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

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    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

      1. Court House
    3. Suggestions

GTAForums does NOT endorse or allow any kind of GTA Online modding, mod menus, tools or account selling/hacking. Do NOT post them here or advertise them, as per the forum rules.

Why does many people here in GTAForums hated GTA 5?


JaeDan 101

Recommended Posts

I don't know about V and IV, but I'm pretty sure Dan Houser is non-canon. 100% confirmed that guy doesn't exist.

 

 

  • KEKW 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Niobium said:

not sure what's the deal with ppl saying "just let people enjoy V!"

 

of course i don't mind if people enjoy V. but if someone makes a thread saying "GTA IV is boring compared to SA and V" without adding any criticism and just leaves it at that, or if someone says TLAD sucks because johnny's phone is awful, of course i am going to laugh at them. people are allowed to like GTA V, but that doesn't mean they can get away with having silly reasons for liking V and disliking IV

These reasons are beyond laughable, agreed. But then again going down the same childish level as them? I dunno, I'd rather not.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jeansowaty You are indefinitely correct with what you say in regards to radical GTA IV and EFLC fans. As some people have noticed, it’s really been a while since I’ve ever really ranted about GTA V. I don’t get why more V critics can’t just stop complaining about the game and start rewriting it like I have. Rewriting it is FAR more creative than wasting your time, complaining about it. They say the pen is mightier than the sword. Well, the pen is also mightier than the complaints. More GTA IV/EFLC fans should probably just look at it this way in regards to V. “Well, less GTA IV/EFLC fans = more of that game for me to play.” I mean, sure, it’s always nice to have someone to talk to in regards to your favorite GTA title but still. The reason GTA IV/EFLC fans can’t even stop fighting amongst themselves on this site is because there’s so many of them. In many ways, V and SA fans can also be opposite sides of the same coin. If playing V makes someone happy, just live and let live. It’s almost getting to the point where it’s similar to the radical Star Wars fans who constantly bash Star Trek and Marvel fanboys who bash DC. That’s why I haven’t participated in those fanbases for a LONG time. I would never want to do the same with IV and EFLC. That’s why we need to nip it in the butt before it gets to that point because at the rate we’re going, we might hit that point by mid-March of this year.

Edited by ThatBenGuy
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on if we stop fighting with V fanboys, the V subforum would be officially dead. The complaint thread alone is like 50% of the content here!  656135804678045718.png

Edited by Ryo256
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some people don't understand that GTA IV was the exception and not GTA V. The 3D GTAs were never a masterclass of storytelling and they were never serious or dramatic at all.

R* tried a different approach with GTA IV and they were clearly unsatisfied with the final result, otherwise they wouldn't have changed the formula for GTA V.

 

Plus I don't see why so many people here are offended by the dead of Johnny from the Lost MC. He was great character and all but still just a DLC/side-content character. It's not like Trevor killed Niko or Tommy Vercetti. I think it's way, way too much love for such and unimportant sidekick.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

  1. What are you getting at with this though? So what if they say the same thing after 7 years? People like to discuss their opinions and other users have joined to share them with. I'm not seeing why you're mentioning this for any other reason than to subtly imply (in a very thinly veiled way yourself btw) that people have nothing better to do than that.

 

 

You are taking me completely pit of context, or did you not read this part of that post you are responding to:

 

"Of course, people have the right to complain about V in this forum."

 

I also said that I find it interesting. For much the same reason that you don't see me whining and wringing my hands in the IV forum the way people do here. Saying I find something interesting is NOT the same as saying people don't have the right to do it. And, no, I never veiled anything, nor did I even imply these people have no lives. I was simply saying that it strikes me as very odd that people hang out in a forum for a game they basically hate or dislike, and rag on it. Not that they don't have the right to do it. I also mentioned that I understand people like you more. You like GTA V. You even play it, or at least you did last time we spoke a while back. You have a ton of complaints, many of them being that you feel, for whatever reason, that V is a watered down version of IV, and you don't think the story is up to snuff with IV. Your position I totally get. You and I agree about almost nothing. But you have not spent 7 years in a forum for a game you basically despise, doing nothing but ragging on it. Right?

 

11 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 


 

  1. So? Good V fans...? They probably wouldn't bring up IV because they know deep down that V really doesn't stand up to the comparisons to it that would most assuredly ensue. 

 

 

 

Well, aside from the fact that V is a much better game, not just gameplay but story, acting, and dialog, to your first point, why keep coming to a forum for a game you hate? Makes no sense to me. Not saying they don't have that right. I just wonder why they do? Makes no sense to me. It would be like me spending all my time in the IV forum between 2008 and 2013 whinging and bitching about IV. There is a very good reason that I probably have no more than a half dozen or so posts in the IV forum. And it isn't just because I have the V forum. You didn't catch me trolling that forum from 2008 until August of 2013, crying my salty tears about how IV wasn't San Andreas. Right? My only posts, if I recall, in that forum, were when people tagged me for whatever reason to try and draw me into discussions. Seriously, if you don't believe me, search the forum. Why on Earth would I ever want to spend my time in a forum for a game I think is a piece of steaming s**t? It boggles the mind.

 

11 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:
  1. Then...don't talk about it ever again. 
     

 

 

More than happy to! But when people whinge and bitch about V in a way that is nothing more than transparent IV-fetishism, and even go so far as to talk about how wonderful IV is, then I respond. I promise you that if people would stop whinging about how V isn't IV and blah, blah, I would have no reason to offer the counterarguments I do.

 

11 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 


 

  1. You know that is BS. Didn't expect that from you, you know full well people criticise V for genuine issues when compared to IV or for certain design choices and balancing, AI problems etc. Issues you clearly don't mind/don't notice. It's become a common opinion outside this forum too in recent years. I mean you can't go to a single YouTube comparison video of the two games that doesn't have a comment section full with people ragging on V's downgrades. 
     

 

 

There are legitimate criticisms of V. Of course. V may be the best GTA game in the franchise, and I believe it is. If any game is a stripped down, econo-GTA it's IV not V, but that is very much beside the point. People rag on what you call downgrades, and some of them I may even somewhat agree with. Some I don't mind, as you suggest, like gun sounds, interiors, etc. Those things are, in my estimation, minutia, ephemera, and Rockstar improved the game so much, particularly in the narrative and storytelling, and especially the gameplay, that if they chose to remove or change things I don't give a crap about, because they are not important to a videogame, then so be it. You missed the point, too. I understand you feel that these things are downgrades. I don't. I think they are trivial, unimportant things that were removed because they were seen as unnecessary.

 

11 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 


 

  1. You could just not get involved in them if you are sick of them which it sounds like you are.

 

 

Actually, now that I think about it, I have to semi-contradict my point above about how I respond to IV fetishists. Look at my posting habits of late! The only IV fan I responded to was the guy who keeps swearing up and down that "GTA V isn't canon!" and even that was just a one liner. I respond to you ONLY because you directly responded to me point by point. I have pretty much only been responding to fellow V fans these days, and offering my analysis of why I believe people are still, LMAO 8 years later, still whinging about a game they hate. If you had NOT responded to me, by the way, and ignored my posts the way I have been basically ignoring yours (since I know you and I agree about nothing) then we wouldn't even be having this little talk.

 

11 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:


 

  1. What? You mean you were harping on about how great SA is again? Dude, it's been nearly 17 years, let it go. 

 

 

That is an absurd false equivalency. If I was doing what guys like @Osho used to do, you would be correct. He used to come into the V forum and rag on V, extolling the virtues of SA and how that was the ultimate game! If I were doing that, then lol, yeah, I would be even more stupid than the IV fans still ragging on V because it isn't IV. I talk about San Andreas because I love the game. I talk about V because I love the game. I also LOVE comparing V to the 3D Era GTA games for nostalgia as well as to see how excellently Rockstar has evolved the GTA franchise. Its a lot of fun to see where GTA was 16 years ago and where it is now.

