GTA V isn't as bad as you think

[Carmencitas]

GTA 5 just felt like dumb fun, like a Fast and Furious movie that doesn't have a solid plot just action and tropes. Looking back at it, it was kind of bad just wayyyy too many stereotype characters (unstable crazy guy, guy trying to make it out the hood, midlife crisis dad, promiscuous dumb blonde daughter, pothead + gamer son, nerdy disabled sidekick, mafia/cartel boss, uber rich guy with the robot like secretary, etc) That's like almost all the main characters! I think compared to RDR and GTA 4 which had very mature stories, it's only natural GTA 5 got some hate. The heists were fun and in my opinion something that hasn't been done this well in a game before. 

[Fake Lilina]

2 hours ago, DownInThePMs said:

 

Hard disagree with saints row 2 man that game driving was clunky as hell.

I don't know, I thought the driving controls in Saints Row 2 were alright.

 

Unless if you are talking about the Boat controls, which (In my opinion) were flat out abysmal. Just the thought of turning your controller to move your watercraft vehicle (I did however get used to it overtime.).

[Excalibur Voltaire]

On 1/19/2021 at 11:40 PM, FanEu7 said:

mindless bashing isn't

lol what mindless bashing? just because someone said they don't like V doesn't mean they mindlessly bash the game

 

On 1/19/2021 at 11:40 PM, FanEu7 said:

And the aggressive police AI makes it more challenging

the only reason it's challenging is because they have rubberband and aimbot since R* is too lazy to properly code an actual smart AI

[Algonquin Assassin]

On 1/20/2021 at 4:32 AM, El Zodape said:

V is an amazing game and is another worthy entry in the franchise, despite what they'll tell you here. GTA IV got way more hate than V when it released because while it did a lot of great things in terms of engine physics and gameplay, it scaled back a lot from San Andreas in terms of sheer amount of features and general variety of, well, ANYTHING (SA had an extremely varied map, extensive character customization, a loooooot of weapons, planes, boats, jetpacks, car customization, you name it). GTA IV didn't even have planes, something that was present since f*cking Vice City lmao. So yeah, this rightfully so pissed off a sh*tton of people and the game was shunned for a loooong time. It took GTA V to release so people could appreciate the things it did right.

 

If anything this proves that some people take things for granted and that GTA IV's sacrifices weren't done in vain because it always had great physics and gameplay. Throwing a temper tantrum over not being able to have certain features was definitely a low point of the series though and I'm glad that the fanbase has mostly matured since then unlike the 2008/2009 prepubescents that were upset because they couldn't give Niko a haircut or fly around in a jetpack. 

Edited January 22, 2021 by Algonquin Assassin

[FanEu7]

On 1/22/2021 at 6:35 AM, Western Gunslinger said:

lol what mindless bashing? just because someone said they don't like V doesn't mean they mindlessly bash the game

 

the only reason it's challenging is because they have rubberband and aimbot since R* is too lazy to properly code an actual smart AI

 

People here bash every part of the game, thats mindless bashing considering how much it does well. Its often subjective too with people calling the story bad because it focuses a lot on the corrupt government..as if that makes it "objectively" bad

9 hours ago, Algonquin Assassin said:

 

If anything this proves that some people take things for granted and that GTA IV's sacrifices weren't done in vain because it always had great physics and gameplay. Throwing a temper tantrum over not being able to have certain features was definitely a low point of the series though and I'm glad that the fanbase has mostly matured since then unlike the 2008/2009 prepubescents that were upset because they couldn't give Niko a haircut or fly around in a jetpack. 

 

They haven't really matured. If GTA V was more like IV in terms of tone and lack of over the top stuff I guarantee it would be getting trashed as well and people would be whining about how Rockstar never learns from their mistakes and make videos comparing it with SA and how much more content it had..

 

People just like to complain.

[Excalibur Voltaire]

2 hours ago, FanEu7 said:

People here bash every part of the game, thats mindless bashing considering how much it does well.

Maybe it's because.. The game has flaws?

 

2 hours ago, FanEu7 said:

Its often subjective too with people calling the story bad because it focuses a lot on the corrupt government..as if that makes it "objectively" bad

"GASP.. people have different preferences? How f*cking dare they!"

