Campaign

[IplayOnPC]

I love a good campaign, but also derpy stuff. So i want to ask does gta v have a good campaign?

[Creme_Brulee]

I'd say it has.

I really liked its campaign.

Not a good person to give you a good review about it, but I enjoyed it a lot.

Edited November 25, 2015 by ~Tiger~

[Davey Boy]

I have mixed feelings about it. It is too short for my liking but has an overall good storyline

[Osho]

Gameplay wise; I found the campaign a lot worse than any GTA to this date. I wont go into much details since I believe this is your 'first time'?? playing V Story mode. In short, its insanely linear, heavily scripted and dumbed down, zero replay value as the story doesn't allow nearly as much freedom and choice as seen in the 3D Era games, and also the way game cheats on you during missions in order to showcase the events, switching moments and other stuff that results in instant mission failure, if you don't follow the way designers want you to proceed in many missions.

If you're fine with all of the listed stuff then you will have good time watching the top notch production quality seen in cut scenes, and the way Hollywood movie plays out.

Enjoy!!!

[HoleInTheSky]

If you like derpy stuff, then you should be fine (joke, kinda). GTA V's story has some length, despite what many think, as the average mission length makes up for the lower mission count from previous games (no rushing, mind). However, the subject material often mocks itself and undermines the seriousness of would be heavier moments which might negatively affect your experience, then again, it might not. Best bet is to simply try it. You'll definitely get your money's worth, since the game is packed with content.

[Osho]

No offense dude, but the "average mission length" extends the experience due to driving around from point A to point B in many missions which account for nothing much than enjoying the vistas while you're at it.

If you exclude the 'cut scenes' length, and the driving portions and count the mission length by figuring out the number of objectives given for each and the difficulty in meeting the requirements to complete those objectives, then in my opinion, its the shortest campaign in the series. Not even meeting the standard of being reasonably lengthy relative to the size of the map available to utilize the potential.

[XenoxX]

No offense dude, but the "average mission length" extends the experience due to driving around from point A to point B in many missions which account for nothing much than enjoying the vistas while you're at it.

If you exclude the 'cut scenes' length, and the driving portions and count the mission length by figuring out the number of objectives given for each and the difficulty in meeting the requirements to complete those objectives, then in my opinion, its the shortest campaign in the series. Not even meeting the standard of being reasonably lengthy relative to the size of the map available to utilize the potential.

huh?

Most GTAs have this "drive from point A to B" and in V its a lot more seldom, and in addition to that those longer drives all offer interesting and meaningfull dialouge, which is also entertaining.

 

In my opinion GTA V has the best writing so far, the lines are absolutely entertaining, and thats what a game IMO is all about.

SOME Story missions are linear but most offer a rather free aproach to things OR have a linear part and an open part at the end.

Most certainly a lot of quality work was put into the Story and most of your 36 hours average playtime for the missions will be packed with new and varied up missions, if its Stealth, the takeover of a Film Studio, a speed action chase on the airport or a old school big ass shootout at Grove Street.

 

The campaign in GTA V definately has a lot to offer, it may not have that much to do afterwards, eventhough you have a numerous amount of Side missions and Random Events as well as collectibles.

[TheOneLibertonian]

 

No offense dude, but the "average mission length" extends the experience due to driving around from point A to point B in many missions which account for nothing much than enjoying the vistas while you're at it.

If you exclude the 'cut scenes' length, and the driving portions and count the mission length by figuring out the number of objectives given for each and the difficulty in meeting the requirements to complete those objectives, then in my opinion, its the shortest campaign in the series. Not even meeting the standard of being reasonably lengthy relative to the size of the map available to utilize the potential.

huh?

Most GTAs have this "drive from point A to B" and in V its a lot more seldom, and in addition to that those longer drives all offer interesting and meaningfull dialouge, which is also entertaining.

 

In my opinion GTA V has the best writing so far, the lines are absolutely entertaining, and thats what a game IMO is all about.

SOME Story missions are linear but most offer a rather free aproach to things OR have a linear part and an open part at the end.

