My gripes with GTA V's story

[E Revere]

It's no secret that a lot of people are rather disinterested by GTA V's story. This can culminate in a IV vs V debate. While I do think that GTA IV has better writing, I feel that was about most other GTA games in comparison to V. It is not why I criticise V's writing. And I'd prefer if this didn't fall down into the gutter to become another IV vs V fight. I'm going to try not to mention the other games too much while writing this critique because I prefer not to mix in favoritism. I'll try my best to criticise GTA V on its own. I think that's fairer. I've always said that I find GTA V's story terrible, but I haven't been able to explain why. In this topic, I aim to do that. The last thing I'll say before writing this out is: I like to really search every nook and cranny when playing a game to fully appreciate everything it has to offer. If some of this looks nitpicky and overthought, that's because it is. But that's the point of this topic. To bring everything out in the light. It's going to look rough and repetitive, but please just bare with me.

 

First of all, I want to break things discreetly. I'm first going to say what I like about GTA V's storyline.

• It's not that bad. I think the concept was great. A guy fakes his death and many years later, his best pal shows up on his doorstep. The shock and collapse are all there. The ideas for the protagonists were all solid, and so are many of the characters. A game centred around doing heists and getting rich. Having a family, though a lot of people criticised, I liked it. GTA V definitely didn't have a bad premise. But it was handled badly which I will get to in a bit.
• The most important out of these, to me, is the dynamic between Franklin and Lamar. Lamar is the one stirring things up and getting the duo into trouble, while Franklin is the one that has to bail him out. Why do I think this is noteworthy? Because this is the first time I've seen this duo dynamic done right. [spoilers for Vice City Stories and Mafia II ahead] In VCS and Mafia II, this dynamic is also implied, but untrue in action. In those two games, the protagonist would always tell the sidekick how stupid he is, yet he would always be the one following him around and getting introduced to people and opportunities through them which was a major flaw. I'm happy that GTA V did it properly.
• The story's supplements are great. I'm talking about the presentation and the soundtrack. GTA V has lots of cool and memorable moments. Great cinematiclike scenes. I would give examples but I wouldn't have enough space. Bury the Hatchet's climax is one of the best, for sure.
• I liked the friends-not-friends awkward dynamic between Michael and Dave. I would've liked to see more of it.
• I liked the portrayals of hillbillies in the desert chapters. Trevor being in the middle of the worst and craziest, feeling right at home hit right.

 

So with the main cat out of the bag, I'll get to the main deal.

 

So GTA V's writing is flawed because:

