GTA 6 Speculation & Discussion [Part 5.69]

[CynicalMexican]

I swear to God checking this thread each day is like watching a garden of trees grow.

[_MK_]

[Zapper]

12 minutes ago, Ser_Salty said:

And I do drool over GTA 4s realism in its gameplay, world and story.

Most of the backlash that IV faced after release wasn't due to realism. It was the sheer lack of content, extremely minimal geographical variety in map (even though IV's LC is the best city in any GTA) and very repetitive, samey missions that soured many fans of SA which was just the anti thesis of IV even though it was more technically advanced. Most of IV you spend doing hits for various factions in the city. Now compare that to SA.

V brought back that range of SA and we all know how that turned out to be.

[Jezus Holy Christ]

14 minutes ago, Ser_Salty said:

I'm a huge SA fan, it's my favorite in the series and one of my most played games of all time. And I do drool over GTA 4s realism in its gameplay, world and story.

 

Exceptions to every rule m8. I haven't seen many SA fans that share that view (outside of here ofc). And like I said, V wasn't really made in SA's style. You can say V and SA are similar if you hate both of them, but I think SA was a masterpiece and I won't insult it by putting V next to it.

V is a different game, it's not like IV, and it's not like SA. If it was, there wouldn't be people asking for a remastered SA. V is more of an elaborate marketing plan and tutorial mode for GTA Online. It lacks in substance and content compared to SA, and physics and realism in comparison to IV.

[BAGS00]

3 hours ago, The Tracker said:

GTA IV had limited features compared to San Andreas, but its gameplay is a whole nother story, something GTA V f*cked up and I hope isn't repeated again for VI

I think you mean physics, because the gameplay isn't really that great, it's something that V did better imo as it is more smooth to play, not perfect but an improvement nonetheless.

3 hours ago, The Tracker said:

 

It literally has more stuff to do than GTA V (And more interesting as well). 

Wish they had brought back some from the first game, they were more interesting imo, and infinite bounty hunting missions too

[The Tracker]

6 minutes ago, BAGS00 said:

I think you mean physics, because the gameplay isn't really that great, it's something that V did better imo as it is more smooth to play, not perfect but an improvement nonetheless.

Wish they had brought back some from the first game, they were more interesting imo, and infinite bounty hunting missions too

 

The physics are a major part of the gameplay, and the gameplay of IV is simply better than V for TOOOOOONS of reasons scattered all over this forum, the smootheness is literally one of the few things V improved, along with the graphics and customization.  

[BAGS00]

5 minutes ago, The Tracker said:

 

The physics are a major part of the gameplay, and the gameplay of IV is simply better than V for TOOOOOONS of reasons scattered all over this forum, the smootheness is literally one of the few things V improved, along with the graphics and customization.  

Well I'm not sure what gameplay features you mean but ok, overall I think they should bring more from the gameplay from 5 than 4s

[The Tracker]

2 minutes ago, BAGS00 said:

Well I'm not sure what gameplay features you mean but ok, overall I think they should bring more from the gameplay from 5 than 4s

 

Not features, basic core gameplay. 

[BAGS00]

3 minutes ago, The Tracker said:

 

Not features, basic core gameplay. 

Ok, but like I said I think they'll use 5 as the base for 6 with some physics improvements and that's it

[BabaFamilias]

4 minutes ago, Zapper said:

Most of the backlash that IV faced after release wasn't due to realism. It was the sheer lack of content, extremely minimal geographical variety in map (even though IV's LC is the best city in any GTA) and very repetitive, samey missions that soured many fans of SA which was just the anti thesis of IV even though it was more technically advanced. Most of IV you spend doing hits for various factions in the city. Now compare that to SA.

V brought back that range of SA and we all know how that turned out to be.

 

This. The linear and repetitive mission design combined with the lack of content outside of missions killed the game for me. SA and VC surpass IV in variety and content. No, GTA IV fans, picking things up from the ground or grabbing onto ledges, doesn't even come close to the fun you can have with jets, car tuning, gun modifications, tanks, etc. And yes I rather have this kind of content rather than countless of interiors, which look kinda the same and are mostly there for you to hide out during rampages. IV doesn't even come close to the content of V. 

