What's up with immense hatred towards GTA V?

[Guns a-Blazin]

On 2/21/2021 at 7:58 AM, Criteria3908 said:

Like I don't think GTA V deserves THAT much of hatred, I think GTA V is one of the best in the series if not the whole gaming industry, like I dont see how it was THAT bad at all. Its still one of my favorite games of all time.

 

There is no hatred from me and this is coming from a massive IV fan. I just dislike some parts (mainly the story and some overall game mechanics). 

 

On 2/22/2021 at 7:23 PM, dantedenirodeniro said:

I get it man, played the game a lot of times and a still thinks the story is just dumb sometimes. Niko goes to America to change his life, to search a more pacifist way of living, but then, 30 seconds later, he start to kills people and decides to turn into one of the biggest criminals of Liberty City. What's up with that?

 

Well, that's technically not true about Niko but you could argue the same case for Michael, Trevor and Franklin. I mean, why does Michael attack people even though he's trying to change? Why does Trevor act like a complete hypocrite when he is in a life or death situation? Why does an inexperienced Franklin get sucked into a heist so early on in the game? 

 

10 hours ago, dantedenirodeniro said:

How can someone think Trevor's a bad character man lmao 

 

I don't think he's a bad character but he's not a great character either. He's somewhere in the middle if you ask me? Besides, he has no character development and just lurks in the shadow of his BFF Michael.

[JaeDan 101]

many people hated GTA 5 because most of them are skilled in the old GTA and not in the new one. Many people don't like changes

[Kris194]

20 minutes ago, JaeDan 101 said:

many people hated GTA 5 because most of them are skilled in the old GTA and not in the new one.

Could you elaborate?

[JaeDan 101]

Just now, Kris194 said:

Could you elaborate?

Some people really love Liberty City, its like their home. And after GTA 5 has released, those people who loved Liberty City don't like Los Santos. Its like moving into another city that is far away from home. GTA IV fans also hated the physics of GTA 5

[ChiroVette]

7 hours ago, FortifiedGooner86 said:

 

There is no hatred from me and this is coming from a massive IV fan. I just dislike some parts (mainly the story and some overall game mechanics). 

 

 

Well, that's technically not true about Niko but you could argue the same case for Michael, Trevor and Franklin. I mean, why does Michael attack people even though he's trying to change? Why does Trevor act like a complete hypocrite when he is in a life or death situation? Why does an inexperienced Franklin get sucked into a heist so early on in the game? 

 

 

I don't think he's a bad character but he's not a great character either. He's somewhere in the middle if you ask me? Besides, he has no character development and just lurks in the shadow of his BFF Michael.

 

See, these kinds of posts I really like. We may disagree completely about the two games, but I like how you can criticize a game you feel is flawed without insulting or attacking the tastes of others who disagree with you, and acting like your opinions are not opinions, but proved and that you speak for and represent the entire GTA community.

 

To your first point, I can understand that. No game is perfect. I'm sure there are things about IV you complain about, too, even if it is your preferred game over V. For your second point, this I believe is a sort of vexing problem of the storyline idea of literally all GTA games and protagonists. NIko shares this problem, too, just like CJ, Fido, Tommy, Tony, Vic, and the three V Protagonists. The problem is simple. The writers always want us to sympathize with these characters, see ourselves in them, and they jump through lots of hoops to show, for example, what a nice guy CJ is. How loyal and principled Tommy V is, how Fido is just trying to get by, etc. But the game does kind of need you to also do some very horrible things and these deeds never fail to illustrated that the protagonists aren't just charming and charismatic. They are also sociopaths and psychopaths. Look as early as GTA III. FIdo is supposed to be a kind of strong silent type who doesn't screw with anyone, and some of the people he kills deserve it, like Salvatore, for betraying him. But he murders Kenji, at the behest of a greedy business criminal, Donald Love, all for the purpose of starting a war between the Colombians and the Yakuza. He assassinates other characters who did him no harm. Tommy steals a cell phone and then murders 5 Assassination contracts, one a completely innocent woman, who is begging for her life as he slowly kills her. I could go on and on, but it has to be a hard needle to thread when Rockstar wants people to like guys like Niko, and they end up willingly doing evil things to people who never wronged them. That's just the price we have to pay for playing GTA, a game where we are role playing the protagonists who are violent criminals.

