why no special missions?

[Grumpy Cat]

hi everyone.

i wonder why R* wont return vigilante, paramedic and fire fighter side missions? they returned taxi side mission.

i always thinking that R* will make vigilante more fun than previous gta, but sadly there is no vigilante missions in gta 5.

so why R* didnt included vigilante, paramedic and fire fighter side mission in gta 5?

[ULPaperContact]

Because Rockstar lost their touch after the release of Grand Theft Auto 4. Seriously, f*ck 'em.

[Son of Zeus]

Shark Cards. The answer is always Shark Cards.

[ChiroVette]

Because Rockstar lost their touch after the release of Grand Theft Auto 4. Seriously, f*ck 'em.

 

I don't think that's true at all, and I happen to think that GTA V is ten times the game that GTA IV was, but that's obviously only my opinion not something I am stating as fact.

 

I am not sure why people have to make such wide-sweeping assumptions about Rockstar's "intent" when removing things like R3 missions.

 

Oh and before I go on, let me say that I miss ALL the R3 missions, and that includes Taxi, Firetruck, Vigilante, Paramedic, and hell, even Pimpin'! So it isn't like I don't get where you guys are coming from, because I do. But the removal of these types of missions (and by the way I HATED the way Vigilante missions were implemented in IV) has more to do with Sam Houser wanting to make everything more organically part of the story narrative.

 

For the record, I completely disagree with the Housers in this regard, and wish that GTA games were true sequels to San Andreas. But that isn't what we have anymore, and Rockstar seems to be always evolving the franchise in ways they believe is best for the game, to keep it fresh. Like I said, it isn't that I disagree with you and catfromnesbox about wishing these R3 missions were still part of the game. But given the wild success and glowing critical reviews, not to mention the staggeringly impressive quality of the games (yes, even IV, which I can't stand personally) I think its a mistake to categorically assume Rockstar has lost touch with anything.

 

I think they just want to evolve the series in markedly different ways than what fans like me want.

[Grumpy Cat]

 

Because Rockstar lost their touch after the release of Grand Theft Auto 4. Seriously, f*ck 'em.

 

I don't think that's true at all, and I happen to think that GTA V is ten times the game that GTA IV was, but that's obviously only my opinion not something I am stating as fact.

 

I am not sure why people have to make such wide-sweeping assumptions about Rockstar's "intent" when removing things like R3 missions.

 

Oh and before I go on, let me say that I miss ALL the R3 missions, and that includes Taxi, Firetruck, Vigilante, Paramedic, and hell, even Pimpin'! So it isn't like I don't get where you guys are coming from, because I do. But the removal of these types of missions (and by the way I HATED the way Vigilante missions were implemented in IV) has more to do with Sam Houser wanting to make everything more organically part of the story narrative.

 

For the record, I completely disagree with the Housers in this regard, and wish that GTA games were true sequels to San Andreas. But that isn't what we have anymore, and Rockstar seems to be always evolving the franchise in ways they believe is best for the game, to keep it fresh. Like I said, it isn't that I disagree with you and catfromnesbox about wishing these R3 missions were still part of the game. But given the wild success and glowing critical reviews, not to mention the staggeringly impressive quality of the games (yes, even IV, which I can't stand personally) I think its a mistake to categorically assume Rockstar has lost touch with anything.

 

I think they just want to evolve the series in markedly different ways than what fans like me want.

 

no, i rather do R3 mission than collecting pages,alien craps and under water junks, its damn painful and boring to collect lots of hidden craps

[PhillBellic]

I'd rather do Fire Fighter Missions, than collect Letter Scraps.

[Detroit Lions]

I'd rather do Fire Fighter Missions, than collect Letter Scraps.

Even the pizza delivery was better than that. Now that i think about it, it would've been hilarious for franklin to start off as a pizza delivery boy and delivering to Michaels house .

Edited January 4, 2016 by Detroit Lions

[.Smaher.]

Because Rockstar lost their touch after the release of Grand Theft Auto 4. Seriously, f*ck 'em.

Edgy. Yet here you are.

 

 

OT: The same reason Rockstar left a lot of sh*t out from IV. Interiors...