 

Also, this is the internet. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion

 

2 hours ago, FanEu7 said:

People just like to complain

Coming from the person who complain about how people 'dares' to criticize a game lol

Edited January 23, 2021 by Western Gunslinger

[Algonquin Assassin]

14 hours ago, FanEu7 said:

 

People here bash every part of the game, thats mindless bashing considering how much it does well. Its often subjective too with people calling the story bad because it focuses a lot on the corrupt government..as if that makes it "objectively" bad

 

 

I agree that it doesn't necessarily make it objectively bad, but the fact is a lot of people don't like how the FIB stuff suffocates most of the story. Then again that's just the tip of the iceberg. 

 

The general consensus surrounding GTA V's story is it's pretty weak and the majority of the criticisms are more valid than they're not. 

 

14 hours ago, FanEu7 said:

They haven't really matured. If GTA V was more like IV in terms of tone and lack of over the top stuff I guarantee it would be getting trashed as well and people would be whining about how Rockstar never learns from their mistakes and make videos comparing it with SA and how much more content it had..

 

By matured I mean once people got over those initial hurdles they had with GTA IV and dropped the "It should've been San Andreas 2.0" mentality it opened their eyes up to its magic that was always there instead of complaining about things that are far more subjective and nonsensical than the things GTA V usually gets criticised for.

 

14 hours ago, FanEu7 said:

People just like to complain.

 

Ok, but does complaining about their complaining really help anyone though?

[FanEu7]

58 minutes ago, Algonquin Assassin said:

 

I agree that it doesn't necessarily make it objectively bad, but the fact is a lot of people don't like how the FIB stuff suffocates most of the story. Then again that's just the tip of the iceberg. 

 

The general consensus surrounding GTA V's story is it's pretty weak and the majority of the criticisms are more valid than they're not. 

 

 

By matured I mean once people got over those initial hurdles they had with GTA IV and dropped the "It should've been San Andreas 2.0" mentality it opened their eyes up to its magic that was always there instead of complaining about things that are far more subjective and nonsensical than the things GTA V usually gets criticised for.

 

 

Ok, but does complaining about their complaining really help anyone though?

 

I think almost every GTA story (apart from IV obviously and maybe VC) would be seen as "weak" if people complained like they do with V. The consensus is somehow that SA has such a great story compared to V which I think is pretty silly. Its really fun but also quite flawed and all over the place.

 

Well many did but I think people are also more open to it now because it was the exception, if V continued with IV's grounded style I think there would still be criticism. The majority of fans does prefer over the top lighthearted stuff overall imho

 

 

 

[Kris194]

1 hour ago, FanEu7 said:

if V continued with IV's grounded style I think there would still be criticism. The majority of fans does prefer over the top lighthearted stuff overall imho

It's not about some stuff being lighthearted and over the top because it was always part of GTA series and that was great, it's about whole game being way over the top, from top to bottom.

[Algonquin Assassin]

1 hour ago, Kris194 said:

It's not about some stuff being lighthearted and over the top because it was always part of GTA series and that was great, it's about whole game being way over the top, from top to bottom.

Yeah. Balance is the key.

 

Though to be fair GTA V has a better balance than GTAO which feels like a Saints Row game that’s been gang banged by the GTA series lol.

[Homicidal Hipster]

Coming next.. GTA VI isn't as bad as you think

[FanEu7]

23 hours ago, Kris194 said:

It's not about some stuff being lighthearted and over the top because it was always part of GTA series and that was great, it's about whole game being way over the top, from top to bottom.

 

Its not that different from the 3D Era games in that regard, I don't see how SA's story wasn't over the top in basically every way for an example. I mean it goes from a fairly grounded 90s gangbanger story to CJ stealing jetpacks, doing top secret CIA missions, owning half of SA etc. It basically jumps the shark (if you take it seriously like people do with V). At least GTA V is fairly consistent

[Algonquin Assassin]

1 hour ago, FanEu7 said:

 

Its not that different from the 3D Era games in that regard, I don't see how SA's story wasn't over the top in basically every way for an example. I mean it goes from a fairly grounded 90s gangbanger story to CJ stealing jetpacks, doing top secret CIA missions, owning half of SA etc. It basically jumps the shark (if you take it seriously like people do with V). At least GTA V is fairly consistent

As someone whose always been a fairly harsh critic of San Andreas I will give it one thing. It might be inconsistent and over the top, but it’s largely successful of what does for the 3D era.

 

How many times have we heard people say (and even you’ve said it yourself) that the HD era was meant to go into a different direction? R* wanted to move on from the 3D era and that’s why GTA IV ended up the way it did whether people like it or not.

