why no special missions?

[Dirtbag101]

Shark Cards. The answer is always Shark Cards.

This man understands the R* brain trust.

[Lester-The-Molester]

 

I prefer realistic side missions that the character would actually do, so in the 3D era I never did the vehicle side missions, never found them fun, too arcadey and make no sense in the story.

But IV's Vigilante missions were implemented perfectly, the car thefts, Jacob's drug drops, Roman Taxi missions, Brucie's races, all fit perfectly. And then the episodes added their own which again fit the story.

In V, I really wished there were more Assassination missions, that's another thing IV did better with the Fixer. And property missions are pathetic. R* must have given up after finishing Franklin's taxi jobs, it doesn't explain why he would even buy the place.

That's one of the things I enjoyed with the shift to the HD era. Niko had a reason to be driving taxis to help out Roman, he had a reason to deliver drugs/engage in drug deals for LJ etc. I personally found this way more immersive than CJ randomly working as a valet or in a quarry for example.

 

Hell even the tow truck missions in GTA V (though boring IMO) have some substance behind them. Speaking of assassinations I would've loved to have seen more and I think Michael should've been able to do them too.

And that's why I never liked Vigilante in IV, I felt as if I was killing random gang members for absolute no reason and pointless killing breaks immersion for me.

[Fuzzknuckles]

In the case of Vigilante missions - just like in any GTA, it doesn't make sense for a career criminal to run around doing the job of the police. It's, I'd say, utterly stupid, conceptually.

 

"Man, I've just robbed a bank, I should probably lay low, but what I'm actually going to do is drive around in a Police car with the sirens flashing, without a uniform to disguise me, and I'm going to bust other bad guys and take them to the Police station... in person!"

 

Nope. That's just stupid. Even the dumbest criminals wouldn't do that.

 

Paramedics, fire-fighting... even more of a stretch of the imagination. It just doesn't make any sense. Perhaps Rockstar finally realised that, and that adding stupid filler content like that wasn't really worth the effort. But hey, what do I know? Maybe they're kicking themselves over not filling their game with meaningless guff and filler to make it appeal to people who, apparently, have no bloody idea what they actually want from a game.

[Osho]

 

 

I prefer realistic side missions that the character would actually do, so in the 3D era I never did the vehicle side missions, never found them fun, too arcadey and make no sense in the story.

But IV's Vigilante missions were implemented perfectly, the car thefts, Jacob's drug drops, Roman Taxi missions, Brucie's races, all fit perfectly. And then the episodes added their own which again fit the story.

In V, I really wished there were more Assassination missions, that's another thing IV did better with the Fixer. And property missions are pathetic. R* must have given up after finishing Franklin's taxi jobs, it doesn't explain why he would even buy the place.

That's one of the things I enjoyed with the shift to the HD era. Niko had a reason to be driving taxis to help out Roman, he had a reason to deliver drugs/engage in drug deals for LJ etc. I personally found this way more immersive than CJ randomly working as a valet or in a quarry for example.

 

Hell even the tow truck missions in GTA V (though boring IMO) have some substance behind them. Speaking of assassinations I would've loved to have seen more and I think Michael should've been able to do them too.

And that's why I never liked Vigilante in IV, I felt as if I was killing random gang members for absolute no reason and pointless killing breaks immersion for me.

Niko can't fool me that he "wanted a new life by living the American Dream" by starting to kill people, again. Lol..

CJ doesn't give away any such false impression of wanted to "escape from the life of violence yet he ends up doing the same". If anything it breaks the immersion more in IV, like you rightly said.

I don't understand why people want to waste so much of the potential by making distinction between what makes sense and what not.

I thought this is a video game, and importantly, not strictly a story driven open world franchise.

[ChiroVette]

In the case of Vigilante missions - just like in any GTA, it doesn't make sense for a career criminal to run around doing the job of the police. It's, I'd say, utterly stupid, conceptually.

