The ONE thing V has over IV story-wise

[Haha365]

 

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.

 

That's the thing, yes Trevor is bat-sh*t crazy but there is a lot of depth to him, if you play as him enough.

[Mr_Leone]

Trevor would have benefited greatly from Brad if Brad was a nice guy with a family, a hardworker, etc. Imagine if you could sympathize with Brad? That would carry over to Trevor, IMO, as his realization of the truth means 100x more now because Brad's not a worthless asshole.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Niko can't get a job, legally. He can't buy a car. Can't buy a house. He was in Europe smuggling people into Italy. Up to God knows what else. So when he talks about himself doing bad things, he's confronted with his hypocrisy very early on, when Dardan pushes him to the edge: "I promised myself I wouldn't kill in this country" (paraphrasing) so he knew that his goal to be legit wasn't realistic. He talks to Roman towards the end of the game, after Pest Control, he mentions how he's burnt out, sick of dealing in death, etc. He meant it.

[Osho]

Did I miss something? Is OP trying to say that the ONE thing V does better "story-wise" is the way the motion capture thing delivered the "cinematic/movies" feel in those scenes?

Are you kiddin' me or what?

Purely from gameplay point of view, I could care less about the voice acting and "the feels" captured through the motion capture technology.

Its cool and all. But, it can only be a nice addition as an improvement and not necessarily a "positive" thing, when I realise it comes at the cost of players inability to affect those missions with little to no choices nor freedom that's been a GTA hallmark in the past. This is without a doubt why I always raise a red flag of turning pure gaming experience into movie like bullsh*t and feel genuinely offended after playing the good old classics.

If anything, V comes across considerably worse than IV in this regard IMO!

[Mr_Leone]

I don't know about that Osho. Look at Red Dead Redemption..that story carried the game IMO...gameplay wise as well, it was a very in character type game and it's one of the best video games ever made.

[Haha365]

I don't know about that Osho. Look at Red Dead Redemption..that story carried the game IMO...gameplay wise as well, it was a very in character type game and it's one of the best video games ever made.

 

And also lassoing random people and dragin them through the desert.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Gigs84

[Mr_Leone]

 

 

I don't know about that Osho. Look at Red Dead Redemption..that story carried the game IMO...gameplay wise as well, it was a very in character type game and it's one of the best video games ever made.

And also lassoing random people and dragin them through the desert.Well you couldn't sleep with prostitutes..you had an honor system that affected in game dialogue and ped interactions. So I'd say it's pretty in character.

[Osho]

@ Mr Leone

 

I don't know about RDR but using the example of old classics, I simply want that Rockstar should try to put more efforts doing something like fitting the gameplay - by encouraging the players to utilize the massive sandbox nature of the game - with the narrative, rather than forcing us to strictly follow the linear narrative as the only way to play through the story by using motion / performance captured cutscenes and such to deliver more fluent cinematic experience.

It just feels to me that the story doesn't do a good enough job when it comes to allow the players more freedom, and multiple ways to be creative outside the narrative. Instead ends up forgettable on those experiences in the long run and simply tolerable enough to view those f*ckin' hollywood style movie scenes released by "Rockstar productions", making the case of replayability almost zero once the future GTAs keep becoming better at it.

[Mr_Leone]

In Iv I could use Dwayne's back up, or find a building nearby to snipe from, I could partake in vigilante missions and complete them however I pleased. I see lots of replayability in GTA IV/RDR, IV especially, since there's multiple endings that fit and killing/sparing choices along the way, even if they are minor. I love the III era to death but I honestly can say that the HD era is the natural step forward. V's got some great stuff to do online, the story is a good experience for the most part, side missions and stuff to do in SP, ehhh. I think it's there in GTA:O. Problem is GTA:O isn't really attractive to the SP gamer for obvious reasons.

[GtaFanatik]

 

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.

