Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA VI

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Should the next GTA be more serious?


UAL

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Algonquin Assassin said:

 

 

 

 

I don't even think Pegorino's that great of an antagonist  (as I mentioned on a previous page). It's just I find it humouress that you don't even bother to mention RDR2's secondary antagonist and/or all of his "memorable: quotes.

 

 

So what's your answer for RDR2's end game choice then where we can choose to take money or save John? Infact I'm not even sure why RDR2 even has an end game choice as saving John is pointless since we know he lives by virtue he's the protagonist in RDR1 lol. Tough choice indeed.

 

With GTA IV my instinct was to go after Dimitri for revenge, but choosing Deal was still a valid option especially by sparring Drako and maybe seeing that Niko took Roman's advice and revenge isn't going to solve anything.

Technically I'd say Micah was the secondary antagonist and he's as hate able as a Rockstar villain gets lol.

 

Yeah it was a pretty flimsy choice to be fair. The game had already established that one of Arthur's main priorities at that stage  was giving John a chance at living the life he would have wanted for himself and Mary. So seeing making sure John was safe seemed like the only choice to me. Flimsy choice or not each ending was still a memorable, an ending that made me put the game down a few days before I eventually went onto the epilogue which also has a bittersweet ending.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

 

If you failed on endurance it’s because you have nothing left to give. You can say you cannot be bothered typing up a reply, it’s because you know that reply isn’t adequate. If you had a reply worth saying, you’d say it, no ifs or buts. It’s been fun.


Still rolling with that pseudo intellectual act I see

Nope I still have plenty to give it's just getting boring going back and fourth with you. I get bored much easier these days so  sorry if I ended that way more prematurely than you would have liked lol.

 

 

Off topic as f*ck but what do you guys think of my newest GTAVI logo 😁? I made it based on the rumours the game will take place in multiple cities Grey(LC) Pink(VC) Orange(LS) during multiple decades.

 

gtavi_logo_by_gregers07_ddy9l6v-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOiIsImlzcyI6InVybjphcHA6Iiwib2JqIjpbW3siaGVpZ2h0IjoiPD02MDkiLCJwYXRoIjoiXC9mXC8wNDE4ZTgzYS1kOTUwLTQ3NjMtYjEwYS0wNzRlZjRlMzQ2OTlcL2RkeTlsNnYtZjIyNzQyYzctMzk1My00MGE3LWE0YmItMGI0NjJjYmMyZmM4LmpwZyIsIndpZHRoIjoiPD04MDAifV1dLCJhdWQiOlsidXJuOnNlcnZpY2U6aW1hZ2Uub3BlcmF0aW9ucyJdfQ.CWtXVn4udc6n5rZIQh9QZtyfbu0KD8x7U6G5cDUW7Cc 

 

A story or multiple stories that take place throughout the decades has allot of potential to be something really special if the rumours turn out true.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Algonquin Assassin
31 minutes ago, GR7 said:

Technically I'd say Micah was the secondary antagonist and he's as hate able as a Rockstar villain gets lol.

 

According to the Wiki he's the primary antagonist and yeah I guess he's easy to hate, but he's not a very deep or compelling character. Or atleast no better than similar antagonists in GTA games.

 

31 minutes ago, GR7 said:

Yeah it was a pretty flimsy choice to be fair. The game had already established that one of Arthur's main priorities at that stage  was giving John a chance at living the life he would have wanted for himself and Mary. So seeing making sure John was safe seemed like the only choice to me. Flimsy choice or not each ending was still a memorable, an ending that made me put the game down a few days before I eventually went onto the epilogue which also has a bittersweet ending.

The ending is great, but the choices feel awkwardly shoe horned in. People can say what they like about GTA IV, but since then the "choices" haven't really been greatly expanded on in any game since GTA IV as they always seem to have an obvious one and another most players would most likely ignore.

 

It's like GTA V. It has 3 endings, but I guarantee 99% of players would choose the ending where Michael, Trevor and Franklin live and ignore the other 2. Since GTA IV was the first GTA game to have more than 1 ending I can give it a free pass, but it's not like the games since then have taken the idea and ran with it and if anything it has been watered down over time which is a shame IMO because I love the idea of story changing choices and I think it should be improved greatly in GTA VI.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette
40 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

Still rolling with that pseudo intellectual act I see

Still insulting everyone who doesn't agree with you I see.

 

20 minutes ago, GR7 said:

Nope I still have plenty to give it's just getting boring going back and fourth with you. I get bored much easier these days so  sorry if I ended that way more prematurely than you would have liked lol.