 

Your criticism about Trevor I understand, and I am a huge Trevor fan. Trevor would be a much better character if he was just the raging psychotic, or maybe had a less over the top soft side that didn't shoot for comedy while only attaining cringeworthy. Trevor would have been a much better character, in my opinion, if they didn't take painstaking efforts to make him appear absurdly vulnerable. He goes from being a raging psychotic that is at least honest about it, to being a propsterous character in those thankfully very few crying/weepy scenes. I tend to X passed those parts so that in my game, Trevor is just an unhinged lunatic.

 

[Excalibur Voltaire]

7 hours ago, JaeDan 101 said:

many people hated GTA 5 because most of them are skilled in the old GTA and not in the new one. Many people don't like changes

you're actually right in a way, older GTA doesnt handhold you every single time or make you fail the mission for being creative

 

I mean, just compare GTA III mission to GTA V mission, you'll notice just how dumbed down GTA V is

[ChiroVette]

3 hours ago, Western Gunslinger said:

you're actually right in a way, older GTA doesnt handhold you every single time or make you fail the mission for being creative

 

I mean, just compare GTA III mission to GTA V mission, you'll notice just how dumbed down GTA V is

 

 

I find these types of missions annoying, too. Where you fail for going off the beaten path. But in truth, there aren't really a lot of missions in any GTA game where you fail for going it a different route. Yes, it's annoying in missions where you're in North Yankton, and at first you decide to explore a little, only to fail. The tradeoff, though, is that missions in a game like V are a lot more sophisticated and have a great deal more variety. Do I wish you could explore Yankton, and would it have hurt the game if you could, during Bury the Hatchet? Yeah, of course I would LOVE that. But these annoying seemingly random mission fails are few and far between. The past GTA games, including IV, were a lot more simple in most of their structure, with that typical sandbox mission structure, Pick up Person A; Drive to location B; Kill a bunch of guys; Maybe then pick up a package or vehicle; Kill some more guys; Take Person A Home.

 

I am not a developer, but is it possible that the more complex and sophisticated mission structure was what predisposed Rockstar to clamp down on creativity in some spots? I am not saying you're wrong, by the way. It's a great point. But maybe Rockstar simply needs to get better at programming missions where you have much more complex tasks and mission structures?

 

I have a funny feeling that GTA VI, whenever it comes out, will address complaints like this.

Edited February 24, 2021 by ChiroVette

[Ryo256]

1 hour ago, ChiroVette said:

I have a funny feeling that GTA VI, whenever it comes out, will address complaints like this.

Maybe or maybe not since RDR2 still has this issue. Though they added features like where you can rarely refuse a mission or refuse to continue a mission mid-point to cut the script sequence short but mostly story mode has very restrictive mission design. Heck some complained that RDR2 feels more like a movie than a game.

Sadly ever since the success of the games like Last of Us, the industry overall have embraced this way particularly for story telling. Majority are used to it and and they will just go play Online (GTAO or RDO) if they prefer gameplay over story and its restrictions so I don't think this complaint is of high priority for Rockstar. It's all about the money in Online nowadays as you know and it's not like RDR2's current story mode didn't get enough praise as it is so why would Rockstar fix that ain't broken in their view?

[ChiroVette]

2 minutes ago, Ryo256 said:

Maybe or maybe not since RDR2 still has this issue. Though they added features like where you can rarely refuse a mission or refuse to continue a mission mid-point to cut the script sequence short but mostly story mode has very restrictive mission design. Heck some complained that RDR2 feels more like a movie than a game.

Sadly ever since the success of the games like Last of Us, the industry overall have embraced this way particularly for story telling. Majority are used to it and and they will just go play Online (GTAO or RDO) if they prefer gameplay over story and its restrictions so I don't think this complaint is of high priority for Rockstar. It's all about the money in Online nowadays as you know and it's not like RDR2's current story mode didn't get enough praise as it is so why would Rockstar fix that ain't broken in their view?