 

I would used another example, as Michelle everytime wanted to took info about Niko for United Liberty Paper (that's why she ask him everytime if he's involved with bad people or asks for personal info)

[TheOneLibertonian]

In all seriousness, despite calling it like a Michael Bay movie, I still liked some of the dialogue in the game especially Michael's dialogue during Bury the Hatchet and Ending A. The dialogue is sometimes bland and sometimes top-notch, and the interaction were quite more realistic than IV due to the improved facial motion capture, but in all essence. IV has the superior story and dialogue compared to V, but V has it's moments as well.

@ Mr Leone

I don't know about RDR but using the example of old classics, I simply want that Rockstar should try to put more efforts doing something like fitting the gameplay - by encouraging the players to utilize the massive sandbox nature of the game - with the narrative, rather than forcing us to strictly follow the linear narrative as the only way to play through the story by using motion / performance captured cutscenes and such to deliver more fluent cinematic experience.
It just feels to me that the story doesn't do a good enough job when it comes to allow the players more freedom, and multiple ways to be creative outside the narrative. Instead ends up forgettable on those experiences in the long run and simply tolerable enough to view those f*ckin' hollywood style movie scenes released by "Rockstar productions", making the case of replayability almost zero once the future GTAs keep becoming better at it.

I still think that RDR is the prime example of great storytelling in video games other than TLOU, AC4, and GTA IV.

[TheOneLibertonian]

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

 

Ot- agree with you op.

What's wrong with you. You are mad because someone does not have the same opinion as you. Come on, he has his own f*cking opinion, if he likes IV better than V, that's fine, but looking at your posts, you really need to stop trying to persuade other people suffice to your own opinion. All people have different opinions and that's why this is called the GTA Forums, not the GTA V elitists forums.

[lastmanonearth]

I knew a guy like Steve Haines in real life, those larger than life personalities aren`t very fun to work with! Him and Michael are definitely real feeling characters, I could relate to how Michael feels a lot of the time, and I`ve had some similar life experiences as Michael which helps me relate to his character. The shrink guy also felt real, although he flipped out at the end which was weird. Brucie from IV is also a very interesting character, but perhaps a bit too exaggerated, the same goes for all of the McRearies. The characters themselves are generally well developed with some exceptions, such as that there`s no explanation as to why Trevor is so mad and Franklin seems too shallow, but that`s due to the story not giving enough time to get to know him. Even though the characters weren`t bad in either game, the story in V wasn`t very engaging and more than half the time I didn`t know what the hell was going on. It was all too rushed, is my argument.

[Osho]

I still think that RDR is the prime example of great storytelling in video games other than TLOU, AC4, and GTA IV.

Did you read my replies clearly?

Why are you mixing non-GTA games here.

Please stick with the GTA series and understand what exactly I am trying to say instead of confusing with completely irrelevant crap mentioned ( not by you ) before such as the vigilante, dwaynes back up, etc.

What the heck ONLINE or any side missions have anything to do with my main point at all?

Also, saying that GTA IV feels like a "natural step forward" is quite wrong and obviously disagree with it. Its clearly missing the emergent gameplay within those story missions as seen in the 3D era. The way the 3D classics offered some great freedom to approach most story related missions and how you wanted to deal with it.

As such, what's really noticeable and gradually disappearing from both IV and V at the cost of the overrated new technique of its storytelling and cinematic brilliance is the key role of "players freedom" gameplay-wise, in order to, make the stories feel and look more exciting.

Storywise both IV and V are amazing in its own ways. But, gameplay-wise, I wish Rockstar gives as much attention ( in fact, extra attention ) in allowing the players to deal with a particular "story mission" without being "so tightly controlled" through pre-written choices, events, etc as intended by the designers, simply to throw more of those bullsh*t hollywood style thrills and cinematic feel, rather than encouraging the use of the sandbox imagination to add something more of our own experiences in a number of different ways, that will make me keep coming back for the story more, outside of those cinematic experiences.