 

I completely agree with you. Even though, like Lester-The-Molester, I don't like the Vigilante missions in IV, it isn't due to context or any sense of breaking immersion. There's just something I really like about the old school GTA R3 missions. I get why Rockstar removed them, even if I don't completely agree with their reasoning on it. But sometimes in gaming and other forms of entertainment, it isn't really about what is objective or empirically provable, but you just want what you want and like what you like for no other reason than that.

 

I went to see the new Star Wars movie last night. Beautiful 3D, and it was an incredibly well done movie in so many ways.

 

You know what, though? There were a bunch of things I didn't like about it. Even though I loved that Disney paid a lot of fan service to Leia, Luke, Han, Chewie, C3PO, and R2D2, I hated the way they handled the characters. I hated the way that Solo was treated at the end (though I won't reveal any spoilers, in case someone here hasn't seen it yet.), I hated the way the relationship between Solo and Leia played out between Return of the Jedi and this new movie, and a few other things.

 

but I also realized that all of this is MY PROBLEM not anything that Disney or their writers did wrong. The movie is excellent, regardless of the fact that there are many facets I personally didn't like because I am a fan of the original 3 movies from the late Seventies and Eighties, and the more I think about it, the more I come to the realization that it would probably be hard, maybe even impossible, for me to be happy seeing Leia, Solo, and Luke as very old people. But whose fault is that?

 

Nobody's. Certainly not Disney's. I think a lot of what happens in GTA games that have so many facets changed is a similar thing with a lot of GTA fans. This is why I hate when people try to preach their tastes and preferences with the series as if it was some sort of proved body of data.

 

You can say you don't like things like Tow Truck missions with Tanya, and all the other Strangers & Freaks. You can say you miss the R3 missions, as I do, and even give a litany of reasons why. But this is not the same as proving your opinions true. I wish more people in forums like this would realize that we all have preferences and tastes, but these are NOT scientifically provable facts. Just all of our myriad of opinions.

Edited January 6, 2016 by ChiroVette

[ClaudeSpeed1911]

 

It shouldn't matter if it makes sense. What matter is having fun and them cutting stuff because they don't make sense is one of the games weak point.

[ChiroVette]

 

 

It shouldn't matter if it makes sense. What matter is having fun and them cutting stuff because they don't make sense is one of the games weak point.

 

 

I think that this, more than anything, is the weak point of both GTA IV and V, at least weak points for my tastes.

 

The way that III, VC, SA, LCS, and VCS all play out is that Rockstar put all the fun stuff they could into the games and worried about the storyline and how the gameplay would "make sense" later on, if at all.

 

I still say that Rockstar did compromise with V. V has a lot of gameplay and cool stuff in it that makes no sense at all, which is great! But obviously Rockstar still wants to keep some things making a lot more sense in the game than, say, San Andreas, with its wild, over-the-top insanity.

 

The reason why I think Rockstar compromised with V so much is because like it or not there are still a huge number of people who want everything in a game to "make sense." So there seems to be some sort of a tug-of-war between the two opposing philosophies of GTA fans.

Edited January 6, 2016 by ChiroVette

[Cheatz/Trickz]

You're all wrong. The Vigilante/Most Wanted fits into the story because by the time they are unlocked, Niko has made it clear he needs money and is forced to return to crime. He has been introduced to the system already by Brucie, who then tips him off to the LCPD most wanted setup for "private contractors". For someone like Niko this is easy cash.

 

Talking about most wanted here, the small random vigilante missions don't make sense, but I assumed they were just an easy way to include extra missions on top of the most wanted.

[ChiroVette]

You're all wrong. The Vigilante/Most Wanted fits into the story because by the time they are unlocked, Niko has made it clear he needs money and is forced to return to crime. He has been introduced to the system already by Brucie, who then tips him off to the LCPD most wanted setup for "private contractors". For someone like Niko this is easy cash.

