Which plot is better? GTA V or IV?

[Homemade Dynamite]

If I said why you or the IV fans wouldn't be convinced anyway so what is the point?

The point is so that your argument isn't completely baseless.

[Octavio89]

IV was way better.

[Zello]

If I said why you or the IV fans wouldn't be convinced anyway so what is the point?

You dug yourself into this hole now it's time to climb out of it.

[Tycek]

If I said why you or the IV fans wouldn't be convinced anyway so what is the point?

Typical act of a man who doesn't have any proof to his theory.

[Algonquin Assassin]

If I said why you or the IV fans wouldn't be convinced anyway so what is the point?

Well I don't understand why you would even say it to begin with if you're not prepared to back yourself up.

 

I'd have much more respect for your opinion if you actually explained why you feel it's deeper than it's given credit for instead of mindlessly generalising like you always do.

[Ducard]

If I said why you or the IV fans wouldn't be convinced anyway so what is the point?

 

By this, you are indirectly admitting that GTA V has a weak plot.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Ducard

[Th3MaN1]

You know, the idea was actually quite interesting, how Michael betrays his partners for a better life. If V had characters similar to IV, it WOULD have been a good story. Instead, they decided to concentrate on having Trevor.

 

Franklin was like an unopened treasure chest. So many f*cking opportunities, all thrown out the window with no remorse.

 

Then there's Michael, who had some good moments in the game, but eventually became the FIB's pet dog.

 

"Okay guys, I'll do this job, but it's the last one" okay, he does it, then f*cking guess what:

 

"Okay guys, but seriously, this is the last job". He acts like he had no choice, but in the end they still proceed to

kill Steve Haines anyway

because he's trouble. Like he wasn't before.

 

And what about Stretch? Why couldn't they think with those minds, and make Franklin and Lamar deal with him. Instead, it's Michael. MICHAEL, THE MAN WHO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH STRETCH.

 

Then there's Madrazo (who could have been a really good antagonist), the chinese, who capture Michael but are killed by 'Mr. Boring Man' on a bike, and so on.

 

Motherf*ckers at Rockstar write thousand of codes correctly but they can't write a story.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Th3MaN1

[Undyne]

V just felt like an action movie only worth watching for the action nothing else. Most of the characters feel cliche and some of them could have been better if they had a better role or a better aim

*cough* Franklin *cough*

The gameplay is great and all but the story line is very uninteresting and the antagonists are so... plain. IV felt more coherent, the characters were fleshed-out, yeah some mission were repetitive but the story line made it worth while, The first time I played it without seeing/reading any spoilers I played it for hours straight just to see what was going to happen next because I actually cared about the characters.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Cornerstone

[Voggs]

And what about Stretch? Why couldn't they think with those minds, and make Franklin and Lamar deal with him. Instead, it's Michael. MICHAEL, THE MAN WHO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH STRETCH.

 

 

Then there's Madrazo (who could have been a really good antagonist), the chinese, who capture Michael but are killed by 'Mr. Boring Man' on a bike, and so on.

This. THIS.

That made no sense at all and it's one of the reasons I think ending C sucked too, but it's still the best out of the 3 IMO. I mean, why the hell did Michael had to kill Stretch? Why the f*ck they cared about "it's better if he sees someone who doesn't know", bullsh*t, you shoot and they shoot you anyway, what's the difference of being spotted on sight as Franklin? It would have been better if Franklin dealt with him, "Yo, Stretch! I came for YOU, nigga!" "It's that bitch Franklin! Kill him!"

 

Same with Mr WhoWasThisGuyAnyway Cheng, it made more sense for Trevor. There was no time when Niko was going after Dimitri and Jacob suddenly says "me breda, I'll taek care of 'im, it's beatter if he doesn't see someoen familiar, rasta, one love", while Niko says "Ok" and goes to kill some of Jacob's random enemy dealers.

 

It should've been like this.