 

Of course, I hope you're wrong, but if not, then it's an unfortunate outgrowth of the concept of microtransactions/IAP economy as the new standard in gaming. Let's hope Rockstar and Take2 strike more of a balance between fun/gameplay and monetization of post-release games. If not, then it will continue to breed mediocrity in the industry. I think one big problem is that these huge developers seem to have the media crawling so far up their asses that the reviewers and writers don't seem to be calling the gaming giants out on this kind of duplicitous marketing. I think that if the pro reviewers were to WAIT a little while to write their reviews, and stop competing with one another to publish as fast as humanly possible, then we would see a lot more of these complaints addressed by dev companies. The problem is that, in order to write a pro review and get it out in a timely manner, the player/writers really have to fly through the game so fast that stuff like this will simply get missed.

 

So, how would a writer have known, for example, way back in 2013 when reviewing GTA V, that Rockstar and Take2 would be administering the game with this sort of corporate thuggery? Especially since I don't even think Online was ready when the review were published. So a game like GTA comes out, the reviews are all glowing and effusive with praise, but only months, and in some cases years later, the players are experimenting with missions and dealing with all the SP support failing. This is a big problem with professional reviews. They can only really gloss over the game and give a mostly big picture analysis, which is often quite deceptive.

[Ryo256]

3 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

 

Of course, I hope you're wrong, but if not, then it's an unfortunate outgrowth of the concept of microtransactions/IAP economy as the new standard in gaming. Let's hope Rockstar and Take2 strike more of a balance between fun/gameplay and monetization of post-release games. If not, then it will continue to breed mediocrity in the industry. I think one big problem is that these huge developers seem to have the media crawling so far up their asses that the reviewers and writers don't seem to be calling the gaming giants out on this kind of duplicitous marketing. I think that if the pro reviewers were to WAIT a little while to write their reviews, and stop competing with one another to publish as fast as humanly possible, then we would see a lot more of these complaints addressed by dev companies. The problem is that, in order to write a pro review and get it out in a timely manner, the player/writers really have to fly through the game so fast that stuff like this will simply get missed.

 

So, how would a writer have known, for example, way back in 2013 when reviewing GTA V, that Rockstar and Take2 would be administering the game with this sort of corporate thuggery? Especially since I don't even think Online was ready when the review were published. So a game like GTA comes out, the reviews are all glowing and effusive with praise, but only months, and in some cases years later, the players are experimenting with missions and dealing with all the SP support failing. This is a big problem with professional reviews. They can only really gloss over the game and give a mostly big picture analysis, which is often quite deceptive.

Yeah I hear ya. It seems like the more worthy concerns will always get drowned by the noise that reviewers make. In my fantasy of a "ideal perfect world", I prefer if reviewers and hype culture were non-existent but alas the reviewing industry in a business just like the microtransaction/IAP economy model in latest gaming. But I think we are getting close to the end of this vicious cycle i.e eventually reviewers would be trusted less (take Cyberpunk 2077 scenario as an example) and the latest gaming models are already being questioned but I don't think GTA 6 will be the part of the revolution, Rockstar and Take2 are just too much in a comfortable position to just do whatever they want and find new ways to print money.

[Jezus Holy Christ]

I like GTA V, but I don't think it deserved to live this long. Looking at it now, it feels like some GTA: Los Santos to me. Def not the type of game to play for a decade. Everything aside from the map (which is just a playground they set up for GTA:O) feels small-scale or forced to feel grand and cinematic when it really isn't. I used to like it more, but they really should've come up with another game after 2016. V has been worn out and hasn't aged as well as I expected it to. No matter how much they improve the graphics, it'll remain the empty game it is at the core: a microtransaction lure for spoiled kids.