 

Here would be a better equivalency to your accusation: Let's say V didn't exist, and I was trolling the IV forum whinging & bitching about how IV isn't San Andreas.

 

lol but just talking about the game? Try again.

Edited by ChiroVette
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

For all those who are complaining about Trevor killing Johnny K as well as always discussing how they each are gonna kick each other’s asses:

Well, Claude from GTA III can kick both of their feeling sorry for themselves asses any day of the week so..

Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO Why not, @ThatBenGuy. A little levity to break up the tension is always fun. But hey, who knows? Fido is the strong, silent type. Maybe he makes short work of any other GTA character in a fight, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

LMAO Why not, @ThatBenGuy. A little levity to break up the tension is always fun. But hey, who knows? Fido is the strong, silent type. Maybe he makes short work of any other GTA character in a fight, right?

Of course! 😉 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ThatBenGuy said:

Claude from GTA III can kick both of their feeling sorry for themselves asses any day of the week so..

Well, he is the Silent Killer.

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

You are taking me completely pit of context, or did you not read this part of that post you are responding to: "Of course, people have the right to complain about V in this forum."

Saying I find something interesting is NOT the same as saying people don't have the right to do it.

 

I read it, it just isn't helping your argument. I didn't say or even imply that you thought people don't have the right to complain about V. I was making a point that criticism and praise are equal talking points, if a user wants to praise a game to death, you wouldn't ever ponder the reasons they keep praising it after all this time like you do to users who still like to complain about V. Do you follow these users? Is that all they do? Or do you just see a V complaint and immediately default to the narrative that they need to move on already?

 

 

Quote

why keep coming to a forum for a game you hate? Makes no sense to me. Not saying they don't have that right. I just wonder why they do?

 

It makes sense to me. Sometimes people like to vent and see who agrees or not. Maybe even be convinced that they're wrong on some things. I've even replayed V recently on PS3 and retracted some criticisms I had for it as they only apply to the in some ways inferior next gen remaster/PC version. 

 

 

Quote

You didn't catch me trolling that forum from 2008 until August of 2013, crying my salty tears about how IV wasn't San Andreas. Right?

 

I wouldn't have told you to move on or question why you feel the need to do so after so long in a thinly veiled implication (yep) that you have some sort of problem and then try to weasel out of it with "it just makes no sense to me". Sure man, no way you're implying they have underlying problems that compel them to keep coming back to criticise it. 

 

 

Quote

More than happy to! But when people whinge and bitch about V in a way that is nothing more than transparent IV-fetishism, and even go so far as to talk about how wonderful IV is, then I respond. I promise you that if people would stop whinging about how V isn't IV and blah, blah, I would have no reason to offer the counterarguments I do.

 

Your problem is seeing criticism of V as this IV fetishism and feeling compelled to defend V. That's just a cop out way of labelling said criticism in order to fuel this narrative you've constructed that it is just "IV fetishism". Don't dress it up, you like arguing and being provocative, I do too. But you are afraid of being the instigator.

 

And this proves it:

 

Quote

Well, aside from the fact that V is a much better game, not just gameplay but story, acting, and dialog, to your first point, why keep coming to a forum for a game you hate? Why on Earth would I ever want to spend my time in a forum for a game I think is a piece of steaming s**t

 

You don't believe these things. At best, you think V matches IV in story, acting and dialogue, but I think you only say it's so much better to bolster V and put down IV as best you can in defending V, just because you prefer V as a game and are triggered by the hate it gets and constant IV comparisons. You never come across sincere with these kind of responses.  

 

 

Quote

There are legitimate criticisms of V.

 

Like? Also, what isn't a legitimate criticism of it that you've seen? 

 

 

Quote

People rag on what you call downgrades, and some of them I may even somewhat agree with.

 

They rag on downgrades that you don't mind or consider minutia as you've said. Not that you're willing to settle for sh*t, exactly, but you are willing to overlook factors you don't deem as important. The physics for example are objectively downgraded in V, not the driving I mean things like flying off a motorcycle or out of a car after a crash, or the way NPCs react to being shot etc, they are downgraded. You either don't mind them/consider them minutia or you genuinely prefer the watered down versions in V. Those are just examples but the fact is they were the source of a lot of satisfaction in IV with crashes and combat which isn't minutia, they're core GTA features. 

 

 

Quote

Some I don't mind, as you suggest, like gun sounds, interiors, etc. Those things are, in my estimation, minutia, ephemera,

 

Yeah well, they're not. Interiors in particular is a big one these days, GTA 6 will deserve to be criticised if it doesn't have extensive interiors. That's just the state of the genre now. Minutia, in my estimation, is things like car tyres gradually deflating in IV, and instantly deflating in V, things you actually have to be looking for to notice. 

 

 

Quote

that if they chose to remove or change things I don't give a crap about, because they are not important to a videogame, then so be it. I think they are trivial, unimportant things that were removed because they were seen as unnecessary.

 

You don't give a crap about. You think they're unimportant/trivial. A lot of trivialities adding up are what make a game world at this point, that's a fact. It's not going to be trivial if GTA 6 is lacking interiors for example, games have simply come too far. 

 

 

Quote

That is an absurd false equivalency.

 

It's not, you just arbitrarily decided 7 years of criticism is "bad" or at least worth questioning, but the same amount of praise would not be. It's coming from a passionate fan of the series either way. 

 

 

Quote

I talk about San Andreas because I love the game. I talk about V because I love the game.

 

And GTA fans complain about V because it disappointed them...

 

 

Quote

I also LOVE comparing V to the 3D Era GTA games for nostalgia as well as to see how excellently Rockstar has evolved the GTA franchise. Its a lot of fun to see where GTA was 16 years ago and where it is now.

 

People love comparing V's downgrades to IV to see how shamelessly Rockstar regressed the franchise. It's a lot of fun to see how much more advanced GTA was in 2008 than it is now. It's like a beta hunt, except it's a downgrade hunt. 

 

 

Quote

Here would be a better equivalency to your accusation: Let's say V didn't exist and I was trolling the IV forum whinging & bitching about how IV isn't San Andreas.

 

Then in this hypothetical scenario the GTA franchise would be untarnished... and you'd be an idiot without any legitimate criticisms. Complaining about one game because it isn't another is crazy, that's why it seldom happens. 

Edited by Cheatz/Trickz
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, The Wolf Man said:

 

 

Plus I don't see why so many people here are offended by the dead of Johnny from the Lost MC. 

The fact that he's killed off in such a manner tells you a lot about what Rockstar themselves thought of the character. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
billiejoearmstrong8
23 hours ago, The Wolf Man said:

I think some people don't understand that GTA IV was the exception and not GTA V. The 3D GTAs were never a masterclass of storytelling and they were never serious or dramatic at all.

R* tried a different approach with GTA IV and they were clearly unsatisfied with the final result, otherwise they wouldn't have changed the formula for GTA V.

 

 

GTA V attempts to be serious and dramatic far, far more than any 3D era game though. It's barely any different from IV in that regard, the writing, character development, acting and dramatic/emotional cutscenes in both IV and V are at an elevated level where they're clearly going for a masterful story with well developed characters beyond anything they did in 3D era. It just also attempts to be over the top and wacky and have that San Andreas style "more is more" approach to clothing/car customisation/number of different guns etc options at the same time. It's an attempt at doing both things at once.

 

Edited by billiejoearmstrong8
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

I read it, it just isn't helping your argument. I didn't say or even imply that you thought people don't have the right to complain about V. I was making a point that criticism and praise are equal talking points, if a user wants to praise a game to death, you wouldn't ever ponder the reasons they keep praising it after all this time like you do to users who still like to complain about V. Do you follow these users? Is that all they do? Or do you just see a V complaint and immediately default to the narrative that they need to move on already?

