Which plot is better? GTA V or IV?

[The Dedito Gae]

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 thoptimist and Niko's the realist.

i wish i had a cousin like Roman. Edited November 28, 2014 by Midnight Hitman

[woggleman]

I will type up my reason when I get a chance to sit down. Please respect that this is my opinion and even if you don't agree you don't have to call me a fanboy or R nuthugger.

[Homemade Dynamite]

What really pisses me off about the story is that, not only is it sh*t, but it could have been so much better. During the first part of the game, where it was just Michael and Franklin, I really liked the dynamic between them. After being held a gunpoint to betray his boss, they form a father/son like relationship in a way that feels completely natural. Michael teaches Franklin to be a professional, while Franklin helps Michael get back into the game. All while we had a very clear antagonist with Martin Madrazo. If it were up to me, it would have just been Michael and Franklin with Heists being a greater focus and Martin Madrazo as the main antagonist with a consistent characterization, along with the Ballas and the Triads on the side. No FIB/IAA/Private army/nuke/chemical warfare Michael Bay movie bullsh*t. If Trevor absolutely had to be in the game, he should have been a straight-up antagonist who opposes Michael as a foil. NOT a protagonist that is shoved down the player's throat. Hell, they could have made it so that Madrazo is killed halfway through the story, leaving Trevor to take up the role of the lead villain. It would been so much more interesting than what we got, we would have ACTUAL CONFRONTATIONS.

 

Damn, just an idea I came up with on the top of my head is better than years of writing R* made in their coke-fueled writing room.

Edited November 29, 2014 by NightSpectre

[PoeticWhisper]

Haines could have been killed in "The Wrap Up" instead of Sanchez, and Michael could have been the one to do it.

Stretch should have been at the factory when he sold out Lamar to the ballas. Then Franklin and Lamar could've clapped his bitch ass.

 

Wei Cheng could have been in the meat factory Michael was taken to. Could have had a spot where he was beating up Michael and Franklin comes in and they have a fist fight while michael breaks free from the chains, then uses the chain to choke out Cheng and toss him into a meat grinder.

Then they all could have taken out Devin Weston at the end. Would've made more sense.

That being said, I still enjoy V's story more, as it's more fun to me. I like the plot a lot, I just didn't like the way we wrapped up all the antagonists right at the end. Seemed stupid.

Edited November 29, 2014 by PoeticWhisper

[woggleman]

Here it goes.

 

In Liberty City we have the entry point for the American dream. It makes sense for the protagonist to be an immigrant because he is a man in a strange new land looking for a better life than what he had. He arrives and finds out that the American dream is not what it seems and to survive he does what he knows best how to do which is criminality and violence. It is a dog eat dog world and he is forced to eat or be eaten. It is a good metaphor for capitalism.

 

In V's LS we have the end point for the American dream. Michael has reached the goal. He has the house, a boat, a nice car and he never has to work again but it is not what it seems. He sold his soul and his friend out for this and under all the material riches his marriage is in shambled, his kids are trainwrecks and he has no real friends in LS.

 

Trevor and Sandy Shores are the complete flipside to this. He happily lives on the margins and completely rejects Michael's version of the American dream. He has complete contempt for polite mainstream society and views Michael's world as one big farce. Sandy Shores where he lives is the kind of community where people have moved to get away from society and have taken themselves off the grid. For him crime is not about riches but about that kind of freedom. If you have M and T hang out this kind of class warfare comes up often.

 

Franklin is sort of in between. He is a young black male from the hood who repos cars for a living. I am sure that he has done many jobs at houses like the one we see in the first mission with Lamar. He gets that life rubbed on his face everyday but goes home to the hood. He desperately wants out so when Michael presents a chance he takes it but he is stuck in between that and his loyalty to the hood. It's why deep down he is loyal to Lamar who in some ways is Trevor to his Michael.

 

In many ways the game is about three different takes on the American dream and how they clash. That is why I say it is deeper than people give it credit for. If you really listen to the dialogue this stuff comes up quite often. A few things could have been done better but it's much more than this shallow Michael Bay plot it's critics make it out to be. People might not agree but that is how I see it.