 

 

You're not going to get anywhere with reason and logic here. Wanna know why? Because what you said was that the continued, circular argument was becoming tiresome. You intimated that you really don't feel like going another 15 rounds with someone who doesn't have even a modicum of respect for anyone challenging his IV opinions, nor a willingness to talk to you maturely, man to man. So you were done arguing when clearly it was becoming futile. A perfectly fair position, I might add. Unfortunately, what  Cheatz heard was, that you have nothing left to give, nothing in the tank, you admitted defeat because he outlasted you. So by intentionally contorting and misrepresenting your opinion, he hopes you fall for the ruse while he erroneously declares a win, and does a little victory lap around the forum.

Edited by ChiroVette
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheatz/Trickz
2 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Still insulting everyone who doesn't agree with you I see.

 

 

No I say someone is stupid if they say something or act stupid. Just like I say you’re a pseudo intellectual when you start acting smart

Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette
Just now, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

 

No I say someone is stupid if they say something or act stupid. Just like I say you’re a pseudo intellectual when you start acting smart

 

Argumentum ad hominem, my petulant friend. Attack the person rather than the position. Because that has always worked so well for you. Hey, I don't blame you. When you have nothing in the way of a valid counterargument, its better to lead with derisive and pugnacious gutter-snipes.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Zello
29 minutes ago, Algonquin Assassin said:

It's like GTA V. It has 3 endings, but I guarantee 99% of players would choose the ending where Michael, Trevor and Franklin live and ignore the other 2. 

Johnny fans disagree.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheatz/Trickz
8 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

 

Argumentum ad hominem, my petulant friend. Attack the person rather than the position. Because that has always worked so well for you. Hey, I don't blame you. When you have nothing in the way of a valid counterargument, its better to lead with derisive and pugnacious gutter-snipes.


Yeah like that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette
6 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:


Yeah like that. 

 

Point of fact: that was actually attacking your position and your petulant behavior. I never called your stupid or any other insult. Although, now that you mention it, I supposed I could have just as easily said "petulant behaving friend" so as to call attention to your action and pugilistic countenance, without actually linking you with your action. I suppose I can accept you make somewhat of a valid point. So I retract calling you petulant, and will instead attack your position and not attack you, by speaking only of your behavior.. which remains, as always, nasty and petulant.

 

Happy, honey?

Edited by ChiroVette
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheatz/Trickz
Just now, ChiroVette said:

 

Point of fact: that was actually attacking your position and your petulant behavior. I never called your stupid or any other insult. Although, now that you mention it, I supposed I could have just as easily said "petulant behaving friend" so as to call attention to your action and pugilistic countenance, without actually linking you with your action. I suppose I can accept you make somewhat of a valid point. So I retract calling you petulant, and will instead attack your position and now you, by speaking only of your behavior.

 

Happy, honey?


Happier than you clearly 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette
9 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:


Happier than you clearly 

Ah here we go! Hahaha that old chestnut. Hey, you forgot the "You mad, Bro?" meme. Now you have graduated from ill-tempered, grouchy insults to the next little trick in your arsenal, which is assuming anger and undue emotion from your opponent when they call bullsh*t on your disingenuous, intellectually dishonest debate tactics. So there's "You're stupid" and other uninspired little Cheatz'isms, then we transition to some variation of, "You mad, Bro?" What's next on your ever lackluster hit-parade, my friend? You gonna start culling little Internet cliche like, "OWNED!" next?

 

I swear, dude, you're arguments are like the 5 stages of grief. Only instead of Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance, you're more like Insults, Petulance, "You mad, Bro," and whatever your wacky little Intrawbs-net you cast grabs you, I suppose.

 

Keep going. I can't wait to see what you come up with next. Really! 😚

Edited by ChiroVette
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheatz/Trickz
15 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Ah here we go! Hahaha that old chestnut. Hey, you forgot the "You mad, Bro?" meme. Now you have graduated from ill-tempered, grouchy insults to the next little trick in your arsenal, which is assuming anger and undue emotion from your opponent when they call bullsh*t on your disingenuous, intellectually dishonest debate tactics. So there's "You're stupid" and other uninspired little Cheatz'isms, then we transition to some variation of, "You mad, Bro?" What's next on your ever lackluster hit-parade, my friend? You gonna start culling little Internet cliche like, "OWNED!" next?

 

I swear, dude, you're arguments are like the 5 stages of grief. Only instead of Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance, you're more like Insults, Petulance, "You mad, Bro," and whatever your wacky little Intrawbs-net you cast grabs you, I suppose.

 

Keep going. I can't wait to see what you come up with next. Really! 😚


Till next time Chiro

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette
1 minute ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:


Till next time Chiro

Always a pleasure.

 

And strangely, I actually mean that.