 

 

Again you're missing the point. Praising and enjoying something is inherently positive. So discussing all the things you enjoy makes sense to me. So does criticizing things you don't enjoy or are just critical of. The reason I question people who rage on about stuff they hate years later is not to insult or attack, but I wonder what's in it for them. People who come around her ragging on V over and over again, for years on end, I am forced to wonder how happy they are. By all means, though, criticize as much as you guys want. But when people whinge & bitch the way you guys to, for years and years, in perpetuity, I can't help but to wonder is all. lol

 

3 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

It makes sense to me. Sometimes people like to vent and see who agrees or not. Maybe even be convinced that they're wrong on some things. I've even replayed V recently on PS3 and retracted some criticisms I had for it as they only apply to the in some ways inferior next gen remaster/PC version. 

 

 

Okay, but my same point above. I get your point about being open to being convinced and open to dialog, and that's certainly fair. You seem like you at least enjoy the game enough that being here is a mixed bag. You talk about things you like, don't like, and even hate about V. It comes up and you're here. But the guy who hates the game and has nothing but complaints, not to insult them, but I am simply saying I don't get it. Using me as an example. If GTA V didn't exist and all we had was IV, I would be hard pressed to whinge about the game for years and years. It feels really crappy to actively hate/dislike something and is nothing but a reminder of my displeasure to whinge & bitch without finding any joy in playing the game or talking about it.

 

Don't get me wrong, way back in 2008, I complained like a bitch about IV. But at some point, I just got over talking about it. It took a few months, and to be honest, I was a little embarrassed I was still whining like a little bitch a month or two later. Even back then, IV fans were telling me, in none too nice ways, "Get the f**k over it, man! You hate the game. We get it. Jeeze!" lol You know what? They were right. And I took their sage advice.

 

But that's me. Rage on all you want, but don't expect me to not wonder out loud at it as I am doing now. It isn't that I am insulting them, I am simply saying I don't understand it.

 

3 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

I wouldn't have told you to move on or question why you feel the need to do so after so long in a thinly veiled implication (yep) that you have some sort of problem and then try to weasel out of it with "it just makes no sense to me". Sure man, no way you're implying they have underlying problems that compel them to keep coming back to criticise it. 

 

Not weaseling out of anything. It literally doesn't make sense to me. There is no obfuscation on my part here. I literally don't get it. And for the record, if I were to head into the IV forum and start ragging on the game, I would fully expect to be mocked and ridiculed. Whether by you or others.

 

3 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

Your problem is seeing criticism of V as this IV fetishism and feeling compelled to defend V. That's just a cop out way of labelling said criticism in order to fuel this narrative you've constructed that it is just "IV fetishism". Don't dress it up, you like arguing and being provocative, I do too. But you are afraid of being the instigator.

 

 

 

Actually that isn't true. I refer to IV Fetishism only in cases where the butthurt IV fanboys use IV as their yardstick to continuously rag on this game. Oh, and as I said, notice I don't engage with people who hate on V of late? I have stopped arguing with them. I talk about V and IV only with people I actually have common ground with. Unless someone like you, on the other side, engages me directly, as you have my last posts. But I am NOT attacking people who criticize V based on their IV Fetishism. I used to all the time, but these days, I accept it, and other than engaging ONCE with one line of text with the guy who complains V isn't canon, I don't even respond to IV fetishists. Unless they engage me first.

 

I do like arguing and being provocative. But of late, in this forum, I have really tried to give IV Fetishists a wide berth, and let them vent and rage, and DO NOT respond to them anymore. There really is no point from where I sit.

 

3 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

You don't believe these things. At best, you think V matches IV in story, acting and dialogue, but I think you only say it's so much better to bolster V and put down IV as best you can in defending V, just because you prefer V as a game and are triggered by the hate it gets and constant IV comparisons. You never come across sincere with these kind of responses.  

 

Sorry, you don't get to tell me what I believe. I grew up on mobster films and show. I am a typical Brooklyn guy, and 100% Italian (Sicilian), not that this matters, but I have always had a wild fascination with Mafia culture. I own all the movies: Goodfellas, all the Godfathers, Donny Brasco, the entire Sopranos, hell even Gomorrah with subtitles is awesome. If I simply hated IV's gameplay, but I thought the story was good then I would say that. But I won't lie. Even my love of Mafia stories was not satisfied by IV. I thought it was filled with hack gangsta references, sh**y cliches, mediocre acting, and really boring dialog and personal relationships.

 

Now, you may not agree with that, and I respect that you think IV has great writing and acting. Fine. I don't. You don't get to put words in my mouth. I am honest enough to be able to admit that if I hated the gameplay and the game itself, but the story engaged me at all, I would have said so.

 

3 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

Like? Also, what isn't a legitimate criticism of it that you've seen? 

 

 

 

I could go on and on about criticisms of V, and have. But even more so since I started getting really into GTAO, to the point of being addicted to it. How about rather than listing stuff out in this post, let me put a pin in it for now, so I can respond to the rest of your points. Then, if you respond to me again, and don't give me 100 things to resond do, ask me about my V criticisms and I will elucidate. But you keep posting too many points for me to respond to for me to get bogged down in a point by point analysis of things I criticize about V. I will gladly do it, but first please let this discussion of ours run its course so I can concentrate on your more important points for now.

 

3 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

They rag on downgrades that you don't mind or consider minutia as you've said. Not that you're willing to settle for sh*t, exactly, but you are willing to overlook factors you don't deem as important. The physics for example are objectively downgraded in V, not the driving I mean things like flying off a motorcycle or out of a car after a crash, or the way NPCs react to being shot etc, they are downgraded. You either don't mind them/consider them minutia or you genuinely prefer the watered down versions in V. Those are just examples but the fact is they were the source of a lot of satisfaction in IV with crashes and combat which isn't minutia, they're core GTA features. 

 

 

 

This I agree with and you're correct. These downgrades are things that I don't regard as important, and for whatever reason, the Rockstar devs agree with me. I mean, certainly they would have been capable of bringing over the things that you and others feel were downgraded, but clearly chose not to, right?

 

Why? Why is it that the devs decided not to go with those things you consider "superior" or to have been "downgraded" in V? Could it be that they were trying to get a little more of that 3D Era GTA feel back into the game by loosening up the physics in order to try and make the game more fun? Because the last time I brought this up, a while back, you accused me of making excuses for them. But I don't see it as an excuse. I see it as a developer choice, to make the game a little more old school GTA'ish, and less "tight" and "restrictive." I think the game is much better for it, by the way. But I also understand why people like yourselves don't like it the way V was made more "cartoony" for lack of a better word. I think that you guys want more of a "Crime Simulator" and I want a really fun videogame. Clearly Rockstar sees things the way I do on this point.

 

Now you want to call that "stripped down?" Okay, fine. You can see it that way. But I think that Rockstar's intent was to go with a little more fun and laid back physics.

 

3 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

Yeah well, they're not. Interiors in particular is a big one these days, GTA 6 will deserve to be criticised if it doesn't have extensive interiors. That's just the state of the genre now. Minutia, in my estimation, is things like car tyres gradually deflating in IV, and instantly deflating in V, things you actually have to be looking for to notice. 

 

 

 

Interiors I have ALWAYS conceded to you IV fans. And in my defense, I personally don't give a crap about interiors. They don't really interest me at all. But I also can see that it is a little absurd of Rockstar not to have added them. Particularly since they are already in the game, and modders were able to add them. Now, do I care about the lack of interiors for my GTA experience? Not a lick. But I know that a lot of people like to not only explore them but role play in interiors. Not having them available, particularly when they are already in the game, is a problem. Maybe not for me, but for a lot of people.

 

Quote

You don't give a crap about. You think they're unimportant/trivial. A lot of trivialities adding up are what make a game world at this point, that's a fact. It's not going to be trivial if GTA 6 is lacking interiors for example, games have simply come too far. 