[Homemade Dynamite]

That's a pretty good analogy, sadly it was handled with no grace whatsoever as we're forced into a bunch of Hollywood action scenes and poop jokes, and the story flat-out doesn't make any sense whatsoever due to how poorly written it is. See, they had some good ideas but they squandered it in favor of more Hollywood stunts and black comedy jokes as if a 12-year-old wrote it.

[Algonquin Assassin]

Here it goes.

 

In Liberty City we have the entry point for the American dream. It makes sense for the protagonist to be an immigrant because he is a man in a strange new land looking for a better life than what he had. He arrives and finds out that the American dream is not what it seems and to survive he does what he knows best how to do which is criminality and violence. It is a dog eat dog world and he is forced to eat or be eaten. It is a good metaphor for capitalism.

 

In V's LS we have the end point for the American dream. Michael has reached the goal. He has the house, a boat, a nice car and he never has to work again but it is not what it seems. He sold his soul and his friend out for this and under all the material riches his marriage is in shambled, his kids are trainwrecks and he has no real friends in LS.

 

Trevor and Sandy Shores are the complete flipside to this. He happily lives on the margins and completely rejects Michael's version of the American dream. He has complete contempt for polite mainstream society and views Michael's world as one big farce. Sandy Shores where he lives is the kind of community where people have moved to get away from society and have taken themselves off the grid. For him crime is not about riches but about that kind of freedom. If you have M and T hang out this kind of class warfare comes up often.

 

Franklin is sort of in between. He is a young black male from the hood who repos cars for a living. I am sure that he has done many jobs at houses like the one we see in the first mission with Lamar. He gets that life rubbed on his face everyday but goes home to the hood. He desperately wants out so when Michael presents a chance he takes it but he is stuck in between that and his loyalty to the hood. It's why deep down he is loyal to Lamar who in some ways is Trevor to his Michael.

 

In many ways the game is about three different takes on the American dream and how they clash. That is why I say it is deeper than people give it credit for. If you really listen to the dialogue this stuff comes up quite often. A few things could have been done better but it's much more than this shallow Michael Bay plot it's critics make it out to be. People might not agree but that is how I see it.

 

See was that so hard? You could've written that originally. That's fair enough though and I understand where you're coming from.

[Ducard]

From the videos I've seen, I can't judge the whole plot of V yet, but Michael definitely seems like the best character. He reminds me of Niko, Niko cares about Roman despite Niko being annoyed by Roman's gambling antic and Michael cares for his family despite them being an annoyance. Both are slight hypocrites too and both are also depressed.

 

Michael is also a real professional criminal. Franklin seems alright and Trevor I have no opinion on yet, but I am reserving my judgement on the trio until I play the game.

[woggleman]

The over the top Hollywood missions have been a staple of GTA since the start and are something many people complained was lacking in IV. I don't see how repelling down a government building is any more shallow and Michael Bayish than flying in a jet pack to steal green goo from a train.

[American Viking]

GTA 4's story is hands down better than GTA 5's story. Niko alone had more depth, more character and more believability than all GTA 5 characters combined. More importantly though...GTA 4 was a great story, a believable story about an immigrant hunting the man who double crossed him and his friends...and made clear that Niko would stop at nothing to get revenge. A story that more accurately portrayed the criminal underworld in a dark and unforgiving light.

 

GTA 5 on the other hand was a story about 3 guys teaming up to pull off Hollywood style heist with an overarching angle that was forgettable (essentially). Michael was a character that the story tried to portray as a selfish, self righteous prick but that was overshadowed by his dysfunctional family who I felt were the real problem. Michael's son was a complete douche, and uninteresting. His wife and daughter were just two dollar whores who I didn't care for much either...meanwhile the game is trying oh so hard to make Michael look like the bad guy. It failed.

