GTA 5 lost "that GTA feel"?

[Algonquin Assassin]

6 hours ago, ViceBoy69 said:

My main complaint with GTA5 is fact you have to play with the three main antagonists, id rather GTA5 had been like 4 with a different game for each but have the games joined together better, if you have played GTA4 and EFLC you will understand what i mean.

I f*cking hate Trevor he just puts you off playing the game, to me GTA5 single player was ill conceived

 

To me GTA IV/EFLC worked so well because none of the protagonists were allies and the way their stories crossed over was sheer brilliance. Like Pulp Fiction or Sin City. GTA V tries REALLY hard to flesh out each of the protagonists' stories, but it's wasted when they become the three best friends in the whole world.

 

Then there's the switching mechanic itself. Eh. Not a fan. It was one of those ideas that sounded great on paper, but in practice not so much. For one it doesn't give the freedom R* promised before release. There are times you're forced to switch in certain missions and in free roam it's not even utilised very well. For instance when I aimed to get the "Three Man Army" trophy I was disappointed that you couldn't switch between them. Basically being stuck with the protagonist that calls the other two.

 

Anyway this is why I hope GTA VI is a single protagonist game again or adopts the GTA IV/EFLC approach if multiple protagonists are a must.

[Japseye]

I agree with OP. I blame this double RP bullsh*t going on through my experience. It feels like the game has been taken over by 9 year old kids and rarely I get that special GTA feeling

[Tao Cheng]

On 6/10/2018 at 9:42 AM, gta111 said:

Yeah, GTA V feels too scattered, the story line way too chill, comical, and commercial, and gta online has turned into saints row online. smh Not enough substance for me, not dark enough, not enough character, but thats also partial due to how things are irl nowadays so i can kind of understand why its like this. Though still leaves alot to be desired.

That's basically Los Angeles in a nutshell for you.

[Journey_95]

On 6/11/2018 at 7:18 PM, D9fred95 said:

Except that installments like Vice City, San Andreas, etc still feel like GTA despite playing them for years. Overexposure is not the issue here.

I have replayed GTA V a few times since release (like 4 times already) and I think its overall good & definitely feels like GTA. Its flawed but thats true for most GTA games in my opinion (GTA IV has the least amount for me). 

 

On 6/12/2018 at 2:51 AM, Algonquin Assassin said:

 

To me GTA IV/EFLC worked so well because none of the protagonists were allies and the way their stories crossed over was sheer brilliance. Like Pulp Fiction or Sin City. GTA V tries REALLY hard to flesh out each of the protagonists' stories, but it's wasted when they become the three best friends in the whole world.

 

Then there's the switching mechanic itself. Eh. Not a fan. It was one of those ideas that sounded great on paper, but in practice not so much. For one it doesn't give the freedom R* promised before release. There are times you're forced to switch in certain missions and in free roam it's not even utilised very well. For instance when I aimed to get the "Three Man Army" trophy I was disappointed that you couldn't switch between them. Basically being stuck with the protagonist that calls the other two.

 

Anyway this is why I hope GTA VI is a single protagonist game again or adopts the GTA IV/EFLC approach if multiple protagonists are a must.

GTA IV + EFLC's approach was amazing and how their stories connected was well done but I'm not sure how well it would have worked in a single game. Imagine GTA IV suddenly taking control away from you so you do Johnny's story or Luis. I think that would kill the pacing of Niko's story.

So Rockstar instead decided to just make one big story after their introductions which lead to other problems like Franklin being a bland robot as a result and it didn't even add much to the game after the initial excitement. I think it would have been better to just go with Michael as the MC, the story already revolves around him anyway. Or at least just have him and Trevor, that would be ok since their relationship is at the center of the game. And of course more freedom was necessary.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Journey_95

[TheSantader25]

 

Actually GTA 5 is one of the most loyal to being an actual GRAND THEFT AUTO. having multiple AUTO thefts for devin snd Simeon and some of the heist setups. 

Yeah instead of performing assassinations for annoying pricks for 5000$ you were actually stealing cars for pricks for minimum cash. But still at least it's GRAND THEFT AUTO. 