 

Talking about most wanted here, the small random vigilante missions don't make sense, but I assumed they were just an easy way to include extra missions on top of the most wanted.

 

I think many people, myself included, are saying that context is not that important to some of us. I know, I personally could care less if Vigilante, Paramedic, Fire Truck or any other R3 missions in the PS2-era GTA made any sense whatsoever. For me, I always ask myself one question when deciding if I like something in a game: "Is it fun?"

 

If the answer is yes, then screw context. If no, then I don't care if it has context up the wazoo.

Edited January 6, 2016 by ChiroVette

[Grumpy Cat]

seriously who even goddamn cares about sense or dosent fits to characters, its just the game not movie. movies should be realistic not video games.

besides most of the stuff that happened in gta 5 is unrealistic, just look at the NPC drives the car, you ll see that driver is stupid.

seriously if gta 5 based on real life then franklin, michael and trevor should already been arrested for killing lots of peoples and there is a mission where you have to kill lots of cops and yes thats right 3 guys vs 100 cops and swats, so f*cking realistic. speaking of the trevor, where the heck he got the invincible ability? probaply aliens gave him the ability well that makes sense.

also paper scraps that laying on the ground all over los santos for many years and even rains and storms didnt not ruin them, so f*ck logic

man this game is so unrealistic so why the heck not to include R3 missions?

[Osho]

Rockstar should simply focus on the formula of GTA and what makes sense for FUN in that context, simple as that.

For instance, Yoga clearly doesn't fit but vehicle based missions do.

I think people just get upset due to the segments related to what the protagonist does in story mode and outside of it. This has resulted a total f*ck up of the series where things are getting removed more than being added anything new that would make the game more interesting outside the story.

People don't want to undestand the repurcussions of wanting every thing to make sense and realistic.

Such people instead of playing GTA should pick a book, watch a movie or simply switch to story driven games that don't offer anything else that breaks the immersion or lacks any sense or context, instead of ruining the fun of others because of their stupid issues about the context and sh*t.

[Sonnу]

 

 

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 fully agree, I can play gta 5 campaign over and over even after completing it countless times, Ive only ever been able to drag myself through 5 missions tops in gta 4, I found it extremely boring, like a 3 hour film that's only interesting in the last 10 minutes.

 

Same to me, V campaign missions are absolutely BRILLIANT, so various and interesting, with great music, like this

[Cheatz/Trickz]

For me, I always ask myself one question when deciding if I like something in a game: "Is it fun?" If the answer is yes, then screw context. If no, then I don't care if it has context up the wazoo.

Well, I find that if it has no context, it won't be fun. It's why I dislike RPG games, they're padded out to hell with hours of filler, but lack depth or reason other than "levelling up". I hate that kind of grinding gameplay, which is what those 3D era side jobs were like.

[Osho]

Then don't play those missions. For the most part they're not forced upon you, simple as that.

Ignorance is bliss!

GTA SA can be played in so many ways where you have the freedom to ignore things you don't like, unlike GTA IV where the player don't have many options to begin with. Ignoring what little it has to offer means the player is left with nothing to do.

[ChiroVette]

Rockstar should simply focus on the formula of GTA and what makes sense for FUN in that context, simple as that.

 

Luckily they are doing that already, so your wish has already been granted!

 

Just because you personally don't find a lot f things in V to be fun doesn't mean they aren't. The problem with your position, and why you always seem to come off like an entitled little man-brat is because what you are really saying has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Rockstar not making GTA games fun. Nope. What you are really saying is that "Rockstar should simply focus on things that I find fun." Just because you and some others don't find certain things fun, and just because there are things in V I personally don't find fun does NOT mean that the multitudes of GTA fans who love V are somehow wrong even though they thing things are fun that YOU don't agree with.

 

Bottom line: You not finding GTA V fun or you not finding some things (or a lot of things) in it fun does not mean they are not. You are not the President of the GTA fanbase. You are just a member, like all of us.