[ULPaperContact]

 

Because Rockstar lost their touch after the release of Grand Theft Auto 4. Seriously, f*ck 'em.

Edgy. Yet here you are.

 

 

-Snip-

 

Care to explain?

[Detroit Lions]

 

 

Because Rockstar lost their touch after the release of Grand Theft Auto 4. Seriously, f*ck 'em.

Edgy. Yet here you are.

 

 

-Snip-

 

Care to explain?

 

I think what he's trying to say is V doesn't feel like a genuine Gta. Which as much as i hate to say it i have to agree. No not in the sense of it doesn't carry the same elements, but more in the way that it misses some vital points that makes it feel like a single player component in a multiplayer world. Where in as even games like IV had its faults as well, not catering towards the people who thought that it carried all the elements from Sa and then some. But in the end V falls flat of that same entertaining value.

[ULPaperContact]

Finally. That's what I've been saying.

[Grumpy Cat]

 

I'd rather do Fire Fighter Missions, than collect Letter Scraps.

Even the pizza delivery was better than that. Now that i think about it, it would've been hilarious for franklin to start off as a pizza delivery boy and delivering to Michaels house .

 

well that would be fun to do

[BlackNoise]

Like I said, it isn't that I disagree with you and catfromnesbox about wishing these R3 missions were still part of the game. But given the wild success and glowing critical reviews, not to mention the staggeringly impressive quality of the games (yes, even IV, which I can't stand personally) I think its a mistake to categorically assume Rockstar has lost touch with anything.

 

I think they just want to evolve the series in markedly different ways than what fans like me want.

 

It's funny, because I feel differently about GTA V vs IV, but I completely agree with the part of your comment I quoted. Fans get upset about V and they want to believe R* is just greedy and will run their series into the ground. They want their new direction to be a failure, so they think it will be a failure.

 

R* knows exactly what they're doing and GTA V's critical and commercial success proves it. I'm starting to think what fans like me really want is a new IP. I want more of the earlier R* thinking. Right now they're thinking "We are going to sell at least 30 million copies, so how do we make 30 million fans happy?".

 

I'm not saying they're not doing what they want to do. I definitely think they are, but I just think they use to do what they want with a "I don't give a f*ck" attitude. Now they definitely give a f*ck because their fanbase is too big to have that attitude.

 

To the OP, I think R* will add those missions in future GTA games, but they will make more sense within the game world. There will be a reason why getting into a firetruck allows you to be a firefighter, for example.

[.Smaher.]

 

 

 

Because Rockstar lost their touch after the release of Grand Theft Auto 4. Seriously, f*ck 'em.

Edgy. Yet here you are.

 

 

-Snip-

 

Care to explain?

 

I think what he's trying to say is V doesn't feel like a genuine Gta. Which as much as i hate to say it i have to agree. No not in the sense of it doesn't carry the same elements, but more in the way that it misses some vital points that makes it feel like a single player component in a multiplayer world. Where in as even games like IV had its faults as well, not catering towards the people who thought that it carried all the elements from Sa and then some. But in the end V falls flat of that same entertaining value.That's not what I was saying at all. I was just saying that Rockstar needlessly cut out a lot of stuff in comparison to their other GTAs. It feels like a GTA to me. You have a city, weapons, cars. Boom. What really pisses me off are the little things.

 

Like I said, interiors, the euphoria engine, some of the main characters, you name it.

 

But you had a good point, too.

Edited January 4, 2016 by .Smaher.

[Detroit Lions]

 

 

 

 

Because Rockstar lost their touch after the release of Grand Theft Auto 4. Seriously, f*ck 'em.

Edgy. Yet here you are.

 

 

-Snip-

 

Care to explain?

 

I think what he's trying to say is V doesn't feel like a genuine Gta. Which as much as i hate to say it i have to agree. No not in the sense of it doesn't carry the same elements, but more in the way that it misses some vital points that makes it feel like a single player component in a multiplayer world. Where in as even games like IV had its faults as well, not catering towards the people who thought that it carried all the elements from Sa and then some. But in the end V falls flat of that same entertaining value.That's not what I was saying at all. I was just saying that Rockstar needlessly cut out a lot of stuff in comparison to their other GTAs. It feels like a GTA to me. You have a city, weapons, cars. Boom. What really pisses me off are the little things.