Because, I don't play GTA games just to listen and view story cutscenes for the 757475566x times, if gameplay-wise there are hardly any interesting changes ( being way more linear ) on each successive playthroughs.

[Uncle Vlad]

I like IV´s dialogues better, although V´s dialogues aren´t bad. But I have to agree, V´s voice actors have done an outstanding job. Especially Steven Ogg.No matter if you like Trevor or despise him, Ogg´s voice acting is brilliant.

[TheOneLibertonian]

 

I still think that RDR is the prime example of great storytelling in video games other than TLOU, AC4, and GTA IV.

Did you read my replies clearly?

Why are you mixing non-GTA games here.

Please stick with the GTA series and understand what exactly I am trying to say instead of confusing with completely irrelevant crap mentioned ( not by you ) before such as the vigilante, dwaynes back up, etc.

What the heck ONLINE or any side missions have anything to do with my main point at all?

Also, saying that GTA IV feels like a "natural step forward" is quite wrong and obviously disagree with it. Its clearly missing the emergent gameplay within those story missions as seen in the 3D era. The way the 3D classics offered some great freedom to approach most story related missions and how you wanted to deal with it.

As such, what's really noticeable and gradually disappearing from both IV and V at the cost of the overrated new technique of its storytelling and cinematic brilliance is the key role of "players freedom" gameplay-wise, in order to, make the stories feel and look more exciting.

Storywise both IV and V are amazing in its own ways. But, gameplay-wise, I wish Rockstar gives as much attention ( in fact, extra attention ) in allowing the players to deal with a particular "story mission" without being "so tightly controlled" through pre-written choices, events, etc as intended by the designers, simply to throw more of those bullsh*t hollywood style thrills and cinematic feel, rather than encouraging the use of the sandbox imagination to add something more of our own experiences in a number of different ways, that will make me keep coming back for the story more, outside of those cinematic experiences.

Because, I don't play GTA games just to listen and view story cutscenes for the 757475566x times, if gameplay-wise there are hardly any interesting changes ( being way more linear ) on each successive playthroughs.

 

I was just making a point that video games can be a good market for storytelling, no need to go on a tirade. A good story comes with great gameplay and both GTA IV and RDR are prime examples of that. But, GTA V on the other hand, is flawed with both story and gameplay and that's why probably I didn't like it compared to other games in the series. SA, VC, and III all had great gameplay and great stories, but IV hits it on the cake in terms of both gameplay and storytelling. Now games are more story driven compared to back then and GTA is the type of game that needs a great story to make it even better. RDR is a game that featured a lot of elements from GTA, and it is also made by R*. But in my opinion, GTA IV had the most free structure in terms of missions. V being the most restrictive. Look at the Escuela of the Streets mission, the intended way is to shoot the door lock and kill all the gangsters guns blazing or go through the rooftop and you can find an open window so you can throw a grenade and kill most of then using the element of surprise. GTA IV had a lot of freedom and that is just my opinion, but no hard feelings. I can see you are a huge GTA fan like me and I respect that. Hey, at least we are enjoying GTA.

[Nah nah nah Gta 6]

Jimmy pegorino was a HD and sh*tty version of Salvatore Leone, so obviously any character is better than him.

 

But yeah I agree, I never really felt any of the dialouge in GTA V was bad, IV's dialouge was good too, but a few characters just ruin it for me. (looking at you Manny, Jimmy, Bulgarin and Playboy X).

[Osho]

But in my opinion, GTA IV had the most free structure in terms of missions. V being the most restrictive.

 

I agree on the later part but not on the former unless you meant in comparison to V, then yes, quite a bit.

GTA IV had a lot of freedom

Ehhhhhh, what?

Seriously, I can link you several articles that point out how much IV lacked freedom in story missions, able to experience new ways for the most part, and even expand upon the players imagination as freely as I usually get the feeling from the 3D games.