Haines: Killed by Michael

Stretch: Killed by Franklin

Cheng: Killed by Trevor

 

And to answer OP's question: IV, by far. You should consider EFLC, as it's part of the HD Liberty City story, with other strong points such as the diamonds, it's not fair to compare Niko's story to Michael, Franklin and Trevor's. IV + EFLC are the reason why V has 3 protagonists in one game.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Voggens

[Jeansowaty]

U kiddin'? IV's plot is way better than V. Just my personal opinion though...

[na89340qv0n34b09q340]

Unmarked V spoilers below, don't wanna spoiler entire post.

 

And what about Stretch? Why couldn't they think with those minds, and make Franklin and Lamar deal with him. Instead, it's Michael. MICHAEL, THE MAN WHO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH STRETCH.

 

Then there's Madrazo (who could have been a really good antagonist), the chinese, who capture Michael but are killed by 'Mr. Boring Man' on a bike, and so on.

 

It had to do with them coming together and dealing with each other's problems as a group rather than individually. The whole consideration of even killing Michael or Trevor in the first place comes from Franklin, etc. acting selfish and with their own interests in mind. Ending C was the ending where helping each other get over things becomes the solution, and that's why they all come together to kill the big big bad in the end.

Edited November 28, 2014 by na89340qv0n34b09q340

[DaWiesel]

IV's story was better, but the story missions were monotonous compared to V's. Niko is also my favorite character. But V's story isn't as bad as people say, I didn't expect another deep and gritty one, I expected more action this time and I got what I wanted. Could it be better? Sure, IV's could also been better. SA's story is more comparable to V's. It was so much worse, the only good part of it was the Los Santos arc, actually I think SA would have been the best game to make three playable characters. I still enjoyed it in V though.

[Algonquin Assassin]

IV's story was better, but the story missions were monotonous compared to V's.

GTA Vs missons are overrated IMO. I only found a handful of them fun. Most people moan about GTA IV's missions being the same, but I enjoyed the majority them because they were consistent with Niko being a hired gun. The ending missons were also more fun than GTA V's too.

[DS 17]

Thanks for no spoiler alerts, sucker!

[Th3MaN1]

Unmarked V spoilers below, don't wanna spoiler entire post.

 

And what about Stretch? Why couldn't they think with those minds, and make Franklin and Lamar deal with him. Instead, it's Michael. MICHAEL, THE MAN WHO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH STRETCH.

 

Then there's Madrazo (who could have been a really good antagonist), the chinese, who capture Michael but are killed by 'Mr. Boring Man' on a bike, and so on.

 

It had to do with them coming together and dealing with each other's problems as a group rather than individually. The whole consideration of even killing Michael or Trevor in the first place comes from Franklin, etc. acting selfish and with their own interests in mind. Ending C was the ending where helping each other get over things becomes the solution, and that's why they all come together to kill the big big bad in the end.

Still a very stupid decision. It would have made more sense for the guys to deal with their own demons, rather than other's.

[Sussus Amongus]

it could've been written by me:

 

"hey bro i thought u was dead i mourned u and u screwed me over and ruined my life"

"dude wtf chill"

"lets drive a truck"

"yes"

"best friends FOR EVER!!!"

 

Lol. Exactly. Trevor was just like: "Ayy lmao, I thoght you were dead." "Now lets save go and save Trace and forget all about the past m'kaayyy?" But other than the few f*ckups with the story in the missions I honestly think V had a decent storyline. Way beter than San Andreas or Vice City Stories. Edited November 28, 2014 by Cakelover21

[DaWiesel]

GTA Vs missons are overrated IMO. I only found a handful of them fun. Most people moan about GTA IV's missions being the same, but I enjoyed the majority them because they were consistent with Niko being a hired gun. The ending missons were also more fun than GTA V's too.

 

Well, I could say the same thing about IV's story. I think the monotony has to do with the amount of missions, 10-15 missions less and it wouldn't be such a problem, it isn't for me to be honest but IV did get criticized a lot for monotonous missions and I understand why.

 

With V it's actually the opposite, there should have been at least 20 more missions, the story felt too short. However, I enjoyed most of the missions, I even liked the heist preparation missions since they give you more freedom how to execute them.

