The ONE thing V has over IV story-wise

[HOW'S ANNIE?]

Now I know I'm going to cop criticism for this because the moment you mention anything comparing IV and V storywise people first assumption is: IV>V.

 

Now I've been playing both through from the start again, concurrently too, and noticed that overall the dialogue and acting is top-notch in V. Yeah IV does have it's good points, but compared to V you can somewhat tell that Rockstar put more effort into how the characters interact and finding the perfect person to fit the job.

 

For example, Steve Haines is a pretty sh*t at feeling like a true antagonistic figure, yet you compare him to say, Jimmy Pegerino, the way his actor behaved in those scenes and the wording/dialogue/what he says feels a hell of a lot more convincing and fluid.

 

Tried to make this short an simple, when I could go on forever comparing characters and situations and who wins. Yet overall V seems a lot more like a decent movie. It's trying to find a way to intergrate the type of plot they wanted with the type of gameplay they wanted where Rockstar really fell short with the story. I've probably opened up a can of worms here, but feel free to discuss whether I'm right or wrong.

[Turan]

Couldn't agree more. You said it better than I ever could.

[Smith John]

Well I'm going to add my brief piece before the usual sh*t-storm gears itself up.

 

Pretty much my sentiments too OP. For me, the dialogue in V is some of the best and wittiest I've heard in the series, and even gives off a kind of Tarantino/Scorsese-esque vibe. The heated moments between Michael and Trevor made for much intense viewing, which was bolstered by the outstanding performances of both Ogg and Luke. I'm a huge fan of The Sopranos, and that show obviously had a heavy influence on Michael's part. Some of the dialogue involved in the family-related scenes and missions could've been pulled direct from an episode of The Sopranos (a show which won multiple awards for its writing, by the way). I'm not saying the writing as a whole was anywhere NEAR as good as the show, but it certainly had its moments.

 

Yes, we can argue how much more sense IV's narrative made, and how its character development was given more TLC, etc until the cows come home, and I still thoroughly enjoyed it, but for what V's story opened up gameplay-wise, it gets the higher vote from me. The level of fun this game provided was enough for me to forget soon enough why X happened to Z, or why Z didn't didn't do Y, or why X and Y was forgotten. In other words, they got the blend of realism versus fun just right IMO.

 

Both games were great for what they were, they just did different aspects better than the other as far as I'm concerned.

Edited April 13, 2015 by John Smith

[CarlitoDorito]

A well thought out thread, without any fanboy madness, not one mention of activities Bravo sir.

 

I like the dialogue in V, it's really good. IV's is more serious but also really good. The acting is also rather good, better in V a bit. I think it's because V is more performance capture instead of voice recording and some motion capture. Not sure why performance capture isn't used in every game, it helps.

Edited April 13, 2015 by CarlitoDorito

[9i OTD]

I assumed it would be V's more varied missions, but yes, you have made a good point. Some V characters did feel a little more real than a few of IV's.

[GN 92]

This thread is doing good. Let's hope OG stays away from it.

 

Ot- agree with you op.

[John The Grudge]

I think GTA V has a more compelling plot than GTA IV. I think the characters are more relatable and interesting and the writing is better. In terms of characters, writing and plot I didn't think GTA IV did anything new. It just took the same old formula and made it a bit gloomier. I felt like there was more at stake for GTA V's protagonists than a bigger house and more money. GTA IV was a great game but I believe GTA V is far superior in every regard.

[SmokesWithCigs]

Again with the story sigh. If I paid 60 dollars for a story then I would have paid for GTA v by tom Clancy which would cost about 19.95 us. I buy games for the sake of gaming the story is one of the least details I'm concerned about. If I want a story I'll read. GTA v isn't a movie to me its more like an action series with comedic elements like burn notice.

[Son of Zeus]

I disagree.

 

The quality of dialogue is better in IV(for me). It's not all serious either, there are times when humour is present in some dialogues. You're right about one thing though: V's felt like a corny Hollywood movie. IV's was dramatic and managed to tug at your emotional strings, you really felt for the characters. V lacks that.

[SmokesWithCigs]

This thread is doing good. Let's hope OG stays away from it.

 

Ot- agree with you op.

Oh god you said his name that's like calling on beetlegeuse(beetlejuice) he's bound to show up now dammit!

[wiizardii]

Well I'm going to add my brief piece before the usual sh*t-storm gears itself up.

 

Pretty much my sentiments too OP. For me, the dialogue in V is some of the best and wittiest I've heard in the series, and even gives off a kind of Tarantino/Scorsese-esque vibe. The heated moments between Michael and Trevor made for much intense viewing, which was bolstered by the outstanding performances of both Ogg and Luke. I'm a huge fan of The Sopranos, and that show obviously had a heavy influence on Michael's part. Some of the dialogue involved in the family-related scenes and missions could've been pulled direct from an episode of The Sopranos (a show which won multiple awards for its writing, by the way). I'm not saying the writing as a whole was anywhere NEAR as good as the show, but it certainly had its moments.