Most certainly a lot of quality work was put into the Story and most of your 36 hours average playtime for the missions will be packed with new and varied up missions, if its Stealth, the takeover of a Film Studio, a speed action chase on the airport or a old school big ass shootout at Grove Street.

 

The campaign in GTA V definately has a lot to offer, it may not have that much to do afterwards, eventhough you have a numerous amount of Side missions and Random Events as well as collectibles.

 

There is a difference between dialogue and storytelling, sure the dialogue is great, but it suffers from rushed and cheesy storytelling. However I did liked the variety of missions though. Something V had over IV.

[XenoxX]

 

 

No offense dude, but the "average mission length" extends the experience due to driving around from point A to point B in many missions which account for nothing much than enjoying the vistas while you're at it.

If you exclude the 'cut scenes' length, and the driving portions and count the mission length by figuring out the number of objectives given for each and the difficulty in meeting the requirements to complete those objectives, then in my opinion, its the shortest campaign in the series. Not even meeting the standard of being reasonably lengthy relative to the size of the map available to utilize the potential.

huh?

Most GTAs have this "drive from point A to B" and in V its a lot more seldom, and in addition to that those longer drives all offer interesting and meaningfull dialouge, which is also entertaining.

 

In my opinion GTA V has the best writing so far, the lines are absolutely entertaining, and thats what a game IMO is all about.

SOME Story missions are linear but most offer a rather free aproach to things OR have a linear part and an open part at the end.

Most certainly a lot of quality work was put into the Story and most of your 36 hours average playtime for the missions will be packed with new and varied up missions, if its Stealth, the takeover of a Film Studio, a speed action chase on the airport or a old school big ass shootout at Grove Street.

 

The campaign in GTA V definately has a lot to offer, it may not have that much to do afterwards, eventhough you have a numerous amount of Side missions and Random Events as well as collectibles.

 

There is a difference between dialogue and storytelling, sure the dialogue is great, but it suffers from rushed and cheesy storytelling. However I did liked the variety of missions though. Something V had over IV.

 

I never mentioned Story telling in my post, but yes thats true the Plot line is an organic Soup opera, its not realy well structured.

[Xing of Virtue]

The campaign is good, the ending sucked though.

[Osho]

@ XenoxX

All I am saying is that the "average mission length" of V makes the campaign feel more shorter if you take into account the "mission objectives"; which are clearly not that complex over the missions seen in prev. games.

The differences I spotted in V are far less interesting and quite underwhelming in its mission design, esp., when I feel that they could be so much more open ended and engaging had I been given the same ability ( as seen in GTA SA ) to approach many objectives the way I could imagine, if not made a lot restricting and limited instead. Even the choices to approach in few different ways are programmed specifically the way the designers expected it to be.

It's fun for the first few walkthroughs to engage with all the characters for varied conversations, scripted sequences, and well executed action moments, but it became stale for me with the same constantly repeated moments on each mission walkthrough. It does add a nice bit of characterization, but usually that sounds interesting to provide a short diversion while you are passing through the missions at certain point during the story progression, or when you're with certain characters.

Gameplay wise these missions are not really distinguishable by any interesting choices that makes "playing" those missions fun and much more interesting "creatively" within itself, other than driving from point A to point B in different parts of the map and location. There is not enough rewarding experience to be pursued, than pursuing the story progression, and watch how the narrative unfolds.

In GTA SA, the narrative unfolds in such a manner that gameplay wise it involved offering different types of rewards at the end either through new surprises, or experiences which unlocks for CJ as you progress through the game world, and also the ways to make missions more interesting in the manner they can be freely approached in. Some missions also offered interesting conversations in the end via phone.

Basically, in GTA SA the story often played its part without making the story missions feel like I didn't have much freedom to control over them, nor affect. Its even more evident in GTA VC story missions which offers quite more freedom than GTA SA.

[Mad Fortune]

Best part of gta camaiqn - Is the Beginning of it. It has the gta feel.

[Cheatz/Trickz]

You like a good campaign? To me, that means a good story and on that front you'd be better off spending your money on a can of paint so you can watch it dry.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Cheatz_N_Trickz

[Raj The Rager]

Yes. It feels like a super expensive movie.