 

Edit: Wow its almost Midnight here. I think I'm kinda done for the night. Night all! :)

Edited by ChiroVette
Link to post
Share on other sites
iiCriminnaaL 49
2 hours ago, Algonquin Assassin said:

With GTA IV my instinct was to go after Dimitri for revenge, but choosing Deal was still a valid option especially by sparring Darko and maybe seeing that Niko took Roman's advice and revenge isn't going to solve anything. Niko even acknowledges that it's an oath he goes back on, but he'd do it out of his love/care for Roman and Mallorie.

That's something I really like about GTA IV's endings. You can see things from more than a perspective for each one of the two endings:

  • You can kill Darko, realize that revenge isn't the answer, and go for Deal.
  • You can kill Darko, realize that revenge isn't the answer, but take in consideration that Dimitri still can't be trusted, and is also a threat that you can't ignore, in which Darko wasn't.
  • You can spare Darko, feel satisfied about it, go for Deal to leave that life behind you, and take your chance on Dimitri's trustworthiness, as there's a possibility that this goes right this time and you and Roman will benefit much from it.
  • You can spare Darko, feel satisfied about it, but then again, take in consideration that Dimitri can't be trusted, and is also a threat that you can't ignore.
Edited by iiCriminnaaL 49
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kris194

Guys, please, don't turn this topic into battlefield, you have PM for this.

Edited by Kris194
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ryo256
6 hours ago, ChiroVette said:

 

Point of fact: that was actually attacking your position and your petulant behavior. I never called your stupid or any other insult. Although, now that you mention it, I supposed I could have just as easily said "petulant behaving friend" so as to call attention to your action and pugilistic countenance, without actually linking you with your action. I suppose I can accept you make somewhat of a valid point. So I retract calling you petulant, and will instead attack your position and not attack you, by speaking only of your behavior.. which remains, as always, nasty and petulant.

 

Happy, honey?

As sincere well-wisher, I'm gonna have to stop you there Chiro, ad hominem doesn't necessarily includes insult. It is when you ignore the argument of the opponent and instead start criticizing the opponent themselves. It also doesn't help your case that you do this often with IV fans in your arguments, diverting from what they are saying to how they behave and how silly they are when they do that (hell you just did in this very same thread with @Algonquin Assassin ). You may say that in good conscious but unfortunately, you are not following the rules of debating as closely as you may claim IMO.

Therefore you are not exactly in a position to lecture @Cheatz/Trickz. (I advise you to hire someone in a more stronger position to do that for you if it is an important task).

Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette
1 hour ago, Ryo256 said:

As sincere well-wisher, I'm gonna have to stop you there Chiro, ad hominem doesn't necessarily includes insult. It is when you ignore the argument of the opponent and instead start criticizing the opponent themselves. It also doesn't help your case that you do this often with IV fans in your arguments, diverting from what they are saying to how they behave and how silly they are when they do that

Which is what he was doing, calling people names as a means of ignoring their points and not answering them. I never in this thread diverted from an argument by using insults and character assassinations. I actually was very willing to discuss the actual points, and debate them. I didnd't call anyone stupid, I attacked the position and the behavior, rather than the person, and when I was in error I admitted it. So your point is wrong here. I also know what ad hominem means, and just because it has alternate, potential meanings doesn't diminish in any form the fact that it also includes character assassination and the classic definition of attacking the person, not the argument.

 

1 hour ago, Ryo256 said:

 (hell you just did in this very same thread with @Algonquin Assassin ). You may say that in good conscious but unfortunately, you are not following the rules of debating as closely as you may claim IMO.
 

The reason this is false is because I misunderstood @Algonquin Assassin yesterday, and the second it was pointed out to me, what did I do? I apologized by correcting my factual error, because my "misrepresentation" of his opinion was not only unintentional, I addressed it like a gentlemen right in public, which is what you're supposed to do when you're wrong. So, yeah, to use your words, I say that in VERY good conscience.

 

1 hour ago, Ryo256 said:


Therefore you are not exactly in a position to lecture @Cheatz/Trickz. (I advise you to hire someone in a more stronger position to do that for you if it is an important task).

Actually for the reasons above, I think I was in a very good position to state what I did, as someone who, when I am wrong, I admitted it with a modicum of dignity. Hell, I even retracted calling Cheatz petulant, when as I said above, I should have called his behavior petulant, not him. You can defend him all you want, but when I am called out for breaking the rules of civil discourse, I truly evaluate my tactics and position, as I demonstrated at least TWICE in one day yesterday. I like how you ignore his intentionally disparaging comments and attacks with complete impunity and indignation, while I was willing to retract not one, but TWO statements that were said by me. But calling people stupid and other names? Those seem okay to you? LMAO

 

That was a very good try, though, I'll give you that! :)

Edited by ChiroVette
  • Like 1
  • KEKW 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Algonquin Assassin
7 hours ago, iiCriminnaaL 49 said:

That's something I really like about GTA IV's endings. You can see things from more than a perspective for each one of the two endings:

  • You can kill Darko, realize that revenge isn't the answer, and go for Deal.
  • You can kill Darko, realize that revenge isn't the answer, but take in consideration that Dimitri still can't be trusted, and is also a threat that you can't ignore, in which Darko wasn't.
  • You can spare Darko, feel satisfied about it, go for Deal to leave that life behind you, and take your chance on Dimitri's trustworthiness, as there's a possibility that this goes right this time and you and Roman will benefit much from it.
  • You can spare Darko, feel satisfied about it, but then again, take in consideration that Dimitri can't be trusted, and is also a threat that you can't ignore.