 

Some of this is subjective, though, right? Yes, taken by themselves, many of the things mentioned are trivial, and I can totally see how the sum total of all of the things you and others consider important are collectively making V a downgrade. I would never deny this. You're kind of saying that GTA V, to your way of thinking, is sort of like Death by a thousand paper cuts, where no one is game breaking, but in total, they really f**k the game up for you. I get it. But a lot of the things you consider to be downgrades, for my gameplay experience, I consider to be non issues. In many ways, GTA V reminds me of San Andreas.

 

Now, you want to argue that these were PS2 games, and Rockstar had no choice but to be "looser in the physics department" in those games? Okay, fair enough. But for my money, GTA V still retains enough new game tech to be sort of "IV'ish in some ways" but is also a nod to the old GTA games I still love so much.

 

Can't you see how a lot of this really is personal taste? Not everyone who plays games seriously and even religiously, as I do GTA games, cares about the kinds of details you're referring to. You do. So do a lot of people in the forum. And that's fine.

 

 

3 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

It's not, you just arbitrarily decided 7 years of criticism is "bad" or at least worth questioning, but the same amount of praise would not be. It's coming from a passionate fan of the series either way. 

 

 

 

Again, I never said bad. I know you realize that I didn't mean bad. But as someone who gave up raging and angrily posting about IV in my disappointment, a month or two after it released in 2008, I still am sincere when I say, I don't understand it. It isn't really making sense to me. NOT that its bad or wrong. I just don't get it. Let me put it this way. In around June of 2008, when I was still whinging & bitching about IV, in disappointment and a feeling of being betrayed by Rockstar, even after only a couple of months I was already feeling a little embarrassed and self conscious for continuing to cry about it. If I were still complaining now, angry and frustrated and disillusioned to this day? I don't even have the ability to picture it.

 

3 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

People love comparing V's downgrades to IV to see how shamelessly Rockstar regressed the franchise. It's a lot of fun to see how much more advanced GTA was in 2008 than it is now. It's like a beta hunt, except it's a downgrade hunt. 

 

 

And this we completely disagree with. I think V is the way more advanced game, overall. You and others in the forum choose to look at the things you personally don't like as somehow being indicative of the game as a whole being downgraded, and this is where you really lose me. Not only is GTA V ten times the fun, having much more variety of missions and gameplay ideas, but GTA IV played like some stripped down econo-GTA, with that typical "Pick up person A, drive to location B, shoot a bunch of guys, Drive person A somewhere else, and blah, blah, blah." If anything, GTA V advanced the series in all the ways that matter to me, and to most GTA fans.

 

Even so far as having three protagonists, switching between them, special abilities, improvements to the driving and other vehicles, much better graphics, a gorgeous and much larger map, and in my opinion, a better and more engaging story with better characters overall. What you see as "regressing the franchise" me and most people see as advancing and evolving it.

 

Certainly V is a helluva lot more fun. And now that I have been playing GTAO...WOW! I mean I am blown away by it!

 

3 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

Then in this hypothetical scenario the GTA franchise would be untarnished... and you'd be an idiot without any legitimate criticisms. Complaining about one game because it isn't another is crazy, that's why it seldom happens. 

 

I agree! But that seems to be the basis of a lot of IV fan criticisms of V. Not all, and I think you are a little more sophisticated than that. But we will obviously not agree on this. I still say that many people in this forum come off like the reason they hate V is because its like the antithesis of IV. Meaning for much the same reasons I love it.

 

Now I meant what I said above. After we conclude this discussion, more likely when we both agree to disagree, I will happily post my criticisms of V. But this discussion right now is time consuming to respond to.

Edited by ChiroVette
  • excuseme 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Again you're missing the point. Praising and enjoying something is inherently positive. So discussing all the things you enjoy makes sense to me. So does criticizing things you don't enjoy or are just critical of. The reason I question people who rage on about stuff they hate years later is not to insult or attack, but I wonder what's in it for them. People who come around her ragging on V over and over again, for years on end, I am forced to wonder how happy they are. By all means, though, criticize as much as you guys want. But when people whinge & bitch the way you guys to, for years and years, in perpetuity, I can't help but to wonder is all. lol

 

No i'm not. Keep "wondering" and implying things if it helps with coping.

 

 

9 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Okay, but my same point above. I get your point about being open to being convinced and open to dialog, and that's certainly fair. You seem like you at least enjoy the game enough that being here is a mixed bag. You talk about things you like, don't like, and even hate about V. It comes up and you're here. If GTA V didn't exist and all we had was IV, I would be hard pressed to whinge about the game for years and years. It feels really crappy to actively hate/dislike something and is nothing but a reminder of my displeasure to whinge & bitch without finding any joy in playing the game or talking about it.

 

I don't outright hate anything in V, I have only disappointments (I hate Online because it is trash). Fans who don't like things about V like to vent about them, and it gives them a good reason to prop up the features of games they do like. And seeing people agree with them reinforces their beliefs so they're assured that they are not alone in thinking it. I already have my opinion on why you don't actively hate on IV in the IV section; foremost you know nobody would agree with you and you don't have any criticisms that can't be easily refuted unlike many criticisms of V, which really can't be refuted. I mean you can only fall back on "fun" or "minutia". 

 

There will be critical threads in the IV section, there is one right now actually but it seems very baity and insincere, but anyway they will be there somewhere i'm sure (but not certain) it's just that IV is more well liked and V is more disliked so you see this kind of discourse more on the V section. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Even back then, IV fans were telling me, in none too nice ways, "Get the f**k over it, man! You hate the game. We get it. Jeeze!" lol You know what? They were right. And I took their sage advice.

 

Maybe you shouldn't have. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

But that's me. Rage on all you want, but don't expect me to not wonder out loud at it as I am doing now. It isn't that I am insulting them, I am simply saying I don't understand it.

 

Yes, keep "wondering".

 

 

9 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

if I were to head into the IV forum and start ragging on the game, I would fully expect to be mocked and ridiculed. Whether by you or others.

 

Depends on what you ragged on. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Actually that isn't true. I refer to IV Fetishism only in cases where the butthurt IV fanboys use IV as their yardstick to continuously rag on this game.

 

Spoken like a butthurt V fanboy. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

I do like arguing and being provocative. But of late, in this forum, I have really tried to give IV Fetishists a wide berth, and let them vent and rage, and DO NOT respond to them anymore. There really is no point from where I sit.

 

Translation: "I am tired of having to tell myself IV fans are wrong in order to defend V!" 

 

 

9 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Sorry, you don't get to tell me what I believe. I grew up on mobster films and show. I am a typical Brooklyn guy, and 100% Italian (Sicilian), not that this matters, but I have always had a wild fascination with Mafia culture. I own all the movies: Goodfellas, all the Godfathers, Donny Brasco, the entire Sopranos, hell even Gomorrah with subtitles is awesome. If I simply hated IV's gameplay, but I thought the story was good then I would say that. But I won't lie. Even my love of Mafia stories was not satisfied by IV. I thought it was filled with hack gangsta references, sh**y cliches, mediocre acting, and really boring dialog and personal relationships.

 

I call it as I see it. You're not convincing anyone and referencing other highly rated works in a feeble attempt to downplay IV by showing that you know good writing and acting isn't helping. In fact it just makes you look ridiculous and disingenuous. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

This I agree with and you're correct. These downgrades are things that I don't regard as important, and for whatever reason, the Rockstar devs agree with me. I mean, certainly they would have been capable of bringing over the things that you and others feel were downgraded, but clearly chose not to, right?

 

That reason is a mixture of catering to the squeakers you find in GTAO now and i'd say a degree of technical limitations played a part. Lets not pretend the downgrades were choices in the pursuit of higher quality lol.

 

 

9 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Could it be that they were trying to get a little more of that 3D Era GTA feel back into the game by loosening up the physics in order to try and make the game more fun?

 

More accessible. They had to for Online. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

I think that you guys want more of a "Crime Simulator" and I want a really fun videogame. Clearly Rockstar sees things the way I do on this point.