Trevor is too psychotic...so psychotic that he is not a believable character at all. Am I supposed to believe this man is a cannibal, a necrophiliac, a sociopath, AND a competent bank robber and non racist? Yeah, don't think so. In fact, I find Trevor to be disturbingly Liberal as can be heard in various dialogues including his work for the Civil Border Patrol.

Franklin to me just felt like filler, almost as if Rockstar added him just to avoid adding 3 white guys for fears of racist accusations. He is a walking cliche with a terrible and unconvincing voice actor. He is supposed to be some hard core gangster and yet I just don't believe it. He is so calm and relaxed, always letting people push him around while he's riding Michael's coat tail and complaining.

 

In a nutshell Michael is the rich asshole, Trevor is a psychotic redneck, and Franklin is a hood. Am I supposed to believe these 3 teamed up, became best friends (reunited as best friends for Mike and Trev) with nothing in common, and pulled off the most elaborate heists ever seen in San Andreas? I'm not buying it. Michael and Trevor make sense because they were partners back in the day but Franklin...like I said, filler. In one mission he's illegally repoing Michael's son's ride and the very next mission him and Michael are all buddy buddy? On what planet. Why would Michael want anything at all to do with some hood? He wouldn't. And Trevor. They literally crossed every line with him except the racism thing. Judging by Trevor's total hate for modern society...why would he care about Frank at all. He wouldn't.

 

Other things that made the game bad was the moronic dialogue. and the ignorant parts coupled with the worst voice actor in the history of the GTA series: Shawn Fonteno. After the mission where Michael, Trevor and Franklin finish off the remaining 3 O'Neil brothers, as they are flying away, Trevor says "Thank you Franklin" to which Franklin responds "yeah it's cool homie", and then Trevor says "and thank you Chop" to which Chop responds with "woof". Are you kidding me? Who wrote that crap? There are many other instances of moronic dialogue in the game but that was nearly too much. There's also alot of things that don't make any sense at all. Take the introduction of Dom for example. Franklin literally understands a dog and it leads him to Dom. And, how do they explain Trevor's Rampage missions. I give a pass to the hallucinations of aliens and evil clowns but how do you explain Trevor flippin crap and killing 50+ guys who spawn for a minute? Some have theorized that this is all in Trevor's head but I'm not so sure. If anything, these should have been more hallucinations.

 

I hope Rockstar sees all the negative feedback on GTA 5 and goes back to GTA 4's formula.

Edited December 7, 2014 by American Alpha

[Homemade Dynamite]

The over the top Hollywood missions have been a staple of GTA since the start and are something many people complained was lacking in IV. I don't see how repelling down a government building is any more shallow and Michael Bayish than flying in a jet pack to steal green goo from a train.

That's the problem. GTA IV was grounded in reality in the right way, and proved video games are art. Yet, instead of sticking to their guns and continuing to craft amazing stories set in the criminal underworld, they tried to appeal to the crybabies who whined about it not being San Andreas 2.

[woggleman]

I loved IV as well just much as I love V but the reality is that many people don't feel the same way and R knew it. A remaster of the same game will greatly outsell brand new DLC for IV. What does that say about how the general public views IV? I thought EFLC is the best DLC ever created but most of the public doesn't seem to feel the same way. A major company is going to cater to what the majority wants. Maybe they can make a DLC for V that caters to the IV fanbase the way TBOGT catered to the SA fans.

[Homemade Dynamite]

I loved IV as well just much as I love V but the reality is that many people don't feel the same way and R knew it. A remaster of the same game will greatly outsell brand new DLC for IV. What does that say about how the general public views IV? I thought EFLC is the best DLC ever created but most of the public doesn't seem to feel the same way. A major company is going to cater to what the majority wants. Maybe they can make a DLC for V that caters to the IV fanbase the way TBOGT catered to the SA fans.

You're referring to a vocal minority who were crying about how GTA IV was San Andreas 2. Now people are (rightfully) mad that V is too over-the-top.