Exactly.

 

Normally I do Deal if I've sparred Darko and want to follow Roman's advice about not seeking revenge however in my latest save I went the opposite way and went hell bent on seeking revenge so I killed Darko and went after Dimitri straight away. Truthfully it's interchangeable depending on your play style though. I understand not everyone found Kate that interesting, but at the very least both of GTA IV's endings offer a satisfying conclusion tying up loose ends and Dimitri and Pegorino are both dealt with just in a different order. There doesn't feel like an A and B ending to me and they're both on equal footing based on what I'm pursuing.

 

One of these reasons I'm not a big fan of GTA V's endings is there's one CLEAR ending that is the one everyone should choose and two others that from a mission design standpoint and even in world logic are pretty lackluster,. Yes there's been times I've made fun of Trevor's death scene in "Something Sensible", but unless you really don't like Trevor or Michael and just want them killed those endings just leave open gaping plot holes since they let all the antagonists go scot free. GTA V should've just had one ending really.

 

For GTA VI I really hope it makes better use of "choices". In GTA V we never had the opportunity to kill or spare anyone of major importance and the few choices it does have aren't any better than GTA IV's choices. Not even the Red Dead games handle it particularly well which is both surprising and disappointing given their more narrative driven focus.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette
11 minutes ago, Algonquin Assassin said:

different order. There doesn't feel like an A and B ending to me and they're both on equal footing based on what I'm pursuing

One of these reasons I'm not a big fan of GTA V's endings is there's one CLEAR ending that is the one everyone should choose and two others that from a mission design standpoint and even in world logic are pretty lackluster,. Yes there's been times I've made fun of Trevor's death scene in "Something Sensible", but unless you really don't like Trevor or Michael and just want them killed those endings just leave open gaping plot holes since they let all the antagonists go scot free, GTA V should've just had one ending really.

 

For GTA VI I really hope it makes better use of "choices". In GTA V we never had the opportunity to kill or spare anyone of major importance and the few choices it does have aren't any better than GTA IV's choices. Not even the Red Dead games handle it particularly well which is both surprising and disappointing given their more narrative driven focus.

V's A and B endings are the only thing about the story I truly don't like. Not because the player is given the choice to kill either Michael or Trevor. The way it was implemented was completely dumb. I obviously prefer the C ending for a variety of reasons, but the anti-climactic "cut and paste" style of both endings was disappointing and unsatisfying. I remember when I saw the choice for the first time, I saved my game there so I could play all 3 endings when I was done. Rockstar should have created better missions and a better story when killing one of the two protagonists.

Edited by ChiroVette
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ryo256
37 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Which is what he was doing, calling people names as a means of ignoring their points and not answering them. I never in this thread diverted from an argument by using insults and character assassinations. I actually was very willing to discuss the actual points, and debate them. I didnd't call anyone stupid, I attacked the position and the behavior, rather than the person, and when I was in error I admitted it. So your point is wrong here. I also know what ad hominem means, and just because it has alternate, potential meanings doesn't diminish in any form the fact that it also includes character assassination and the classic definition of attacking the person, not the argument.

 

The reason this is false is because I misunderstood @Algonquin Assassin yesterday, and the second it was pointed out to me, what did I do? I apologized by correcting my factual error, because my "misrepresentation" of his opinion was not only unintentional, I addressed it like a gentlemen right in public, which is what you're supposed to do when you're wrong. So, yeah, to use your words, I say that in VERY good conscience.

 

Actually for the reasons above, I think I was in a very good position to state what I did, as someone who, when I am wrong, I admitted it with a modicum of dignity. Hell, I even retracted calling Cheatz petulant, when as I said above, I should have called his behavior petulant, not him. You can defend him all you want, but when I am called out for breaking the rules of civil discourse, I truly evaluate my tactics and position, as I demonstrated at least TWICE in one day yesterday. I like how you ignore his intentionally disparaging comments and attacks with complete impunity and indignation, while I was willing to retract not one, but TWO statements that were said by me. But calling people stupid and other names? Those seem okay to you? LMAO

 

That was a very good try, though, I'll give you that! :)


You misunderstood me. I didn't say your opponent isn't engaging in ad hominem. I'm just saying that you can't really lecture him on it when it can be argued, in certain perspectives, that you are also not that different from him. Whether those perspectives are right or not, is subjective and debatable but that's a different story.