[Kris194]

6 hours ago, Western Gunslinger said:

you're actually right in a way, older GTA doesnt handhold you every single time or make you fail the mission for being creative

 

I mean, just compare GTA III mission to GTA V mission, you'll notice just how dumbed down GTA V is

While I understand why missions in GTAV were very linear, I can't understand why game of series which was always for adult people was now designed with kids in mind. Every single time I play GTA V I feel like I'm playing game which tries to tell mature story but in reality it's game for toddlers with 18+ sticker on the box. Compare it to any GTA released before or RDR or RDRII and you'll know what I'm talking about. Fans of this series managed to catch all issues GTA V has within first week since release, one week.

[ChiroVette]

59 minutes ago, Kris194 said:

While I understand why missions in GTAV were very linear, I can't understand why game of series which was always for adult people was now designed with kids in mind. Every single time I play GTA V I feel like I'm playing game which tries to tell mature story but in reality it's game for toddlers with 18+ sticker on the box. Compare it to any GTA released before or RDR or RDRII and you'll know what I'm talking about. Fans of this series managed to catch all issues GTA V has within first week since release, one week.

 

I agree with a bunch of your criticisms, but I think you may be a little off the mark with this one. I do agree that GTAO attracts a lot of kids, certainly a lot more than an M Rated game should; and they are highly obnoxious and annoying in lobbies. But I don't see evidence that in this instance how you are correctly applying Post Hoc Propter Ergo Hoc. Sorry about the Latin, but what that translates to is, "After therefore because of it," meaning that something precedes another, therefore it must be the cause of it. The problem here is an obvious one. Yes, GTAO preceded all of the kiddies who found their grubby little youngin' hands in possession of this game. Maybe lax parenting, maybe kids getting adults to buy the game for them, or some combination of both. Either way, the kids in the game came before the problem of what that kind of collective, community immaturity wrought on the game. Then came the problem that adults like us, who want a fun, and dare say adult good time in the online part of game are now tasked with dealing with a bunch of children who probably get off on causing as much chaos as they can, ie. griefing and try hard behavior.

 

But that problem came about because of the huge amount of kids. The game didn't decide, or rather the devs didn't decide that it wanted GTA Online to be a f**ing nursery school. It just developed that way.

Edited February 24, 2021 by ChiroVette

[ChiroVette]

44 minutes ago, RenegadeAngel said:

I don't see how it's any different from the 3d era games. It has a lot offer if you can see through the excessive satire.

 

Okay, but to whip a dead horse a little, were these games really designed for kids or were kiddies wanting an outlet for their teenage angst just drawn to them? Are GTA games designed to cater to kids, or has the community simply been co-opted by them? Like some hostile takeover. Because I would argue it's the latter, not the former.

[ChiroVette]

1 hour ago, RenegadeAngel said:

Of course. I don't think Rockstar caters to any audience in particular when it comes to single-player. They do what they feel like doing. Sure, GTA V might have more of a mainstream appeal than GTA IV, but I'm pretty confident it wasn't the intention. Again, in my opinion the story and the world have a lot to offer beyond the goofy, satirical facade.

 

100% agreed. I find the whole So Cal vibe and the feel of the game alone are examples of what you're saying, as to the game rising above its goofy, satirical facade. I would probably agree more with a lot of the IV fans about that as a criticism for V, if the game weren't, as you suggested above able to be both: wildly satirical, even silly at times, and deadly serious when needed as well. It's one of the many reasons that GTA is in no danger of becoming Saints Row. Volition is insane, silly, and OTT with SR games from top to bottom. GTA just has enough of it to be fun, and the more sophisticated, serious stuff going on as well.

Edited February 24, 2021 by ChiroVette

[MaddenedGhost]

On 2/21/2021 at 4:32 PM, StuntMaster100 said:

It's not really hated much except by some IV fans

 

That's how I see it, and it's funny because I think GTAIV is pretty overrated.

I have actually went back and give it a try, played the first two missions, switched to TBOGT, played it a bit more and then I deleted it, it was pretty good for its time, the way I see it is that while previous GTAs did 10/10 in certain aspects, they failed didn't do well in others (the stupid unrealistic driving of GTAIV for example, no...I don't care what anyone thinks, cars in real life do not drive like boats), GTAV on the other hand has like a 6-7/10 in different aspects, making an overall fun game.