[woggleman]

Believe me it was not a vocal minority. Go on any other video game forum and they pretty much despise IV. Go back a few years on this forum and they didn't like it very much. The sales figures of remastered V vs EFLC say a lot. Men lie and women lie but numbers don't. People say that I should accept that a good portion of this forum doesn't say V the way I do but IV fans need to accept the fact that the general public doesn't see IV the way they do. V also isn't even as over the top as SA.

[Niobium]

I think that 99% of the people around here will agree with me when I say:

 

Gameplay: V > IV

Story: IV > V

 

nope.

 

Gameplay: IV > V

Story: IV > V

[Homemade Dynamite]

Believe me it was not a vocal minority. Go on any other video game forum and they pretty much despise IV. Go back a few years on this forum and they didn't like it very much. The sales figures of remastered V vs EFLC say a lot. Men lie and women lie but numbers don't. People say that I should accept that a good portion of this forum doesn't say V the way I do but IV fans need to accept the fact that the general public doesn't see IV the way they do. V also isn't even as over the top as SA.

You can't use online forums as an example of a "majority". If you did that, you would think no one likes Call of Duty.

[woggleman]

True but I can use sales figures and when a remaster outsells brand new DLC that says a lot.

[ShogunTBone]

V's story, from the beginning, was quite engaging. Pulling the opening heist was a highlight and high-point of the plot, as the elements there were executed quite well and daresay cinema-like. The dynamic relationship between Michael and Franklin was flowing well, and the 'crazed madman' subplot with Trevor served as a fun branching point to that. However, something just started to bog down the enjoyment. The first boredom spell that hit me was during 'Scouting the Port', and the proceeding events were a turn off for completing anything else for expectant of the same result. The middle missions were basically following suit, I didn't get that much of a feeling of joy from them, save for a few, and the ending somewhat redeemed this but wasn't enough to erase it fully.

 

The feeling that it could have been a bit better was there after playing through a few times, I completed a 5th playthrough of V last week just for kicks and didn't draw too much out of it. The 'wow' factor is lost in going through the story again, something that stands as a substantial mark against it.

 

The entire immersion in the plot that IV gave you was second to none in this era of GTA. The dark, gritty aura of Niko's past consistently haunting him in terms of judgement and morality decisions coupled with the unforgiving concrete jungle that is Liberty set the tone from the beginning and took it from there. Sure, there was a touch of repetitive objectives, but they didn't serve to hinder anything too much. The ending(s) was also much more well-drawn out and emotion-filled, it packed a punch that was not soon to be forgotten.

 

Overall, I have to say IV's was better in terms of plot. That is just an opinion, and I can see opposing views for V, but for me, IV takes this.

Edited November 29, 2014 by ShogunTBone

[Homemade Dynamite]

True but I can use sales figures and when a remaster outsells brand new DLC that says a lot.

That's because R* hyped the sh*t out of the Next-Gen versions as being the "real version", whereas EFLC wasn't well marketed (especially since it was initially an Xbox 360 exclusive). People will buy anything with GTA (or even R*) labeled on it, because R* hypes them up. I don't remember them hyping up EFLC that much.

[ShogunTBone]

That's because R* hyped the sh*t out of the Next-Gen versions as being the "real version", whereas EFLC wasn't well marketed (especially since it was initially an Xbox 360 exclusive). People will buy anything with GTA (or even R*) labeled on it, because R* hypes them up. I don't remember them hyping up EFLC that much.

 

From memory, they didn't. I remember a few ads for TLAD on TV but that was about it.

 

A bit disappointing too, both were excellent expansions.

Edited November 29, 2014 by ShogunTBone

[Jeansowaty]

I don't know what it is, but in comparison with GTA5's characters, I feel that the IV characters are more bond to me...hell, for me minor characters from IV like Oleg Minkov, Adam Dimayev, Muskovski, Mohammed etc. were more memorable to me than certain V characters which were important (Wei Cheng, Stretch? Who the hell are they?).

[Moving Idiot]

 

I think that 99% of the people around here will agree with me when I say:

 

Gameplay: V > IV

Story: IV > V

 

nope.

 

Gameplay: IV > V

Story: IV > V

 

 

Yes, you're just the 1%.