[Algonquin Assassin]

Depends on your tastes I guess. The story is average at best to me and IMO the best part the is in the beginning. It has its moments, but I don't think it's anything special.

[CynicalRise]

If you want a good story, go play Grand Theft Auto IV and EFLC. If you want to play this game, go play Grand Theft Auto IV and EFLC. Do not play V without playing IV, as you won't understand some stuff in the story, becuase some of it is a continuation of IV.

Edited November 26, 2015 by TheProcrastinatingMath

[HoleInTheSky]

No offense dude, but the "average mission length" extends the experience due to driving around from point A to point B in many missions which account for nothing much than enjoying the vistas while you're at it.

In that case it was time well spent , because there's a lot of dialogue to be hand while going from point A to B, but then again I'm speaking purely about length. How effective that time is spent is a personal matter. I just found the overall lengths of missions (especially the heists) to be satisfying, and as a result I clocked in a hefty number of hours with plenty of misc. tasks remaining, which isn't a bad thing.

[slimeball supreme]

If you want a good story, go play Grand Theft Auto IV and EFLC. If you want to play this game, go play Grand Theft Auto IV and EFLC. Do not play V without playing IV, as you won't understand some stuff in the story, becuase some of it is a continuation of IV.

Uh, no.

You don't need to understand sh*t about IV - nothing is that direct. If it's Packie or Niko or whatever, you learn what's up with the protagonists.

[BlackSnow176]

For me the campaign was more than awesome. I personally like the game as a whole more than its predecessor. The storyline was not the best, but the amazing gameplay made up for it, and the three main characters' relationship can be hilarious to say the least

[BenMitchell90]

IMO, I had fun with it, but it's a real mixed bag. The first part (initial Franklin/Michael stuff in LS and Trevor's chapter in Blaine Country) was a blast, yeah it had some flaws (lack of buildup (more on that later), stuff like LifeInvander and Jimmy and Tracey's antics (which are so f*cking unfunny for the most part), but it felt like it was building towards something big, and I really didn't have any problems with it.

 

It was when Trevor came to Los Santos that it all went downhill. The humor became even more over the top and unfunny (IMO), Franklin was pushed to the sidelines, and Trevor went from an interesting character in that initial Blaine County portion to a very weirdly written and inconsistent one who lost much of his initial menace and scariness. And the constant screaming matches between Michael and Trevor with Franklin awkwardly playing peacekeeper got to be a real drag. (I used to rag on the FIB portion taking up most of the story, but I've warmed to it considerably. I think Norton and Haines are interesting characters and unlike most of the rest of the game, it took itself fairly seriously for the most part.) It did pick back up near the end with Michael's movie studio missions and Weston showing his dark side, but then it led to a pretty underwhelming ending, no matter which one you pick. (Though from what I've seen, the Kill Trevor ending seems to end things on a pretty poignant and kinda haunting note, as lacking as it is gameplay wise.)

 

But really, I think the biggest problem with the campaign is that it's just too short for three protagonists. I do appreciate their effort to cut down on filler missions, which I do feel plagued some of the earlier GTAs. But they went too far, to the point where there's very little downtime. People rag on GTA IV for starting off too slowly and dedicating the first couple hours or so to minor errands like driving Roman and his fares around with a couple small-time shootouts, but I personally love that. Because much later in the game, when you're pulling a big-time bank job with the McReary brothers and working for the Mafia, that slow, subtle start makes those BIG moments feel much more special. Same thing with Red Dead Redemption. BIG moments later on, like the final missions of the Mexico arc, the assault on Dutch's fortress and the final stand at Beecher's Hope wouldn't have felt nearly as epic if you didn't spend the early missions herding cows and breaking horses with Bonnie and getting into minor shootouts with cattle rustlers.

