Which plot is better? GTA V or IV?

[Algonquin Assassin]

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.

 

Someone called me a GTA IV fanboy because I said I prefer GTA IV's missions to GTA V. As far as I'm concerned it works both ways, but many people have this "GTA IV fans are the bad guys" kind of mentality.

 

I appreciate that you explained yourself (even if it took a bit of pushing), but most people who prefer GTA IV's story give well thought reasons also.

[woggleman]

I know for years you and other IV fans weren't too positive towards SA and I think the never ending negativity towards IV from fans of that game was a big reason. Many IV fans got sick of the game being trashed because it wasn't SA 2.0. Now that the dust has settled on that matter IV fans can appreciate SA.

 

I think the same kind of concept applies with people who like V and their attitude towards IV. IV is a great game but when you see a game you love getting trashed by a fanbase of a particular for what they view as nitpicky reasons it can put you off.

[Algonquin Assassin]

The point I was trying to make is it works both ways. Stoney's comment is basically saying anyone who prefers GTA IV's story is conveying it as fact rather than opinion.

[woggleman]

Many people prefer IV for good reasons as do many people who prefer V but there does seem to be a large percentage of IV fans who have become just as bad as the SA fans during the IV era. I don't think you are one of them but it has become prevalent on this forum.

[UshaB]

GTA 4's story wins.

[LeeH1989]

I loved IVs story, yeah i thought the characters protag and villains sh*t all over Vs but no denying IV could of used more content and stuff to spend money on, and got to admit some of Vs missions were awesome, and gameplay is great, both have thier flaws as nothing is perfect i dont think, but each of them have something going for them.

[Nah nah nah Gta 6]

Youre sad to watch.

 

And you're not?

please stop defending this game. Its getting sad to watch.

 

EDIT:

Unlike you, where you just jump on the V hate bandwagon, I actually say some good things about IV, in fact, I like IV, though I just find V better.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Stoney0503

[PhillBellic]

I prefer IV story. There were more memorable characters in it than V's story.

[HaythamKenway]

V's plot is indeed as deep and poignant as IV's. It's just that IV wasn't cheapened by cringeworthy supporting cast, shallow "satire" and not enough runtime. When V decides to take the issues seriously (Weston, FIB/IAA), it's brilliant. Writers also did a fantastic job when it came to presentation of protagonists (with an exception of Trevor, who was too Saints Row-ised to make him more appealing to mainstream audience), antagonists and generally shaking up GTAs' old and tired framework.

 

V played it awfully safe when it came to gameplay, but in writing department, I believe it's as progressive as IV was. The difference is, while IV reconstructed the GTA formula for a serious and gritty story, V deconstructed it and tried to build something new, while at the same time, tried to reconcile the 3D era's and IV's respective tones in one game. Yes, it didn't work out, but there are flashes of greatness.

 

In short, IV was better, but V had much more potential.

 

Recommended watching:

 

Edited November 30, 2014 by HaythamKenway

[woggleman]

I don't see what the problem with having serious and silly in the same game. Brucie sure wasn't a serious character but he didn't ruin IV. Real life is filled with both comedy and darkness so why can't we have it in the game?

[Gummy]

 

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

 

Strong fanboyis there.

[Tycek]

Apparently, having an opinion automatically turns you into fanboy.

[matajuegos01]

merry christmas to you all

[HaythamKenway]

I don't see what the problem with having serious and silly in the same game. Brucie sure wasn't a serious character but he didn't ruin IV. Real life is filled with both comedy and darkness so why can't we have it in the game?

I actually agree with that. There needs to be comic relief and V does a commendable job at combining the two. It's just that the humor in V is, for the most part, just plain bad. There are two big problems I have with it.

 

1. The satire is tiring, shallow, jaded and oversimplifiying. That was covered a thousand times already, so I won't go into much detail.

 

2. The comic relief characters mostly have no depth to them. Compare Little Jacob and Brucie to, say, Jimmy and Wade. Yes, Brucie and LJ were mostly there for fun and Brucie was as outrageous as anyone in V, but they were fleshed out better and there was more to them than cheap laughs. They were actual, three dimensional characters. V's cast, in comparsion, is a collection of cardboard cutouts. Rare exceptions include Lamar, Weston and (even though I hated the whole ordeal with him) Floyd.