 

 Yes, it does seem Rockstar have lowered their quality bar, for GTA at least. Thank God they didn't lower it for RDR2. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Some of this is subjective, though, right? Yes, taken by themselves, many of the things mentioned are trivial, and I can totally see how the sum total of all of the things you and others consider important are collectively making V a downgrade. I would never deny this. You're kind of saying that GTA V, to your way of thinking, is sort of like Death by a thousand paper cuts, where no one is game breaking, but in total, they really f**k the game up for you. I get it. But a lot of the things you consider to be downgrades, for my gameplay experience, I consider to be non issues. In many ways, GTA V reminds me of San Andreas.

 

 

You overlook things, yes. Lets take the ammo cap, carrying all weapons and obscene amounts of ammo makes the game unbalanced, and robs it of challenge. To combat this, Rockstar gave the AI pinpoint accuracy. It's a lazy solution to a problem because they didn't take extra effort to balance it. It's fake difficulty. Carrying all that ammo should be a cheat, it's like infinite health - turning on the infinite health cheat and going crazy with the cops is FUN, but it should remain a cheat right? You see the problem?

 

You could say "just use less ammo, or fewer guns", but that's ignoring the problem and basically advocating a "make your own fun" approach. I actually do this when I play V, and it sucks that I have to forcibly restrict myself because Rockstar didn't implement some proper balancing features. Wouldn't the game be more engaging if the stats were more impactful? In SA, you could see a noticeable difference from an improved stat. In V, it's a half-baked disposable system. You probably think it's minutia, but it's still sh*t, and no stats altogether like in IV is better. IV ain't got no time for half-baked sh*t. 

 

What I will say is though about ammo is that IV could have benefitted from an increase in the cap as a reward for a side mission or something, like the infinite sprint, 150 health etc of the old games. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Can't you see how a lot of this really is personal taste? Not everyone who plays games seriously and even religiously, as I do GTA games, cares about the kinds of details you're referring to. You do. So do a lot of people in the forum. And that's fine.

 

A lot of it is but a lot is also you just defending a downgraded game because said downgrades don't bother you. Doesn't mean they're not downgrades. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Let me put it this way. In around June of 2008, when I was still whinging & bitching about IV, in disappointment and a feeling of being betrayed by Rockstar, even after only a couple of months I was already feeling a little embarrassed and self conscious for continuing to cry about it. If I were still complaining now, angry and frustrated and disillusioned to this day? I don't even have the ability to picture it.

 

Best to just leave alone and not comment on things you don't understand. I always seek to understand things before commenting on said thing.

 

 

9 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Not only is GTA V ten times the fun, having much more variety of missions and gameplay ideas

 

There's certainly more variety to the missions, but I don't think that equates to being better. I am quite shocked at how little shooting and car chases GTA V's main story contains. For a game with such a title there's a startling lack of it necessary in the story. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

but GTA IV played like some stripped down econo-GTA, with that typical "Pick up person A, drive to location B, shoot a bunch of guys, Drive person A somewhere else, and blah, blah, blah."

 

This is a narrow minded view of the gameplay, but seeing as IV's driving and shooting are so goddamn fantastic, it never got old. But I do see that it lacked variety, and that is a legitimate complaint to have. 

 

 

Quote

GTA V advanced the series in all the ways that matter to me, and to most GTA fans.

 

Could've fooled me.

 

 

9 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Even so far as having three protagonists, switching between them, special abilities, improvements to the driving and other vehicles, much better graphics, a gorgeous and much larger map, and in my opinion, a better and more engaging story with better characters overall. What you see as "regressing the franchise" me and most people see as advancing and evolving it.

 

I respect the ambition of having the switching stuff as flawed as it is (it's probably where the bulk of the budget went), but the driving is just different not improved, the graphics are expected to be better, the map being bigger is a good thing though the game fails to fully utilise it to the level that IV used its map. Not sure about this "most people" though lol going off the general consensus for GTA V nowadays, not just on this forum either. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

 

GTA V attempts to be serious and dramatic far, far more than any 3D era game though. It's barely any different from IV in that regard, the writing, character development, acting and dramatic/emotional cutscenes in both IV and V are at an elevated level where they're clearly going for a masterful story with well developed characters beyond anything they did in 3D era. It just also attempts to be over the top and wacky and have that San Andreas style "more is more" approach to clothing/car customisation/number of different guns etc options at the same time. It's an attempt at doing both things at once.

 

 

GTA IV takes itself way too seriously while GTA V doesn't. That's a subtle but very important distiction that change the entire perspective of the narrative in both games, even if they're similar in some aspect or another, like you said.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh yes. I love reading an hour long essay of things I've heard a billion times from both sides. Really makes me happy and hopeful. I just wanna say something. I wished we could at least respect the other side's opinion and see things from their perspective from time to time. I've seen many times that people have called GTA V fans "childish" or "people with low attention spans" when they have criticized certain aspects of IV and why they prefer some of V's so called downgraded mechanics or even the story. That's just disrespectful. At the same time I've seen V fans mock IV fans of liking a game that seems like a snorefest to them. But it seems like people still don't get the idea.

 

To some people the amount weird sh*t they've done with vehicles like the cargobob or the tow truck or the likes of which in both story or in online probably has surpassed anything they've done in IV in terms of fun. And that's just a small part of the fun that game can be for some people. Because that's their thing. They like that kind of sh*t in a videogame. At the same time we can give similar examples for how people have had fun with some of IV's features the likes of which the other side may never understand. 

 

I've said countless times that these arguments bring nothing to the table anymore. The flaws of both games have been pinpointed lots of times now. It's clear that the community values different things when they rate their favorite game. Either R* will pick a side in the next game or they have to really craft their game carefully in a way that satisfies both sides which is an incredibly difficult thing to do. end of story.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

No i'm not. Keep "wondering" and implying things if it helps with coping.

 

 

Clearly I'm not the one needing help coping, since I'm not the one whinging & bitching. For the record, my wonderment about it is sort of bemused. Certainly not a problem for me. I actually wish all you disgruntled IV fans well, and hope that you all can comfort one another in your little, fractional minority.

 

15 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

I don't outright hate anything in V, I have only disappointments (I hate Online because it is trash). Fans who don't like things about V like to vent about them, and it gives them a good reason to prop up the features of games they do like. And seeing people agree with them reinforces their beliefs so they're assured that they are not alone in thinking it. I already have my opinion on why you don't actively hate on IV in the IV section; foremost you know nobody would agree with you and you don't have any criticisms that can't be easily refuted unlike many criticisms of V, which really can't be refuted. I mean you can only fall back on "fun" or "minutia". 

 

 

I wasn't aware you didn't actually hate anything in V. Good to know. I love Online, and my only regret is only getting into it 8 months ago. I was a stubborn holdout, but not anymore! Don't put words in my mouth. I don't complain about IV in the IV section for two reasons. First, and foremost, because thank God, Rockstar corrected the 2008 mistake with V, so there is no reason for me to vent IV hatred since GTA is GTA again. But if I didn't have V, the reason I wouldn't complain is because I personally don't think its healthy to continuously hate on a product you don't like years later. If V didn't exist, and IV was the last GTA, I wouldn't be complaining about IV mostly because I have better things to do with my time than continuously whinge & bitch about a grossly inferior product. I would much rather concentrate on things that do please me.

 

But I am prepared to accept that not everyone feels that way. Some people are chronic complainers by nature. I accept that and embrace it. So complain all ya like. Doesn't mean I'm not going to have some fun with it as I do here in this forum!

 

26 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

There will be critical threads in the IV section, there is one right now actually but it seems very baity and insincere, but anyway they will be there somewhere i'm sure (but not certain) it's just that IV is more well liked and V is more disliked so you see this kind of discourse more on the V section. 

