting back on topic..

 

Everytime I try to get into GTA V I always abandon my save around the middle part of the game. I don't understand why the start is so strong, but doesn't seem to hold together very well towards the end. Of course it's just a subjective point of view, but yeah..

The game's intentionally made to discourage IV fanboys from playing the masterpiece V and going back to their inferior game.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

 

 

 

Story was average, but execution and dialogue were flawless. In contrast, IV's story had more potential, but execution was troubled. It's a matter of perspective anyway.

Why do you think it was "troubled"? Just curious that's all.

Mostly pacing issues and filler missions, as Kampret stated. IV with 69 missions could have been a much better game. With that in mind, i really need to replay the whole EFLC saga, it's almost 5 years since my last playthrough.

Thanks for explaining and I definitely recommend playing through GTA IV as well as EFLC. It might help with some of the issues that you feel plagues the vanilla game.

Getting back on topic..

Everytime I try to get into GTA V I always abandon my save around the middle part of the game. I don't understand why the start is so strong, but doesn't seem to hold together very well towards the end. Of course it's just a subjective point of view, but yeah..

The game's intentionally made to discourage IV fanboys from playing the masterpiece V and going back to their inferior game.

Overused joke is overused.

[Geralt of Rivia]

Overused joke claiming overused joke is also overused

[Tilemaxx]

 

Thanks for explaining and I definitely recommend playing through GTA IV as well as EFLC. It might help with some of the issues that you feel plagues the vanilla game.

 

Getting back on topic..

 

Everytime I try to get into GTA V I always abandon my save around the middle part of the game. I don't understand why the start is so strong, but doesn't seem to hold together very well towards the end. Of course it's just a subjective point of view, but yeah..

 

Both LATD and TBOGT were very close to GTA V's level of pacing. Especially TBOGT had a really similar mission structure to V, and it's definitely my favourite GTA IV episode (to me it's the IV definite version, along with it's techinical improvements) as i stated in other topics.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Tilemaxx

[Phil Cassidy7]

You know what would be a good story for GTA V? Three motherf*ckers doing heist across the entire state of San Andreas with no backstory or things that hold them back, that would be fun (this is what I thought it was when the first couple of trailers came out.).

 

But instead we got three static characters, M has family, childrens that aren't even his (a ginger and a blonde?wtf?) always in the same place, without consequence in his family from his actions, sure, you rob banks but we live in the middle of the city with no problems.

 

Then we have Franklin that get out of the hood to imprison himself up in his big empty house in the hill, put them in danger! make them move out! run for their lives!.

 

And last we have Trevor with so much potencial for craziness, and what happens? in almost all of the heist he always take the more safety role, (he even state this), crazy fun i'm sure most of us want, plan a heist in LS have some trouble, make them run, etc.

I hope you understand what i mean.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Loveint

[Official General]

Everything you described is why some people think it was bad. It's just an opinion. It's not deep enough for it to be misunderstood.

 

Some people don't like stereotypical hollywood stuff, stereotypical rich dumbasses ordering others to do their dirty work, or a heist game where the main theme wasn't heists. IV's tone had nothing to do with it, and neither did hype. I just think R* dropped the ball with V's story. There were some great moments, but the story was all over the place and it just didn't do it for me.

 

It probably would've been better if R* focused more on the crime. Michael was supposed to be the most interesting character, and I love his backstory, but the execution of his family drama got boring quick. It was like watching a weak sitcom in the middle of a heist film. Franklin was completely underdeveloped. I don't even know how to feel about him. He was just there, and his thought process didn't make much sense to me. He wanted to leave gang banging and his life of crime in the ghetto, but the stuff he was doing for Michael was even more ridiculous. This is why it would've been better if R* focused on the crime. It would've made more sense if Michael had his sh*t together, but it seems R* doesn't know how to make a GTA without some type of corrupt cop element. Michael got Franklin paid, so I guess Franklin was down to do anything at that point? Even work for the FIB?!

 

Trevor could've been fun, but instead of making him a complete psychopath who was also loyal to his friends, R* gave us a dirty weirdo. I can understand why some people like him, but R* tried too hard to make him a piece of sh*t. You can't even dress him properly. His character is just designed to be unlikable. Some people like that "I'm not supposed to like him, so I like him" type sh*t, but it's just annoying IMO.

 

 

Spot on

 

Rockstar should have stayed away from that generic and corny-ass Hollywood bullsh*t engulfed the game. If they had just focused on the essential GTA stuff to do with organized crime, gangs, drugs, and proper heists, then V's story would have been much better. Michael's family thing, looking back at it now, I thought the whole thing was real cheesy and a bit wack - it just was not the kind of material ideally suited to a GTA story. Rather than make Trevor a crazy psychopath with a very engaging, deep story, everything about him just revolved around pure, mindless stupidity, nastiness and disgust. Franklin, lets not even go too much into that, let's just say he was a great waste of a protagonist.

 

I totally agree with what you said about IV. I don't believe that IV's dark, gritty tone was the main reason why many people thought it's story was good. IV's story was good, because Rockstar actually put a great deal of thought and effort into it to make it work so well, and indeed it did. IV's story played out like a very engaging, deep gangster drama/action movie. The protagonist and characters were brilliantly created, and the story was well-written and paced. The theme matched the script near perfectly. It was not just about being dark and gritty, IV's story was a genuine Rockstar masterpiece.

