do you think we will ever see the downfall of R*?

[RedDagger]

Although there are lots of nuances about V that people don't like, they've kept to the same general GTA gameplay style, and you can tell by how fans and non-fans alike love the game in huge numbers. I don't think it's fair to say they've lost focus just because of one game that you personally didn't like, especially with complaints that can be pointed to the series as a whole, and anyway, they've objectively improved lots of aspects of the game.

 

Still, all it takes is a management screw-up and the entire studio can go down the toilet in a few years without even releasing a game, it's not hard to imagine a management screw-up messing up one last game - especially with how strained the studio is, what with all the stress, tensions and already apparently poor management they have.

[CarnageRacing00]

V plays like the older GTA games. Rockstar thought that's what everyone wanted given the way they raked GTA IV over the coals for years.

 

Personally, I look at it like this - we have a serious HD GTA in GTA IV, and we have a silly HD GTA in GTA V. Win/win. Don't know why anyone would be complaining.

[donnits]

I thought in GTA games, you work for many people, doing dangerous criminal jobs, with some sort of underlying objective. GTA 3, Claude worked through the ranks of many gangs to get revenge on Catalina. Vice City, Tommy worked for various people, criminal or not, to take control of VC and get Sonny some "money". San Andreas, CJ originally worked for his brother and the gang, but when sh*t hits the fan, he runs around the entire state of SA to find a way to get his brother out of jail, and to make something out of himself, working for everyone under the sun to make it. GTA IV is no different. Niko comes in to America to find that special someone, but when his old past catches up to him and Roman blows their money away, he needs to make the best out of that situation, working for many gangs and criminals in the city.

 

If anything, GTA V is more of a departure, since you really have no goal in the game. No underlying objective, other than for Frank to make money, Michael to find a legit life and Trevor to be crazy. You mainly work for yourself in the game, other than when you are being the FIB's slave. I'd say that's more of a departure, but even then, it's still GTA. GTA IV still keeps GTA's formula, more so than V, but it's just in a more serious tone.

[universetwisters]

Like I said before in other threads, I just hope Sam/Dan Houser realize "holy sh*t what did we do" and return to III's roots in the next game - actual Grand Theft Auto, not "being the government's lap dog and driving around supercars with military grade weapons while listening to social commentary on the radio all whilst ironing shirts".

 

Or at least something like Vice City. It'd be cool to at least spend the money to progress the story in that sense.

[Algonquin Assassin]

I thought in GTA games, you work for many people, doing dangerous criminal jobs, with some sort of underlying objective. GTA 3, Claude worked through the ranks of many gangs to get revenge on Catalina. Vice City, Tommy worked for various people, criminal or not, to take control of VC and get Sonny some "money". San Andreas, CJ originally worked for his brother and the gang, but when sh*t hits the fan, he runs around the entire state of SA to find a way to get his brother out of jail, and to make something out of himself, working for everyone under the sun to make it. GTA IV is no different. Niko comes in to America to find that special someone, but when his old past catches up to him and Roman blows their money away, he needs to make the best out of that situation, working for many gangs and criminals in the city.

 

If anything, GTA V is more of a departure, since you really have no goal in the game. No underlying objective, other than for Frank to make money, Michael to find a legit life and Trevor to be crazy. You mainly work for yourself in the game, other than when you are being the FIB's slave. I'd say that's more of a departure, but even then, it's still GTA. GTA IV still keeps GTA's formula, more so than V, but it's just in a more serious tone.

To me GTA IV kind of comes around full circle.

 

The 3D era started off with GTA III which is by far the most serious 3D GTA and there's nothing wrong with that. I love GTA III for that reason.

 

However I believe R* wanted to get back to the "roots" that were implemented with GTA III by making GTA IV back to basics and more emphasis on hitman style revenge.

 

That's why generally most GTA III fans are more appreciative of GTA IV's serious tone if GTA III was their first GTA.

 

Most people who bitch and complain about GTA IV being too serious seem to have started with SA and VC to a lesser extent.

[donnits]

To me GTA IV kind of comes around full circle.

The 3D era started off with GTA III which is by far the most serious 3D GTA and there's nothing wrong with that. I love GTA III for that reason.

However I believe R* wanted to get back to the "roots" that were implemented with GTA III by making GTA IV back to basics and more emphasis on hitman style revenge.

That's why generally most GTA III fans are more appreciative of GTA IV's serious tone if GTA III was their first GTA.

Most people who bitch and complain about GTA IV being too serious seem to have started with SA and VC to a lesser extent.