 

 

 

That's just it. I am not interested in that energy. You are wrong, by the way. V is the way more liked game. Notwithstanding the small, fractional disgruntled minority of IV Fetishists, of course. As much as popularity alone isn't an accurate metric, the fact that GTAO is keeping V relevant even 8 years later is a testament to how great V is.

 

28 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

Maybe you shouldn't have. 

 

Nope, nope. They were right and I was wrong. It took a few months of crying and whinging about IV in forums, like the IV fetishists do to this day about V, and then I thankfully got it out of my system. Bottom line? I am a pretty happy person, and after I get mad and rage a bit about stuff, I like to put that toxic s**t behind me. Not everyone is like that, though, so it is what it is, I guess.

 

31 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

Yes, keep "wondering".

 

 

Okay, okay, in retrospect, I have to come clean. While I am often mystified why people still complain after years and years, I think I really know already. Some people are just chronic complainers. Hell, I won't judge. Some people just like complaining. They enjoy it. Now that I think about it, I have to say that I think I made the right decision NOT to engage the whingy, bitchy IV fetishists anymore. Because defending V to people who insist on crying their salty tears 7-8 years later is a real fool's errand. This is why, as I said, I give them a wide berth, In fact, the only reason you and I are even having this conversation is because you decided to engage me. Notice how I didn't bother responding to your posts the past months, since I already know in great detail how you feel about the games. At least for the most part.

 

37 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

Spoken like a butthurt V fanboy. 

 

 

 

 

Except I am not the one butthurt! It's the IV Fetishists crying their crocodile tears that are. I have the game I want, am still playing it, look forward to GTA VI with anticipatory glee. There is nothing butthurt about my responses as I am a satisfied customer! In 2008 I was butthurt. Now? I am happy and filled with mirth! 🤣

 

39 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

Translation: "I am tired of having to tell myself IV fans are wrong in order to defend V!" 

 

Translation: You still have trouble processing opinions different than yours when it comes to both the 2008 debacle AND the vast improvement to the franchise in 2013. I don't need to tell myself anything. Not only that, but Rockstar continues to add awesomeness after awesomeness to GTAO, making the game even better and better.

 

41 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

I call it as I see it. You're not convincing anyone and referencing other highly rated works in a feeble attempt to downplay IV by showing that you know good writing and acting isn't helping. In fact it just makes you look ridiculous and disingenuous. 

 

 

 

Yeah says you. Here's a hint: Saying something doesn't make it true. You have no evidence except your own butthurt opinions that V's writing, acting, and dialog aren't way better than IV's. You love to act like you have some objective empiricism or that you know good writing, and you use this pomposity to defend the absolute hack job of a wanna be Mafia/gangsta story in IV. You can't prove V is an inferior story, you can only give your biased, and IV fetishist opinion. Where is your proof that IV's garbage story is better? Empiricism? It doesn't exist.

 

45 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

 

That reason is a mixture of catering to the squeakers you find in GTAO now and i'd say a degree of technical limitations played a part. Lets not pretend the downgrades were choices in the pursuit of higher quality lol.

 

 

 

Well, considering the huge quality increase in V over IV, I would say you are 100% wrong about this. V evolved the franchise. IV stagnated it and mired it in boring, oppressive gameplay with a self-indulgent, nonsensical story that people like you only actually like because you want to appear all edgy and dark.

 

47 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

Yes, it does seem Rockstar have lowered their quality bar, for GTA at least. Thank God they didn't lower it for RDR2. 

 

 

LMAO Yeah I made the mistake of buying RDR2. Played it for a little while and realized, "Wow, there's an hour of my life I'll never get back!" I don't know what the hell I was thinking buying that game when it launched. Actually, I do know. It was an impulse buy. I see why you like it, though! After an hour or two I realized, "Holy sh*t! This is GTA Snore - The Western!" LMAO what a snooze-fest that game was. (and that will be the ONLY Snore reference in this post. I only put it there in quotes because that was literally my exact thought then I abandoned RDR2 literally a day after it launched)

 

50 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

You overlook things, yes. Lets take the ammo cap, carrying all weapons and obscene amounts of ammo makes the game unbalanced, and robs it of challenge. To combat this, Rockstar gave the AI pinpoint accuracy. It's a lazy solution to a problem because they didn't take extra effort to balance it. It's fake difficulty. Carrying all that ammo should be a cheat, it's like infinite health - turning on the infinite health cheat and going crazy with the cops is FUN, but it should remain a cheat right? You see the problem?

 

 

 

In truth, I think you're misreading the situation. I love the feeling of carrying all that ammo. Both in SP and Online. However, it isn't like a cheat, because it isn't even necessary. I mean, think about it. In any given mission or heist or SP or Online quest, you never even need more than one or two guns and more than a couple of hundred rounds. Seriously, I get your criticism. You may even be right. But its a non issue. I have never, NOT ONCE in almost 8 years, used any more than a few hundred rounds of one or two of my weapons of choice. Its a non concern, even if the inherent criticism is somewhat valid.

 

Seriously, try it. Try going into a mission of any kind, online or SP. Try using more than a couple of hundred bullets or even 4-5 explosives. You almost can't! Not to mention that there is an Ammunation every few blocks. So how in the hell would it even change the game significantly to cap the ammo a lot lower? Its a total non issue. The only thing all that ammo does is give the player the illusion of being more powerful. Especially when you can wander into Ammunations at will any time.

 

56 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

You could say "just use less ammo, or fewer guns", but that's ignoring the problem and basically advocating a "make your own fun" approach. I actually do this when I play V, and it sucks that I have to forcibly restrict myself because Rockstar didn't implement some proper balancing features. Wouldn't the game be more engaging if the stats were more impactful? In SA, you could see a noticeable difference from an improved stat. In V, it's a half-baked disposable system. You probably think it's minutia, but it's still sh*t, and no stats altogether like in IV is better. IV ain't got no time for half-baked sh*t. 

 

 

 

Maybe. But V has a helluva lot more stats and significance to said stats than IV. San Andreas was definitely better than both games in this regard. Maybe in VI they will add more to the RPG elements of leveling up. As it is now, I don't really care that much. As for half baked sh*t, lol IV didn't have any time for ANYTHING remotely resembling fun. It was too busy trying shove oppressive, boring realism down the throats of players.

 

59 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

A lot of it is but a lot is also you just defending a downgraded game because said downgrades don't bother you. Doesn't mean they're not downgrades. 

 

 

Except that V upgraded so much, in so many places, that I see it as a trade off, and a very good one. If GTA V wasn't hands down the much better game, I would agree with you that the little minute details you and others whinge about are significant.

 

1 hour ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

Could've fooled me.
 

 

Yeah, but that's not exactly a high bar. :)

 

1 hour ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

I respect the ambition of having the switching stuff as flawed as it is (it's probably where the bulk of the budget went), but the driving is just different not improved, the graphics are expected to be better, the map being bigger is a good thing though the game fails to fully utilise it to the level that IV used its map. Not sure about this "most people" though lol going off the general consensus for GTA V nowadays, not just on this forum either. 

 

 

Actually for SP, I agree with you about the map. Where it really shines, though, is in Online. I really do use a lot of the map when I am doing a ton of stuff, like MC business sales, a lot of the multiplayer stuff, too. I know you don't consider critical reviews to be significant, or gross sales, or even the fact that almost 8 years later, the game is amazingly enough still going strong. But in total, the factors praising GTA V are way higher than detractors would have us believe.

  • excuseme 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

I've said countless times that these arguments bring nothing to the table anymore. The flaws of both games have been pinpointed lots of times now. It's clear that the community values different things when they rate their favorite game. Either R* will pick a side in the next game or they have to really craft their game carefully in a way that satisfies both sides which is an incredibly difficult thing to do. end of story.

 

I've said this already, they're games with a different aproach, just like IV is a different thing when compared to SA (more focus on the narrative, realism etc.).