 

Yes, we can argue how much more sense IV's narrative made, and how its character development was given more TLC, etc until the cows come home, and I still thoroughly enjoyed it, but for what V's story opened up gameplay-wise, it gets the higher vote from me. The level of fun this game provided was enough for me to forget soon enough why X happened to Z, or why Z didn't didn't do Y, or why X and Y was forgotten. In other words, they got the blend of realism versus fun just right IMO.

 

Both games were great for what they were, they just did different aspects better than the other as far as I'm concerned.

That is very funny to hear, especially when people have been saying that V is nothing but like a garbage Michael Bay movie.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Phoenix_Poop

[thafablifee46]

I like iVs dialogue better. As someone saod above , V feels like a corny movie .. I like trevor but everything about his dialogue sounds like a bad joke imo. and to the person who said gta V was more than just gaining a bigger house and such , you are right. But iv was more than gaining a bigger house also , it was more about revenge , the wealth was a bonus

[PoliceFarm]

It does seems like GTA V puts more effort into relating the characters and the things they say in the cutscenes, with what actually happens in the missions. It's always seemed like the previous games, especially GTA IV, had all the important character interactions in the cutscene, and then at the end were like, "Oh by the way, I need you to go take care of some business for me."

 

I was also more driven to find out where things went in V than when I first played IV, it seemed so differently paced from the others that I knew it wouldn't simply be moving from one job giver to the next.

[Spaghetti Cat]

I was chatting with a friend the other day about the last Indy Jones movie, crystal skull or whatever. While we both agree that it was a terrible movie, I tried to stick up for Spielberg by saying that individual scenes work, it's just the larger narrative that gets bogged down. Keep in mind that I'm talking about direction and not the writing, which did suck.

 

I feel the same way about V. There were individual scenes that work, like some of the stuff between Michael and Trevor. But like in crystal skull the whole narrative starts falling apart. Beautiful game, great locations, but I can't make heads or tales about the story.

[Vendetta ™]

While you raise good points, I think the majority of what you said remains subjective.

 

V's performances were pretty damn amazing, not only in voice but the facial expressions as well.

 

However, I think that context is key here, you're comparing IV and V as if the scenes played out in the exact same manner, when they didn't.

 

I'll take your example of Haines' dialogue, Did it fit? Maybe, that's subjective, but for the most part it worked because it collaborated with the game's atmosphere of over-the-topness and serves it well.

 

In that same breath, IV's dialogue (In my opinion, again, this is subjective.) worked for it because of it's atmosphere/theme, same as V.

 

No doubt I'm going to get flamed for disagreement, but in any case, this was a well though-out and constructed post, well done, OP.

[GtaFanatik]

I think that the dialogue in GTA V was adapted to the times we're actually living now. All those clichés of action movies, the references to these movies (THAT Lethal Weapon scene when Michael destroyed the Tennis Coach's penthouse anyone?), the economy, the heavy influence of TV shows and internet, fully functional smartphones, the iFruit, Drone and Facade (iPhone, Android and Windows Phone), fast cars, luxury houses, rich antagonists etc. IV was established in 2008, almost the 80% percent of the story was about loyalty and betrayals: starting with Bulgarin and Dimitri Rascalov, then Michelle (Karen Daniels) or Jimmy Pergorino. We really can't compare 2008 cold and gray streets of New Jersey with 2013 Sunny days of South California... Both games had different emphasys, both games are masterpieces by themselves, without comparing one with another.

 

Also, the 5 years between both was really helpful to Rockstar for improving the MoCap scenes with the addition of the native transition between the gameplay and the cutscenes which, at least for me, makes me enjoy much more the game rather than mini cutscenes that start and finish with a black screen with a loading text. All these elements reunited really improves the dialogue between characters.

 

Sorry for grammar, using phone here!

[Shadowfennekin]

Yeah, the dialogue was better than IV's. They had good taste with the actor choices too. Trevor, Michael, and Lamar were done perfectly.

 

Not to mention they didn't keep a antagonist away from us until the last few missions like IV and Pegorino, who seemed like a friend and not an antagonist until he turned heel

[woggleman]

V had a story that should have been better organized and more fleshed out but there is still a lot of depth for people willing to look.

[Heists]

Yeah the voice acting was top-notch, not to mention the brilliant motion capture and lipsync. It is high quality stuff. Then theres all the various animations and facial expression all the characters use in cut scenes, it brought across the messages and context brilliantly.

 

This is the stuff you can't deny, the game doesn't lack quality and is the best put together.

[ClaudX]

I'm sure Rockstar wanted to make a more movie-like GTA game for V, and they succeeded. V's story isn't complete sh*t like people complain about. In fact, I believe that Michael himself is able to hold up the story at most parts, with him making up for sh*tty character writing.