• The pacing. The pacing is the worst sin of GTA V's story. GTA V could've had the exact same story with actual pacing and I would've instantly liked it better. The problem with GTA V is, you never settle on anything. So the game starts and the story's framework is shown. Franklin is suffering in the hood, Michael has a dysfunctional family and whatnot. Before allowing you to explore that, the game keeps throwing you sudden curveballs. Only after one mission, you get fired from your job at the dealership, only after one mission, Michael decides to rob places again. Only after mission, do Trevor and Michael get reunited. Only after one mission, they work for the government. Only after one mission, Michael's family leaves him. Remember how in GTA IV you spent a good amount of time taking missions from Roman before things culminated? And the same for every other character? In GTA V, you're never given enough space to take in the moment, things always ignore and supersede each other. You don't get to know much about Simeon so him firing you doesn't really mean anything. You never get to see much of Michael's family dynamic before they leave you.
  Remember that, in Did Somebody Say Yoga? Amanda is upset at Michael for becoming more crazy than he usually is, how it scares her and makes her want to leave. What? How, when? Amanda didn't seem anymore upset than the usually was in the events that led up to this mission, nor did Michael act any crazier than he usually does. Yeah, I guess Trevor's back and Michael robbed a place. But we didn't get to see any interactions between Michael and Amanda that told us what their usual relation and expectations from each other were like. Maybe we did. But we didn't see them interact enough for it to matter. Michael's family is supposed to be a big part of his arc, yet they appear very briefly.
  The same goes for Trevor's environment. We didn't get to learn a thing about Wade, much less Ron. When we were taking missions from Roman in GTA IV, we didn't just get a sleazy gambler and womaniser, we also saw his entrepreneurial side, he had us pick up fares for him. We got to see what his job is like, what his workplace is like, him actually running his business and we got to see his accomplices and learn some things about them. We did multiple jobs for Vlad, we got to see who he was and we had tension built up by namedropping on Faustin, later being in threat by him. When we get to Trevor's introduction, we don't get these things. Trevor apparently has a meth business yet we don't see much of this business. Chef is never properly introduced as a character and we don't see what he does inside his lab, what he might need from us or just any interaction at all between him and Trevor. Trevor gets approached for a business dealing by a foreign organization. Their representative says they're pleased about Trevor's operation and would like a slice in it yet we're not told what exactly it is that drew them to Trevor, nor do we ever see them discuss business terms or anything else pertaining to their relationship. In one mission, they say "We're thinking about doing business with you." Nothing happens, then suddenly they say "We've changed our minds." Them changing their minds didn't mean much to me because their side wasn't explored or interpreted to begin with. Trevor is in area where several other people operate. The Aztecaz and the O'Neills being some of them. Trevor is upset about the Aztecaz for some reason. Why? The game never explains the why. It isn't clear what the Aztecaz are doing differently from Trevor or in spite of Trevor or why Trevor wants them out or what their relations were like before the game. Nothing is explained.
• Idiotic dialogue. GTA V has some real stupid dialogue writing. It has great dialogue too but the stupid dialogue outwits it. What kind of person walks up to someone and says "You're a resurrected corpse, right?" Much less a hardcore gangsta that I'm supposed to take seriously. Who decided the best dialogue en-route to a robbery was to have members of the criminal team give out their resumes like they're on a job interview? "I'm Franklin, dog. I'm new to these kinda planned out detailed jobs." That was horrible dialogue. The game is littered with dumb stuff like this. It just keeps me from taking it seriously.
• One dimensional characters. Trevor is Le Crazy Guy. The game is always trying to tell me: HEY! REMEMBER! THIS IS THE CRAZY GUY! DID YOU FORGET HOW CRAZY HE IS? LET US SHOW YOU AGAIN. DON'T FORGET THAT HE IS THE CRAZY GUY. Trevor's only characteristic is that he's psychotic. I know it's intended to be, but it gets old quick. It's also contradictory. So Trevor is a guy who is a cannibal, a sadist, a whoremonger, a sodomist, a serial killer, a joker; yet at the same time he's a successful businessman, a charming man, and a good man with a good heart? The game should pick one or the other. I wouldn't mind contradictory personalities since that's true to life, but contradictory character writing is a different thing. I'll get to this more in the next bulletpoints. The game's climax builds up to how Trevor was unjustly betrayed by his friend. Whether his betrayal is unjust is up to interpretation. I personally agree with Michael and what he did, but a lot of people don't. This point isn't about that. It's about how Trevor screws people over on the daily. All of his friendships are built through screw-over. He ruined Ron's marriage to get him on his side, he killed and buried (or something) Wade's friends and turned him into a worse retard than he already was to earn his dependence. And he screws over Floyd's life completely to get what he wants. Not to mention, he treats all of these guys like sh*t. I'm not morally concerned here, I'm just saying it doesn't add up. If Trevor is a man without loyalty, why should I care about breaches of loyalty directed at him? Why does he keep calling Michael a treacherous, heinous liar and manipulator when he's all of those things in much worse ways than him? Why is he pretending to care about loyalty and fairness when he doesn't even have the most basic values of discipline in the battlefield? He screws over Wade and Floyd and leaves his men behind in Scouting the Port. This is the biggest sin a fighter can have and yet he cries honour. Anyway. That's my rant about Trevor over. I liked his presentation, he's a crazy guy who is a personification of the way people play GTA and Steven Ogg went all out when doing voicework for him. I can't blame some of the terrible dialogue on him either. But his character has too many flaws in writing.