Edited December 1, 2014 by HaythamKenway

[IDAS Leader]

I disagree. GTA IV had a better plot. GTA V however had better missions.

[woggleman]

I think Jimmy was three dimensional but I am not crazy about wade. They overdid it with him. Denise is underrated as well.

 

I think the satire in V is spot on and so true about society but different strokes.

[UshaB]

Gta 4 IMO had the best plot out of the two.

You see GTA 4 is like the Dark Knight Trilogy, dark and gritty whereas GTA 5 is like the Avengers, really vibrant and fun.

[woggleman]

It also very possible to enjoy both Dark Knight and Avengers.

[HaythamKenway]

I think Jimmy was three dimensional but I am not crazy about wade. They overdid it with him. Denise is underrated as well.

 

I think the satire in V is spot on and so true about society but different strokes.

It is true, but, for the most part, it doesn't have that depth, that real edge it needs. It just says "These people are morons, look at their moronic behavior". It doesn't explore them further, it doesn't have any underlying message.

 

It is also true that previous GTAs had satire just as shallow. But this problem becomes even more apparent in V, where R* just went all out with satire and instead of making it the frosting on the cake like in previous games, they made it pretty much omnipresent. That's where the "tiring" bit comes in. It's like when SR: TT overdid it on wacky humor.

 

When R* did bother with sending a message, thinking things through (Weston, FIB, the protagonists), it was excellent.

Edited December 1, 2014 by HaythamKenway

[UshaB]

It also very possible to enjoy both Dark Knight and Avengers.

 

I know, both just have different ways of presenting the superhero genre.

[Homemade Dynamite]

It also very possible to enjoy both Dark Knight and Avengers.

Except they're not the same franchise, so it's not the same comparison. For one game to be dark, gritty, and set strictly in a realist urban setting and then the next being some Hollywood blockbuster movie involving agencies, private armies, nukes, chemical weapons, Hollywood-style heists, cars with built-in machine guns, all with immature 12-year-old humor throughout is incredibly jarring.

[IDredMan]

I quit this hopeless sh*tshow of a forum section long ago, because it got way too infested by people who just wanna complain about GTA5.

 

But this is something I wanna give my opinion on.

And maybe shed some light on both plots and what they were going on about.

 

IV's plot was more personal, it focused on Niko, a character whose backstory was built on a strong foundation that made you legitimately care for him. He was also given other characters to care about. Which is his cousin, Roman... Who had his ups and downs. And that other shoehorned love interest... That was very meh. It was also given a clear protagonist who hated the protagonist, and in return, the protagonist hated.

Now, that sounds like a good plot, right? It is. But the missions are very meh. Being very hard to tell one from the other due to obnoxiously copy-paste mission structure and not-fun driving mechanics (If I wanted to drive a real car, I'd drive a real car).

 

V's plot was less about protagonist/antagonist/side-character interaction, but interaction between 3 different protagonists going through the chaotic lives of GTA-Protagonists. With no clear antagonist, instead being characters who just assholes to the protagonists. Now, Michael and Trevor combined probably have the same level of backstory as Niko, but on their own they're not as built up. And Franklin is purely a hollow shell that the gamer uses to kill people and nothing else... Except for maybe a diversity quota.

Michael and Trevor are built up by that one mission and drive-dialogue. Any actual backstory is mostly side stuff that isn't as clear as Niko's (For example; Trevor's dad).

Now I gotta say, the dialogue between Michael, Franklin and Trevor is a lot better than any dialogue Niko's had with any other character.

The plot doesn't really sound too good like this, but the missions are ...

Well, turns out the FIB's witness protection program is a diabolical scheme to force criminals into doing James Bond suicide missions for no reason.

But they're pretty fun, even if sometimes confusing or pointless. More fun than IV's missions.

 

And with that said, I'm leaving this hellhole and never coming back. See you guys in the Movies & TV section.

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

Apparently, having an opinion automatically turns you into fanboy.