 

 

 

For me, I always ask myself one question when deciding if I like something in a game: "Is it fun?" If the answer is yes, then screw context. If no, then I don't care if it has context up the wazoo.

Well, I find that if it has no context, it won't be fun. It's why I dislike RPG games, they're padded out to hell with hours of filler, but lack depth or reason other than "levelling up". I hate that kind of grinding gameplay, which is what those 3D era side jobs were like.

 

 

That's a perfectly valid position. Some people find realism and context to be of paramount important because without them, the game loses any sense of immersion. Some people, like me, say "F*ck context. Just bring me fun things to do."

 

Not that I don't enjoy context, too. I do. Its just not important to me that all things in a game have believable context.

Edited January 6, 2016 by ChiroVette

[Fuzzknuckles]

GTA SA can be played in so many ways where you have the freedom to ignore things you don't like

 

I don't like having to feed CJ to keep him alive. I can't ignore that. I don't like having to maintain the territories. I can't ignore that.

 

You can't just ignore things that actually affect the gameplay, that interrupt the flow of the game in such a huge way. Something that requires you to engage in a particular feature just to keep your character alive is stupid and can't be ignored. Likewise, something that diverts your attention to a specific area of the map and requires you to be there, to repeat something you already did, repeatedly... you can't ignore that.

 

These are the biggest flaws of San An, IMO, and I'm glad these were never brought back in any capacity. Anything that forces you to do something cannot be ignored.

[Osho]

Some people really like to misinterpret my comments ( intentionally? ) often or just don't read carefully to understand the point instead of making false accidations like assuming that "Rockstar should simply focus on things that I find fun" instead of quite clearly talking about the GTA formula here. If people think Yoga fits on the formula then clearly something is wrong at their end, not me.

I stand by what I said.

 

 

@ Fuzzknuckles:

I said for the "most part" and things outside the story. Territory acquisition is part of the storyline.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Osho

[ChiroVette]

Some people really like to misinterpret my comments ( intentionally? ) often or just don't read carefully to understand the point instead of making false accidations like assuming that "Rockstar should simply focus on things that I find fun" instead of quite clearly talking about the GTA formula here. If people think Yoga fits on the formula then clearly something is wrong at their end, not me.

I stand by what I said.

 

Your judgmental opinions about what people consider fun aside, there was no misinterpretation of your point, and it isn't just Yoga. If it were, I would not take issue with your bizarrely myopic and intolerant position about people's opinions and tastes.

 

You said that "Rockstar should simply focus on the formula of GTA and what makes sense for FUN in that context, simple as that." which is fine. And EVERYONE who plunks down money for a game would agree with you if your statement were simply taken at face value. Here's your problem:

 

That statement comes with a litany of whining, whinging baggage and complaints that YOU endow with the magic of absolute truth even though they are just your opinions. You have a whole laundry list of things that "are not fun in GTA V" and you treat that list as if it were writ with the magic finger of deity. You launch into tirade after tirade about what is and is not fun in GTA V and act as if your word on these things is absolute and irrefutable. So when you say, "Rockstar should simply focus on the formula of GTA and what makes sense for FUN in that context, simple as that," it is clear from your history of borderline belligerent diatribe in this forum that my interpretation of the statement you bizarrely claim I am "misinterpreting" is actually spot on.

Edited January 6, 2016 by ChiroVette

[Fuzzknuckles]

@ Fuzzknuckles:

I said for the "most part" and things outside the story. Territory acquisition is part of the storyline.

For me, it would work better if, after the story is completed, those territory warnings go away completely. But they don't, do they? They keep on coming, when you're way out in the desert or off in LV playing the slots... it just keeps on coming, forever, long after the story. The initial introduction is part of the storyline, definitely, but once you've gained those first few territories, you're expected to get them all, AND to keep coming back to defend them. It's a truly horrible feature.