[Osho]

The game's intentionally made to discourage....

... the players from replaying the story, and instead enjoy the time playing only their inferior game; GTA:O!

[Undyne]

I wouldn't say it was bad. It was just mediocre. It could've been much better than that but instead it felt all over the place and inconsistent.

[Aby]

The story blows.

[icemagi]

The story was really good until Trevor was re-introduced. Once I saw Trevor again it felt kind of off for some reason. I thought it was only because I could only play as Trevor and I didn't find him as interesting as I thought I would at first but after he goes to Los Santos and everyone meets up and what not, that feeling didn't go away and I kind of knew that it was going to be crap from then on. I was still entertained though, I loved the missions and some of the jokes were hilarious, but the lackluster story was really killing that vibe.

 

I don't want to talk about the endings, just thinking about those endings hurts my soul.

[TheJasonGallant]

The story is pretty good, I just think they didn't expand on it enough... We should have been able to see more of Franklin's life with the repos and crazy situations. We should have seen more Michaels family life and the crazy stuff he runs into. We should have seen more missions in general.

[whats_a_username?]

How is IV's story good? I just don't see it. It is incredibly dull and always takes side roads that leads away from the main story/objective.

It has no consistency. Niko doesn't like being people's bitch, but that's what he is throughout. I guess the subtext is that Niko in fact liked to be others bitch, their lapdog. Grow a f*cking backbone.

[Algonquin Assassin]

always takes side roads that leads away from the main story/objective.

 

This is the exact reason why I love the story actually. The sub plots exploit LC's underworld that just sticking to main plot wouldn't. Pretty much stories within a story.

[Lock n' Stock]

Different doesn't always mean good exactly. GTA V's story isn't horrible by any means, but the rushed endings and forgettable antagonists leave alot to be desired, especially when compared to IV.

Edited September 27, 2014 by xXGst0395Xx

[Trevorphilipjfry]

How is IV's story good? I just don't see it. It is incredibly dull and always takes side roads that leads away from the main story/objective.

It has no consistency. Niko doesn't like being people's bitch, but that's what he is throughout. I guess the subtext is that Niko in fact liked to be others bitch, their lapdog. Grow a f*cking backbone.

I know this isn't a conversation of Iv story line, but that wad the point was that its the only world ge knew, and no matter how much he wanted to change, he still had to do those things.

 

That's what I liked about V ot seemed more about the protags ambition, and them wanting do something for themselves, money, fun, pride, reputation, family.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

How is IV's story good? I just don't see it. It is incredibly dull and always takes side roads that leads away from the main story/objective.

It has no consistency. Niko doesn't like being people's bitch, but that's what he is throughout. I guess the subtext is that Niko in fact liked to be others bitch, their lapdog. Grow a f*cking backbone.

 

That's what I liked about V ot seemed more about the protags ambition, and them wanting do something for themselves, money, fun, pride, reputation, family.

 

 

If only the heists were geared more towards their motivation of the "pursuit of the mighty dollar". Looking back at it now I find it funny that "Blitz Play" was used to push the heists in the game play trailer yet it's only because Michael, Franklin and Trevor are held by the balls to do it. Not because they want to.

[Geralt of Rivia]

nothing will change the fact quite a significant number of GTA fans hold the same view as I do.

Woah woah woah.

 

Where'd you pull that statement out of? Thin air? Your ass?

 

You know hundreds of thousands of people at the very least that share your view? That's the only way the number would be, in any way, 'significant'.

 

EDIT: Actually, looking at the actual definition of 'significant', I'd say you'd need millions of people for it to be significant.

 

So where are these people that are on your side?

Edited September 27, 2014 by TheMasterfocker

[Magic_Al]

How is IV's story good? I just don't see it. It is incredibly dull and always takes side roads that leads away from the main story/objective.

It has no consistency. Niko doesn't like being people's bitch, but that's what he is throughout. I guess the subtext is that Niko in fact liked to be others bitch, their lapdog. Grow a f*cking backbone.

 

I thought the point of IV's story was to show Niko that his objective was holding him back and he should think about whether his life would be better if he looked around those "side" roads and found a new life for himself. It's right there on the tagline: what does the American dream mean? GTAV is a story about making crime pay: you make crime pay, you win. Crime pays in GTAIV too, but after you make your big score the story keeps going until there are emotional consequences.

[REVENGE777]

 

nothing will change the fact quite a significant number of GTA fans hold the same view as I do.

Woah woah woah.

 

Where'd you pull that statement out of? Thin air?

 

You know hundreds of thousands of people at the very least that share your view? That's the only way the number would be, in any way, 'significant'.

 

well, i mean, aside from all of his extremes,i generally agree with OG about gta v...except on FP view... im open to the idea.

[nixion]

V is a inconsistant mess, there are just too many moments where the story takes a random turn for the worst. Sometimes I get this Producers-esc vibe from the plot because just when everything is being set up to flow and really take off, it falls flat on purpose and almost at the expense of our enjoyment. If the main conflict of the game was intended to be within the 3 characters and the trust they have with one another, then it was an incredibly terrible idea to not explore that conflict on a more serious tone then to write it off as comical and satirical. It's as if The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was a Mel Brooks movie. Grand Theft Auto has always done a good job of mixing humour into their serious stories, but this time it felt like the humour was the focus and took away from the seriousness.

Edited September 27, 2014 by nixion