You also misunderstood my point on @Algonquin Assassin's debate becasuse it's not about him and you. It's when you did misrepresented his opinion, you placed him in a perfect position where you then mounted ad hominem attacks to make him feel small because that's what you do to IV fanboys. Your behavior towards IV fanboys doesn't follow the rules of civil discussion and whatever transgression they may have done to you in the past, doesn't excuse you from it either. Not saying you should stop but it is a pretty dirty tactic in a civil discussion if you ask my opinion. I have actually ignored this a lot about you with much as much impunity and indignation that I have bestowed upon your rival in recent debate because I think this time, you weren't being fair. But that's my opinion and perspective of it is all I'm saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Algonquin Assassin
17 minutes ago, Ryo256 said:

You also misunderstood my point on @Algonquin Assassin's debate becasuse it's not about him and you. It's when you did misrepresented his opinion, you placed him in a perfect position where you then mounted ad hominem attacks to make him feel small because that's what you do to IV fanboys. Your behavior towards IV fanboys doesn't follow the rules of civil discussion and whatever transgression they may have done to you in the past, doesn't excuse you from it either. Not saying you should stop but it is a pretty dirty tactic in a civil discussion if you ask my opinion. I have actually ignored this a lot about you with much as much impunity and indignation that I have bestowed upon your rival in recent debate because I think this time, you weren't being fair. But that's my opinion and perspective of it is all I'm saying.

Can I just say something? I'm perfectly fine with Chiro''s apology. Admittedly it was a little jarring when he originally responded to me as it wasn't something I was expecting, but I didn't exactly help the cause either by firing back. We both kind of accepted fault and have moved on.

 

Believe it or not despite our clearly different tastes in GTA games we're pretty good friends away from the forum. I've known him for a number of years now and I know he likes a bit of a stir (:p) every now and then. These misunderstandings happen from time to time. It doesn't make me lose any sleep. Atleast he's mature enough to apologize which is a quality I'll always respect in someone.

 

Can we please try and get back on topic? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ryo256
3 minutes ago, Algonquin Assassin said:

Can I just say something? I'm perfectly fine with Chiro''s apology. Admittedly it was a little jarring when he originally responded to me as it wasn't something I was expecting, but I didn't exactly help the cause either by firing back. We both kind of accepted fault and have moved on.

 

Believe it or not despite our clearly different tastes in GTA games we're pretty good friends away from the forum. I've known him for a number of years now and I know he likes a bit of a stir (:p) every now and then. These misunderstandings happen from time to time. It doesn't make me lose any sleep. Atleast he's mature enough to apologize which is a quality I'll always respect in someone.

 

Can we please try and get back on topic? 

Well I wasn't exactly arguing for you but alright, I guess we strayed from the path enough.  I'm gonna go back to the topic at hand now @ChiroVette, sorry for any inconvenience.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
MostWantedMVP

IV was serious, The last game was silly and over the top, in VI it's time for a serious story again. RDR2 does the comedy perfect.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette
1 hour ago, Ryo256 said:

Well I wasn't exactly arguing for you but alright, I guess we strayed from the path enough.  I'm gonna go back to the topic at hand now @ChiroVette, sorry for any inconvenience.

 

Not at all, brother! Your point was engaging and was well thought out and articulated enough that I went back through the thread to see where I may have miss-stepped other than the two points I alluded to above. Never, and I mean NEVER, be afraid to call me out if you feel I'm wrong. I have to address this below in the same spirit, however:

 

1 hour ago, Ryo256 said:


You misunderstood me. I didn't say your opponent isn't engaging in ad hominem. I'm just saying that you can't really lecture him on it when it can be argued, in certain perspectives, that you are also not that different from him. Whether those perspectives are right or not, is subjective and debatable but that's a different story.

You also misunderstood my point on @Algonquin Assassin's debate becasuse it's not about him and you. It's when you did misrepresented his opinion, you placed him in a perfect position where you then mounted ad hominem attacks to make him feel small because that's what you do to IV fanboys. Your behavior towards IV fanboys doesn't follow the rules of civil discussion and whatever transgression they may have done to you in the past, doesn't excuse you from it either. Not saying you should stop but it is a pretty dirty tactic in a civil discussion if you ask my opinion. I have actually ignored this a lot about you with much as much impunity and indignation that I have bestowed upon your rival in recent debate because I think this time, you weren't being fair. But that's my opinion and perspective of it is all I'm saying.