 

You're also tied into the collections in quite a poor way in San An - again, they introduce it as part of the story, so you're sort of bound to the collections. I'm glad they removed the narrative connection for these in IV and V, massively glad, though I'd prefer they weren't there at all (or gave something better as a reward).

 

There's a few other story related things that I can't recall off the top of my head that are introduced but cause you to be, essentially, tied into them. It's preferable to me, and others I'm sure, that these inconsequential side activities are completely 'on the side'. They shouldn't be driven by the story, but should at least make sense within the context of the overarching narrative. I don't think any GTA game has got this right since the very first, where the narrative is so thin that pretty much everything, missions included, feel like side activities.

[Grumpy Cat]

 

@ Fuzzknuckles:

I said for the "most part" and things outside the story. Territory acquisition is part of the storyline.

For me, it would work better if, after the story is completed, those territory warnings go away completely. But they don't, do they? They keep on coming, when you're way out in the desert or off in LV playing the slots... it just keeps on coming, forever, long after the story. The initial introduction is part of the storyline, definitely, but once you've gained those first few territories, you're expected to get them all, AND to keep coming back to defend them. It's a truly horrible feature.

 

You're also tied into the collections in quite a poor way in San An - again, they introduce it as part of the story, so you're sort of bound to the collections. I'm glad they removed the narrative connection for these in IV and V, massively glad, though I'd prefer they weren't there at all (or gave something better as a reward).

 

There's a few other story related things that I can't recall off the top of my head that are introduced but cause you to be, essentially, tied into them. It's preferable to me, and others I'm sure, that these inconsequential side activities are completely 'on the side'. They shouldn't be driven by the story, but should at least make sense within the context of the overarching narrative. I don't think any GTA game has got this right since the very first, where the narrative is so thin that pretty much everything, missions included, feel like side activities.

 

why just not fully take over all territories?

[ChiroVette]

 

why just not fully take over all territories?

 

 

That's what I usually do in San Andreas 100% completion saves, but that is extremely time consuming and not everyone wants to do it. It becomes particularly annoying trying to initiate gang wars in those little slivers of territories, not to mention finding that last missing one (which can appear near the boat school or somewhere in Venturras as a barely visible little yellow strip on the map) can be quite frustrating.

 

Clearly, this is something that would have benefited by a little tweaking in the original game. It is far from a deal breaker for me, and certainly has never hampered my enjoyment of San Andreas but it is definitely a legitimate complaint.

Edited January 6, 2016 by ChiroVette

[Osho]

You have a whole laundry list of things that "are not fun in GTA V" .

So?

What that has to do with my current response to the topic at hand?

[Grumpy Cat]

there is a trick to cancel territory attack, just press R3 button in the vehicle that has side mission

[ClaudeSpeed1911]

 

 

@ Fuzzknuckles:

I said for the "most part" and things outside the story. Territory acquisition is part of the storyline.

For me, it would work better if, after the story is completed, those territory warnings go away completely. But they don't, do they? They keep on coming, when you're way out in the desert or off in LV playing the slots... it just keeps on coming, forever, long after the story. The initial introduction is part of the storyline, definitely, but once you've gained those first few territories, you're expected to get them all, AND to keep coming back to defend them. It's a truly horrible feature.

 

You're also tied into the collections in quite a poor way in San An - again, they introduce it as part of the story, so you're sort of bound to the collections. I'm glad they removed the narrative connection for these in IV and V, massively glad, though I'd prefer they weren't there at all (or gave something better as a reward).

 

There's a few other story related things that I can't recall off the top of my head that are introduced but cause you to be, essentially, tied into them. It's preferable to me, and others I'm sure, that these inconsequential side activities are completely 'on the side'. They shouldn't be driven by the story, but should at least make sense within the context of the overarching narrative. I don't think any GTA game has got this right since the very first, where the narrative is so thin that pretty much everything, missions included, feel like side activities.

 

why just not fully take over all territories?

 

Or better yet why not Ignore them.