Fine. Its your opinion.

[Haha365]

GTA IV had a lot of freedom

Ehhhhhh, what?

Seriously, I can link you several articles that point out how much IV lacked freedom in story missions, able to experience new ways for the most part, and even expand upon the players imagination as freely as I usually get the feeling from the 3D games.

Fine. Its your opinion.

 

I was kind of bewildered by that statement, as well. IV did not have a lot of freedom. I dare say, it was the most restrictive. (or at least it felt that way to me)

Edited April 16, 2015 by Gigs84

[thafablifee46]

Iv missions felt free to me . Its like there is never a certain way to do them.For example, the mission Manny escuela is killed. The mission tells you to sell his parts to a doctor but I learned that also you could just dump the car in the water. that's just a small example but I can go on. Thats what added replay ability to me. V is where mission gameplay feels to scripted. Same bs all the time

[Uncle Vlad]

Jimmy pegorino was a HD and sh*tty version of Salvatore Leone, so obviously any character is better than him.

 

 

I don´t think so. Sure, as a real mafia don he´d suck ass. But I don´t think he´s meant to be one. He´s more of a wannabe, trying too hard to be on a level with the old families, which don´t take him serious. So in fact he acts his part pretty well.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Doctor Ray

[Official General]

I've analysed V's story and characters and compared it to IV's story and characters in many previous discussions on here. My conclusion remains the same - IV totally wipes V on the floor in this area, it's no contest. I think you are wrong and I completely disagree.

 

Jimmy pegorino was a HD and sh*tty version of Salvatore Leone, so obviously any character is better than him.

 

I don´t think so. Sure, as a real mafia don he´d suck ass. But I don´t think he´s meant to be one. He´s more of a wannabe, trying too hard to be on a level with the old families, which don´t take him serious. So in fact he acts his part pretty well.

@ Doctor Ray

 

Yeah you got it spot on, you clearly understood the idea behind Jimmy Pegorino's character.

[Haha365]

I've analysed V's story and characters and compared it to IV's story and characters in many previous discussions on here. My conclusion remains the same - IV totally wipes V on the floor in this area, it's no contest. I think you are wrong and I completely disagree.

 

 

 

It's subjective, so how could he/we be wrong? lol I personally believe Trevor alone, is more interesting than 99% of the characters in IV, so....

 

[Official General]

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.

Sorry man, but it was so weak and boring that I had no further motivation to look even if I wanted to. In any case, there is nothing else more to see, V's story is what it is, a corny-ass Hollywood movie with weak writing and characters. I've seen and looked enough, nothing else is there.

[Fuzzknuckles]

 

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.

Sorry man, but it was so weak and boring that I had no further motivation to look even if I wanted to. In any case, there is nothing else more to see, V's story is what it is, a corny-ass Hollywood movie with weak writing and characters. I've seen and looked enough, nothing else is there.

 

Some people enjoyed it, though. Are you going to call them idiots?

 

You seem to have an issue with people enjoying things you don't.

 

I'd love to see the notes on your 'analysis' of the story, should be entertaining. Care to share?

[Son of Zeus]

 

 

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

 

Ot- agree with you op.

What's wrong with you. You are mad because someone does not have the same opinion as you. Come on, he has his own f*cking opinion, if he likes IV better than V, that's fine, but looking at your posts, you really need to stop trying to persuade other people suffice to your own opinion. All people have different opinions and that's why this is called the GTA Forums, not the GTA V elitists forums.

Exactly. It's pathetic how he and a couple of his friends seem to think this is the GTA V Fanboy Club or something. This post if his is partly due to that twisted mentality and partly due the fact that he gets his ass handed to him when he argues with OG. Talk about butthurt. "Hurr durr I hope OG stays away". Sounds like he's almost afraid of him.

[Fuzzknuckles]

 

 

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

 

Ot- agree with you op.