Yeah, i always found that parallel, as well. My first technical GTA was SA, but III was the first i played, so i rank both very high in my favorites. I love how both III and IV are dark and depressing, take place in Liberty City and star a gun-for-hire looking for revenge. That's also a reason i rank Claude as one of my favorite protagonists, i love the freelance character seeking vengeance.

[woggleman]

Why do people make such a big deal about V having super cars when in III and VC there were Cheetahs and the Infernus everywhere? In VC every few cars there was an Infernus, a Cheetah or a Comet but this only seems to be an issue in V. V gets a lot of criticism for things other games got a pass on. The other thing is the weapon wheel and regenerating health. Nobody had an issue with this in RDR but all of a sudden it is a problem.

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

Why do people make such a big deal about V having super cars when in III and VC there were Cheetahs and the Infernus everywhere? In VC every few cars there was an Infernus, a Cheetah or a Comet but this only seems to be an issue in V. V gets a lot of criticism for things other games got a pass on. The other thing is the weapon wheel and regenerating health. Nobody had an issue with this in RDR but all of a sudden it is a problem.

woggleman just stop. Please.

[CarnageRacing00]

 

Why do people make such a big deal about V having super cars when in III and VC there were Cheetahs and the Infernus everywhere? In VC every few cars there was an Infernus, a Cheetah or a Comet but this only seems to be an issue in V. V gets a lot of criticism for things other games got a pass on. The other thing is the weapon wheel and regenerating health. Nobody had an issue with this in RDR but all of a sudden it is a problem.

woggleman just stop. Please.

 

 

Please answer his question or don't respond. It's a legitimate question. There are very few super cars in GTA V compared to any other vehicle class yet people act like that's the only type of car there is. Also not understanding the hate for the weapon wheel, it's great. I REALLY don't get why anyone would dislike it. Partial regenerating health also meas less respawns at the f*cking hospital. Not sure why there's a problem with that.

[bahraini_carguy]

do you think we will ever see the downfall of R*? Yes.

When? In a very long time however.

 

Rockstar Games = Quality > Quantity

Most other Today company = Quantity > Quality

 

Also one more thing,

Players hated IV back then and loved San Andreas Am i right? Players Today hate V and love IV again am i right about it? Just wait until VI comes and everyone will be loving V and hating VI.

[Tycek]

And once again as it was said toward woggleman, it's terrible generalization far from truth. Players who hated SA may not be exactly the same players that hate IV.

[HaythamKenway]

Why do people make such a big deal about V having super cars when in III and VC there were Cheetahs and the Infernus everywhere? In VC every few cars there was an Infernus, a Cheetah or a Comet but this only seems to be an issue in V. V gets a lot of criticism for things other games got a pass on. The other thing is the weapon wheel and regenerating health. Nobody had an issue with this in RDR but all of a sudden it is a problem.

The way I see it, it's in the general tone of the game. While Los Santos is a "Hollywood presentation of Los Angeles", it's still much more rooted in reality. Overload of high-end cars just hits in the eyes more in V's semi-serious world, than in Vice City, which was cartoony, larger-than-life homage to Scarface, Miami Vice and 80's culture in general.

 

As for regenerating health, the problem with the system is, that unlike RDR's, it's broken. The protagonist can take much less punishment than IV's protags did, yet the health regenerates only half way. The armor doesn't help either, as it's pointless in this game. You still need to replenish the rest of your health, old-school style, but V gives you much less options to do that. In IV you had a hot dog vendor at every corner, and if everything else failed, you could just bring up the map and set the icon to the nearest Burger Shot. In Los Santos, there aren't as many options to replenish your health. You can go halfway across the city to the safehouse or scour the city for a random gas station, that isn't even on the map and half gas stations aren't even enterable anyway. That just doesn't make for a fun game.

 

Health system like this also discourages experimentation and risking. You have to spend shootouts glued to your hiding spots and shoot guys in a glorified shooting gallery. That just isn't fun for me. In IV, the protagonist survived much more, and you could take chances, run around, stay in the open for a while.

[Osho]

Players hated IV back then and loved San Andreas Am i right?

Players Today hate V and love IV again am i right about it?

Just wait until VI comes and everyone will be loving V and hating VI.

The dislikes ( or hate ) regarding IV and V are somewhat all the same, while there are also differences as well, BUT there is not a fixed pattern in that element of hate or dislike that cause the fans to repeat the same behavior unless the problems continue even in future games as well.

For instance:

Similarities in IV and V dislikes = Lack of things to do. IV has a lot limited, but with one interesting crime side activity, while V doesn't even feature any such interesting missions at all, including access to common interiors, in the base game on release itself.