Hold on one second, though. I did NOT use an ad hominem attack against @Algonquin Assassin. At worst, you can accuse me of building a straw man. However, to be very clear, a straw man argument is an intentional misrepresentation of your opponent's position in order to funnel the debate into a false narrative. The way you know that I wasn't doing that is because the second he called bullsh*t on my argument and was like, "WTF, dude? I never said that!" (my words, not his lol) I immediately realized I screwed up and apologized. That's not a straw man argument anymore than its an ad hominem argument. Had I stuck to my guns and continued trying to sell him and the rest of you on my original error, then 100% I would be guilty. Look, let's be clear. Misunderstanding someone and overreacting, as I clearly did, and then admitting my mistake immediately when called out on it is NOT the same thing as intellectual dishonesty is my point.

 

By the way, I want to be clear about something. And if I am wrong, @Cheatz/Trickz, please correct me. He and I LOVE going at one another. Last night, my read of that whole thing was that while we were bickering (and, lol yeah, sorry about that too, for all of you having to read it) we were only half serious. Do I really, in my wildest dreams, believe that Cheatz thinks that @GR7 is "stupid?" Or that he thinks I am really a "pseudo intellectual" who "doesn't know good writing?" No. No more than I think he is a petulant person. I think that, while we are all serious about our GTA IV Vs GTA V positions, I respect his articulate and unequivocal position, even in our often complete disagreement. To be clear, my behavior toward IV fanboys is only half serious, just as I am quite certain that the hostility shown toward V fanboys in this forum is also only half serious.

 

Look let me be perfectly, absolutely, unwaveringly clear. The way Cheatz and I talk to each other in this forum is precisely the way my friends and I talk to one another when we're hanging out and talking politics or ideology or other things, like Pro Life/Pro Choice, creation Vs Evolution, and on and on. If you saw a "text only" version of me and my closest friends giving each other sh*t in real life, and I mean people I have known for decades, it would be a helluva lot worse than literally ANYTHING Cheatz and I have ever said to one another. NOT that I am assuming he and I are friends. Outside of the forum we don't know each other at all. I don't know. Maybe its a Brooklyn thing. I have lived here my whole life, and this is how I am used to people talking to one another. Yes. I also like the actual intellectual debate, and I want to be honest. Which is why I am not afraid to admit when I'm wrong. I have no idea where he is from, but I just bet that he is from or has lived in a big city like Brooklyn and this is also the way he talks to people in his own life.

2 hours ago, Algonquin Assassin said:

 

Believe it or not despite our clearly different tastes in GTA games we're pretty good friends away from the forum. I've known him for a number of years now and I know he likes a bit of a stir

 

Which is precisely why I genuinely appreciate you correcting my factual mistake. You have been a good friend of mine on this site for a while now.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
KingAJ032304

Honestly I just want the next GTA game to stike in Vice City STORIES territory in level of seriousness of silly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
D9fred95

I just wanna say that if any game franchise has a better story than most Hollywood blockbusters, it's Metal Gear. The MCU can't even touch Kojima's best work IMO.

  • KEKW 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette
7 hours ago, D9fred95 said:

I just wanna say that if any game franchise has a better story than most Hollywood blockbusters, it's Metal Gear. The MCU can't even touch Kojima's best work IMO.

Here is where the discussion gets weird (lol because it wasn't weird before this, I guess.)

 

I'm glad you brought up the MCU movies, because I think that there is some parallel to...gasp...believe it or not, the GTA IV vs V debate. I love the MCU movies...sort of. But only because I have been such a freaking huge Spider-Man fan for decades, that seeing whatever wacky movie world they come up with for the MCU is a real treat, given how well those guys do special effects, action, and incredibly snappy dialog. On the side tangent you brought up, however, to somewhat contradict myself here, I also kind of, sort of, agree with Scorcese when he posted some scathing criticisms of MCU movies. Its weird how I can enjoy the thrilling and emotional Spidey movies, and the wacky dialog between various superheroes, like say Hulk and Thor bantering in Ragarock. But on a purely objective level, I think Scorcese is in essence correct, saying that the MCU isn't really cinema, its something else. Clearly he wasn't complementing them when he compared the wild audience and financial success of all the MCU movies, humorously enough, to theater versions of amusement parks to disparage them. Coppola actually had even more inflammatory comments, going so far as to call them despicable. If IV fans are honest, I would be willing to bet that they would use similar language to Scorcese and Coppola with regard to GTA V's story.