 

Like I said, interiors, the euphoria engine, some of the main characters, you name it.

 

But you had a good point, too.

 

It's also understandable to feel that way. I felt like i let my expectations exceed my hype which is a bad mix. But then again, is it really? is it greedy to expect V to take what the previous games in the series did and improve upon that formula all while keeping the game engaging and fun. Absolutely not, It's just sad that lots of the staff that worked on Sa and Vc are long gone now. And i think that with that and the increasing pressures of Online and the cash cow that is the cancer known as micro-transactions. That R* caved and lost their focus. Hopefully not for too long. Or what is might turn into what was a good company.

[Algonquin Assassin]

(and by way I HATED the way Vigilante missions were implemented in IV)

 

 

Do you mind me asking why?

 

Unless you didn't like the few seconds it took to fire up the police computer personally I think GTA IV has the best system for Vigilante missions.

 

Then again if it wasn't for the police computer the Vigilante missions would've been as repetitive as they were in the 3D era seeing as they'd lacked any sort of way of choosing different crimes so I'm curious as to why you didn't like the way they handled.

 

Way more positives than negatives to come out of GTA IV's Vigilante missions as far as I'm concerned and I'm sure many would agree.

 

Anyways as it stands GTA IV's Vigilante missions are more fun to me than all of GTA V's side missions combined. The only one I'd like to see come back are the Vigilante missions. I don't care for the others.

 

I'm playing through Assassin's Creed Syndicate having far more fun taking over gang strongholds, cargo hijacks, taking over smuggler boats etc. They're the kind of side missions GTA V should have.

 

Of course not those explicitly, but in that realm atleast.

Edited January 4, 2016 by SonOfLiberty

[ChiroVette]

 

 

 

 

no, i rather do R3 mission than collecting pages,alien craps and under water junks, its damn painful and boring to collect lots of hidden craps

 

 

Me, I am caught in the middle. I like both. I love the R3 missions in the PS2 era and I love the various features of the V as well.

 

 

Like I said, it isn't that I disagree with you and catfromnesbox about wishing these R3 missions were still part of the game. But given the wild success and glowing critical reviews, not to mention the staggeringly impressive quality of the games (yes, even IV, which I can't stand personally) I think its a mistake to categorically assume Rockstar has lost touch with anything.

 

I think they just want to evolve the series in markedly different ways than what fans like me want.

 

It's funny, because I feel differently about GTA V vs IV, but I completely agree with the part of your comment I quoted. Fans get upset about V and they want to believe R* is just greedy and will run their series into the ground. They want their new direction to be a failure, so they think it will be a failure.

 

R* knows exactly what they're doing and GTA V's critical and commercial success proves it. I'm starting to think what fans like me really want is a new IP. I want more of the earlier R* thinking. Right now they're thinking "We are going to sell at least 30 million copies, so how do we make 30 million fans happy?".

 

I'm not saying they're not doing what they want to do. I definitely think they are, but I just think they use to do what they want with a "I don't give a f*ck" attitude. Now they definitely give a f*ck because their fanbase is too big to have that attitude.

 

To the OP, I think R* will add those missions in future GTA games, but they will make more sense within the game world. There will be a reason why getting into a firetruck allows you to be a firefighter, for example.

 

 

I agree with everything you said, but I think there is a different reason that Rockstar may have tempered (but not lost) that "I don't give a f*ck!" attitude that has nothing to do with the fanbase, who seem to support GTA no matter what. I think the reason is that if you read the interview here, you will see some interesting things:

 

http://www.playboy.com/articles/grand-theft-auto-sam-houser-interview

 

Sam Houser gives a highly insightful expository about the horrors he went through with the whole Hot Coffee debacle, and how people like Jack Thompson and Senator Joe Lieberman caused him an unprecedented amount of trouble. Being called to appear before the FTC and being grilled for 9 hours over a stack of documents as high as the Empire State Building would cause anyone stress. The United States Government really took Houser out for a ride. However, I think that, to Houser's credit, he got right back up on the horse and took the whole "I don't give a f*ck!" attitude up a notch. After the whole FTC fiasco, he basically gave everyone the finger and put full, frontal nudity into the game.