[Nah nah nah Gta 6]

All I'm reading in this thread is:

"You're not allowed to like V's story over IV's story because its better, I would say that is my opinion like a normal person, but I'm just going to act like its fact."

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

All I'm reading in this thread is:

"You're not allowed to like V's story over IV's story because its better, I would say that is my opinion like a normal person, but I'm just going to act like its fact."

Yeah I think you're only seeing what you want to see. In actuality, most of us gave our reasons as to why we thought IV's story was better. But no, to almost every hardcare SA or V fanboy that makes us look like we're trying to claim our opinion is right.

[Nah nah nah Gta 6]

 

All I'm reading in this thread is:

"You're not allowed to like V's story over IV's story because its better, I would say that is my opinion like a normal person, but I'm just going to act like its fact."

Yeah I think you're only seeing what you want to see. In actuality, most of us gave our reasons as to why we thought IV's story was better. But no, to almost every hardcare SA or V fanboy that makes us look like we're trying to claim our opinion is right.

 

But whenever someone finds something in V better than IV there's a 99.9% chance of the IV fanboy trying to prove them wrong in every way possible.

 

"Hey I liked the story in V over IV, that's my opinion"

"YOU CLEARLY NEVER PLAYED GTA IV YOU TREVOR FANBOY"

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

 

 

All I'm reading in this thread is:

"You're not allowed to like V's story over IV's story because its better, I would say that is my opinion like a normal person, but I'm just going to act like its fact."

Yeah I think you're only seeing what you want to see. In actuality, most of us gave our reasons as to why we thought IV's story was better. But no, to almost every hardcare SA or V fanboy that makes us look like we're trying to claim our opinion is right.

 

But whenever someone finds something in V better than IV there's a 99.9% chance of the IV fanboy trying to prove them wrong in every way possible.

 

"Hey I liked the story in V over IV, that's my opinion"

"YOU CLEARLY NEVER PLAYED GTA IV YOU TREVOR FANBOY"

 

No. I'll leave them alone if I have nothing to say but if I do I'll say I disagree with them and state my reasons why. Numerous times I've ended my posts with "in my opinion" yet people have raged at me or told me to stop bitching.

[woggleman]

Somebody here said that if you like V's plot more you must be a fanboy as if their tastes are the only one that matters. Say what you want but at least I gave a real and well thought out reason for why I liked V's story.

[Flachbau]

IV definitely had the better plot. It felt like you were actually in a new place, going through the crappy parts of life. The story is also very deep and dark, which is something I admire. Easily it was the best game I have played in years..

[LeeH1989]

People seem to forget that Romans lies about LC weren't the only reason Niko came he wasnt just suckerd in he had 2 things to drive him there.. answers.. Florian and his cousin, hes says one of his old group lives here, he says one of them lives here after spoilers..... killing vlad.., and he says im here for other things aswel to a taxi fare early in the game, pretty sure its the one that introduces cops.

 

So Niko knew from the start why he went and it wasnt just romans bullsh*t.

Edited November 29, 2014 by LeeH1989

[Raiden1018]

GTAVs plot had so much potential, but the execution was very poor. What a shame

 

 

 

All I'm reading in this thread is:

"You're not allowed to like V's story over IV's story because its better, I would say that is my opinion like a normal person, but I'm just going to act like its fact."

Yeah I think you're only seeing what you want to see. In actuality, most of us gave our reasons as to why we thought IV's story was better. But no, to almost every hardcare SA or V fanboy that makes us look like we're trying to claim our opinion is right.

 

But whenever someone finds something in V better than IV there's a 99.9% chance of the IV fanboy trying to prove them wrong in every way possible.

 

"Hey I liked the story in V over IV, that's my opinion"

"YOU CLEARLY NEVER PLAYED GTA IV YOU TREVOR FANBOY"

 

Youre sad to watch. Your whole purpose on this forum is to hate or spam the sh*t out of a thread that doesn't kisses Vs ass. Theres a short and simple solution nonetheless... Stay on V and Online topics. Your kind is there