I don't think you even lose them when in LV/SF if you didn't defend them. If it was VCS then that would be a whole different story.

Edited January 6, 2016 by ClaudeSpeed1911

[Fuzzknuckles]

why just not fully take over all territories?

 

 

OH YEAH I HADDANT FAWT A DAT.

 

I did, and yet they are still contested, after the story has been completed. I have a couple of games saved where I have 100%, including all territories and within 10 minutes of loading in, I'll get the call... "One of your territories is under attack!"

 

Motherf*ckers are worse than Preston Garvey. General CJ, another settlement needs our help!

[VenomsnakeVII]

Some people really like to misinterpret my comments ( intentionally? ) often or just don't read carefully to understand the point instead of making false accidations like assuming that "Rockstar should simply focus on things that I find fun" instead of quite clearly talking about the GTA formula here. If people think Yoga fits on the formula then clearly something is wrong at their end, not me.

I stand by what I said.

 

 

@ Fuzzknuckles:

I said for the "most part" and things outside the story. Territory acquisition is part of the storyline.

Osho it's a losing battle. No matter what we say we'll be called entitled, 3d fanboys or simply f*ckheads. i think i might hang up my Sp flag on this game and go to better fleshed out ones.

[Cheatz/Trickz]

Then don't play those missions. For the most part they're not forced upon you, simple as that.

Ignorance is bliss!

GTA SA can be played in so many ways where you have the freedom to ignore things you don't like, unlike GTA IV where the player don't have many options to begin with. Ignoring what little it has to offer means the player is left with nothing to do.

But in SA, there's a good reason to ignore a lot of the content because it's just...there, in IV, the side jobs are backed up to a degree so there's no need to ignore them, which makes them more fun. Of course, I ignore flying rats though, same as I ignored hidden packages.

[ChiroVette]

 

You have a whole laundry list of things that "are not fun in GTA V" .

So?

What that has to do with my current response to the topic at hand?

 

 

Because your current response in this thread comes with the baggage of your intolerance toward the opinions of others regarding GTA V, that's what.

 

Look, I have NEVER ONCE told you that you need to like things I like, agree with me about what makes V great or flawed, how it is better and in some ways not as good as San Andreas, or whatever. But when you make statements like you did in this thread, it is pretty readily apparent that it comes with the "flavor" of your general displeasure with GTA V AND that comes with the prolonged antagonistic response you always offer whenever anyone disagrees with you about your belief that GTA V is inferior to previous games.

 

Otherwise, what did you mean when you said, "Rockstar should simply focus on the formula of GTA and what makes sense for FUN in that context, simple as that," openly in this thread where you have MANY TIMES expressed your displeasure?

[Fuzzknuckles]

 

Some people really like to misinterpret my comments ( intentionally? ) often or just don't read carefully to understand the point instead of making false accidations like assuming that "Rockstar should simply focus on things that I find fun" instead of quite clearly talking about the GTA formula here. If people think Yoga fits on the formula then clearly something is wrong at their end, not me.

I stand by what I said.

 

 

@ Fuzzknuckles:

I said for the "most part" and things outside the story. Territory acquisition is part of the storyline.

Osho it's a losing battle. No matter what we say we'll be called entitled, 3d fanboys or simply f*ckheads. i think i might hang up my Sp flag on this game and go to better fleshed out ones.

 

So you'll be treated the way people that enjoyed V have been treated for the last two and a bit years? How terrible for you!

[Grumpy Cat]

 

why just not fully take over all territories?

 

 

OH YEAH I HADDANT FAWT A DAT.

 

I did, and yet they are still contested, after the story has been completed. I have a couple of games saved where I have 100%, including all territories and within 10 minutes of loading in, I'll get the call... "One of your territories is under attack!"

 

Motherf*ckers are worse than Preston Garvey. General CJ, another settlement needs our help!

 

that did not happened to me, maybe some of the territory isnt taked overed by one gang?