Edited June 15, 2018 by TheSantader25

[Algonquin Assassin]

1 hour ago, TheSantader25 said:

 

Actually GTA 5 is one of the most loyal to being an actual GRAND THEFT AUTO. having multiple AUTO thefts for devin snd Simeon and some of the heist setups. 

Yeah instead of performing assassinations for annoying pricks for 5000$ you were actually stealing cars for pricks for minimum cash. But still at least it's GRAND THEFT AUTO. 

Too bad there are no auto theft side missions like import/export in the past. The best we get is a lame list of 5 from the Episilon Program. Not even a proper import/export side mission. 

 

GTA V IS NOT A REAL GTA.

 

But serously the theft missions we do for Weston are pretty cool, but I wish there were reposession side missions Franklin do early on before he starts working with Michael. I enjoy stealing vehicles for cash in every GTA, but I've always been somewhat bewildered by their absence in GTA V.

[TheSantader25]

6 minutes ago, Algonquin Assassin said:

Too bad there are no auto theft side missions like import/export in the past. The best we get is a lame list of 5 from the Episilon Program. Not even a proper import/export side mission. 

 

GTA V IS NOT A REAL GTA.

 

But serously the theft missions we do for Weston are pretty cool, but I wish there were reposession side missions Franklin do early on before he starts working with Michael. I enjoy stealing vehicles for cash in every GTA, but I've always been somewhat bewildered by their absence in GTA V.

GTA V is definitely not as a GTA as a 3D GTA but it definitely is more of a GTA than IV. 

That's the opinion of many. There's nothing anyone can do about it. 

Ppl just say it's not a real GTA because we have 3 protagonists that don't start from the bottom. They're basically in the middle class and get to the top at the end. Unlike many GTAs which you're basically the lowest of the lowest. 

Edited June 15, 2018 by TheSantader25

[Algonquin Assassin]

17 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

GTA V is definitely not as a GTA as a 3D GTA but it definitely is more of a GTA than IV. 

That's the opinion of many. There's nothing anyone can do about it. 

Ppl just say it's not a real GTA because we have 3 protagonists that don't start from the bottom. They're basically in the middle class and get to the top at the end. Unlike many GTAs which you're basically the lowest of the lowest. 

Why would anyone do anything about it? Like I said way back when this thread was started what's "GTA" comes down to indidividual taste. It doesn't matter how many people share it. For some it's GTA V, others it's GTA IV, others it's San Andreas and so on.

 

Just be comfortable what's "GTA" to YOU.

[Guest]

How do you define "that GTA feel?" Imo it's a pretty subjective thing, sure there's a certain core feel about  GTA but every mainline GTA has been pretty different. I disagree with OP that GTA V lacks the feel, just because it introduced multi protagonist system and stuff like that doesn't mean it's any less a GTA, every mainline GTA brought something new to the table. Online maybe but GTA V feels very much a GTA to me just as much as IV, VC, SA etc. They all have that R* flair

[Crossbones]

GTA V is nowhere my favorite but saying that it lost the GTA feel is taking things too far. It is a good game. All that robbing, shooting, chasing makes it a GTA and it has some great missions in the entire series too. 

[Jack Lupino]

theres really no proper answer to this question since no one can define what real gta feeling is.

different people play gta for different reaons.

But if you ask me gta 5 brought back many features of 3D era that were removed from gta 4 era.

It is the most fun filled adventure game since San Andreas.

If youre type of gamer who wants to free roam,cause havoc and have fun gta 5 is the perfect game for you.

[Ondr4H]

I also feel in GTA V as criminal superhero playing in his own movie in three different ways.Story is without any really memorable moment but full of controversies.You cannot packed story of three characters in only 69 missions total.

I find police chases really bland, boring and repetetive.There arent any challenges in this wanted level system like in old games, where Im afraid of FBI and Army on regular basis.

GTA V is great arcade game, I probably choose it for fun factor or with playing it with friends.But for story and overall feel I choose older entries.