 

I do agree with whoever says that it could have been better, especially when it comes to the story, but even as it is, and despite a lot of people not accepting this, it is one of the greatest games ever.

 

Should I underline "the way I see it" before some weirdo gets triggered and writes paragraphs about my comment here?

 

Edit: I shouldn't say "failed" as it is such a big word, more like "didn't do well", to my liking anyway.

Edited February 24, 2021 by MaddenedGhost

[ChiroVette]

7 minutes ago, MaddenedGhost said:

Should I underline "the way I see it" before some weirdo gets triggered and writes paragraphs about my comment here?

 

No way. You are not raging on and on about this, that, or the other thing, and then claiming your opinions are endowed with being objectively true just because you believe it. A lot of people here would clearly disagree with the quality of V and its gameplay and story, but so what? You are stating your opinions, and making it very obvious you mean no disrespect toward anyone who may disagree with you in part or completely. I can't speak for anyone else, but I respect different opinions and different positions. I like reading about the things that critics of V say about the game, and sometimes I agree with the criticisms.

[MaddenedGhost]

2 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

 

No way. You are not raging on and on about this, that, or the other thing, and then claiming your opinions are endowed with being objectively true just because you believe it. A lot of people here would clearly disagree with the quality of V and its gameplay and story, but so what? You are stating your opinions, and making it very obvious you mean no disrespect toward anyone who may disagree with you in part or completely. I can't speak for anyone else, but I respect different opinions and different positions. I like reading about the things that critics of V say about the game, and sometimes I agree with the criticisms.

I used to lurk around this section and read people's opinions about the game, and I also remember posting in different threads about what I don't like about the game despite the fact that I think it is so good, but now the overall notion is "GTAV - bad, every other GTA before it - good" and I think it is silly and stupid.

 

Again, I understand it is a matter of opinions, but I think the whole section is moving in this weird way, I think GTAV will get a lot of praise when GTAVI gets released just based on how GTAIV > to GTAV went LOL, lets hate on the next "new" thing and praise how the old one did it better lol

[ChiroVette]

16 minutes ago, MaddenedGhost said:

I used to lurk around this section and read people's opinions about the game, and I also remember posting in different threads about what I don't like about the game despite the fact that I think it is so good, but now the overall notion is "GTAV - bad, every other GTA before it - good" and I think it is silly and stupid.

 

Again, I understand it is a matter of opinions, but I think the whole section is moving in this weird way, I think GTAV will get a lot of praise when GTAVI gets released just based on how GTAIV > to GTAV went LOL, lets hate on the next "new" thing and praise how the old one did it better lol

 

I agree 100%. I especially agree with the last part. I don't know if you're into Saints Row. I love that series. It is definitely not of the same quality and spit & polish as GTA, but it is a great alternative in its own way. But your comment reminds me of the old THQ/Volition official forums and the discussions that ensued. Saint's Row the original game, and SR2 were basically very gang-centric, street crime sandbox games. More grounded than the SR games that came later. The problem with the first two SR games, though, was that it came off like a very derivative series. Don't get me wrong, SR was never truly a cheap GTA knockoff, and it really did have it's own identity. But because it was a seemingly typical vehicle-based sandbox crime game, it was greeted by critics and gamers outside the SR community with luke warm responses. It's a shame, because even back then, SR was actually very different. But whatever. Anyway, I guess it was just way too easy to toss it into the "GTA Clone" bin, even though it really wasn't. But Volition was aware that just the appearance of being a cheap, GTA knockoff was enough to keep the series in GTA's shadows, like some hapless stepchild.