  Michael is a bad father. Why? Because he's a bad father. Franklin doesn't like the hood mentality. Why? Because he doesn't like the hood mentality. Devin Weston is a rich dick. Why? Because he's rich, so he's a dick. Amanda is always mad at Michael. Why? Because that's her role. Even 3D universe characters had more complexity than GTA V's characters. They have other sides them outside of their main character trait. What can you say about Devin Weston other than that he's a rich dick? Maybe if we would've seen what he's like, we could say: He's a smart guy. He's an ambitious guy. He's a good businessman. Nothing like that.
• Dead end subplots. This is something that the whole industry of media - whether TV or game - is guilty of nowadays, especially this decade. The game keeps throwing in subplots that go nowhere. Michael's arc is supposed to culminate in him finally getting over his psychological issues and actually managing to leave his psychotic murdering ways behind. This is portrayed as why Michael's family finally comes back together. But it doesn't happen. Amanda claims she won't return until Michael actually calms down and we never get to see this happen. But the game lies to my face that it did. The only thing Michael did that was remotely in this direction was become a movie producer. But that's not even why his family comes back. They come back because Jimmy decides to ask his dad for a car. How silly.
  The next best example is the arc between Trevor and Michael. Trevor keeps going on and on about being betrayed and about the sh*tty cards Michael dealt Brad. But he didn't actually care about Brad after all. His only concern was being betrayed himself. So why involve Brad in? Brad doesn't even seem to be someone that was close to the duo. He's talked about as someone they picked up along the way and didn't get to know much before dumping him. Trevor even says this himself, that he didn't actually care about Brad and was planning to kill him himself. And yet again, nothing happens after this discovery that should mellow out the tension between Michael and Trevor. Trevor seemingly forgives him, though Michael doesn't do anything to make it happen. Again, it's a curveball isn't built up to, elaborated, or explained. And this is another example of bad pacing, by the way. In one mission, Trevor wants to tear Michael's guts out. Two or three missions later, he suddenly doesn't. GTA V is full of bad pacing like this. Environments are always dumped after only a couple missions, not like in GTA IV where you would do multiple missions (even up to a dozen) for someone before moving on. It's all irrelevant anyway because the plot twist is clear to us from the start. It isn't a shock. Character development and story development are nonexistent.
• Idiotic occurrences. GTA V's story has a lot of things that are plain stupid. Trevor reveals his backstory through a literal fairytale. This also goes for the stupid dialogue section. Who the hell thought it was a good idea to reveal Trevor and Michael's backstory through a story told on a road trip? If the game wants me to take the story seriously, why is it taking the piss out on itself? This fairytale comes just before Trevor looks over the lights of LS and thinks about his life, a quite serious moment, led up to by an extremely unserious moment. It's not consistent.
  The IAA tortures a guy for no reason which makes them look stupid. Torturing Mr. K wasn't necessary at all. I don't say this because I'm morally outraged but because it's badly written. Mr. K was prepared to tell everything right from the start. Yet neither the FIB or the IAA got through to him simply because they didn't ask the right questions. I know the GTA universe portrays everyone as incompetent, but this is a whole other level. The torture of Mr. K doesn't get you some highly valuable super secret information. It gets you a very broad physical description of someone. They could've asked him: "What does Tahir Javan look like and where can we find him?" And that would've been the end of it. But the game added this convoluted torture sequence just to remind us of something. The torture sequence is only there to remind us that Trevor is merciless and crazy. But it takes its toll on the other characters. Usually, a game would want you to fear the antagonists. This doesn't make me fear Agent Haines, it makes me find him ridiculous. He really wasted valuable hours and department money to set up a torture chamber in a discreet building when it was completely uncalled for. This lets me know that he's comically bad at doing his job.
  When Trevor finds out that Michael is alive. He has to find him. And what does he do to find him? He gets a literal retard to look him up on the phonebook. This goes for bad pacing too. Trevor finding out Michael is alive is supposed to be some a big revelation, a big event in the story. We're supposed to feel appalled and shocked. And we're also supposed to feel intrigured because Trevor is going to have to go through some things to look for him. But no. Wade, a seemingly mentally retarded person, is who he employs to find Michael. This makes Trevor look stupid too. He cares a lot about this and will stop at nothing to achieve it. Yet he employs someone who is not qualified in any way and unqualified in every possible way to do it? And the way Wade finds Michael is stupid as well. There is no big revelation here either. He just has one flip through the phone directory and finds Michael. How the hell was Wade able to find anything, let alone Michael's marital status and how many kids he's got? The game is asking me to suspend my disbelief too much.
  Trevor is an uneducated hillbilly yet a successful businessman. I was told that Trevor didn't go to school or something like that. Yet he became a fighter pilot. Alright, maybe. But if he's uneducated, how is he good with numbers? If he's a homicidal maniac, a cannibalist and everything else, how is he a successful businessman? Trevor does a lot of stupid things throughout the course of the game while the game pretends he's doing something smart. I'm to believe he's capable of running a business, yet his workers are completely incapable of running a business. His business is seeing success even though he's sabotaging it by killing all of potential suppliers and buyers, which not only harms his business opportunities but also harms his reputation and dependability as a businessman. Why would anyone want to do business with Trevor if they have to constantly look both under and over their shoulder while doing business with him? It doesn't matter how much money it might make. It doesn't matter if Trevor suddenly has an itch and decides to kill them. He paints himself as someone who does not respect fair business.