[DirtCheap]

I don't think V lost it's GTA feel in terms of gameplay. It has the typical GTA craziness in it so I don't see why you'd think it doesn't have typical GTA gameplay. On the topic of the weapon wheel, I think it made the gameplay more fun as you could use all the heavy weapons, throwables, melee weapons and pistols (it wouldn't be fun removing the strongest pistol so you could use the Stun Gun and vice versa) all at once.

 

However, in terms of narrative, it didn't really have the GTA feel. Michael already had a mansion and everything so that excluded a "Rise to the Top of the Criminal Empire" story (which was in all GTAs except this one) with him, Franklin gets to the top in less than a few missions and you never really felt like you earned all his fortune and power, and Trevor really had no goals.

 

To see what I mean with Trevor, watch 5:39-8:10:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8GuyXpA2P0

Edited June 17, 2018 by DirtCheap

[TheSantader25]

12 minutes ago, DirtCheap said:

I don't think V lost it's GTA feel in terms of gameplay. It has the typical GTA craziness in it so I don't see why you'd think it doesn't have typical GTA gameplay. On the topic of the weapon wheel, I think it made the gameplay more fun as you could use all the heavy weapons, throwables, melee weapons and pistols (it wouldn't be fun removing the strongest pistol so you could use the Stun Gun and vice versa) all at once.

 

However, in terms of narrative, it didn't really have the GTA feel. Michael already had a mansion and everything so that excluded a "Rise to the Top of the Criminal Empire" story (which was in all GTAs except this one) with him, Franklin gets to the top in less than a few missions and you never really felt like you earned all his fortune and power, and Trevor really had no goals.

 

To see what I mean with Trevor, watch 5:39-8:10:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8GuyXpA2P0

 

But it's actually the first GTA that money matters since the HD era. 

Reaching the top in IV was pointless since money was absolutely useless. 

[El Penguin Bobo]

 I actually enjoyed GTA V but not as a GTA game. I think of it as a regular advanced arcade game with many opportunities and with 3 playable protagonists. To be honest, GTA V used to be my least favorite Grand Theft Auto game but when I got a chance to play it again, it wasn't so bad. The story is was crap of course, but I enjoyed the map design, side activities, and free roam. GTA V Online is whole different story though.

[Algonquin Assassin]

5 hours ago, TheSantader25 said:

 

But it's actually the first GTA that money matters since the HD era. 

Reaching the top in IV was pointless since money was absolutely useless. 

I wouldn't say it's the first GTA since the HD era where money matters. It's the only one. There is of course a point like most open world games where you have more money that you can spend, but I have to give GTA V props for atleast trying to balance it out.

 

Even Vice City and San Andreas got to the point where money became pointless after buying everything since there really wasn't anything overly expensive and money was so easy to come by and GTA IV simply suffers from the GTA III and LCS syndrome where a sh*t ton of money is given to the player, but you can only spend it on bare essentials like weapons, vehicle repairs etc. This is one of the very few things in GTA IV I'd consider to be underdeveloped and not very well thought out.

 

What makes GTA V different is you don't get paid after every mission and only for certain heists. It's now possible to buy vehicles online where some of which are ridiculously expensive and properties are the most expensive in the series (on average). Factor in that side missions generally pay less than previous games and the only way to make serious cash outside of the heists is the stock market which isn't as easily exploitable as previous forms of gambling.

 

It's not perfect and I wish we could buy some more safehouses, but to me it has the best economy system in the entire series. Not just the HD era.

[TheSantader25]

1 hour ago, Algonquin Assassin said:

I wouldn't say it's the first GTA since the HD era where money matters. It's the only one. There is of course a point like most open world games where you have more money that you can spend, but I have to give GTA V props for atleast trying to balance it out.

 

Even Vice City and San Andreas got to the point where money became pointless after buying everything since there really wasn't anything overly expensive and money was so easy to come by and GTA IV simply suffers from the GTA III and LCS syndrome where a sh*t ton of money is given to the player, but you can only spend it on bare essentials like weapons, vehicle repairs etc. This is one of the very few things in GTA IV I'd consider to be underdeveloped and not very well thought out.