 

When SR The Third released, it was greeted by overwhelming praise by the media and by gamers unfamiliar with the series. Volition went in a very interesting and engaging sci fi direction with the game. The gangs were still there, only the game was really trying hard, and quite effectively, to get out of GTA's shadow. The problem is that so many SR fans from the old SR1 and SR2 school were deeply offended. They preferred it when the critics were sort of tepidly referring to SR as a GTA knockoff. But I truly appreciated what they did with SR The Third. They were really their on separate thing now. But try telling that to the SR1 and 2 fans! They didn't want to hear it. Okay, go forward a year or two and SR IV released. That game was just totally off the hook! If you don't know, the entire game was now not just sci fi but freaking super powers! I mean, I love it! To this day, the insane, over the top, wild and unbridled fun are just too much to resist. But, sure enough, there were a ton of SRTT fans now, all raging against SRIV, the way that the SR 1 and 2 fans raged against SRTT.

 

So I think you're on to something.

Edited February 24, 2021 by ChiroVette

[Dante De Niro]

 

[KingAJ032304]

19 minutes ago, ChiroVette said:

 

I agree 100%. I especially agree with the last part. I don't know if you're into Saints Row. I love that series. It is definitely not of the same quality and spit & polish as GTA, but it is a great alternative in its own way. But your comment reminds me of the old THQ/Volition official forums and the discussions that ensued. Saint's Row the original game, and SR2 were basically very gang-centric, street crime sandbox games. More grounded than the SR games that came later. The problem with the first two SR games, though, was that it came off like a very derivative series. Don't get me wrong, SR was never truly a cheap GTA knockoff, and it really did have it's own identity. But because it was a typical vehicle-based sandbox crime game, it was greeted by critics and gamers outside the SR community with luke warm responses. It was just way too easy to toss it into the "GTA Clone" bin, even though it really wasn't. But Volition was aware that just the appearance of being a cheap, GTA knockoff was enough to keep the series in GTA's shadows, like some hapless stepchild.

 

When SR The Third released, it was greeted by overwhelming praise by the media and by gamers unfamiliar with the series. Volition went in a very interesting and engaging sci fi direction with the game. The gangs were still there, only the game was really trying hard, and quite effectively, to get out of GTA's shadow. The problem is that so many SR fans from the old SR1 and SR2 school were deeply offended. They preferred it when the critics were sort of tepidly referring to SR as a GTA knockoff. But I truly appreciated what they did with SR The Third. They were really their on separate thing now. But try telling that to the SR1 and 2 fans! They didn't want to hear it. Okay, go forward a year or two and SR IV released. That game was just totally off the hook! If you don't know, the entire game was now not just sci fi but freaking super powers! I mean, I love it! To this day, the insane, over the top, wild and unbridled fun are just too much to resist. But, sure enough, there were a ton of SRTT fans now, all raging against SRIV, the way that the SR 1 and 2 fans raged against SRTT.

 

So I think you're on to something.

If I had one wish, it would be so people are as critical of the DRASTIC DRAAASSSSTTTIIICCC lost in quality from Saints Row 2 to 3 as they are from GTA IV to GTA V. No seriously thats my main issue with the direction change, it seems to use its craziness to hide its shortcommings and genuinely became a GTA knockoff in the proceso (literally nothing about SRTT would be special if it was in vein in realism with SR1)

Edited February 24, 2021 by KingAJ032304

[MaddenedGhost]

^ Oh my god the driving in GTAIV, just why? who thought that was a good idea?

I've seen a speedrunner trying to make the Sanchez jump in GTAV's final mission and failing multiple times just because of how the bike slides unrealistically to the river when he lands.

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by MaddenedGhost

[KingAJ032304]

2 minutes ago, MaddenedGhost said:

^ Oh my god the driving in GTAIV, just why? who thought that was a good idea.

I've seen a speedrunner trying to make the Sanchez jump in GTAV's final mission and failing multiple times just because of how the bikes slides unrealistically to the river when he lands.

 

Motorcycle handling in gta iv is just bad. While in gta v they have no wait. I think Sleeping Dogs is a nice in between.

[Niobium]

1 hour ago, dantedenirodeniro said:

 

 

that video mostly covered superficial sh*t like being able to slide on cars and bushes moving when you walk inside them.

 

meanwhile, the original video from crowbcat covered far more important features like physics, police AI, vehicle damage, shooting, melee combat, etc. the only important thing this video featured was planes, which was severely missed in IV.