 

Now, I am not wading back into the IV/V debate now, but even though I was a little bit put off by their comments about MCU movies, I can't really completely disagree with Scorcese and Coppola. And I enjoy the MCU movies. But technically (just like the stories in GTA V, IV, and let's face it, all GTA games) the MCU movies really aren't very good. They're certainly a lot of fun, but while I think that Coppola's comments were a little too far and inflammatory, particularly when he called them despicable, they both make very good points in their own right. This also makes me wonder what those two giants would actually think of videogame stories, either IV or V, if they had such denigrating things to say about major productions like MCU movies? I mean, for all the vagaries of the MCU movies, the writing, production, cast, dialog, and stories are better than any videogame I have ever played in my life. More on MGS in a sec. My point is, if giants like Coppola and Scorcese had such inflammatory things to say about the MCU movies, imagine for a second if they had to endure the story of a GTA game playing out on their own home theater systems? I think they would mock them even heavier. Yes, even GTA V, which I personally enjoy, and GTA IV, which a lot of people in this forum enjoy. And ya know what? As much as I like GTA V, like I enjoy the MCU movies, they would be 100% correct.

 

All that said, I can't speak to the quality of MGS stories, since I have never played one, but I would certainly be willing to check one of them out. Do you have one you would recommend to start off with? Some of the MGS games on PSN are dirt cheap now. There appears to be two different MGS V games on PSN that I just checked out for literally like $3 each. I would welcome the chance for a videogame to show me how their cinematic experience stacks up against the best Hollywood movies and TV shows. Particularly since I have complained in this thread that no videogame story has EVER done it for me on that level in my life. But if there truly is a videogame with a story to rival the better Hollywood films (well, okay, maybe not enough to rival Coppola, Spielberg, Scorcese, Tarantino, etc.) then I would be open to experience them. I have a beautiful home theater system that shakes my entire house, lol and a 75" 4K Bravia TV, and my setup, while in my living room at least, sounds like a theater. So I have the perfect setup to really appreciate a great movie within a game. My problem with game stories, as I have said, is that nothing I have ever played had a story and "cinema experience" that engaged me in the way that even "just a good" movie out of Hollywood can do. For me, given how mediocre the stories of all games I have ever played are, games still live and die by their gameplay and how much I like, love, don't like, or hate the actual game part.

 

tl;dr - the day that the movie part of a videogame is as good as an actual high budget movie from Hollywood will be the day I can truly begin to overlook complaints I may have about the gameplay.

Edited by ChiroVette
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
D9fred95
7 hours ago, ChiroVette said:

All that said, I can't speak to the quality of MGS stories, since I have never played one, but I would certainly be willing to check one of them out. Do you have one you would recommend to start off with? Some of the MGS games on PSN are dirt cheap now. There appears to be two different MGS V games on PSN that I just checked out for literally like $3 each.

I highly suggest MGS3 because of a few things. Firstly, general consensus is that it's one of the best installments with the most refined gameplay. There's a variety of ways to tackle a situation with lots of replay value. Secondly, the story is more simpler compared to some of the other installments but the characters and writing make it quite the adventure. Kinda like a James Bond movie. Thirdly, it's the first game in the series chronologically, so there's no need to catch up on any supplementary material, which later MGS installments have alot of. 

 

As for the other installments, MGS2 is also very good but very linear. The game gets really meta near the end too and unless you played MGS1, alot of plot elements will seem rather silly and out of left field. MGS4 I HIGHLY do not suggest you playing, partially because it's extremely heavy on the plot and will make no sense if you haven't played earler installment. Also, if you dislike GTA IV for it's "narrative at the expense of gameplay" approach, MGS4 will give you a heart attack in comparison.

 

MGSV is split between Ground Zeroes and Phantom Pain, GZ is essentially the prologue to TPP so I suggest getting the Definitive Edition if you can. MGSV is even more open than MGS3 and would really fit the "do this objective however you wish" approach I assume you'd enjoy. The trade off is that the plot of MGSV is not very indicative of the franchises writing and lacks a proper ending because of the Kojima/Konami feud. MGSV's plot is pretty irreverent to the overall story of the franchise and could be skipped without missing anything.

 

MGS1 is only on PS1 and the Twin Snakes remake is for PS2 so unless you have one of those consoles lying around I don't think you'll be able to play them. But MGS1's story is also super good and probably one of the more iconic video game stories out there. Something like the Psycho Mantis boss is something that could only be done in a game that no movie or TV show could achieve with the same effect.

 

I should make clear too that when I say that Metal Gear is better than most movie franchises, I say that as a series as a whole. Each game by itself not so much but with the stories of all the games together is what makes it special. I gotta say the ending to MGS4 is so much more powerful if the story is experienced chronologically.

Edited by D9fred95
Link to post
Share on other sites
KingAJ032304
On 5/1/2020 at 8:59 AM, DS 17 said:

It makes sense to keep it more serious since most of the target group aged massively in comparison to the release of previous titles. I played titles like Saints Row 2 when I was much younger, but nowadays when seeing their trailers, I could just not understand how someone can play something like that. The taste changes when becoming older and so does the target players. Of course there are a lot of younger players looking forward to playing GTA 6, but these are not the majority anymore, especially since R* is highly interested in monetizing the game with in-game purchases. Adults have easier access to more money. 