 

What makes GTA V different is you don't get paid after every mission and only for certain heists. It's now possible to buy vehicles online where some of which are ridiculously expensive and properties are the most expensive in the series (on average). Factor in that side missions generally pay less than previous games and the only way to make serious cash outside of the heists is the stock market which isn't as easily exploitable as previous forms of gambling.

 

It's not perfect and I wish we could buy some more safehouses, but to me it has the best economy system in the entire series. Not just the HD era.

The epsilon side mission pays pretty well. Well it's the only GTA that you get money when you know you're going to get money. In the previous ones there were some missions with money rewards that made no sense. Like you did sth and suddenly got 10000$ for no reason. I think people really need to give this game a second chance... It's sad how it became the most hated because of its flaws but it has some serious strong points to make up for it. 

Edited June 18, 2018 by TheSantader25

[Official General]

On 6/17/2018 at 9:17 PM, TheSantader25 said:

 

But it's actually the first GTA that money matters since the HD era. 

Reaching the top in IV was pointless since money was absolutely useless. 

And V even ruined the money-relevance feeling too. Yeah money meant more than IV in this HD era, but it was so half-heartedly done and badly coordinated, that they might as well not have bothered. 

[TheSantader25]

39 minutes ago, Official General said:

And V even ruined the money-relevance feeling too. Yeah money meant more than IV in this HD era, but it was so half-heartedly done and badly coordinated, that they might as well not have bothered. 

Disagreed. If someone actually take their time and buy vehicles and properties(except for the Golf Club and the theaters) before the end of the game they can enjoy some serious challenge. The game has loads of things for you to buy and while it's not perfect at all I'll take it any day over IV. I think if they actually removed your amount of money from the top right corner in IV no one would notice because you can't do sh*t with it in that game. It reminds me of GTA III. V, SA and VC made me feel like my money mattered one way or another while each did have their flaws but IV? absolutely non existent. In VC I buy properties that are necessary to the story and expensive weapons. In SA I buy Safehouses, properties and weapons and clothing while in V I spend it on clothing, Weapons(barely), properties and loads of vehicles. R* haven't made us feel "rewarded" because of our money since San Andreas. V fails like IV in this regard as well. But at least I can customize myself instead of spending it on hot dogs. It's a shame when you realize how much IV wants to emphasize that the money Niko makes as an errand boy is actually important. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by TheSantader25

[iiCriminnaaL]

I personally find GTA V to have a very different feeling from the other GTA titles, especially due to its very noticeable humor (and I mean more than its predecessors), protagonist switching, protagonist special powers, five wanted stars instead of six, simplified driving and fighting mechanics, and different UI. But overall, it does have its own share of "that GTA feel".

 

Actually, the "GTA feel" statement hasn't been such a big deal until GTA IV's release. People criticized it for various aspects, but among those, they believed that it felt different from its predecessors. However, every title, despite the similarities, had its own "GTA feel".

 

So, answering the OP, I don't fully agree that GTA V lost that GTA feel, but I do find it feeling more different to its predecessors than each title feels compared to the others.

Edited April 2, 2019 by iiCriminnaaL 49

[Official General]

9 hours ago, TheSantader25 said:

Disagreed. If someone actually take their time and buy vehicles and properties(except for the Golf Club and the theaters) before the end of the game they can enjoy some serious challenge. The game has loads of things for you to buy and while it's not perfect at all I'll take it any day over IV. I think if they actually removed your amount of money from the top right corner in IV no one would notice because you can't do sh*t with it in that game. It reminds me of GTA III. V, SA and VC made me feel like my money mattered one way or another while each did have their flaws but IV? absolutely non existent. In VC I buy properties that are necessary to the story and expensive weapons. In SA I buy Safehouses, properties and weapons and clothing while in V I spend it on clothing, Weapons(barely), properties and loads of vehicles. R* haven't made us feel "rewarded" because of our money since San Andreas. V fails like IV in this regard as well. But at least I can customize myself instead of spending it on hot dogs. It's a shame when you realize how much IV wants to emphasize that the money Niko makes as an errand boy is actually important. 

Glad you feel that way....