 

oh, and they compared the driving of the two games, i guess. but all they showed was that GTA V's cars have absolutely no weight or suspension. lol

Edited February 25, 2021 by Niobium

[Dante De Niro]

4 minutes ago, Niobium said:

 

that video mostly covered superficial sh*t like being able to slide on cars and bushes moving when you walk inside them.

 

meanwhile, the original video from crowbcat covered far more important features like physics, police AI, vehicle damage, shooting, melee combat, etc. the only important thing this video featured was planes, which was severely missed in IV.

 

oh, and they compared the driving of the two games, i guess. but all they showed was that GTA V's cars have absolutely no weight or suspension. lol

you didn't watch the video until the end, did you?

 

GTA V have biome diversity, animal diversity, MASSIVE costumization with clothes, tattoos, hairstyles, beardstyles, guns and attachments, you can practice way more activities, the game have way more interesting interiors like the police department, the bank and the airport, underwater exploration, WAY more side content, you can buy stocks (which is very detailed and reacts to things that happen in the open world and story), you can buy cars, bikes, helicopters, planes, bicicles, graphics are better, car gameplay is more fun.

 

don't get me wrong, GTA IV is FANTASTIC and it was ahead of its time, but GTA V is just a bigger fish, man, you know that.

[Niobium]

5 minutes ago, dantedenirodeniro said:

you didn't watch the video until the end, did you?

 

GTA V have biome diversity, animal diversity, MASSIVE costumization with clothes, tattoos, hairstyles, beardstyles, guns and attachments, you can practice way more activities, the game have way more interesting interiors like the police department, the bank and the airport, underwater exploration, WAY more side content, you can buy stocks (which is very detailed and reacts to things that happen in the open world and story), you can buy cars, bikes, helicopters, planes, bicicles, graphics are better, car gameplay is more fun.

 

don't get me wrong, GTA IV is FANTASTIC and it was ahead of its time, but GTA V is just a bigger fish, man, you know that.

half of what you said was not covered in the video.

[Guns a-Blazin]

15 hours ago, ChiroVette said:

See, these kinds of posts I really like. We may disagree completely about the two games, but I like how you can criticize a game you feel is flawed without insulting or attacking the tastes of others who disagree with you, and acting like your opinions are not opinions, but proved and that you speak for and represent the entire GTA community.

 

Thanks! I would never ever throw abuse at an user on here. It's just not my way of doing things. Of course, I might question the odd person and throw a few counter-opinions their way but I will never ever attack somebody for liking a different video game to me. It's just personal preferences at the end of the day. You've just got to live with it and respect people's opinions. 

 

15 hours ago, ChiroVette said:

To your first point, I can understand that. No game is perfect. I'm sure there are things about IV you complain about, too, even if it is your preferred game over V.

 

Yeah, IV has it's ups and downs but like you said, no game is perfect. It's just natural. 

 

16 hours ago, ChiroVette said:

For your second point, this I believe is a sort of vexing problem of the storyline idea of literally all GTA games and protagonists. NIko shares this problem, too, just like CJ, Fido, Tommy, Tony, Vic, and the three V Protagonists. The problem is simple. The writers always want us to sympathize with these characters, see ourselves in them, and they jump through lots of hoops to show, for example, what a nice guy CJ is. How loyal and principled Tommy V is, how Fido is just trying to get by, etc. But the game does kind of need you to also do some very horrible things and these deeds never fail to illustrated that the protagonists aren't just charming and charismatic. They are also sociopaths and psychopaths. Look as early as GTA III. FIdo is supposed to be a kind of strong silent type who doesn't screw with anyone, and some of the people he kills deserve it, like Salvatore, for betraying him. But he murders Kenji, at the behest of a greedy business criminal, Donald Love, all for the purpose of starting a war between the Colombians and the Yakuza. He assassinates other characters who did him no harm. Tommy steals a cell phone and then murders 5 Assassination contracts, one a completely innocent woman, who is begging for her life as he slowly kills her. I could go on and on, but it has to be a hard needle to thread when Rockstar wants people to like guys like Niko, and they end up willingly doing evil things to people who never wronged them. That's just the price we have to pay for playing GTA, a game where we are role playing the protagonists who are violent criminals.