What's wrong with you. You are mad because someone does not have the same opinion as you. Come on, he has his own f*cking opinion, if he likes IV better than V, that's fine, but looking at your posts, you really need to stop trying to persuade other people suffice to your own opinion. All people have different opinions and that's why this is called the GTA Forums, not the GTA V elitists forums.

Exactly. It's pathetic how he and a couple of his friends seem to think this is the GTA V Fanboy Club or something. This post if his is partly due to that twisted mentality and partly due the fact that he gets his ass handed to him when he argues with OG. Talk about butthurt. "Hurr durr I hope OG stays away". Sounds like he's almost afraid of him.

 

I don't think he's afraid of him. I think he's sick and tired of OG busting up in here, calling people idiots, calling their opinions bullsh*t, calling them fanboys and generally sh*tting up the place with his toxic posts.

 

There's constructive criticism and there's pointless whinging. OG does the latter, along with his aggressive baiting and generally ill-mannered approach to posting on the board. He acts like he's a tolerant guy, but he's more aggressive than anyone else on here, until someone agrees with him, then he gives them a pink thumbs up and buddies up with them.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Fuzzknuckles

[Algonquin Assassin]

Iv missions felt free to me . Its like there is never a certain way to do them.For example, the mission Manny escuela is killed. The mission tells you to sell his parts to a doctor but I learned that also you could just dump the car in the water. that's just a small example but I can go on. Thats what added replay ability to me. V is where mission gameplay feels to scripted. Same bs all the time

The thing with GTA IV is for example when you're told to assasinate someone that's all you're told. In most cases you're not guided specifically "how" to do it.

 

I'm actually surprised after 7 years I'm still learning things I've overlooked. Some of the guys go into great detail in the GTA IV forum regarding alternative ways. Take a look.

[Mintal]

I actually think V's story was fun and kinda interesting in it's own way, it's a good thing that it didn't try to copy any previous GTA game. I find it cool that it is very crazy and nuts in some parts, for the fun-factor. That's what San Andreas is.

 

The main problem is it's length in my opinion. That might be the disadvantage of the multiple protagonists system, don't know though.

 

The story went on way too quick and as a result of that each character's story feels underdeveloped, that's it. Otherwhise I found it kinda fun, but IMO quality-whise it still can't hold a candle to GTA IV - which really casted a spell over me although it was kinda wordy and stale here and there.

 

Despite that I can still enjoy GTA V. Since I've finally found some time to start with my Xbox One copy I do my second playthrough now and I have a LOT of fun. Actually like it more in the second run, it feels fresh on current gen.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Mintal

[Smith John]

 

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.

Sorry man, but it was so weak and boring that I had no further motivation to look even if I wanted to. In any case, there is nothing else more to see, V's story is what it is, a corny-ass Hollywood movie with weak writing and characters. I've seen and looked enough, nothing else is there.

For someone who claims to have only run through the campaign once and never touched it again, you've in no way, shape or form "seen and looked enough". You haven't even scratched the surface, mate.

 

It's like going to a restaurant, trying one of their meals, and then judging the entire menu on said meal. As far as I'm concerned, any conclusion of an opinion on something will only be taken serious if the item(s) being critiqued are tried and tested in full before drawing the conclusion.

 

In other words, if the limited amount of time you so often claim to have afforded this game is sincere, then your opinions are pretty worthless.

[lastmanonearth]

 

 

I don't know about that Osho. Look at Red Dead Redemption..that story carried the game IMO...gameplay wise as well, it was a very in character type game and it's one of the best video games ever made.

And also lassoing random people and dragin them through the desert.

Well you couldn't sleep with prostitutes..you had an honor system that affected in game dialogue and ped interactions. So I'd say it's pretty in character.

 

 

What`s ironic is that even when you play as his son he doesn`t wanna have anything to do with prostitutes either, even though ironically his mother was one.

 

Edited April 16, 2015 by bored_killed