GTAForums in a nutshell. And both sides are at fault for this, not just V fanboys or IV fanboys.

[Le zébu suintant]

On gta v.

[mr quick]

 

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"

 

We should write for Cracked.com

Edited December 1, 2014 by Marwin Moody

[The Dedito Gae]

GTAForums in a nutshell. And both sides are at fault for this, not just V fanboys or IV fanboys.

your member title tho...

[AlisaM]

I don't know if I can compare them, they are different in many ways. It feels like it just comes down to preference/opinion. The thing I never like in SP is missions that are just busy work. Trevor's "Let's steal the thingamajig from the ship" heist is all for nothing which completely ruins the replay value of the game for me. Also, Michael's diving for submarine parts just to be paid $10 or whatever paltry sum it was... just maddening. I would have loved to eliminate Roman but of course without him IV doesn't really have a story.

 

I'd like to see them create more pathways with different opportunities and outcomes based on the players decision. I'd take that over better graphics or a big game world any time.

[Homemade Dynamite]

 

 

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"

 

We should write for Cracked.com

 

Why don't you? Anyone can write an article for them, and you'll get paid for it.

I quit this hopeless sh*tshow of a forum section long ago, because it got way too infested by people who just wanna complain about GTA5.

 

But this is something I wanna give my opinion on.

And maybe shed some light on both plots and what they were going on about.

 

IV's plot was more personal, it focused on Niko, a character whose backstory was built on a strong foundation that made you legitimately care for him. He was also given other characters to care about. Which is his cousin, Roman... Who had his ups and downs. And that other shoehorned love interest... That was very meh. It was also given a clear protagonist who hated the protagonist, and in return, the protagonist hated.

Now, that sounds like a good plot, right? It is. But the missions are very meh. Being very hard to tell one from the other due to obnoxiously copy-paste mission structure and not-fun driving mechanics (If I wanted to drive a real car, I'd drive a real car).

 

V's plot was less about protagonist/antagonist/side-character interaction, but interaction between 3 different protagonists going through the chaotic lives of GTA-Protagonists. With no clear antagonist, instead being characters who just assholes to the protagonists. Now, Michael and Trevor combined probably have the same level of backstory as Niko, but on their own they're not as built up. And Franklin is purely a hollow shell that the gamer uses to kill people and nothing else... Except for maybe a diversity quota.

Michael and Trevor are built up by that one mission and drive-dialogue. Any actual backstory is mostly side stuff that isn't as clear as Niko's (For example; Trevor's dad).

Now I gotta say, the dialogue between Michael, Franklin and Trevor is a lot better than any dialogue Niko's had with any other character.

The plot doesn't really sound too good like this, but the missions are ...

Well, turns out the FIB's witness protection program is a diabolical scheme to force criminals into doing James Bond suicide missions for no reason.

But they're pretty fun, even if sometimes confusing or pointless. More fun than IV's missions.

 

And with that said, I'm leaving this hellhole and never coming back. See you guys in the Movies & TV section.

I thought Trevor was supposed to be the hallow shell meant to kill people and nothing else, well other than to ruin what could have been a good story.

[Sentrion]

I always felt that GTA V's story was like some action movie. Blasting and heists are all the game is about. Too many characters to remember in GTA V was compared to IV's storyline. All GTA games are based on storylines where the Protagonist strggles to be the top dog, but GTA V's storyline was much different. GTA IV had a sentiment attached to it for some people I can. Niko was nobody, trying to be somebody. IV didn't have a great and engaging gameplay like V, but the characters had a personality which made the game more life like.

[RogerWho]

Why can't we just all agree that IV and V are very different games in everything but the basic concept? Every GTA game except 2 is actually very different from every other.

 

IV is a dark New York criminal drama. V is a bright gangster comedy almost high-concept in nature.

 

Do you compare the plots of Godfather and Pulp Fiction? No? Then why compare IV and V?

 

Besides, the plots of both games are interlinked with the overall visuals and mechanics of each game. LS in fog is brighter than LC in sunlight. IV has more serious driving and depressed cops that don't give a sh*t; V has lightweight cars and cops on crack.