 

Once in a while I replay all GTA's and IV always ends up being the one, where I seriously have to force myself to get through it. It's the only GTA I didn't 100%-ed. I know, GTA fans have a huge boner for realism and detailed physics (like myself) and that's what Rockstar is known for since ages, but graphics and physics ain't everything. I play games for fun. Overexaggerated rag doll physics, cars driving like trucks with a heavy load on the back (no this isn't realistic, get a driver licence) and slowed down basic gameplay aren't my type of fun.  

[Jezus Holy Christ]

4 minutes ago, BabaFamilias said:

picking things up from the ground or grabbing onto ledges, doesn't even come close to the fun you can have with jets, car tuning, gun modifications, tanks, etc.

 

Why not both? Isn't that what made SA great in the first place?

 

6 minutes ago, BabaFamilias said:

And yes I rather have this kind of content rather than countless of interiors, which look kinda the same and are mostly there for you to hide out during rampages. IV doesn't even come close to the content of V. 

 

Lol. It does. Neither one is more detailed than the other, but IV had a smaller map and more density and that's it. V has a pile of nothing sitting on top of Los Santos. If we aren't getting multiple cities again, I'm willing to sacrifice half of V's map for more density, more interiors, more freedom in missions, better movement, better overall physics, cars that don't climb up walls regardless of the type of terrain you're driving on etc. It doesn't mean they have to go back to IV's boat handling on cars or make it all super serious. They should find some balance and address HD universe's issues.

San Andreas is still better than all HD games and it's only held back by its age.

 

11 minutes ago, BabaFamilias said:

Overexaggerated rag doll physics

 

That was one of IV's few positives, but V's is okay I guess. I agree that these shouldn't be the main focus, but why settle for another empty racing game style map with all of V's limits? That'd be disappointing.

[The Tracker]

40 minutes ago, BabaFamilias said:

The linear and repetitive mission design.

 

The joke tells itself. 

 

Quote

SA and VC surpass IV in variety and content.

 

As much as I love the 3D era, it's side content had everything but "variety". It's content consisted mostly in grindy minigames you would rather do to get 100% and never be touched once again. 

 

Quote

IV doesn't even come close to the content of V. 

 

If excessive grind and boring casual themed stuff like Yoga is your thing, go for it, but don't pretend it is better for a "Grand Theft Auto" game because it isn't, lol. 

 

Quote

And yes I rather have this kind of content rather than countless of interiors, which look kinda the same and are mostly there for you to hide out during rampages.

 

Funny, because SA and V have the biggest amount of copy-pasted interiors in the whole franchise.

 

Quote

I play games for fun. Overexaggerated rag doll physics, cars driving like trucks with a heavy load on the back (no this isn't realistic, get a driver licence) and slowed down basic gameplay aren't my type of fun.  

 

I'm yet to see a world where stuff such as overpowered enemies with Pin-Point Terminator accuracy, insta-explotions at every single land or crash, bare-bones health system with insta-deaths for everything, bare-bones NPC damage, broken and overly sensitive wanted system that rubberbands itself, guns that feel like air-soft weapons, etc, are fun gameplay. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by The Tracker

[Kris194]

42 minutes ago, BabaFamilias said:

The linear and repetitive mission design

How long ago did you play GTA IV? It's definitely way less linear than GTAV.

[BAGS00]

16 minutes ago, Kris194 said:

How long ago did you play GTA IV? It's definitely way less linear than GTAV.

Yeap, not perfect but the missions were less linear

 

28 minutes ago, The Tracker said:

As much as I love the 3D era, it's side content had everything but "variety". It's content consisted mostly in grindy minigames you would rather do to get 100% and never be touched once again

Isn't that the same for every gta? Including 4

Edited August 3, 2021 by BAGS00

[BabaFamilias]

48 minutes ago, Jezus Holy Christ said:

Why not both? Isn't that what made SA great in the first place?

 

What made SA primarily great was the variety of the map and the air travel between cities. Take this away and reduce it to a "dense" city with a bunch of interiors and basic gameplay and it would have flopped. Sure, I am all for options, you can add both. But picking sh*t from the ground shouldn't be the main focus. 