 

This probably doesn't mention everything I have to say about GTA V's story, nor is it well-written. But I just wanted to casually write and put something out that broadly explained how I felt about the game's story. I didn't intend this to be essay level.

I don't think GTA V is a bad game, and I don't think it's the worst story ever. But it is bad for game as big as GTA which has higher standards. It feels like the writers didn't try at all. I don't know how much other parts of the development inhibited the development of the story and they may have had their reasons for doing it this way. But the fact remains that it's lackluster and below average. Now I know not everyone cares that much about a game's story. Most people were pleasured with it just for the presentation. This is more of a geeky text written for others of the same approach. If you think you can change my view, go right ahead. I'd love nothing more than to see more of the good in GTA V's story.

Edited March 14 by E Revere

[demsmashies]

Just ignore the story of this game it’s not as refined as other games but that’s the opinion of demsmashies!

[Homicidal Hipster]

Completely disagree with all your points. Vs story objectively had far better pacing that it's predecessors. Every mission brought the plot forward and there was no filler. It's tight and straightforward. I love IV but for every mission that advanced the overarching story there were 10 missions that didn't and just had Niko doing random missions around the map for no real purpose.

 

As for Trevor...look, people are complex... they're contradictory and they're not always going to be consistent. The writers understood this and wrote Trevor accordingly....He's not black or white..he's Gray.. If you look at Trevor as someone who's suffering from a very severe case of borderline personality disorder then he's a lot easier to digest and understand. Borderlines suffer from extreme mood swings, fear of being abandoned, unclear or shifting self image, an unstable life and impulsive, self destructive behaviours....Sound like anyone to you? He's got his good traits the writers gave him to make him more relatable..but these traits are overshadowed by his darker side. He's a mix between an Anti hero and an Anti Villian. If it weren't for his abandonment issues and his clingyness, he'd be considered the perfect Psychopath.

 

Just my take on the story. I thought it was very well told and action packed. It's written like a 20 -25 episode crime sitcom. The characters are much better if you look at them through the lens of a sitcom format. I've noticed people's main problems with Vs story stem from the fact that people wanted another Dark and gritty IV espue story and just reject V for being different in tone. You're looking for something that was never there. 

[Emmi]

V has the most stupid story of any GTA game, period. Nothing can change my opinion on that.

[HenriqueV5]

My tier list from best to worst story:

1. GTA IV;
2. San Andreas;
3.  Vice City;
4. Episodes From Liberty City;
5. Vice City Stories;
6. GTA V;
7. Liberty City Stories;
8. GTA III.

 

It's been a long time since I played GTA II, so I didn't take it into consideration. GTA I, London, Chinatown and Advance I haven't finished yet.

 

Despite the weak story, GTA V is still one of my favorites, much because of the memories of the time of its release, the hype was insane, but I only managed to play it in 2015. Imagine the suffering of a fan having to settle for just watching videos of other people playing. 
The setting, map and activities also contribute to classify it as one of my favorites. 

 

 

Edited March 17 by HenriqueV5

[E Revere]

On 3/17/2023 at 8:17 AM, Homicidal Hipster said:

Every mission brought the plot forward and there was no filler. It's tight and straightforward. I love IV but for every mission that advanced the overarching story there were 10 missions that didn't and just had Niko doing random missions around the map for no real purpose.

I get what you're saying but you're wrong. Telling a story isn't just about advancing the plot. There also needs to be room for exploration, immersion and worldbuilding. Each GTA game introduced you to the ethnic groups and gangs of its setting. GTA V didn't do this. As such, I never felt like I got to "experience" a GTA game, felt more like I watched a movie. For being set in a city with a criminal history as iconically famous as LA, it didn't do it justice. Most people don't know that an Armenian Mob exists in GTA V because the game never explores anything.

 

Also, filler is there so that the player can unwind and breathe after a major break in the plot. Without it, everything will be hollow.

Edited March 18 by E Revere

[Cheatz/Trickz]

On 3/17/2023 at 5:17 AM, Homicidal Hipster said:

Completely disagree with all your points. Vs story objectively had far better pacing that it's predecessors. Every mission brought the plot forward and there was no filler. It's tight and straightforward. I love IV but for every mission that advanced the overarching story there were 10 missions that didn't and just had Niko doing random missions around the map for no real purpose.

 

Better pacing is not just moving faster. Saying every mission moves the plot forwards is objectively untrue, early missions with Lamar as Franklin, random shootout with Trevor and Lamar who are best friends after it. Trevor dealing with the Lost and other gangs before going to LS, his and Mike’s exile to the desert, Mike becoming a movie producer…These missions do nothing to move the story forward. 
 

And there’s nothing necessarily wrong with these missions, not every mission has to advance the story, some missions are just personal to a character. But V fails to properly set up the missions that do move the story forward, and you’re left wondering if you missed a mission or two it’s so jarringly abrupt. 