 

To me unlike San Andreas, GTA V has an identity crisis. There are clearly parts of the game that try to be a deep as GTA IV (Michael’s family issues, Trevor finding out Michael betrays him etc) combined with the zany nature of the 3D era, but it just ends up feeling a bit messy and alienating fans of GTA IV and the 3D era games.

 

The best way I can describe it is it’s like Resident Evil 6 that tried cramming in too much to satisfy core fan bases of different Resident Evil games, but it just ended up dividing the fanbase further forcing Capcom’s hand to make Resident Evil 7 more streamlined with much better results.
 

That’s what I’m hoping for out of GTA VI.

 

I’ve always believed in R*’s mind they wanted to GTA V to be the ultimate GTA game hence why they kept dubbing it their most “ambitious” game ever, but they tried doubling back on the direction they were intending to go with when they developed GTA IV

 

A game that was supposed to unite GTA fans again after GTA IV committed the cardinal sin of breaking through the glass ceiling and taking the GTA series to new heights yet what we have is a fanbase that is probably even more divided than ever.

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Algonquin Assassin

[FanEu7]

1 hour ago, Algonquin Assassin said:

As someone whose always been a fairly harsh critic of San Andreas I will give it one thing. It might be inconsistent and over the top, but it’s largely successful of what does for the 3D era.

 

How many times have we heard people say (and even you’ve said it yourself) that the HD era was meant to go into a different direction? R* wanted to move on from the 3D era and that’s why GTA IV ended up the way it did whether people like it or not.

 

To me unlike San Andreas, GTA V has an identity crisis. There are clearly parts of the game that try to be a deep as GTA IV (Michael’s family issues, Trevor finding out Michael betrays him etc) combined with the zany nature of the 3D era, but it just ends up feeling a bit messy and alienating fans of GTA IV and the 3D era games.

 

The best way I can describe it is it’s like Resident Evil 6 that tried cramming in too much to satisfy core fan bases of different Resident Evil games, but it just ended up dividing the fanbase further forcing Capcom’s hand to make Resident Evil 7 more streamlined with much better results.
 

That’s what I’m hoping for out of GTA VI.

 

I’ve always believed in R*’s mind they wanted to GTA V to be the ultimate GTA game hence why they kept dubbing it their most “ambitious” game ever, but they tried doubling back on the direction they were intending to go with when they developed GTA IV

 

A game that was supposed to unite GTA fans again after GTA IV committed the cardinal sin of breaking through the glass ceiling and taking the GTA series to new heights yet what we have is a fanbase that is probably even more divided than ever.

 

Well I don't blame Rockstar for that, people complained so much that they had to return to the over the top style.  But I don't see how having some characters with more depth than the 3D Era ones means it has an identity crisis.  I think V is pretty consistent in terms of tone.  Its just not a rehash of the 3D era games either and does its own thing in terms of story + the artstyle is not cartoony anymore 

 

From what I have seen the problem is just that some people wanted a more typical "rags to riches" GTA story again and didn't like the focus on the FIB, multiple protagonists and Michael's family. Honestly  I think if it just had Franklin as the only protagonist and gave him a CJ esque "rise" plot people would like it more but I'm glad that didn't happen. Since SA it seems like people just want the same thing again

 

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by FanEu7

[Algonquin Assassin]

45 minutes ago, FanEu7 said:

Well I don't blame Rockstar for that, people complained so much that they had to return to the over the top style.  But I don't see how having some characters with more depth than the 3D Era ones means it has an identity crisis.  I think V is pretty consistent in terms of tone.  Its just not a rehash of the 3D era games either and does its own thing in terms of story + the artstyle is not cartoony anymore 

 

From what I have seen the problem is just that some people wanted a more typical "rags to riches" GTA story again and didn't like the focus on the FIB, multiple protagonists and Michael's family. Honestly  I think if it just had Franklin as the only protagonist and gave him a CJ esque "rise" plot people would like it more but I'm glad that didn't happen. Since SA it seems like people just want the same thing again

 

 

It’s not just the characters, but it even extends far into its core design.

 

GTA V is very weird. On one hand it contains all of GTA IV’s immense attention to detail whilst trying couple this with the over the top nature of 3D era games.