 

48 minutes ago, Jezus Holy Christ said:

Lol. It does. Neither one is more detailed than the other, but IV had a smaller map and more density and that's it. V has a pile of nothing sitting on top of Los Santos. If we aren't getting multiple cities again, I'm willing to sacrifice half of V's map for more density, more interiors, more freedom in missions, better movement, better overall physics, cars that don't climb up walls regardless of the type of terrain you're driving on etc.

 

33 minutes ago, The Tracker said:

The joke tells itself. 

 

I don't get this myth of "more freedom in missions". There are few missions in IV, where the approach and outcome can vary, but the rest is very linear. For instance you can't kill Faustin, Vlad or Ivan till you arrived at a certain checkpoint, where the game gives you the permission to harm them. They play literally the same. You can't even sabotage their cars like in GTA SA. 

 

I don't get what you mean by "better movement". But as I said, physics aren't everything (well for me at least). 

 

33 minutes ago, The Tracker said:

As much as I love the 3D era, it's side content had everything but "variety". It's content consisted mostly in grindy minigames you would rather do to get 100% and never be touched once. 

 

Ok, hear is what I mean by "variety":

- a map which doesn't only consist of buildings, where they are military bases, farmland, mountains, suburbs, etc. 

- guns which differ a lot from each other, so they are all viable (in IV you have for each weapon category only 2 options: "one ok gun - one better gun"

- to ability to have fun, just by roaming around: bunny hopping over cars, flying under bridges, trying to hit a chopper with a turbo boost, balancing your car on the wing of a plane, trying out "fun" vehicles like the zeppelin, submarine, mobile operation center, etc

- doing side content like races in stadium events, blackjack, etc

 

In IV you can primarily only do 3 things: main mission, street races and going on rampages. Edit: Oh, I also forgot: police mission (one of the better side content of IV).

 

33 minutes ago, The Tracker said:

If excessive grind and boring casual themed stuff like Yoga is your thing, go for it, but don't pretend it is better for a "Grand Theft Auto" game because it isn't, lol. 

 

Should I also nitpick on IV and do some cherry picking? It's like saying, IV is all about dating, so if you want a date sim go play IV.

 

21 minutes ago, Kris194 said:

How long ago did you play GTA IV? It's definitely way less linear than GTAV.

 

Since the release. Probably even more than you. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by BabaFamilias

[Kris194]

52 minutes ago, Jezus Holy Christ said:

Neither one is more detailed than the other, but IV had a smaller map and more density and that's it. V has a pile of nothing sitting on top of Los Santos.

I agree, Los Santos is theoretically much bigger than Liberty City but it feels extremely empty.

[Jezus Holy Christ]

46 minutes ago, BabaFamilias said:

What made SA primarily great was the variety of the map and the air travel between cities. Take this away and reduce it to a "dense" city with a bunch of interiors and basic gameplay and it would have flopped. Sure, I am all for options, you can add both. But picking sh*t from the ground shouldn't be the main focus. 

 

 

A "bunch of interiors" and details like "picking sh*t from the ground" are what set GTA apart from a lot of other games that mimic different aspects of it. You're "reducing" SA to an air travel game with a big map when it had (for its time) a very detailed map that's actually small.

If they can bring more density and detail into a map the size of V's, it's great, but when they can't, I'm happy with a smaller more detailed map.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Jezus Holy Christ

[The Tracker]

58 minutes ago, BabaFamilias said:

I don't get this myth of "more freedom in missions". There are few missions in IV, where the approach and outcome can vary, but the rest is very linear. For instance you can't kill Faustin, Vlad or Ivan till you arrived at a certain checkpoint, where the game gives you the permission to harm them. They play literally the same. You can't even sabotage their cars like in GTA SA. 

 

It's so ironic you use the "Linear" mission design as a main complaint for IV, with the same argumments that could be applied for GTA V (The one you regard as better) and even the WHOLE franchise. Even the 3D era had moments when you couldn't do certain actions in favor of cutscenes or scripted circustances, like killing Tempenny in the last mission of SA, and even if that wasn't the case there are tons of situations when you can kill enemies early in IV, like Clarence in Holland Nights or Ray Boccino in Pest Control. ALL GTA games have their fair share of scripted and unscripted circuntances, but V sort of f*cked that up, and that's a fact.