 

 

On 3/17/2023 at 5:17 AM, Homicidal Hipster said:

As for Trevor...look, people are complex... they're contradictory and they're not always going to be consistent. The writers understood this and wrote Trevor accordingly....He's not black or white..he's Gray.. If you look at Trevor as someone who's suffering from a very severe case of borderline personality disorder then he's a lot easier to digest and understand.

 

Trevor becomes a parody of himself though. The concept of Trevor is very interesting, the execution is where it goes wrong because you can’t take him seriously. The game has a tone problem. 

 

 

On 3/17/2023 at 5:17 AM, Homicidal Hipster said:

Just my take on the story. I thought it was very well told and action packed. It's written like a 20 -25 episode crime sitcom. The characters are much better if you look at them through the lens of a sitcom format. I've noticed people's main problems with Vs story stem from the fact that people wanted another Dark and gritty IV espue story and just reject V for being different in tone. You're looking for something that was never there. 

Yes, the characters of V are great if you look at it as a comedy in which you do not take the story seriously. But V wants to be taken seriously, then it doesn’t, then it does, then it doesn’t, then it does…see the problem? 
 

IV being dark and gritty is not the reason its story is considered the best. The story is the best because it’s well written and the tone is consistent. V could have been well written and not been dark. 

[JetNormalGuy]

To be honest, I like GTA V's story just the way it is, would have been cool to if tha game had as much missions as GTA IV so that it fixes the pacing problem, like having to do more missions as Franklin before unlocking Micheal, I still vividly remember how when I found out that there are no closed-off islands or restricted areas to unlock that they replaced these areas you unlock with characters you unlock, but Micheal being available so early kinda broke this for me, but its alright since the story is constantly on the move.

 

Though the one thing that would have ultimately made GTA V even more of a classic than it already is, is if they forced you to kill 1 of the characters in the finale, they set it up just perfectly with how we can see Franklin starting to doubt Micheal's loyalty and thinking if he's the next guy he's gonna sacrifice to save his own ass, or how the f*cking feds threaten Frank to deal with Trevor which gives him the dilemma we already have in the finale game. But then we have Deathwish in which the characters just deal with their problems all in one mission, kinda felt like TBOGTs ending where all the problems the characters had all of a sudden dissapear (atleast in V they tied up much more loose ends than in TBOGT where they just kill Timur and Bulgarin and call it a day). If they forced us to kill one of the protagonists, it would seriously be on-par if not better than GTA IV's story depending on how they go through with it, idk it just makes me wish they did it.

 

I still love GTA V though, despite all of the hate it gets for being Rockstar's golden bo, there's still that GTA magic that I feel whenever I play the singleplayer, the soundtrack is top-notch and has the most memorable and scenes in the franchise.

[E Revere]

26 minutes ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

Better pacing is not just moving faster. Saying every mission moves the plot forwards is objectively untrue, early missions with Lamar as Franklin, random shootout with Trevor and Lamar who are best friends after it. Trevor dealing with the Lost and other gangs before going to LS, his and Mike’s exile to the desert, Mike becoming a movie producer…These missions do nothing to move the story forward. 
 

And there’s nothing necessarily wrong with these missions, not every mission has to advance the story, some missions are just personal to a character. But V fails to properly set up the missions that do move the story forward, and you’re left wondering if you missed a mission or two it’s so jarringly abrupt. 

Agreed. When the game released for PC, I couldn't play it and resorted to watching walkthrough. Somehow, it left a memory that the game was longer and more detailed. When I actually played it myself, it felt odd because the game felt a lot shorter than I remembered. You don't work for a lot of people in GTA V. The second job giver you meet is the one who screws you over and it isn't even that personal. He just hires you and doesn't pay you. It's a weak storyline. None of the other antagonists felt strong either. If the game had actual pacing, you would've seen why there's a problem between each protagonist and their respective antagonist. But the game instantly moves on. It's like a story without a story, just a beginning and an end.

Edited March 18 by E Revere

[Homicidal Hipster]

5 hours ago, Cheatz/Trickz said:

 

Better pacing is not just moving faster. Saying every mission moves the plot forwards is objectively untrue, early missions with Lamar as Franklin, random shootout with Trevor and Lamar who are best friends after it. Trevor dealing with the Lost and other gangs before going to LS, his and Mike’s exile to the desert, Mike becoming a movie producer…These missions do nothing to move the story forward. 
 

And there’s nothing necessarily wrong with these missions, not every mission has to advance the story, some missions are just personal to a character. But V fails to properly set up the missions that do move the story forward, and you’re left wondering if you missed a mission or two it’s so jarringly abrupt. 

