Does anyone feel the beginnings of the Grand Theft Auto's, up until maybe V, were slow as hell?

[IndianaLiam1]

Just roll with it for a second, put your V hateboners away for a second... Please?

 

Just think about it. V starts with a giant bank theft set piece, then boosting sports cars. IV starts with driving a drunk cousin home, then doing a taxi fare. San Andreas starts with a bike ride home... Then another bike ride home. As much as I love these games to death, I personally feel V hit the start on the head harder than a Tryhard doing the marksman shuffle. That, or the Gray that shot Sean.

 

[Guest]

TLaD was pretty fast paced right off the bat too, first few missions itself had intense shootouts against the AoD. But then it was a DLC so I guess it's shorter length meant it obviously had to be fast paced from the beginning, but hey it still counts I guess! 

 

Otherwise among the full GTAs I don't think any had as bombastic a start as V, but whether that makes it better or worse is subjective I suppose. With IV I guess the idea was to ease the player into getting used to the new mechanics compared to the 3D era mechanics they might have been used to. I do admit that after my first playthrough the story can feel like it's mostly uneventful action wise up until Russian Revolution even, but at the same time it's beginning cutscene might be among the most memorable in the series and the slow build up of the beginning can feel very TV show like as well which I guess some dig over action right at the start like in V, though I don't have a preference for either since I feel both starts suit the tone of their respective games

 

With San Andreas, the later portions of the story is jam packed with action so it's good that the beginning is a bit slow imo, having even the beginning be action packed would have made it a bit boring

 

V kind of does the opposite to San Andreas where the middle portion having the heist setup missions can sometimes feel a bit slow but yeah the beginning is quite fast paced compared to most of the others and I think it suits it's Hollywood action flick style well, also differentiates it from the other GTAs

 

1 hour ago, IndianaLiam1 said:

That, or the Gray that shot Sean.

Tell me more

Edited July 17, 2020 by Guest

[Ryo256]

V isn't exactly fast, it just bundles most of the "tutorial"/early missions together and quickly throw you into the action. Sadly, it slows down more in between rather than in the beginning e.g all of the heists setup missions involves mundane sh*t like buying masks, scouting a port or stealing plans of FIB building etc. I think it is only around Trevor action picks up again but then....Merryweather heist sh*t comes in.....then action picks up around Blitz Heist.....then Devin Weston missions slows you down again. I dunno, pacing is weird and it is quite difficult to understand what they were going with in V, unlike previous GTA titles that start slow and gradually builds up.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Ryo256

[TheSantader25]

Yep. I do agree. But this is not just a thing that has happened to the GTA Series. Pretty much every gaming franchise that had slow beginnings in the past starts off with faster paced missions. It's simply because gamers are less patient nowadays and don't like the game to hold their hands for the first 2-3 hours of gameplay. We've grown. We're no longer N00Bs. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by TheSantader25

[iiCriminnaaL]

As far as we're talking about the very first mission only, then the only action-packed ones are those of San Andreas, Vice City Stories, The Lost and Damned and GTA V, with the latter being the most "explosive".

 

Personally, I prefer to start with less action-packed missions, setting the mood of the game and getting the player to be more adapted to it. You still get a fair share of action in the few first missions usually, like the melee fights and drive-bys (including the first mission) with the Ballas in San Andreas, the conflicts with the Sindaccos in Liberty City Stories, the hitmen (in the first mission) and the Cholos in Vice City Stories, the conflict with the Albanians in GTA IV, the war with the Angels of Death MC in The Lost and Damned (again, starting from the very first mission), and the shootout with the Triads or the melee fights in the fight club in The Ballad of Gay Tony (depending on which order you play the missions).

 

GTA III and Vice City were less action packed in this department though, which is ironic, considering that they provide the most fast paced gameplay in Grand Theft Auto since 2001.

Edited July 17, 2020 by iiCriminnaaL 49

[GhettoJesus]

Yeah V puts you straight into the business. I kinda like the slow start in GTA games though. It's pretty hard to describe but I feel like III, Vice City and San Andreas but especially III hit that pace perfectly.

[Phil Collin]

Idk GTA VCS was kinda fast... First he did a drug deal, meet Phil took over a safe house from cholos. Got kicked out of the army and started working for people etc.. 