 

People around here disliked GTA V mostly because it wasn't what they expected or wanted it to be. It is an expectation problem they still haven't surpassed. But the truth is: both games are great in what they are trying to be, otherwise they wouldn't be as successful as they are today. 

 

I prefer GTA V (and SA) over IV and I think there are some problems with IV, but I also understand that this preference of mine is a matter of personal taste. The only things that annoys me is how some of the called "IV fans" think they are somehow intelectually superior to the people who prefer GTA V instead.

  • Like 2
  • KEKW 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

LMAO Yeah I made the mistake of buying RDR2. Played it for a little while and realized, "Wow, there's an hour of my life I'll never get back!" I don't know what the hell I was thinking buying that game when it launched. Actually, I do know. It was an impulse buy. I see why you like it, though! After an hour or two I realized, "Holy sh*t! This is GTA Snore - The Western!" LMAO what a snooze-fest that game was. (and that will be the ONLY Snore reference in this post. I only put it there in quotes because that was literally my exact thought then I abandoned RDR2 literally a day after it launched)

The fact that you call RDR2 "a snooze-fest" while being an active GTA Online player says everything 🤣

Edited by The Tracker
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Wolf Man said:

 

The only things that annoys me is how some of the called "IV fans" think they are somehow intelectually superior to the people who prefer GTA V instead.

 

This is the funniest part of the debate. I can totally get behind your position, or even someone who doesn't like V for whatever reason. But in this forum, for reasons passing understanding, a few of the IV Fetishists act like their positions on what they claim are weaknesses in V (particularly storytelling) is somehow objective fact. That position simply has to be mocked! It's sort of against my religion to not poke some fun at people who act as if their opinions are endowed with inscrutable objectivity and empirical truth. I wouldn't even give the IV Fetishists a hard time if they didn't act as if their personal opinions and tastes were proved without the slightest substantiation. lol How can you not make fun of people who discuss videogames like that? 🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites
billiejoearmstrong8
14 hours ago, The Wolf Man said:

 

GTA IV takes itself way too seriously while GTA V doesn't. That's a subtle but very important distiction that change the entire perspective of the narrative in both games, even if they're similar in some aspect or another, like you said.

 

I think both games take themselves seriously in that they make serious attempts to tell deep (or whatever you want to call it) stories. The main difference is in how they implement the humour to balance it. For me IV balances it just right, it's full of humour and even has its fair share of silly/wacky humour, but it's done in such a way that it fits in with the serious narrative. I don't think it takes itself "too" seriously at all, it didn't lose its sense of humour. 

 

V does go for a more lighthearted theme overall and that's fine (and expected for a game set in LA rather than NY) but at times the humour feels forced/jarring/cringy to me. For example we have the excellently executed scene where Trevor confronts Debra and Floyd and the rather disturbing moment when the screen goes black afterwards, which is a perfect balance of darkness and humour as is. But then because it's V they just had to make it overly silly with Trevor telling Floyd the blood is syrup and and the silly way he takes over the strip club afterwards. There's lots of great moments where the drama and humour is well balanced, but also stuff that's so silly it's just cringey (eg anything with Lazlow on screen, most scenes with Michael's family, Tao Cheng etc). Meanwhile there's also plenty to demonstrate that it wanted to be just as "deep" as IV, look at endings A or B, the torture mission, all the stuff about Trevor's dark past and emotional issues, Michael and Trevor's meeting at the grave etc. 

 

Writing-wise I don't think they're that different to each other, IV just balances things better and in a more natural feeling way. So I guess what I'm saying is I don't think the  more lighthearted overall feel or not having the exact same overall feel is the problem, it's just that it isn't executed as well. I feel that's because rather than committing strongly to one direction they tried to be all things to all people a little too much.

Edited by billiejoearmstrong8
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for GTA Online I'd say people who missed the initial 2013-16 era have missed big time. I don't play online anymore because I personally feel V has run its course and I'm waiting for a new GTA Game. But those early online years were absolutely golden. They defined an era and I think GTA Online alone was responsible for a lot of the growth that gaming as a whole had on youtube at that time. That's how big it was. 

 

If you had friends to play with you could have the most fun you could possibly have in a multiplayer game ever. But I do think R* lost their way after a while and it went downhill after 2016. I don't like the state of that game at the moment but I think people who missed the initial online train did themselves a huge disservice. This is coming from a guy that plays single player games almost 95 percent of the time.

Edited by TheSantader25
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, The Tracker said:

The fact that you call RDR2 "a snooze-fest" while being an active GTA Online player says everything 🤣

 

Oh, my God, it is, though! It was slow, plodding, and sooooooo boring. Like watching paint dry with a controller in my hand. In truth, I think I resented the hour or two I wasted playing RDR2 than I did the money I paid for the special whatever edition of the Digital Download of the game on PSN. It really is my own fault, though. I love American entertainment, but never liked Westerns. I should have thought it through before buying the game, to be honest. The time period doesn't interest me. Horses instead of cars and flyables really don't interest me. And all the pre release hype of RDR2 was very clear that this was going to be a very slow, plodding, draggy game.

 

By the way?

 

Notice how I'm NOT posting thread after thread and comment after comment in the RDR2 forum about how horrible I think the game is, like a total f**king weirdo?  🤣

 

I'm just taking my lumps for being stupid enough to buy a game I should have realized was not going to be for me. I accept that the game just isn't for me. I also know it got a great deal of critical acclaim. So why complain about it? Why rend my garments and whinge & bitch about it? I'm sure that for people who enjoy this kind of a game, its a great experience. Good for them.

Edited by ChiroVette
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

As for GTA Online I'd say people who missed the initial 2013-16 era have missed big time. I don't play online anymore because I personally feel V has run its course and I'm waiting for a new GTA Game. But those early online years were absolutely golden. They defined an era and I think GTA Online alone was responsible for a lot of the growth that gaming as a whole had on youtube at that time. That's how big it was. If you had friends to play with you could have the most fun you could possibly have in a multiplayer game ever. But I do think R* lost their way after a while and it went downhill after 2016. I don't like the state of that game at the moment but I think people who missed the initial online train did themselves a huge disservice. This is coming from a guy that plays single player games almost 95 percent of the time.

I also play mainly single player games (nowadays only single player games) and you're absolutely right. I remember playing GTA:O for quite a while with friends (I got to LVL 105 or something) but I gave up on it when it got plagued by "hackers" and that was really, really early.

Edited by Kris194
  • Like 1
  • Best Bru 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Clearly I'm not the one needing help coping, since I'm not the one whinging & bitching. For the record, my wonderment about it is sort of bemused. Certainly not a problem for me. I actually wish all you disgruntled IV fans well, and hope that you all can comfort one another in your little, fractional minority.

 

You are, just look at how disgruntled that made you, you even went back to your old "disgruntled, fractional minority" narrative. I didn't even try to get under your skin then either. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

But if I didn't have V, the reason I wouldn't complain is because I personally don't think its healthy to continuously hate on a product you don't like years later. If V didn't exist, and IV was the last GTA, I wouldn't be complaining about IV mostly because I have better things to do with my time than continuously whinge & bitch about a grossly inferior product. I would much rather concentrate on things that do please me.

 

Didn't I say in my original comment that this is what you were implying? You just confirmed it well done. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

But I am prepared to accept that not everyone feels that way. Some people are chronic complainers by nature. I accept that and embrace it. So complain all ya like. Doesn't mean I'm not going to have some fun with it as I do here in this forum!

 

Doesn't mean you're not gonna construct some narrative to cope you mean. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

You are wrong, by the way. V is the way more liked game. Notwithstanding the small, fractional disgruntled minority of IV Fetishists, of course. As much as popularity alone isn't an accurate metric, the fact that GTAO is keeping V relevant even 8 years later is a testament to how great V is.

 

Whatever helps you cope my disgruntled old friend. And GTAO is not a testament to V at all seeing as it is a completely different friggin' game.