 

Personally I weren't feeling it in V. For these reasons :

 

* The stocks and shares feature was damn near pointless and so boring and time consuming. Furthermore I did not really get to grips with it and fully understand how to utilise it. I know how the system works in real life, I just did not know how it worked in V and very quickly I lost interest and could not be bothered to know. 

 

* The business assets were pointless, because it took so long to earn money from them, and by the time you started getting returns in profit, would have long earned 30 million dollars or so from the final heist. Where is the motivation for spending on assets ? Can't see it when there is $30 million sitting in your bank account. 

 

* Franklin was simply 'given' his luxury mansion (which I found extremely annoying), he did not even have to spend a cent of earnings, so no real challenge to gain money and spend on safehouse properties. Michael already had a mansion, and Trevor simply did not care for that kind of luxury. Therefore, spending money on safehouse properties was made redundant, and traditionally in GTA (III-era) that was the main asset to spend your money on.

The omission of buying safehouse properties was a big disappointment for me, especially when Rockstar initially stated it was coming back in V. 

 

* No traditional gambling activities. That would have been great for spending money, but no it was not there. 

 

* Even with clothing, where was the expensive jewellery ? None, apart from a few diamond studs 

 

But yes it certainly beats IV in that department, that I agree with. IV failed miserably in that area, but what made it worse for V, is that V was suppose to greatly improve on it, and it barely scratched the surface for many. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Official General

[TheSantader25]

Lack of Safehouses is probably the biggest disappointment of V for me. Because we were assured in the trailer that they'll return. Both IV and V suffered horribly because of not having them. 

Edited April 3, 2019 by TheSantader25

[Kumieee]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. It felt like a much-needed return to 3D Universe-era wackiness, especially after GTA IV's grim, edgy, realistic take on the Grand Theft Auto formula (not saying it was a bad thing, I hated it in its time but absolutely love it now). It felt more like what San Andreas was remembered and loved for, which is fitting because it's literally set in San Andreas.

It had its balance of easy and hard missions imo. The Euphoria made enemies drop like flies but the protagonists are not very durable either, which gives a sense of balance.

[Algonquin Assassin]

16 hours ago, TheSantader25 said:

Lack of Safehouses is probably the biggest disappointment of V for me. Because we were assured in the trailer that they'll return. Both IV and V suffered horribly because of not having them. 

GTA V's a worse offender since it blatantly misled people with the gameplay trailer making them believe purchasable safehouses would be in single player when it was really for GTAO. GTA IV never promised them in the first place or led people on that they would be included.

 

Apples to oranges.

[TheSantader25]

4 hours ago, American Venom said:

GTA V's a worse offender 

*Rockstar

4 hours ago, American Venom said:

GTA V's a worse offender since it blatantly misled people with the gameplay trailer making them believe purchasable safehouses would be in single player when it was really for GTAO. GTA IV never promised them in the first place or led people on that they would be included.

 

Apples to oranges.

Well the thing is I already expected it in IV since we had it in previous games. It was like having certain weapons and vehicles that you'd expect the developer to implement them. No news or info were needed. I 100% expected it in IV. But with V, we needed a lot of news to reassure us about stuff because A LOT of things were missing in IV and therefore we needed to be sure if they're gonna make a return. 

 

And that right there is the point. Many people easily forgive IV because they somehow didn't expect it to do certain stuff but I and many others did. Because those content were built in the 3D era. We saw an evolution of the game's features from GTA III to Vice City Stories and they somehow all got thrown in the bin with IV which is not what I was expecting. New physics, graphics and engine that came from new hardware weren't enough to make up for it IMO. 

Edited April 4, 2019 by TheSantader25

[Algonquin Assassin]

1 hour ago, TheSantader25 said:

*Rockstar

You know what I mean. Don't try to be smart.

 

1 hour ago, TheSantader25 said:

*Rockstar

Well the thing is I already expected it in IV since we had it in previous games. It was like having certain weapons and vehicles that you'd expect the developer to implement them. No news or info were needed. I 100% expected it in IV. But with V, we needed a lot of news to reassure us about stuff because A LOT of things were missing in IV and therefore we needed to be sure if they're gonna make a return. 