 

 

 

Trevor becomes a parody of himself though. The concept of Trevor is very interesting, the execution is where it goes wrong because you can’t take him seriously. The game has a tone problem. 

 

 

Yes, the characters of V are great if you look at it as a comedy in which you do not take the story seriously. But V wants to be taken seriously, then it doesn’t, then it does, then it doesn’t, then it does…see the problem? 
 

IV being dark and gritty is not the reason its story is considered the best. The story is the best because it’s well written and the tone is consistent. V could have been well written and not been dark. 

Better pacing literally means "moving at a brisk, steady speed." Which Vs story does. Of course there's the odd mission that may not advance the FIB plot. But it will at the very least progress the characters relationships. Trevor/Franklin Trevor/Lamar Frank/Lamar.

 

Trevor and Lamar don't just randomly become best friends. They become friends throughout their hangout conversations.. Trevor will eventually confide in Lamar about the whole Brad situation.. but at first there's natrually a little tension between them.. but these are optional hangouts afterall but they definitely add to the overall story and it's suggested you do these extra activities between story missions..

 

And all those other parts you mentioned, like the whole Lost debacle, Mike's movie producer story etc all these parts DO move the story forward. Trevor clearly states he wants to rid sandy shores of his competition before he departs.. so he does just that..and the repercussions for all that violence come back to bite him in the ass later with the O'Neil's and the Chinese kidnapping Michael. So those seemingly irrelevant plot points come full circle later..And Michael's journey to becoming a movie producer is critical in his character development. He's obsessed with all that old school film stuff. But on the night of his big premier he gives up all the glory to go save his family instead..again bringing the whole thing full circle and finally cementing his love for his family. 

 

And I think Vs tone is fairly consistent. It's overall a satirical comedy. But it does have its serious moments. Eg Bury the Hatchet. But every sitcom in existence has moments of brooding seriousness.

 

And with Trevor, I don't think you're supposed to take him seriously, at least not unless he wants you too...he's literally a gas huffing, cross dressing, hitch hiker eating, sadistic sociopath with a heart of gold and a soul of blackness. He's a character straight outta Deadpool or the epic movie or another parody film. Most of the time he's fully satirical...until he's not....in which case he becomes a terrifying Psychopath. It's that duality about him that I find so interesting and compelling. He can go from jovial clown to ruthless monster in the blink of an eye. That's credit to Steven oggs talent as an actor.  And I never felt the jarring abruptness that you described. But that's probably because I hang out the characters in between missions and they'll usually talk about what went down and fill in the blanks. If you rush through the story without taking a break then I could see how you'd be confused. 

 

Every other GTA story suffers from mad pace problems. Take zero from SA for example. None of his toy plane missions are necessary to the plot. Same with PBX and Dwayne from IV. Great side plot but irrelevant to Niko's main journey of finding Darko. Or Brucie...just another character thrown it to increase the number of missions. And the whole Italian mafia part at the end is so bloated. Rays character is great but Peg and bell were both just stereotypes of new York gangsters introduced in the final act to have some more big boss guys to do missions for. And one of them potentially becomes the main antagonist of the game when he was only introduced in the last two hours of this 30 + hour story. And don't get me started on Kate. Good concept but the writers did an absolute terrible job at making the player care for her like Niko does. And that's objectively true. 

[Homicidal Hipster]

8 hours ago, E Revere said:

I get what you're saying but you're wrong. Telling a story isn't just about advancing the plot. There also needs to be room for exploration, immersion and worldbuilding. Each GTA game introduced you to the ethnic groups and gangs of its setting. GTA V didn't do this. As such, I never felt like I got to "experience" a GTA game, felt more like I watched a movie. For being set in a city with a criminal history as iconically famous as LA, it didn't do it justice. Most people don't know that an Armenian Mob exists in GTA V because the game never explores anything.

 

Also, filler is there so that the player can unwind and breathe after a major break in the plot. Without it, everything will be hollow.

I get what you're saying but you're wrong. A story is about advancing the plot. That's objectively true. There's plenty of filler stuff in V if you want a breather from the story. There's strangers and freaks. There's random encounters..apart from those sh*tty " help me I've been robbed" ones there are some great, interesting encounters that really flesh out the world. And V was never going to be about the Mob, that was done to death in IV. It's about corruption, the entertainment business and big scale heists. It's the other side of the criminal coin, but it's something that very much exists in real life LA. it's cool if you prefer gangs and mafia type stories, and maybe that is rockstars fault for advertising Franklin to appeal to San Andreas fans, but it's not what V is trying to be at all. Whether or not that was the best choice for the game is up to interpretation. I personally think it was fine. I thought they portrayed the darker side of Hollywood/vinewood.. government corruption and large scale bank robbing really well. 