[Phil Collin]

3 hours ago, iiCriminnaaL 49 said:

As far as we're talking about the very first mission only, then the only action-packed ones are those of San Andreas, Vice City Stories, The Lost and Damned and GTA V, with the latter being the most "explosive".

 

Personally, I prefer to start with less action-packed missions, setting the mood of the game and getting the player to be more adapted to it. You still get a fair share of action in the few first missions usually, like the melee fights and drive-bys (including the first mission) with the Ballas in San Andreas, the conflicts with the Sindaccos in Liberty City Stories, the hitmen (in the first mission) and the Cholos in Vice City Stories, the conflict with the Albanians in GTA IV, the war with the Angels of Death MC in The Lost and Damned (again, starting from the very first mission), and the shootout with the Triads or the melee fights in the fight club in The Ballad of Gay Tony (depending on which order you play the missions).

 

GTA III and Vice City were less action packed in this department though, which is ironic, considering that they provide the most fast paced gameplay in Grand Theft Auto since 2001.

Yea they need to be abit less action packed and it would feel better. plus Rockstart could get some more extra mission then in the start who dosnt need to be really big or crazy

[Lioshenka]

To me GTA 5 doesn't start until we unlock Trevor. It literally felt like the slowest game, despite the initial chase.

 

GTA VC and GTA 3 both had action intros though.

 

What GTA 5 is fast at are the screen tips and subtitles. I couldn't read them quick enough - there's so many of them, the contrast is bad, font is small and they don't stay on the screen long enough. Rather poor design of the GUI from whoever did it.

Edited July 26, 2020 by Lioshenka

[owolf]

gta 6 will have star wars' intro dont worry, it'll tell the story in 1 minute

[IndianaLiam1]

I personally forgot most of Grand Theft Auto V's story, but the other games remain in my brain. V was like the other games... Flipped. 3, VC, ect, start slow, and get high. V, starts high and bombastic and sh*te, then you eventually forget most of it, like me.

[Guest]

Think V's story was too short for 3 protagonists and some of it is just filler setup missions too but I still consider it to be the second best story in the series, but it's just me

[IndianaLiam1]

Yeah. What, 69 missions? Sex jokes and filler aside, that's saddening.

[billiejoearmstrong8]

As well as the whole starting small and gradually getting bigger and building an empire thing story-wise in earlier games where simpler missions at the start are partly there for pacing the story, it just used to be a thing to ease you into/teach you the gameplay of a new game. Games used to be harder in 3D era so you needed it! And then IV was the first HD era game and had some big differences to the controls/gameplay and many new features so it was again necessary to have a lot of tutorial.

 

V (and also EFLC before that) is pretty much the same controls as IV and there were also lots of other games with that level of controls and gameplay out, so pretty much everyone was coming into it already knowing how to play, and so they were able to skip that stuff. It'll be the same in the next game, GTA and other similar games' controls/gameplay are so familiar to people now, easier to handle, and so many more people are experienced as gamers, so some stuff that was necessary and useful before isn't now.

Edited July 18, 2020 by billiejoearmstrong8

[GhettoJesus]

2 hours ago, IndianaLiam1 said:

Yeah. What, 69 missions? Sex jokes and filler aside, that's saddening.

On the other hand they aren't all short and some take quite some time and more dense so to speak. Although now that I looked it up the main story of SA and V are both supposed to be the same length according to howlongtobeat.com

[GTA-Biker]

Honestly,I prefer games starting slow for the first 5-10 missions,having the player do simple stuff (picking someone or something up and taking it somewhere, stealing a car, beating someone up, sticking up a store, having a smaller shootout with a few enemies and similar stuff),and then picking up the pace.That way we get a chance to learn the gameplay mechanics like basic controls and driving physics,and get familiar with the in-game world before things get intense.GTA 5 started way to fast in my opinion,we just get thrown into the action before we even know the basic controls,hopefully the next game will start slower like older GTA games.

[HOW'S ANNIE?]

1 hour ago, GTA-Biker said:

GTA 5 started way to fast in my opinion,we just get thrown into the action before we even know the basic controls,hopefully the next game will start slower like older GTA games.

Christ I remember the first time playing GTA V and going into the mission where you repo the bike and have a shootout with the Vagos. As somebody who prefers to play with auto-aim off, going up against all those Vagos with such better weaponry was utter hell. I walked in expecting a revamped IV shooting controls. Boy was I wrong.