 

For example it brought back the tank that people complained about not being in GTA IV except this time it’s really weak compared to its 3D era counterparts making tank rampages less appealing since the police A.I is ridiculously overpowered. I know why they done this though. To make it seem more realistic like you know the very thing people usually bitch and complain about in GTA IV that it’s “too realistic”.

 

To me GTA V doesn’t fully take advantage that it’s supposedly more light hearted on the surface. If R* really wanted to distance themselves from GTA IV as fans suggest then they didn’t fully commit as there are parts of GTA V that try to employ “realism” where it isn’t needed hence why I feel like it has an identity crisis trying to mesh together things that don’t work together exactly like Resident Evil 6 did.

 

In saying all that San Andreas despite that it’s not my favourite GTA only seems more inconsistent because it’s on older hardware, but R* never had to make compromises to make it work. 

[REVENGE777]

3 hours ago, FanEu7 said:

 

Its not that different from the 3D Era games in that regard, I don't see how SA's story wasn't over the top in basically every way for an example. I mean it goes from a fairly grounded 90s gangbanger story to CJ stealing jetpacks, doing top secret CIA missions, owning half of SA etc. It basically jumps the shark (if you take it seriously like people do with V). At least GTA V is fairly consistent

But gta V does the same thing with Franklin being roped into the FIB heists and chasing Bigfoot and solving murder mysteries.

look, put it like this, if it was JUST the story or JUST the gameplay, or JUST the lack of post launch attention, then it could maybe be said that gta v gets a bad rep. But V tried to be a jack of all trades and mastered none. It tried to be ambitious and do everything all at once but it was very unfocused and it’s almost like the game wasn’t finely combed over like previous entries. Aside from the biggest most glaring issues the game has, it’s honestly the most minute details that bring it down for me. sh*t that makes me say “seriously? They should’ve known better”. V flew to close to the sun, but their most die hard fans are the only ones that got burned.

[Kris194]

On 1/25/2021 at 6:07 AM, SonofLosSantos said:

But V tried to be a jack of all trades and mastered none.

Exactly this. In terms of story, it tried to do trafficker story, gangbanger story and retired criminal story and on top of that, mutual of the three, FBI story. It sounds like a bit too much, especially for only 69 missions.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Kris194

[Niobium]

17 hours ago, SonofLosSantos said:

But gta V does the same thing with Franklin being roped into the FIB heists and chasing Bigfoot and solving murder mysteries.

 

another reason to disregard GTA V as canon

[BurntTamale]

imo it isn't bad but gta online is a whole different story.

[KingAJ032304]

5 minutes ago, BurntTamale said:

imo it isn't bad but gta online is a whole different story.

gta online just doesn't exist on the same playing field as the others. It's problem is it doesn't seperate the weird from the normal.

No one actually acknowledges so it's whatever. 

My only problem with IV is it doesn't step out of bounds enough, though that's alright on its own. 

[Fake Lilina]

6 minutes ago, BurntTamale said:

gta online is a whole different story.

Yes, GTA Online is the real stinker here.

[Patrizio]

On 1/1/2021 at 1:57 PM, FanEu7 said:

The latest GTA always gets the most hate (at least since social media became mainstream). GTA IV was bashed so much for years and now since V released its getting more appreciation (which is great).

 

This isn't true. This is only the case for IV and V.

 

V's problem is, as people like Algonquin and SonofLosSantos have said, is an identity crisis. With SA and IV you know where you stand. To simplify it SA is pro-gameplay and IV is pro-story. V did try to bring back elements from SA (and before) that were missing from IV and I have to admit, it does not get enough credit for that. However, it failed to bring back what a lot of SA fans (so to speak) wanted and didn't really appeal to IV fans much at all.

 

Unless VI is a disaster, and if it is, then the series will decline, then I can't see people looking back and revising their opinion of V. V doesn't have a large, core fanbase like IV and SA do and did at the time. That's the difference for me. IV fans loved the direction IV went in and realised this had been missing from the 3D era. San Andreas at the time felt the top of peak of where GTA could go - it felt a huge progression from III to VC. IV revealed its flaws. Comparison to SA revealed IV's missing features. SA fans realised even more what they loved about the 3D era (especially San Andreas) when IV came out. V doesn't have a core group now and never really has and I can't see it having it after VI's release. If that makes sense.

[MrBreak16]

At least we can all agree that GTA V is far superior to Cyberscam 2077

[Kris194]

On 1/26/2021 at 1:53 PM, Patrizio said:

V did try to bring back elements from SA (and before) that were missing from IV and I have to admit, it does not get enough credit for that.