[wise_man]

I'm glad you mention what aspects you like from GTA V story here. Some people outrightly hate the story altogether, and I understand how GTA V doesn't have a "good" story. But as time goes on, I have a growing appreciations on one aspect of the story: the foundation.

 

It's original and has potentials. Michael conspiring with Dave to get a better life, sacrificing Trevor in the process. You seriously feel the tension between the two when Trevor finds out Michael is still alive. Then there's Franklin, who has nothing to do with their personal lives but is dragged into their conflict. He wants to leave the problematic hoods life, only to throw himself in a more risky danger zone.

[E Revere]

8 hours ago, Homicidal Hipster said:

Better pacing literally means "moving at a brisk, steady speed." Which Vs story does. Of course there's the odd mission that may not advance the FIB plot. But it will at the very least progress the characters relationships. Trevor/Franklin Trevor/Lamar Frank/Lamar.

It doesn't. There's usually only one "odd mission" two if you're lucky. Not many.

 

8 hours ago, Homicidal Hipster said:

Trevor and Lamar don't just randomly become best friends. They become friends throughout their hangout conversations.. Trevor will eventually confide in Lamar about the whole Brad situation.. but at first there's natrually a little tension between them..

I felt like they do. Their introduction isn't cemented. They do one job together where they barely interact then they're suddenly friends? It felt weak like most of GTA V. And while we're on the topic, hangouts in GTA V are boring too. The dialogue is terrible and uneventful, especially Jimmy's hangouts.

Also, Trevor confiding in Lamar is yet another stupid moment. The dialogue is stupid and it feels like it was thrown in there in order to explain things to the player, so it's just there for exposition. That's not good writing, objectively, since we're throwing

the word around so much. Because everybody knows that show, don't tell is the number one rule of writing.

 

8 hours ago, Homicidal Hipster said:

bringing the whole thing full circle and finally cementing his love for his family. 

Ok. But where's the part where he has to convince his family to come back? Where's the part where he proves that he's no longer a psychotic criminal? The game built up to these and then ignored it.

8 hours ago, Homicidal Hipster said:

And all those other parts you mentioned, like the whole Lost debacle, Mike's movie producer story etc all these parts DO move the story forward. Trevor clearly states he wants to rid sandy shores of his competition before he departs.. so he does just that..and the repercussions for all that violence come back to bite him in the ass later with the O'Neil's and the Chinese kidnapping Michael.

These happen jarringly abrupt. The antagonist gets introduced, barely gets expanded as a character, disappears the whole game then suddenly reappears once so they can be confronted. That's much worse than Big Smoke and Jerry Martinez. Even they screwed with you more times than one during their disappearance. It's not strong writing to have antagonists that you didn't have time to develop any understanding towards. I feel like you're not really addressing my points here. Did you really read my OP?

8 hours ago, Homicidal Hipster said:

And I think Vs tone is fairly consistent. It's overall a satirical comedy. But it does have its serious moments. Eg Bury the Hatchet. But every sitcom in existence has moments of brooding seriousness.

Like I said in the main thread, constantly taking the piss out on itself doesn't mix well with serious moments. Bury the Hatchet has a serious moment, then it gets pissed on by Trevor falling through a fence and a ridiculous argument erupting from that.

8 hours ago, Homicidal Hipster said:

And I never felt the jarring abruptness that you described. But that's probably because I hang out the characters in between missions. If you rush through the story without taking a break then I could see how you'd be confused. 

I like to do this too but GTA V's story is so short and uneventful you don't have enough time to hang out with characters. In GTA IV, you could do a couple of missions THEN hangout and it would feel just right. Not in GTA V. That's because the problem is with the game. It rushes through itself. Mafia II is a game that had a more straightforward storytelling approach yet it still did its characters justice with development and screentime and proper pacing. Everything in that game is perfectly memorable even though it happened within a short span of time. Because unlike GTA V, it wasn't ridiculously badly-written.

 

Being too straightforward doesn't work well if you have  few subplots. Everything ends in a brink. It's boring and weak.

 

8 hours ago, Homicidal Hipster said:

Every other GTA story suffers from mad pace problems. Take zero from SA for example. None of his toy plane missions are necessary to the plot. Same with PBX and Dwayne from IV. Great side plot but irrelevant to Niko's main journey of finding Darko. Or Brucie...just another character thrown it to increase the number of missions. And the whole Italian mafia part at the end is so bloated. Rays character is great but Peg and bell were both just stereotypes of new York gangsters introduced in the final act to have some more big boss guys to do missions for. And one of them potentially becomes the main antagonist of the game when he was only introduced in the last two hours of this 30 + hour story. And don't get me started on Kate. Good concept but the writers did an absolute terrible job at making the player care for her like Niko does. And that's objectively true. 