 

I see what you're saying but I think Michael, Trevor and Franklin are too inconsistent and kinda weak compared to the original protagonists. I'll talk about Trevor in your next quote. 

 

16 hours ago, ChiroVette said:

Your criticism about Trevor I understand, and I am a huge Trevor fan. Trevor would be a much better character if he was just the raging psychotic, or maybe had a less over the top soft side that didn't shoot for comedy while only attaining cringeworthy. Trevor would have been a much better character, in my opinion, if they didn't take painstaking efforts to make him appear absurdly vulnerable. He goes from being a raging psychotic that is at least honest about it, to being a propsterous character in those thankfully very few crying/weepy scenes. I tend to X passed those parts so that in my game, Trevor is just an unhinged lunatic.

 

Trevor was just a mixed personality. One day, he was Mr Psycho. The next day, he was Mr Nice Guy. I mean, he's too inconsistent for an main protagonist. As soon as he meets Michael (again), his whole ego changes. Same with Franklin. They step into Michael's big ass shadow and just become these two non-existent characters. 

[Dante De Niro]

5 minutes ago, Niobium said:

half of what you said was not covered in the video.

Of thouse things i mentioned i think just biome/animal diversity and stocks weren't mentioned in the video, but i have more of these:

 

GTA V had one of the most unique side content experiences that i ever saw in videogames, the 8 infinity serial killer mistery/easter egg was something amazing, many games after tried to recreate that after GTA V, but none manage to do it. The games colletibles actually MEAN something instead of "man i f*cking hate those pigeons", all the collectible side quests leads up to secret missions and interesting stories. You can discover interesting details and things in the game's internet (a hint of Niko's fate, for example), there's military vehicles and you can use them such as the Rhino and the Lazer, you can play sports, rob stores, hunt and you can flip people off which is of course a checkmate to GTA IV.

 

And after ALL THAT, people can only think in that f*cking Crowbcat's video lol 

12 minutes ago, FortifiedGooner86 said:

 

Thanks! I would never ever throw abuse at an user on here. It's just not my way of doing things. Of course, I might question the odd person and throw a few counter-opinions their way but I will never ever attack somebody for liking a different video game to me. It's just personal preferences at the end of the day. You've just got to live with it and respect people's opinions. 

 

 

Yeah, IV has it's ups and downs but like you said, no game is perfect. It's just natural. 

 

 

I see what you're saying but I think Michael, Trevor and Franklin are too inconsistent and kinda weak compared to the original protagonists. I'll talk about Trevor in your next quote. 

 

 

Trevor was just a mixed personality. One day, he was Mr Psycho. The next day, he was Mr Nice Guy. I mean, he's too inconsistent for an main protagonist. As soon as he meets Michael (again), his whole ego changes. Same with Franklin. They step into Michael's big ass shadow and just become these two non-existent characters. 

 

 

This video talks about the Michael, Franklin & Trevor dynamics and why they work so well. I think that your opinion on Trevor might change after a watch

[Excalibur Voltaire]

2 hours ago, dantedenirodeniro said:

 

The only thing I agree in the video is being able to stand up on top of car without falling, I always hated forced realism that exist just to annoy the player. But that doesn't mean GTA V doesn't have it's own forced realism

 

The other would be planes, I hate not being allowed to something because "it's unrealistic" or "it doesn't make sense for the character". It's a open world game, let me do whatever I want

[Excalibur Voltaire]

9 hours ago, Kris194 said:

While I understand why missions in GTAV were very linear, I can't understand why game of series which was always for adult people was now designed with kids in mind. Every single time I play GTA V I feel like I'm playing game which tries to tell mature story but in reality it's game for toddlers with 18+ sticker on the box.

It's funny how games like Minecraft is a lot more difficult and less handholding than most mature games out there including GTA and RDR. but videogames in general seems to get more dumbed down nowadays.