Yeah and the irony is it STILL didn't bring back all the "missing" features from GTA IV and even some features from GTA IV went "missing".

 

1 hour ago, TheSantader25 said:

And that right there is the point. Many people easily forgive IV because they somehow didn't expect it to do certain stuff but I and many others did. Because those content were built in the 3D era. We saw an evolution of the game's features from GTA III to Vice City Stories and they somehow all got thrown in the bin with IV which is not what I was expecting. New physics, graphics and engine that came from new hardware weren't enough to make up for it IMO. 

Many people forgive GTA IV because the things you and others complain about isn't a concern for them. It's called different tastes and views my friend.

[Zello]

10 minutes ago, American Venom said:

Yeah and the irony is it STILL didn't bring back all the "missing" features from GTA IV and even some features from GTA IV went "missing".

  

4:32

I'm still pissed that we can't buy safehouses in SP especially after that trailer heavily implied that they would be.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Zello

[TheSantader25]

13 minutes ago, American Venom said:

1.You know what I mean. Don't try to be smart.

 

Yeah and the irony is it STILL didn't bring back all the "missing" features from GTA IV and even some features from GTA IV went "missing".

 

Many people forgive GTA IV because the things you and others complain about isn't a concerned for them. It's called different tastes and views my friend.

You don't need to be smart to realize Rockstar were the ones that lied to us in a trailer. GTA V is just a game. 

 

I Still take it any day over IV. Once again I see GTA V as a bridge in the evolution of the HD era games. That's why I always compare it to Vice City even though they don't share a lot in common. I consider it the bridge that's gonna take us from IV to VI. like VC took us to SA after III. It was a phase that had to happen. 

 

Indeed. And that's why we gotta stop this right now because we won't agree anyway. Let's not turn this into another fight. I don't want it.(2019 goals) 

[Algonquin Assassin]

10 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

You don't need to be smart to realize Rockstar were the ones that lied to us in a trailer. GTA V is just a game. 

 

To find some common ground I still wouldn't have minded some purchasable safehouses in GTA IV. It's just the way I think R* handled GTA V's gameplay trailer was a tad unprofessional.

 

10 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

I Still take it any day over IV. Once again I see GTA V as a bridge in the evolution of the HD era games. That's why I always compare it to Vice City even though they don't share a lot in common. I consider it the bridge that's gonna take us from IV to VI. like VC took us to SA after III. It was a phase that had to happen. 

 

Each to their own.

 

10 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

Indeed. And that's why we gotta stop this right now because we won't agree anyway. Let's not turn this into another fight. I don't want it.(2019 goals) 

Yeah sorry. I had a momentary lapse and it took me back to when we used to go head to head on this stuff like it was 2018 all over again.

 

2019 goals still active.

[Official General]

17 hours ago, TheSantader25 said:

*Rockstar

Well the thing is I already expected it in IV since we had it in previous games. It was like having certain weapons and vehicles that you'd expect the developer to implement them. No news or info were needed. I 100% expected it in IV. But with V, we needed a lot of news to reassure us about stuff because A LOT of things were missing in IV and therefore we needed to be sure if they're gonna make a return. 

 

And that right there is the point. Many people easily forgive IV because they somehow didn't expect it to do certain stuff but I and many others did. Because those content were built in the 3D era. We saw an evolution of the game's features from GTA III to Vice City Stories and they somehow all got thrown in the bin with IV which is not what I was expecting. New physics, graphics and engine that came from new hardware weren't enough to make up for it IMO. 

Not entirely true bro.

 

I followed the pre-release news and previews of GTA IV real hard, every crumb of info I could get. Rockstar made it very clear from early on that buying safehouse properties would not feature in the game, and their reason was that it was not suited to the game's structure and narrative. Now, I will still very disappointed by that (and I still am), but to be fair to Rockstar they misled no one on this with IV, so I find it difficult to understand how many people would have expected to see this feature in IV. In the end, after playing through the story many times, I can see why safehouse properties were not very necessary to better the experience, but I would have still liked much more stuff to spend my money on in IV.