 

 

5 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Some people are just chronic complainers. Hell, I won't judge. Some people just like complaining. They enjoy it. Now that I think about it, I have to say that I think I made the right decision NOT to engage the whingy, bitchy IV fetishists anymore. Because defending V to people who insist on crying their salty tears 7-8 years later is a real fool's errand.

 

These provoking comments make you look triggered. And i've made great effort to keep my last few comments to you as low on the triggering scale as I can. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Notice how I didn't bother responding to your posts the past months, since I already know in great detail how you feel about the games. At least for the most part.

 

I've barely been on here in the past months.

 

 

5 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Except I am not the one butthurt! It's the IV Fetishists crying their crocodile tears that are. I have the game I want, am still playing it, look forward to GTA VI with anticipatory glee. There is nothing butthurt about my responses as I am a satisfied customer! 

 

Who're you trying to convince? I am genuinely happy for you that you can enjoy V as much as you do. If I somehow had the ability to remove your enjoyment of it and make you hate V and adore IV, I would not do it.

 

 

5 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

but Rockstar continues to add awesomeness after awesomeness to GTAO, making the game even better and better.

 

I'll be honest I haven't touched online in years. It's more the Saints Row crap that i've seen that makes me think it is sh*t. I am sure GTAO can be good besides that crap. Either way it's GTAO, not GTA V, and you really shouldn't conflate the two since GTAO has a fundamentally different structure than V. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

You have no evidence except your own butthurt opinions that V's writing, acting, and dialog aren't way better than IV's. You love to act like you have some objective empiricism or that you know good writing, and you use this pomposity to defend the absolute hack job of a wanna be Mafia/gangsta story in IV. You can't prove V is an inferior story, you can only give your biased, and IV fetishist opinion. Where is your proof that IV's garbage story is better? Empiricism? It doesn't exist.

 

The aggression in this...

 

Anyway I don't need to prove V's an inferior story, it's a common consensus whilst IV's story is equally as commonly praised, even by many players who prefer V as a game. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Well, considering the huge quality increase in V over IV, I would say you are 100% wrong about this. V evolved the franchise. IV stagnated it and mired it in boring, oppressive gameplay with a self-indulgent, nonsensical story that people like you only actually like because you want to appear all edgy and dark.

 

More aggression...people like me huh?

 

 

5 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

LMAO Yeah I made the mistake of buying RDR2. Played it for a little while and realized, "Wow, there's an hour of my life I'll never get back!" After an hour or two I realized, "Holy sh*t! This is GTA Snore - The Western!" LMAO what a snooze-fest that game was. (and that will be the ONLY Snore reference in this post. I only put it there in quotes because that was literally my exact thought then I abandoned RDR2 literally a day after it launched)

 

Yeah I can see why some players were turned away by RDR2 as well, it's definitely a slow burner. Sucks that you didn't get to appreciate it. In fact it sucks overall that games like V must be compromised in order to cater to players who can't appreciate games like RDR2. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

In truth, I think you're misreading the situation. I love the feeling of carrying all that ammo. Both in SP and Online. However, it isn't like a cheat, because it isn't even necessary. I mean, think about it. In any given mission or heist or SP or Online quest, you never even need more than one or two guns and more than a couple of hundred rounds. Seriously, I get your criticism. You may even be right. But its a non issue. I have never, NOT ONCE in almost 8 years, used any more than a few hundred rounds of one or two of my weapons of choice. Its a non concern, even if the inherent criticism is somewhat valid.

 

You love being overpowered. Once again, a problem that doesn't bother you, i'm not misreading anything. You've only highlighted the flaw of V there, you're right you really don't need anything more than a few guns and a few hundred rounds for each battle. That there is a problem with the balancing that you don't care about. In IV you will get your butt handed to you if you tried to tackle later missions without full ammo for your powerful guns unless you had memorised the game perfectly. In V, I think you can just blind fire and kill everything for most shooting sections it's so accurate and you have so much ammo. The game practically plays itself. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

So how in the hell would it even change the game significantly to cap the ammo a lot lower? Its a total non issue. The only thing all that ammo does is give the player the illusion of being more powerful. Especially when you can wander into Ammunations at will any time.

 

You can't just go to Ammunation mid-mission though or in the middle of a fight with the cops. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Maybe. But V has a helluva lot more stats and significance to said stats than IV. San Andreas was definitely better than both games in this regard. Maybe in VI they will add more to the RPG elements of leveling up. As it is now, I don't really care that much. 

 

V has basically no significance to its stats. What? I don't want too much RPG crap, i'm just saying if you're gonna include it then develop it properly. That goes for weapon stats too, they're throwaway and you don't need to look at them. The stats fall under minutia for me anyway, but it does add to the feeling of the game being rushed in places. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Except that V upgraded so much, in so many places, that I see it as a trade off, and a very good one. If GTA V wasn't hands down the much better game, I would agree with you that the little minute details you and others whinge about are significant.

 

It downgraded more than it upgraded hence the general consensus on it. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Yeah, but that's not exactly a high bar

 

So you do agree they lowered it for V? Haha, did not see that one coming. And if it wasn't high for IV then just imagine what 6 will be like if they pick it up off the floor where V left it and push it back up to IV and beyond...

 

 

5 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

Actually for SP, I agree with you about the map. Where it really shines, though, is in Online. I really do use a lot of the map when I am doing a ton of stuff, like MC business sales, a lot of the multiplayer stuff, too. I know you don't consider critical reviews to be significant, or gross sales, or even the fact that almost 8 years later, the game is amazingly enough still going strong. But in total, the factors praising GTA V are way higher than detractors would have us believe.

 

As i've said, I haven't played GTAO enough, but those are pros for that, not GTA V. And I do consider critical reviews and sales to be significant btw. GTA IV is responsible V's great initial sales just as SA was for IV's. GTAO is solely responsible for V's continued sales but hearing the squeakers and seeing the modders and greifers that are on there i'm not convinced those sales are indicative of quality. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 4:15 PM, Drug Tino said:

- The sh'tty flying, facing extreme (and physically nonsensical) random turbulence even with max flying skill with Trevor.

I gotta ask about this, what in your opinion turbulence have in common with flying skills? What you said here doesn't make any sense, at all.

Edited by Kris194
  • Like 1
  • Best Bru 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Kris194 said:

I gotta ask about this, what in your opinion turbulence have in common with flying skills? What you said here doesn't make any sense, at all.


The protagonists flying skill determines how strong the player's plane or helicopter will be affected by "turbulence" (shaking the vehicle around every couple seconds). The negative relation of these with the characters flying skill is supposed to simulate improved control over the vehicle in such situations (I guess). 

The issue I was referring to here is how strong your plane/helicopter gets shaken around randomly even (during the most beautiful of weather) at max flying skill. Compare that to SA, which had a similar mechanic, but at max flying skill your vehicle was highly stable in the air (unless you were in a thunder or sand storm).

For example: Try keeping a helicopter stable above a fixed point (or attempt a perfectly centered landing at a heliport) in GTA 5- its basically impossible to manage it (except in scripted missions where one can use a designated button to stabilize it or engage the autopilot), no matter how high your character's flying skill is. 

One may think that this is to simulate realism (still far to strong) or even to provide for balancing (preventing weaponized aerial vehicles from being OP), yeah right- but then explain to me why the Oppressor doesn't face any such turbulences/shaking- it can actually fly and hover in a completely stable manner. How's that for realism or balancing!? 

  • Like 2
  • Best Bru 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know what, @TheSantader25, perhaps you’re right about GTA Online. I’ll 100% take your word for it, man and try to search up on YouTube or whatnot the content of it from 2013-2016. The stuff I’ve seen from 2017-present, though, yeah, I can 100% see how that would be the downfall of the GTA franchise. That Doomsday Heist from 2017 is what started it all. In my opinion, of course. If you still like GTA Online in its present state, like it! Who am I to judge? I was definitely too harsh on it in the past.

Edited by ThatBenGuy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 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.