 

Quote

Ok, hear is what I mean by "variety":

- a map which doesn't only consist of buildings, where they are military bases, farmland, mountains, suburbs, etc. 

 

III and VC maps consisted mostly on buildings, literally the only thing you mentioned that the latter had and IV didn't was a Military Base, that, and a Stadium, everything else was far more varied in IV compared to both games, IMO.

 

Quote

guns which differ a lot from each other, so they are all viable (in IV you have for each weapon category only 2 options: "one ok gun - one better gun"

 

I disagree, guns in IV also had an incentive to use one or another, for example, the Glock was weaker than the Desert Eagle, which was convenient for its damage and range, but the earlier had the advantage of faster fire rate and more ammo capacity, idk about you, but I always found myself switching between the two. 

 

Quote

- to ability to have fun, just by roaming around: bunny hopping over cars, flying under bridges, trying to hit a chopper with a turbo boost, balancing your car on the wing of a plane,

 

Literally all those things could be done in IV.

 

Quote

trying out "fun" vehicles like the zeppelin, submarine, mobile operation center, etc

 

Lol, who brought up GTA Online?

 

Quote

- doing side content like races in stadium events, blackjack, etc

 

In IV you can primarily only do 3 things: main mission, street races and going on rampages.

 

Disagree, IV had its fair share of unique activities like QUB3D, Pool, Darts, that balanced the amount of criminal side missions it had_(Vigilante, Import/Export, etc), and EFLC turns that 100. 

 

Quote

Should I also nitpick on IV and do some cherry picking? It's like saying, IV is all about dating, so if you want a date sim go play IV.

 

Is not cherry picking, It is a fact that most of the unscripted content in V consists only on casual themed stuff like Tennis, Golf, Yoga, Parachuting, Hunting, Races, etc. There are almost no reasons to engague into shootouts, get money (Once you do the Assassination missions and the Stock Market thing you're done with it), you know, play as a criminal in a "Grand Theft Auto" game, it mostly makes up for a retired simulator, heck, it is. 

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by The Tracker

[Len Lfc]

Got this strange feeling that none of you are going to change your minds or see things from each others perspective...

[The Tracker]

1 minute ago, Len Lfc said:

Got this strange feeling that none of you are going to change your minds or see things from each others perspective...

 

I love to argue 

[Starbeth]

I hope gta 6 is like madmen show. by the end our character comes to a powerful catharsis, and so does the player.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Starbeth

[Zapper]

5 minutes ago, The Tracker said:

There are almost no reasons to engague into shootouts, get money, you know, play as a criminal in a "Grand Theft Auto" game

This is even worse in IV because getting into shootouts actively f*cks up IV's narrative significantly and money in IV literally means nothing. At least in V you can buy properties, cars, planes and sh*t which you can use to traverse a pretty large map where it's easier to make you own fun. If anyone takes IV's narrative with remotely seriousness he'd actively avoid killing indiscriminately.

 

IV's biggest issue is the lack of meaningful content for Niko. V's side content is specifically tailored to serve each protagonist and how he sees and acts in the world. Whether you like them or not is a completely different question. 

[BAGS00]

5 minutes ago, Zapper said:

money in IV literally means nothing

This is true and I don't think anyone can say otherwise lol

[BabaFamilias]

12 minutes ago, The Tracker said:

Is not cherry picking, It is a fact that most of the unscripted content in V consists only on casual themed stuff like Tennis, Golf, Yoga, Parachuting, Hunting, Races, etc. There are almost no reasons to engague into shootouts, get money, you know, play as a criminal in a "Grand Theft Auto" game, it mostly makes up for a retired simulator, heck, it is. 

 

The fact that this forum and reddit went ape sh*t because of a potential existence of Disney World, suggest what the average consumer really wants.

 

What GTA fans think they want:

 

What they really want:

[Zapper]

1 hour ago, Kris194 said:

How long ago did you play GTA IV? It's definitely way less linear than GTAV.

It's mostly hit mission after hit mission which definitely serves the story but GTA has never been about story really. There are a couple of missions which has some player freedom but that doesn't take away from the fact that most missions were very similar in design and execution which lost it's steam in the last 5-10 hours. It also didn't help that the whole game is set in a city. A countryside would've done wonders to change things up even if missions remained similar in design (I know R* wanted to do it but couldn't due to time constraints). Comparatively V had much more variety in missions and landscape even though they were still scripted like most of IV's missions.