So, obviously I would pick IV over V but that doesn't automatically translate like it'll be loved now. As a player, I'm quite aware of all the faults, but as I showed in the example, if I like vigilante missions of IV more, in contrast, to the absence of the same in V, I'm definitely going to favor the good stuff in IV that compensates for the bad in V, and its something that applies in case of V as well.

Common sense, quite simply. Those criticisms are not aimed as hating the entire game. They are merely the result of more or less the disappointing parts of the game we experienced, and enjoyed when playing earlier games and going to continue to love till GTA VI, VII, or any future game does it better.

[Son of Zeus]

 

GTA IV has plenty of epic shootouts, chases, crazy characters (Jeff and Eddie Low say hi) and an epic heist to boot. If GTA V fits the "GTA spirit" by this criteria than why doesn't GTA IV?

 

Because majority of the story was too serious. I don't think I need to point out where.

The heist certainly was not epic. No planning.....just a big shootout and drive back. V's heists weren't that good either, but they certainly top IV's heist with respect to fun and excitement. Heck, even SA's heist beats IV's any day.

 

Jeff and Eddie Low were OK. Of course, here V fails. No nice funny character.

 

Just one heist thrown in the midst of repetitive missions doesn't make a game enjoyable. Of course, here we're going down the 'personal opinions' lane.

 

V is a direct in-your-face answer to IV'. They're poles apart. Why? It's R*'s response to the serious tone of IV. That's why it's completely bonkers. Another example: TLaD and TBoGT. These two weren't so serious. It should be clear to you now: R* immediately stopped themselves from going down the serious and realistic lane after IV. They realised that type of a plot doesn't suit GTA.

 

You won't like it, but fact is that IV was a disappointment to the majority out there. Especially after SA showed us what 'open world' really meant.

 

I'll say again that I'm not hating IV. It just feels like a serious GTA. A GTA game trying to do everything serious and straight forward.

 

That's all I want to say. Don't want to start a huge fanboy war again.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Son of Zeus

[B Dawg]

Why do people make such a big deal about V having super cars when in III and VC there were Cheetahs and the Infernus everywhere? In VC every few cars there was an Infernus, a Cheetah or a Comet but this only seems to be an issue in V. V gets a lot of criticism for things other games got a pass on. The other thing is the weapon wheel and regenerating health. Nobody had an issue with this in RDR but all of a sudden it is a problem.

Old-school supercars were better, nuff said. Health regen is an overused overrated health system anyway.

[CarnageRacing00]

 

 

Why do people make such a big deal about V having super cars when in III and VC there were Cheetahs and the Infernus everywhere? In VC every few cars there was an Infernus, a Cheetah or a Comet but this only seems to be an issue in V. V gets a lot of criticism for things other games got a pass on. The other thing is the weapon wheel and regenerating health. Nobody had an issue with this in RDR but all of a sudden it is a problem.

Old-school supercars were better, nuff said. Health regen is an overused overrated health system anyway.

Just because health regen is overused in games as a crutch doesn't mean it doesn't have its place. It works here similar to the way it worked in Just Cause 2- your health only regenerates to a fraction of the whole thing. I think it's very necessary in this game, lest you spend 90% of your time searching for health (vending machines are literally everywhere, btw). I can mostly ignore my need for a health refill until I feel like stopping, but it also doesn't make you invincible.

 

I think the regenerating health in this game works just fine. People only want to bitch about it because Yahtzee bitched about it.

[lol232]

As long as they don't go Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V a GTA game every year, it'll be fine.

Edited December 19, 2014 by lol232

[Sentrion]

The fact which worries me is that Rockstar's too much focused on GTA Online and bringing everything online that they've hardly tended to the SP versions in ages, except the next generation modifcations. If this continues, there'll be a time when a better game overtakes GTA and consumes it's fanbase. RPG games seem to have a lot of potential these days. The Online trends needs to stop first. I'd also hate to see GTA became a 12 Year Olds' dominated game.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

 

GTA IV has plenty of epic shootouts, chases, crazy characters (Jeff and Eddie Low say hi) and an epic heist to boot. If GTA V fits the "GTA spirit" by this criteria than why doesn't GTA IV?

Because majority of the story was too serious. I don't think I need to point out where.

The heist certainly was not epic. No planning.....just a big shootout and drive back. V's heists weren't that good either, but they certainly top IV's heist with respect to fun and excitement. Heck, even SA's heist beats IV's any day.