 

Now look at V. You get a bank heist/shootout before the title screen even pops up, then you get into a race with Lamar in the first proper mission, then the second mission has you shooting it out with Vagos and chasing a dude on a motorcycle (unless you just shoot the damn dude, which to give credit where credit is due, is a touch I really liked). Then just a few missions later, you're in a big chase on the highway after a truck carrying Michael's yacht, with Michael driving after them and capping dudes and Franklin on board throwing dudes overboard, and then Jimmy clinging to the mast for dear life and Michael having to catch him. Which is an awful lot like the chase after Tenpenny in San Andreas, which was the final mission of the game. Here, you're not even ten missions in - cool mission and all, but it just feels like too much this early in the game. And it just ramps up from there. Yeah, it's fast paced, but at the same time it all kind of blends together and nothing really stands out. Yeah, stuff like the Paleto score was memorable, but at the same time it's just another really action-packed mission among other action-packed missions. You know what I mean?

 

V's missions, as linear as they are, are fun (mostly... *COUGH*Scouting the Port*COUGH*) and many of them can't help but wow you, but without that buildup and downtime earlier on, it's like skipping to the end of the 1812 Overture. You get the big bangs and booms, but you don't have any of the buildup that really makes them hit.

[CarlitoDorito]

Depends what you're in to. Is the story important? It's a story. The missions aren't boring. Short when completed by itself. For the old school sit in car for 20 minutes while nothing happens type missions, there's not many. Play through yourself and see, it seems some like while others hate it and some write lengthy posts about it every day. A yes from me could be a no from someone else. So for fairness, it's really really good, but also really really sh*t.

[Totallycasual]

zero replay value

 

I completely disagree with this, while the single player campaign isn't perfect there is some replay value there. I have played through the story several times and always go out of my way to pick a different path with the main jobs the crew pulls, you really do miss a decent chunk of content if you only play it through once.

[--Vega--]

Storymode was pretty rushed. It feels half assed, especially towards the latter half of the game. BUT, it does include a decent amount of humor that GTA IV absolutely missed and I couldn't stand how serious IV was.. therefore, I like V a whole lot better, even if the story was weaker.

 

 

In VI, they better implement a bit of both and NOT rush the storyline like in this game. AND DONT MAKE IT OVERLY SERIOUS PLEASE AND THANK YOU.

[Smith John]

I'd say V's campaign was excellent, but more importantly, a service to the general fanbase. As has been covered time and time and time and again, much of the players got tired of the campaign in IV, and refused to conclude it. Couple that with the arguably linear and repetitive missions as was perceived by a very vocal voice, can we really sit here and accuse Rockstar of deliberately 'hurting' those of you who expected something akin to RDR's storytelling - which, in my opinion, was a great game narrative-wise, but not near as varied as V, gameplay-wise - for opting towards developing something that took precedence of gameplay over storytelling?

 

I'm no hardcore gamer these days, so admittedly I'm perhaps not as 'qualified' to speak on this, but I'm a hardcore Rockstar Games fan, and believe they pour blood and sweat into their products to please us. I got an excellent SP experience with V, and felt/feel the series continued to improve more and more in regards to fun - you know, what games are supposed to be about, and this is why it always frustrates me upon visiting this section to see the same handful of borderline trolls claim the GTA series is heading down the path of MP focus simply because they didn't get this element or that aspect from a previous installment.

[CarlitoDorito]

Can't say you're a rockstar games fan, you're a defender or fanboy if you like them for their other games and GTA V. It's ok to like them for their older games you may have moved on from though. If about 13 people say that on the Internet, then surely it is true and not slightly silly at all.

 

The campaign is not like any other GTA campaign. Much like IV's is not like the classic games and 3's isn't like the second game. It's more like the classics in tone than IV, but you may be told IV is the same as San Andreas, a gritty tale of a lethal genius gangsta. This is wrong. It's more like a mix of both. There's ufo's, but also realistic torture. People say it's like a Michael bay film. These people have not seen a Michael bay film. It's not perfect, but not what Internet critics call 'a sh*tty attempt at sh*t' or something along those lines. The general consensus, world wide rather than forum wide, is quite good (without feeling the need to compare to every game under the sun, which is weird now) 'Gametastic says - Not as bad as it seems'

Edited November 26, 2015 by CarlitoDorito