 

I can imagine this is why the next title will become more serious, but still keeps the classic humour and maybe some funny lines. I imagine it more subtle. Can it be funny and good? Probably. But in the end it really matters a lot who well the story was written. And we have seen it in V, that the story was quite improvable for sticking to not such negative words. When comparing it with previous titles I guess it will be between Vice City and San Andreas with an influence of IV. We will see. 

Since i always come to defend Saints Row games" Saints Row 2 is as close as we so far got to having a choice to play a game relatively serious or relatively silly (but usually leaning to silly) in a open world crime simulator with a 15+ hour average story. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette
18 hours ago, D9fred95 said:

I highly suggest MGS3 because of a few things.

Well, my problem here is that I gave away both my PS2 and all the games to a neighbor's kid a couple of years back, and both my PS3s are the big, bulky launch models. One completely died, and the other only plays DVDs/BDs and downloaded games, but can't read game discs. lol I can't really complain too much, though. Two PS3s that I literally bought as launch pre-orders waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 2006 and holy sh*t did they get a lot of use in the past 14 years. Since these are PS2 games. So I may be SOL here.

 

18 hours ago, D9fred95 said:

Also, if you dislike GTA IV for it's "narrative at the expense of gameplay" approach, MGS4 will give you a heart attack in comparison.

 

LMAO I see what you mean. I want to be clear about something, though. I hate to whip a dead horse here, but the reason that story-heavy videogames fail to entertain me when they come at the expense of gameplay, is NOT because I don't like amazing movies or incredibly stories. Let me make an absurd comment to illustrate my point again: If Coppola, Scorcese, Spielberg, or even some really great heavy hitters not quite as good as guys like that, were to decide to make a transition into taking complete charge of the "movie" part of a videogame, and the gameplay was less than amazing, as I always felt IV was, I would feel a whole lot different about story versus gameplay. I am going to be very careful here not to stir the IV vs V pot lol but I want to make this clear: See, my problem with GTA IV isn't that I am too ADHD to sit still for a big, amazing story that comes at the expense of gameplay and fun as some posture in this forum. Its because I don't consider GTA IV to be a great story with great writing. And before this turns into a IV/V f*ck-fest again, I don't consider V to be a great story with great writing either! I will admit I like V's story, acting, dialog, plot, and production better, but that's purely a matter of taste.  My only point here isn't that GTA IV sucks and V is the best of the best of the best. its that without fun gameplay, neither game has a story that would keep me playing just to engross myself into the narrative and care enough about what happens to the characters to push the story forward. Not when I can watch a very good movie in 90 minutes, but have to endure a game I don't like for a few dozen hours to get through a story that's admittedly fine, maybe even very good, for a videogame. We can quibble and bicker all day over which game has the better story, IV or V, but in the end, neither of those stories is enough to make want to endure gameplay that's boring to me. I think the important thing here is that if a game's story were truly as good and amazing as so many people in this forum gushing over IV say its story is, then I could endure less than ideal gameplay. Because, contrary to popular opinion in this forum, I love a great story, whether its in a book, movie, TV show, or game. I have just yet to see a game that really pulls that off. But say in my absurd example, instead of Dan Houser writing and producing and directing GTA IV's story, they had...Tarantino and his crew doing the whole story/acting/production part of the game. And the story really was on the level of Goodfellas or Pulp Fiction or whatever. Even if I still wasn't crazy about the gameplay, or disliked it as I did the physics and gameplay of IV, I bet I would still love the game. I know this is a ridiculous ask, at least in 2020, but who knows in the future, right?

 

10 hours ago, KingAJ032304 said:

Since i always come to defend Saints Row games" Saints Row 2 is as close as we so far got to having a choice to play a game relatively serious or relatively silly (but usually leaning to silly) in a open world crime simulator with a 15+ hour average story. 

I love all the SR games, but I also understand why some fans have a problem with SRTT and SRIV, even though I adore both games. The only problem I see with SR and SR2, two games I love dearly and can play and enjoy to this very day, is that even though they re clearly not GTA, because of the way the games play, all the critics sort of pigeon-holed them into GTA knockoffs. SRTT and SRIV were the first two games in the series that actually got more universal gamer attention, because they were able to do something the first games could not, which is to finally get the f*ck out of GTA's shadow. I know some SR fans want the series to go back to the glory days of SR2, but is that really what's best for the franchise? Because my assertion is that grounding the game like they did with SR and SR2 would force the franchise right back into being the unwanted stepchild of GTA once again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.