 

And while I could totally be wrong, if Trevor all by himself isn't one, huge middle-finger to the conservatives, then I honestly don't know what is! I think we are on the same page with regard to Rockstar not "losing touch" or lol "Trying to ruin GTA." Clearly they are doing what they believe is right, and millions of consumers agree.

 

 

 

(and by way I HATED the way Vigilante missions were implemented in IV)

 

 

Do you mind me asking why?

 

 

 

Not at all.

 

I just enjoy them more. I like toggling them on and off with R3, and enjoy the action-flow of the R3 missions more than just getting a criminal's pic and location from a police-cruiser's computer. I like the style of levels 1 through 12 increasing in difficulty, and chasing the criminals down. I liked sometimes using The Hunter for fun and mayhem.

 

In truth, you should also realize that I simply DO NOT like GTA IV. Never have, never will. So it is also quite possible that my feelings about the Vigilante missions in IV aren't entirely objective since when you are grinding your way to 100% completion (because you really want to give the game a chance) and you are hating most of it, it's hard to see things that may otherwise stand out as excellent.

 

Look at Niko and his supporting characters for instance.

 

I hate Niko (for the most part), hated Roman, and almost the entire cast. Yet objectively I know that they are excellently written characters, well acted, had great dialog, etc. But in a game you're not inherently enjoying the gameplay, everything else gets tainted. So while I absolutely loathe the whole "rags to better rags" motif, and spent the entire game resenting Rockstar because what I wanted in IV was a sequel to San Andreas, not some realism-fest, I get that this is my problem, not the game's problem or Rockstar's problem.

Edited January 4, 2016 by ChiroVette

[Algonquin Assassin]

Fair enough.

 

Like I said I like the police computer because it took the repetitiveness out of the 3D era Vigilante missions by giving a choice of different crimes instead of the same chases over and over again. Dwayne's back up also spiced things up.

 

I feel R* implemented the Vigilante missions in GTA IV as a way of modernising them kind of like how they introduced cheats, police bribes etc being used with the phone.

 

You could say it was "realism", but I personally feel R* done it to fit in with GTA IV's more grown up and down to earth game world and IMO it worked a treat.

 

Anyway I can totally understand how you'd miss being able to toggle them on and off, but to be honest I don't think I would've enjoyed them in GTA IV if they were the same as their 3D era counterparts so for me I'm glad R* tried something new.

 

However I'm disappointed GTA V doesn't provide an alternative even if it doesn't have Vigilante missions per say. We always have the super fun repeatable tow truck missions I guess.

Edited January 4, 2016 by SonOfLiberty

[uncredited]

I truly expected all the core values of the 3D era to come back in V: all the R3 missions (including pimping, that was really fun too), gang wars, BMX/Sanchez challenges. I expected something more entertaining than collecting stuff. Tags granted you with guns, same as taking photos, or collecting stuff around the map. Collecting in V is rather boring and not really motivates you to keep going on doing it.

 

They did add some great additions, though. Hunting was fun in my opinion. I expected hiking and mountaineering as well, seeing the trailers.

 

I glad they kept base jumping and illegal street races.

Edited January 4, 2016 by uncredited

[ChiroVette]

You know, SonOfLiberty, they could have brought back the R3 missions as some kind of a nostaglic value, maybe even optional missions not counted toward 100%, but that showed up in the Social Club and offered some rewards. I also completely understand why Rockstar changed the Vigilante missions, as well as so many other things that many of us loved from the PS2 era games.

 

Sam Houser remarked a while ago that they were trying to make GTA a more transitional game in the sense that the side missions would be more "woven into" the main storyline in an organic way. I can see his point, too. In the 3d Era games, you had your story, you had your collections, and you had your side quests.

 

They were all three separate parts of the same game. You get into a police car and hit R3 and you're now masquerading as a cop. Get into an Ambulance, hit R3, you're now masquerading as a paramedic. And the same for all the R3 missions. Also the same for all the collections missions and other side quests. Other than storyline missions like Marty Chonks, D-Ice, El Burro, VC Assassination contracts, C.R.A.S.H. missions, etc., it was almost like playing three completely different games in the same game. There was no context with collecting hidden packages in GTA III, other than at the very end when you grab 8 of them for the mission S.A.M. for Asuka. There was not the slightest connection between the R3 missions or the TOYZ missions or the Patriot missions to the actual storyline.