 

IV's ending wasn't really fun for me though, it felt depressing and sad... and I f*cking loved that, it felt so different to all the other games in the series. V's ending (death wish) was fun and felt more like the typical ending mission in GTA games, it just wasn't as deep and emotional as IV's ending (especially the Deal ending).

[Sussus Amongus]

 

GTA Vs missons are overrated IMO. I only found a handful of them fun. Most people moan about GTA IV's missions being the same, but I enjoyed the majority them because they were consistent with Niko being a hired gun. The ending missons were also more fun than GTA V's too.

 

 

Well, I could say the same thing about IV's story. I think the monotony has to do with the amount of missions, 10-15 missions less and it wouldn't be such a problem, it isn't for me to be honest but IV did get criticized a lot for monotonous missions and I understand why.

 

With V it's actually the opposite, there should have been at least 20 more missions, the story felt too short. However, I enjoyed most of the missions, I even liked the heist preparation missions since they give you more freedom how to execute them.

 

IV's ending wasn't really fun for me though, it felt depressing and sad... and I f*cking loved that, it felt so different to all the other games in the series. V's ending (death wish) was fun and felt more like the typical ending mission in GTA games, it just wasn't as deep and emotional as IV's ending (especially the Deal ending).

 

IV's ending was depressing and boring. Not sad. Red Dead Redemption had a sad ending.

V's C ending was boring, anoying and the most predictable Hollywood ending ever. I know that that's exactly what they were going for from what R* said but it's true.

[Hot_STUFF]

 

IV's story was better, but the story missions were monotonous compared to V's.

GTA Vs missons are overrated IMO. I only found a handful of them fun. Most people moan about GTA IV's missions being the same, but I enjoyed the majority them because they were consistent with Niko being a hired gun. The ending missons were also more fun than GTA V's too.

You may have changed your name but you are still a hardcore GTA IV fanboy.

Face it. IV's story is way overrated. While actually it's dull and boring. So this guy believes his idiot cousin's description of LC and comes running up like a dog, only to find out that Roman had lied. That's how his story starts.

How bout that for movie-like and cliche'd? I say that's more movie like than V, showing the Statue of Happiness in the end and all that.

And don't get me started on Roman. It's like R* made a desperate move to inject some humor into the story. Just pathetic.

[Coral_City]

IV was ridiculously good. A story of a dude coming to America and realizing the dream was bullsh*t.

 

I felt no connection ot the characters in V

[Th3MaN1]

 

 

IV's story was better, but the story missions were monotonous compared to V's.

GTA Vs missons are overrated IMO. I only found a handful of them fun. Most people moan about GTA IV's missions being the same, but I enjoyed the majority them because they were consistent with Niko being a hired gun. The ending missons were also more fun than GTA V's too.

How bout that for movie-like and cliche'd? I say that's more movie like than V, showing the Statue of Happiness in the end and all that.

That's simbolic stuff, goddammit. If you can't understand that, then something is wrong.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Th3MaN1

[matajuegos01]

I agree with the sentiment that Trevor shouldn't have made it into the game. The story was so good with F and M, but then OMG SUDDENLY A TREVOR POPS OUT AND KILLS TLAD MEMBERS JUST BECAUSE, it kinda ruins the story, it sets F aside and the ordeal is between these 2 idiots, the only redeeming factor would've been T snapping on M/F and killing him or something like that, but noooooo, they became best buddies. bullsh*t.

[Nuke.]

GTA V's story was so poor it could've been written by me:

 

"hey bro i thought u was dead i mourned u and u screwed me over and ruined my life"

"dude wtf chill"

"lets drive a truck"

"yes"

"best friends FOR EVER!!!"

Don't forget about Franklin's story..