 

Jeff and Eddie Low were OK. Of course, here V fails. No nice funny character.

 

Just one heist thrown in the midst of repetitive missions doesn't make a game enjoyable. Of course, here we're going down the 'personal opinions' lane.

 

V is a direct in-your-face answer to IV'. They're poles apart. Why? It's R*'s response to the serious tone of IV. That's why it's completely bonkers. Another example: TLaD and TBoGT. These two weren't so serious. It should be clear to you now: R* immediately stopped themselves from going down the serious and realistic lane after IV. They realised that type of a plot doesn't suit GTA.

 

You won't like it, but fact is that IV was a disappointment to the majority out there. Especially after SA showed us what 'open world' really meant.

 

I'll say again that I'm not hating IV. It just feels like a serious GTA. A GTA game trying to do everything serious and straight forward.

 

That's all I want to say. Don't want to start a huge fanboy war again.

Fair enough, but everything you said about GTA IV is the reason why it's my favourite quite frankly.

[CDT_boss]

Easy, people who like gta v are in gameplay, online section or are actually playing The game. People who didn't like it are here b%tc!n and complaining. End Of story

[AlisaM]

do you think we will ever see the downfall of R*?

 

Of course.

[woggleman]

 

 

GTA IV has plenty of epic shootouts, chases, crazy characters (Jeff and Eddie Low say hi) and an epic heist to boot. If GTA V fits the "GTA spirit" by this criteria than why doesn't GTA IV?

Because majority of the story was too serious. I don't think I need to point out where.

The heist certainly was not epic. No planning.....just a big shootout and drive back. V's heists weren't that good either, but they certainly top IV's heist with respect to fun and excitement. Heck, even SA's heist beats IV's any day.

 

Jeff and Eddie Low were OK. Of course, here V fails. No nice funny character.

 

Just one heist thrown in the midst of repetitive missions doesn't make a game enjoyable. Of course, here we're going down the 'personal opinions' lane.

 

V is a direct in-your-face answer to IV'. They're poles apart. Why? It's R*'s response to the serious tone of IV. That's why it's completely bonkers. Another example: TLaD and TBoGT. These two weren't so serious. It should be clear to you now: R* immediately stopped themselves from going down the serious and realistic lane after IV. They realised that type of a plot doesn't suit GTA.

 

You won't like it, but fact is that IV was a disappointment to the majority out there. Especially after SA showed us what 'open world' really meant.

 

I'll say again that I'm not hating IV. It just feels like a serious GTA. A GTA game trying to do everything serious and straight forward.

 

That's all I want to say. Don't want to start a huge fanboy war again.

Fair enough, but everything you said about GTA IV is the reason why it's my favourite quite frankly.

 

I wouldn't call it my favorite but to me IV is a masterpiece. I love gritty New York crime stories and now I had a playable version. That being said after the backlash R would have been fools not to change course at least for one game. They needed to show people GTA still did over the top action. I do think the DLC should throw a bone to IV fans the way TBOGT threw a bone to SA fans. I actually believe they could do a gritty TLAD style game with Franklin and the gangs.

[Son of Zeus]

^TBoGT threw a bone to SA fans? Don't compare that crap to SA for f*cks sake.

[woggleman]

^TBoGT threw a bone to SA fans? Don't compare that crap to SA for f*cks sake.

I am not saying it is but they put the over the top action and more lighthearted feel in there for people who complained that IV didn't have those things. V should make a dark and gritty DLC for people who complained V was too over the top and not serious enough. If the IV critics got a bone so should the V critics. That was when some people changed their attitude towards IV because they felt like Rockstar did something for them and the same might happen with V. People want to feel listened to. I notice the V section seems more positive since they fixed the moving trees issue and I think it is for that reason.

[Mr_Goldcard]

If they follow the same road as GTA V it sill be the downfall. My biggest advice is they dont listen to the complaints of the fanbase.

[Son of Zeus]

 

 

^TBoGT threw a bone to SA fans? Don't compare that crap to SA for f*cks sake.

I am not saying it is but they put the over the top action and more lighthearted feel in there for people who complained that IV didn't have those things. V should make a dark and gritty DLC for people who complained V was too over the top and not serious enough. If the IV critics got a bone so should the V critics. That was when some people changed their attitude towards IV because they felt like Rockstar did something for them and the same might happen with V. People want to feel listened to. I notice the V section seems more positive since they fixed the moving trees issue and I think it is for that reason.

We need a story which combines elements from both SA's and IV's.

 

SA's sense of a journey and memorable chars + IV's grittiness and darkness = Epic story.