 

Personally, I kind of like it both ways. But I totally see what Rockstar is going for with this, and while there are things I absolutely miss from San Andreas and the others, I can at least nod my head and see the reasoning.

 

Rockstar wants to keep the series fresh and new. So while fans like me really want to see a truly high def, next gen version of San Andreas, I think Rockstar may be done with that "style" of game, save to say that they did create V with a nice compromise to it between old school GTA and new school GTA.

[DaWiesel]

I'd rather do Fire Fighter Missions, than collect Letter Scraps.

I'd rather collect 50 letter scraps, than kill 200 flying rats.

 

Honestly, I disliked those side missions, they were extremely boring and there was pretty much no diversity in the jobs, at least towing missions in V offer four different kind of jobs and there's even a bit of dialogue sometimes making it feel more immersive, while firefighter, paramedic, taxi mission jobs are always the same, just increasing in numbers. I've never done the taxi missions in V but from what I've heard they are much more interesting and diverse than the taxi missions in previous GTA's.

[Grumpy Cat]

how about trash master side mission? feature from gta lcs

[ChiroVette]

how about trash master side mission? feature from gta lcs

 

Oops! Forgot about that one, and it is fun!

[NikoBellicGTAIV]

 

I'd rather do Fire Fighter Missions, than collect Letter Scraps.

I'd rather collect 50 letter scraps, than kill 200 flying rats.

 

Honestly, I disliked those side missions, they were extremely boring and there was pretty much no diversity in the jobs, at least towing missions in V offer four different kind of jobs and there's even a bit of dialogue sometimes making it feel more immersive, while firefighter, paramedic, taxi mission jobs are always the same, just increasing in numbers. I've never done the taxi missions in V but from what I've heard they are much more interesting and diverse than the taxi missions in previous GTA's.

Actually no, they're exactly the same, though sometimes the fare will not pay and you have to kill him.

[B Dawg]

Rockstar wants to keep the series fresh and new. So while fans like me really want to see a truly high def, next gen version of San Andreas, I think Rockstar may be done with that "style" of game, save to say that they did create V with a nice compromise to it between old school GTA and new school GTA.

I'd rather consider Episodes From Liberty City the nice compromise between 3D era and HD era GTAs.

GTA V isn't a compromise between old and new GTAs at all imo.

 

Back on topic: The problem isn't really that Vigilante/Turf Wars/Gang Wars/Drug Wars are missing, it's that there's literally no good substitute for them available in the game, no replacement. Bail Bonds are limited and Arms Trafficking isn't dynamic or progressive.

Edited January 4, 2016 by B Dawg

[Maibatsu545]

Because they're elitist f*cks who think those missions would interfere with their "beautifully handcrafted narrative". Forget the fact that it's a massive step backwards from SA. Ah yes, I'd much rather be doing Yoga instead. Sooooo immersive into this 'wonderfully' crafted story. Thank you Housers for telling me how I should play a game that was once revolutionary for its freedom.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Maibatsu545

[B Dawg]

The narrative/context is just another stupid restriction.

They could have at the very least let the online character be creatable and usable offline as well, with those missions being limited to that custom character.

Narrative/context problem solved!

Edited January 4, 2016 by B Dawg

[Grumpy Cat]

The narrative/context is just another stupid restriction.

They could have at the very least let the online character be creatable and usable offline as well, with those missions being limited to that custom character.

Narrative/context problem solved!

then it will be just like saints row

[ClaudeSpeed1911]

Let it be like Saints Row.

 

Either way they shouldn't restrict side missions just because they don't fit.

Did anyone realy care that Pizza boys didn't fit Tommy in VC?

[SmokesWithCigs]

On God it's been two years that question had to have been asked a million times already. Just stop it enough. Every day is the same thing it feels like that movie ground hogs day. Mods lock this thread and redirect our friend here to the whine and complain thread.