 

If GTAIV came out with EFLC baked into it as a complete package it'd be much much stronger game all together.

10 minutes ago, BAGS00 said:

This is true and I don't think anyone can say otherwise lol

Again it serves the story but it doesn't suit GTA. IV felt like a game from a different franchise which is really great imho but it's not hard to see why many 3D era fans will be disappointed and favor V instead.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Zapper

[Zello]

[BabaFamilias]

1 minute ago, Zello said:

 

*People begging for GTA: SA 3. 

[The Tracker]

57 minutes ago, Zapper said:

This is even worse in IV because getting into shootouts actively f*cks up IV's narrative significantly.

 

That doesn't make any damn sense, LOL, I said "Shootouts" not "Killing random pedestrians because YOLO" (Something that screws the narrative in every single game from SA onwards anyway) you get in shootouts the WHOLE game, going on rampages with cops and gangs is literally Niko's line of work both in the storyline and side missions. 

 

 

Quote

At least in V you can buy properties, cars, planes and sh*t which you can use to traverse a pretty large map where it's easier to make you own fun. 

 

I was talking about "Reasons to make money", not, "What you can do with it", I agree that IV doesn't give you much to do with your money, but it's fair to say that V has the worst economy system in the whole franchise. Outside from Heists and the Stock Market, there are no ways in the free-roam you can make your own money, everything barely pays you, and once you do what I previously mentioned you have way more money than you'd need anyway, making not only the activities, but even the properties a redundant thing, it's just broken, you can literally end up with 1B and not bother to do anything else in the game, at least in IV you barely ended up with a big amount of money, and you had overpriced weapons and hospital pays, with action-packed side activities that encouraged them.

 

Quote

IV's biggest issue is the lack of meaningful content for Niko. V's side content is specifically tailored to serve each protagonist and how he sees and acts in the world. Whether you like them or not is a completely different question. 

 

You kidding right? Did we play the same games? It's exactly the oppossite, most of what Niko can do in game's side content is mostly stuff that suits his profession and Life-Style, you had Roman's Taxi missions that fitted with the context early in the storyline, and latter you had stuff such as Vigilante, Most Wanted and Assassination missions where you can pretty much roleplay as the Hitman/Hired Gun he is. 

 

In which sense GTA V "tailored" the protagonists or how they "acted in the world" where most of the side stuff it offered was sports/casual themed sh*t? Franklin was a gang-banger and did car repossessions, where is the gang wars/gang themed activities or even car side activities? There is no import-export, hell, not even a single side activity from Simeon or Lamar. Trevor literally had its own criminal organization, where is the Empire Building?... Michael? Oh, yeah, a retired, you're right, the game tailored what he was with stuff such as Tennis, Golf, Yoga, making up for the retired simulator the game is. Franklin could do Tow-Truck missions and a few rubber-banded races, Trevor could do 5 heavily scripted hangar missions and poor man's RDR hunting. So fun!

Edited August 3, 2021 by The Tracker

[The Tracker]

59 minutes ago, Zapper said:

It's mostly hit mission after hit mission which definitely serves the story but GTA has never been about story really. There are a couple of missions which has some player freedom but that doesn't take away from the fact that most missions were very similar in design and execution which lost it's steam in the last 5-10 hours. It also didn't help that the whole game is set in a city. A countryside would've done wonders to change things up even if missions remained (I know R* wanted to do it but couldn't due to time constraints). Comparatively V had much more variety in missions and landscape even though they were still scripted like most of IV's missions.

 

IV's mission design wasn't a fricking Hitman game, but most missions were really free if you put all the possibilities and hidden stuff in perspective, V is literally a whole nother level of scripteness and restrictiveness, only you would put both games in the same place. 

 

Quote

If GTAIV came out with EFLC baked into it as a complete package it'd be much much stronger game all together.

 

Nah, I disagree, that would be too chaotic for the tone of the main game, IMO, TLAD and TBoGT worked better as episodes. 

Edited August 4, 2021 by The Tracker

[BAGS00]

As long as gtaVI is nowhere similar to rdr2 then everything will be fine

Edited August 3, 2021 by BAGS00