 

franklin: "i want to get out of the hood"

lester: "here's a house out of the hood"

franklin: "thx"

[Th3MaN1]

I agree with the sentiment that Trevor shouldn't have made it into the game. The story was so good with F and M, but then OMG SUDDENLY A TREVOR POPS OUT AND KILLS TLAD MEMBERS JUST BECAUSE, it kinda ruins the story, it sets F aside and the ordeal is between these 2 idiots, the only redeeming factor would've been T snapping on M/F and killing him or something like that, but noooooo, they became best buddies. bullsh*t.

Trevor could have been a good idea in general, but he was all bark and no bite. I knew there was something wrong as soon as he stepped foot in Michael's house. That whole cutscene felt SOOOO out of place and awkward for me, considering Trevor wanted answers, but never asked for them.

 

So then, he finds out that Brad's dead, and I hoped, that maybe he and Michael would actually have a face-off in one way or another. But nope! He instead decided that if Michael helps him with the UD, they're all good!

[The Dedito Gae]

Trevor could have been a good idea in general, but he was all bark and no bite. I knew there was something wrong as soon as he stepped foot in Michael's house. That whole cutscene felt SOOOO out of place and awkward for me, considering Trevor wanted answers, but never asked for them.

 

So then, he finds out that Brad's dead, and I hoped, that maybe he and Michael would actually have a face-off in one way or another. But nope! He instead decided that if Michael helps him with the UD, they're all good!

what really bothers me of Trevor is how the f*ck he didn't realized that Brad is dead the whole time.

seriously, Trevor?

Michael lying about it was so painfully obvious that even i called on his bullsh*t.

If I said why you or the IV fans wouldn't be convinced anyway so what is the point?

try to back up what you say at least

Edited November 28, 2014 by Midnight Hitman

[Bulleto]

OP over here.

 

Just calm down. Just because I dislike GTA IV plot that doesnt mean that im stupid or retarded.

[woggleman]

I just don't feel like typing up a long essay that will only get me called a fanboy and an R nuthugger. It would be like talking to a wall.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

 

IV's story was better, but the story missions were monotonous compared to V's.

GTA Vs missons are overrated IMO. I only found a handful of them fun. Most people moan about GTA IV's missions being the same, but I enjoyed the majority them because they were consistent with Niko being a hired gun. The ending missons were also more fun than GTA V's too.

You may have changed your name but you are still a hardcore GTA IV fanboy.

Face it. IV's story is way overrated. While actually it's dull and boring. So this guy believes his idiot cousin's description of LC and comes running up like a dog, only to find out that Roman had lied. That's how his story starts.

How bout that for movie-like and cliche'd? I say that's more movie like than V, showing the Statue of Happiness in the end and all that.

And don't get me started on Roman. It's like R* made a desperate move to inject some humor into the story. Just pathetic.

 

 

Looks like we'll have to learn to agree to disagree. GTA IV's story to me is nothing short of amazing. No it's not perfect, but there's a good reason why it's often praised as the best in the series.

[The Dedito Gae]

 

 

 

 

GTA Vs missons are overrated IMO. I only found a handful of them fun. Most people moan about GTA IV's missions being the same, but I enjoyed the majority them because they were consistent with Niko being a hired gun. The ending missons were also more fun than GTA V's too.

You may have changed your name but you are still a hardcore GTA IV fanboy.

Face it. IV's story is way overrated. While actually it's dull and boring. So this guy believes his idiot cousin's description of LC and comes running up like a dog, only to find out that Roman had lied. That's how his story starts.

How bout that for movie-like and cliche'd? I say that's more movie like than V, showing the Statue of Happiness in the end and all that.

And don't get me started on Roman. It's like R* made a desperate move to inject some humor into the story. Just pathetic.

calm down

Niko came to america because he needed to escape Bulgarin and find Darko, Roman was not a funny guy, just a cheerful guy that brings contrast to the gritty and bleak reality of niko , while IV story lacks in some places, i'll give you that, it's better that the weakest history on the series that is V.

 

[Algonquin Assassin]

IMO Niko and Roman's bond is the most genuine in the series. Despite Roman's deception Niko still stands by him through it all. I like Roman's contrasting personality compared to Niko's. Roman's the optimist and Niko's the realist.