Agreed.

 

On 1/26/2021 at 1:53 PM, Patrizio said:

San Andreas at the time felt the top of peak of where GTA could go - it felt a huge progression from III to VC. IV revealed its flaws. Comparison to SA revealed IV's missing features. SA fans realised even more what they loved about the 3D era (especially San Andreas) when IV came out.

Exactly this. GTA V brought back improved versions of some San Andreas missing features but for example physics in this game is huge step back. It wouldn't be that bad if GTA V would deliver some features, that GTA fans took as granted but that didn't happen. On top of this some things work really weird in GTA V to the point where it wouldn't make sense neither in San Andreas nor in GTA IV. In the result GTA V feels like a stable game, that is still in development.

[Americana]

I like Grand Theft Auto V for what it is, meaning that when I play it, I enjoy it.

 

However, when I think about the Grand Theft Auto series and games in general I know that it's not the game I want.

[MechanicMammal]

On 1/1/2021 at 1:57 PM, FanEu7 said:

The latest GTA always gets the most hate (at least since social media became mainstream). GTA IV was bashed so much for years and now since V released its getting more appreciation (which is great).

 

I think V will be appreciated more after VI. It doesn't help that Rockstar has been focusing so much on Online and cancelled SP DLC back in 2014 so people are frustrated. Overall GTA V is great 

 

 

True it is like the Star Wars films,

Everyone thought the prequal series sucked until the new ones released, now they are praised by a lot of people.

I still think they sucked tho lol.

[trytofindme]

The coolest game. It is even now after all these years in my opinion is one of the best games, yes not without flaws, but they are so small that they seem to me almost imperceptible.

Edited January 27, 2021 by trytofindme

[Americana]

In my opinion it's quite the opposite. Grand Theft Auto V doesn't have a lot of small flaws. It has like few major ones, which could ruin the whole experience.

[Patrizio]

On 1/19/2021 at 10:26 PM, SonofLosSantos said:

the melee combat is awful. It’s on par with vice city or gta 3 levels of uselessness.

 

and the police are artificially difficult. they automatically ram you off the road with the slightest bump, they have a sixth sense to know where you are even without them reasonably being able to find you, and they will auto spawn in impossible locations like on top of mount chilliad. They’re super buffed up and have aimbot accuracy. None of that is in any way dynamic difficulty. it’s an artificial challenge. And most importantly, it’s just not FUN. It takes the sport out of rampaging. In IV you could flip the city on its head in a 6 star police war. You could actually engage in combat and escape but in V it’s just a race to outrun the polices line of sight before they snipe you from their helicopters.

 

100% this.

 

In fact, I'd say the melee in III and VC are better. In III and VC I can have a fist fight. Heck - there's even a chance I might lose. V? It's either a one punch knockout (often an instant star) or they run away. It ruined V for me early on when I realised this.

 

@Foster Bret that's a good point. But I think that is the problem with V. It brought with one hand and took with the other. It felt both progressive and regressive equally. And the regression was not expected.

 

V brought back: the tanks; planes; car customization; greater character customization; paracute (I know it was in TBOGT; FBI at 5 stars etc. However, it then removed:

 

• The car physics from IV. Some had  complained about this but I don't remember it being a majority. This was a shock. Almost every car in V drives the same.
• Damage physics from IV. Did ANYONE not like this? It's the equivalent of allowing smashable windows in VC (which was not in III) and then removing them in SA. WTF?
• Melee combat. IV did this very well. Yet in V, I either win every fight with a single punch or they run off. Either way usually occurs a wanted level but that's another grip.
• Fast food restaurants and interiors. I thought IV's interiors were a bit basic (a lot of copycat ones) but I never expected they'd be removed in V. The new, Up N' Atom Burger chain was advertised in the trailer but you can't even enter them in V.

 

These alone made V instantly frustrating. Especially after five years waiting, which was a killer at the time, many felt they couldn't appreciate the returned features (which they expected) because the updated features from IV were removed despite this not being asked for.

 

So, is V as bad as we think? Probably not. Still a 7/10. Its a good game. A good GTA? No.

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Patrizio

[B Dawg]

2 hours ago, Patrizio said:

FBI at 5 stars etc.

Aren't they just retextured NOOSE units? IV had the FIB, when you reach 4 stars you either deal with the NOOSE or the FIB.