 

I'm not sure you can say that V has this over IV, though. I always felt Rockstar tried to make IV feel more like real conversations than movie styled content.

[The Dedito Gae]

I'm not sure you can say that V has this over IV, though. I always felt Rockstar tried to make IV feel more like real conversations than movie styled content.

exactly, for some reason Michelle and Niko conversations felt ankward, almost real, like if Niko couldn't keep the conversation with her, V dialogue is more fluid.

[woggleman]

Say what you want about the Story but Michael and Amanda is one of the realest portrayals of modern marriage and relationships in any video game. Michael is a great portrayal of the modern man actually.

[PoeticWhisper]

Franklin and Lamar talking to one another is some of my favorite dialogue in video games. Same with Michael, when he gets pissed and goes off.

[Duke'O Death]

The arguments, the jokes, and just the dialogue was pretty good. Even the tone of how the characters talk to each other felt somewhat convincing. IV had way better characters that fell into their roles better compared to V, but at least V's characters talked fluidly to each other and not all stiff and kinda lifeless.

[Haha365]

Strictly speaking on story alone, Trevor is 100 times more interesting than Niko. My opinion of course.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Gigs84

[Algonquin Assassin]

I enjoyed most of the conversations between Michael and Franklin and Michael and Trevor, but I agree with the sentiment GTA V seemed to have adopted a more Hollywood style approach whereas GTA IV felt more true to life like people talking in a real social situation rather than sitting inside a recording studio reading line after line of script.

[Homemade Dynamite]

Now I know I'm going to cop criticism for this because the moment you mention anything comparing IV and V storywise people first assumption is: IV>V.

 

Now I've been playing both through from the start again, concurrently too, and noticed that overall the dialogue and acting is top-notch in V. Yeah IV does have it's good points, but compared to V you can somewhat tell that Rockstar put more effort into how the characters interact and finding the perfect person to fit the job.

 

For example, Steve Haines is a pretty sh*t at feeling like a true antagonistic figure, yet you compare him to say, Jimmy Pegerino, the way his actor behaved in those scenes and the wording/dialogue/what he says feels a hell of a lot more convincing and fluid.

 

Tried to make this short an simple, when I could go on forever comparing characters and situations and who wins. Yet overall V seems a lot more like a decent movie. It's trying to find a way to intergrate the type of plot they wanted with the type of gameplay they wanted where Rockstar really fell short with the story. I've probably opened up a can of worms here, but feel free to discuss whether I'm right or wrong.

Still waiting to hear your response.

[Mr_Leone]

I disagree with you man. I look at IV, and for example, take when playboy X asks Niko to kill Dwayne, it relies on uneasy body language, a lack of eye contact, etc, to show how Niko is uncomfortable with the idea. How about Ray/Phil's conversation relying on hand gestures and very vague sentences? "The guy with the uh....wee-wooo"...."the guy with the hat"...etc. To go further, Niko's rather "timid" for a protagonist, rarely in cutscenes raises his voice or is in anybodies face. Keeping his distant from whoever he's talking to. He never gets very close with Elizabeta or Jimmy, but is seen brushing shoulders with the less intense guys like Packie and Bernie. Hell he seems to be distant from LJ physically, as if there's a racial tension at first, that quickly goes away. I feel as if V's camera is more fast paced, IV makes the story seem like, IDK, not a big deal, where V feels like a big budget movie.

 

Strictly speaking on story alone, Trevor is 100 times more interesting than Niko. My opinion of course.

Trevor is a psuedo interesting. He appears to have a deep story, but it's never one thing in depth, it's all a bunch of surface area sh*t, fluff if you will. Niko confronts his past demons...Darko, Bernie, Ray for a bit...he's got his demons and they show their faces. Trevor has a bitchy relationship with Michael that goes nowhere.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Mr_Leone

[Haha365]

 

 

Strictly speaking on story alone, Trevor is 100 times more interesting than Niko. My opinion of course.

Trevor is a psuedo interesting. He appears to have a deep story, but it's never one thing in depth, it's all a bunch of surface area sh*t, fluff if you will. Niko confronts his past demons...Darko, Bernie, Ray for a bit...he's got his demons and they show their faces. Trevor has a bitchy relationship with Michael that goes nowhere.

While I agree, Trevor and Michael can get annoying towards the end, I still find Trevor more interesting than Niko. For me, Niko whines alot and complains about all these people doing bad things, while he does bad things...?. It just doesn't make sense and made the story really bland for me. Where as Trevor is just more reactionary. You don't really know what you are going to get from him, one time to the next.

[ClaudX]

Trevor has a bitchy relationship with Michael that goes nowhere.

I grew to like Trevor a bit more after the story when hanging out once. He apologized to Michael about Brad and he said he overreacted. Still, he's not my favorite character. Not by a long shot, but that fact this crazy, inconsistent character apologized made me like him just a tad bit more.