[Bob Loblaw_]

You're talking like that's a positive aspect, I mean I'm not sh*tting on V, I just don't see how a faster pace right from the start is a better thing. I personally like stories with slow build-ups

[IndianaLiam1]

I don't know, maybe I like fast-paced stories better. f*cking love every GTA to death. Even Advance. 

[E Revere]

If by slow you mean at a reasonable pace, than yes, they were slow. They take their time to introduce you to numeral game mechanics and the city and things take time to progress rather than happening unreasonably fast.

 

Look at GTA IV. You do many missions for Vlad, get to know him, grow an opinion of him THEN he dies. You have a reason to have an opinion about his death. Now let's take GTA V, you meet Simeon in one mission then get fired by him two missions later. You barely meet Madrazo in one mission then meet him again a long time later just to piss him off, which again is brief. Why should I care about anything if the game makes me feel like they just come and immediately pass away? Look at VC and SA's heist missions, things take a lot of doing and resource gathering to get the heists ready. How about GTA V? Oh you just steal one or two things then it's done, you're ready. Because of how few missions there are, some characters never get properly developed. Why should I care about Simeon or Ron or Madrazo or Stretch when I know barely anything about them? In the other GTAs your nemesees take time to track down and take down. CJ spends months looking for Big Smoke. Huang spends the entire storyline trying to locate who stole his father's sword. How about GTA V? Oh you just call a guy and he tells you where they all are in a matter of seconds, no big deal. It's like a cliche action movie. You get a bunch of generic characters and generic, uninteresting, boring antagonists and nothing really happens. If that is fast to you, then by all means call it fast.

Edited August 3, 2020 by E Revere

[Algonquin Assassin]

I feel every GTA has had a good sense of pacing relative to its story. Even GTA V although I'm not a big fan of the prologue personally, but it fits in with the type of game is.

 

It's just like how some movies take a while to turn up the wick (probably because of its genre, theme etc) and others jump straight into the action. Eh whatever floats your boat I guess.

[KingAJ032304]

Honestly I thought GTA III and VC had pretty neat beginnings and balance. GTA IV was slow for me not in the way it build up characters (which is arguably one of the best parts of the entire game) but in the lack of strong player's input if that makes since and feeling like your on training wheels.

Edited August 29, 2020 by KingAJ032304

[Patrizio]

On 7/17/2020 at 6:32 PM, IndianaLiam1 said:

Just roll with it for a second, put your V hateboners away for a second... Please?

 

Just think about it. V starts with a giant bank theft set piece, then boosting sports cars. IV starts with driving a drunk cousin home, then doing a taxi fare. San Andreas starts with a bike ride home... Then another bike ride home. As much as I love these games to death, I personally feel V hit the start on the head harder than a Tryhard doing the marksman shuffle. That, or the Gray that shot Sean.

 

I think the opposite tbh.

 

The structure of rising to the top and gently easing players into the game serves the story and gameplay of GTAs very well. Partly why V failed in so many eyes is such a distorted structure. It didn't work.

[KingAJ032304]

1 hour ago, Patrizio said:

I think the opposite tbh.

 

The structure of rising to the top and gently easing players into the game serves the story and gameplay of GTAs very well. Partly why V failed in so many eyes is such a distorted structure. It didn't work.

I like how it was done in the 3D universe and the EFLC. I just couldn't stand how it was in GTA IV when doing replays of the game, it's like "alright I got it; please let go now!"

[Algonquin Assassin]

On 10/5/2020 at 6:35 AM, KingAJ032304 said:

I like how it was done in the 3D universe and the EFLC. I just couldn't stand how it was in GTA IV when doing replays of the game, it's like "alright I got it; please let go now!"

Why?

 

All I remember doing in GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas the first handful of missions was drive around doing menial tasks like picking someone up or something with a “tutorial” thrown in to show a particular gameplay mechanic or new feature pretty much like GTA IV does. Not that it’s a bad thing of course. As I said above I’d rather a slow burn over being thrown into the action straight away, but it doesn’t even really take that long before we start getting into fist fights, shootouts, car chases and so on.
 

I would argue it was even more necessary for GTA IV since it introduced numerous mechanics/features and yeah obviously on repeat play throughs this is second nature, but most of these missions are pretty short so what’s the problem? Just do it.

 

Anyway it’s like when people say RDR2 is really slow at the start yet we’re robbing trains by the 4th-5th mission lol. I don’t get it personally 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Algonquin Assassin

[Niobium]

start slow? sure i guess.

 

slow "as hell"? naw.

 

i still get chills when I play SA, CJ is biking and as he reaches the Johnson house, he says "grove street, home. at least it was before i f*cked everything up."

Edited October 5, 2020 by Niobium

[Bratva Assassin]

Well, I’d rather have it start slow so that I can have some sort of tutorial and know what I’m supposed to do rather than getting into action right away. I agree that III, VC, SA, and IV all start off slow but then again, it really isn’t a bad thing at all IMO. Not to mention, TLAD and TBOGT actually start off pretty fast but then again, I consider them to be part of GTA IV so I guess in that case, it’s a bit more permissible.

[Americana]

Grand Theft Auto IV's was perfect. It was one of the best parts of the story. Grand Theft Auto V, however... I never play starter missions... I always load a savegame, which is when we begin to play as Trevor.

 

I don't know... maybe it's because these missions are just too long. There are not many missions in Grand Theft Auto V, but they are all so long and boring. For example.. Chop. Oh man. Bleh.

 

---

Edited October 5, 2020 by Americana

[billiejoearmstrong8]

20 hours ago, KingAJ032304 said:

I like how it was done in the 3D universe and the EFLC. I just couldn't stand how it was in GTA IV when doing replays of the game, it's like "alright I got it; please let go now!"

I think they did it that way in IV because it was the first HD era game and there were a lot of brand new different controls and gameplay mechanics to get used to. It's understandable to feel that way when replaying or if you had already played other games from that era when playing it the first time, but I think coming to it fresh from 3D era it probably was quite helpful to be eased into it. I feel that way about RDR, when I replay it now the first missions are a bit too slow and easy but I really needed them to get used to everything the first time around.

 

Also even though some of the missions are rather heavily tutorial based and simple I still love the pacing of the story in that first "chapter" of IV working for Roman, the Russians and Little Jacob in Broker. It's a really authentic and immersive experience, getting off the boat and slowly getting used to the place, getting into different ways of making money and pulled into crime and trouble.

 

I also think it's fair that V skipped a lot of tutorial stuff and jumped straight into the action. They correctly judged that people would already be able to grasp the controls/gameplay concepts easily at that point in time and changed their approach accordingly. Of course a slower building story would still have worked, but I think they were right to lay off on the tutorial/hand holding missions.

Edited October 5, 2020 by billiejoearmstrong8

[Algonquin Assassin]

8 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

I think they did it that way in IV because it was the first HD era game and there were a lot of brand new different controls and gameplay mechanics to get used to. It's understandable to feel that way when replaying or if you had already played other games from that era when playing it the first time, but I think coming to it fresh from 3D era it probably was quite helpful to be eased into it. I feel that way about RDR, when I replay it now the first missions are a bit too slow and easy but I really needed them to get used to everything the first time around.

 

Also even though some of the missions are rather heavily tutorial based and simple I still love the pacing of the story in that first "chapter" of IV working for Roman, the Russians and Little Jacob in Broker. It's a really authentic and immersive experience, getting off the boat and slowly getting used to the place, getting into different ways of making money and pulled into crime and trouble.

 

I also think it's fair that V skipped a lot of tutorial stuff and jumped straight into the action. They correctly judged that people would already be able to grasp the controls/gameplay concepts easily at that point in time and changed their approach accordingly. Of course a slower building story would still have worked, but I think they were right to lay off on the tutorial/hand holding missions.

Even when you think about it from the context of the story it stills fits in perfectly.

 

For example when we're introduced to the subway and taxis I can imagine it being foreign to Niko as he probably wouldn't know a great about them. I even like the first time we're allowed to use guns. It doesn't really insult the player's intelligence when Niko says something like "I know how use a gun if you want me to keep watch on things" whilst gently easing the player into the new mechanics.  

 

For as many times as I've played GTA IV even playing through these missions again doesn't bother me that much as I think they have their own charm. They're short, sweet and don't take up much time. I hate it when games throw in a lot of unnecessary and overly simplified tutorials because they assume the player is a complete n00b or something.