This is veering on off topic and I said I didn't want to make this V vs IV battle but I'll indulge you. If you pay enough attention, you'll find that most things in GTA IV have something or another to do with Niko's main journey. Dwayne is a self-image of Niko. It allows him to see what others see when they talk to him, and also shows him what he will turn into if he doesn't let go of revenge. Brucie isn't just another character thrown in. He has a personality and a character arc, something all GTA V characters lacked. And he's also another way for Niko to explore America and see the craziness within. Subplots exist for a reason. They get you hooked into the atmosphere. The Pegorino family are actually based on New Jersey gangsters. Phil Bell was an awesome character with lots of personality despite his low screentime, very memorable character. They're not all just blank stereotypes. I'll give you that one about the Peg becoming the final boss, that WAS weak. About Kate, you're not right, definitely not "objectively." Maybe the game did do that, but not completely. If you do the hangouts with Kate, you'll know that Kate is the one and only person who ever truly makes him consider leaving the life of crime behind. Not his family, not his friends. That's powerful. After that, it's not difficult to see why her death would shake Niko up so much. He decides to become a better person for one second and it falls apart.

 

I don't like GTA IV's story because it's dark. I like it because it's actually written. GTA IV was the first game to actually utilize proper writing techniques in the GTA franchise. Like pace, main plotline, theme, tone, progression, character development, tense and downturn. Things like that. And I don't dislike GTA V's story because it's bright and sunny. I dislike it because it didn't make good use of these techniques. I'll admit, maybe if it wasn't superseding GTA IV, it wouldn't have mattered as much. But the fact that GTA IV is better written isn't what makes me dislike GTA V.

 

8 hours ago, Homicidal Hipster said:

A story is about advancing the plot. That's objectively true.

That's objectively untrue. Worldbuilding and engagement are an essential part of writing a story. I'm not talking about filler here. I'm talking about development. GTA IV's many missions are about other characters and they develop those other characters. GTA V doesn't do this. You meet Solomon Richards and your only two or three missions to him are about defending him. His character doesn't get explored, revealed or developed. The only thing we know about him is that he's a passionate movie producer that Michael likes. We don't get to know about him, what he likes. Nor do we get to know about what Michael actually does as a producer and how it has affected him. From where the game stands, the only thing Michael does in way of producing a movie is having his name on the credits. Maybe they were trying to send a message about how hollow the term "producer" is in real life which would make it true to life. But it's a bad way to write a subplot. If GTA V was meant to be straightforward, then it shouldn't have so many sublots. Because it ignores them and they just feel weak.

8 hours ago, Homicidal Hipster said:

And V was never going to be about the Mob, that was done to death in IV. It's about corruption, the entertainment business and big scale heists. It's the other side of the criminal coin, but it's something that very much exists in real life LA. it's cool if you prefer gangs and mafia type stories, and maybe that is rockstars fault for advertising Franklin to appeal to San Andreas fans, but it's not what V is trying to be at all. Whether or not that was the best choice for the game is up to interpretation. I personally think it was fine. I thought they portrayed the darker side of Hollywood/vinewood.. government corruption and large scale bank robbing really well. 

I didn't say it should've been about the mob. My complaint there wasn't directed at the fact it wasn't about gangs. It was about how it didn't explore anything. I've felt like I've explained this through multiple angles by now. The game lacks depth. It takes you around its world, but never explores it. You have no idea what is going on around the city that the game takes place in because the game never takes you around the city. You don't see what kind of people live in specific neighbourhoods of the city. You don't see what makes the port different from East LS or what it's like in the west. In other GTA games, I always knew most of the layout of the map. In GTA V, I never did because the game doesn't encourage exploration. I never learned the names of the neighbourhoods or streets like in the other games. If the wasn't remotely going to be about exploration, what was the point in making such a big city with such a variety of colours? What it does show, it doesn't explore either. It shows Trevor's business and relationships but never explores it. Trevor kidnaps Patricia and this is supposed to be a moment where the game shows us something new about Trevor's character. But it doesn't. Because their only interaction happens off-screen. And by the way this development was very cheap. It's a cliché stockholm syndrome. A crazy psychopath kidnaps someone very good, yet the good person claims to see a light in the darkness in his/her kidnapper. Textbook stockholm syndrome cliché in storytelling. Anyway. The game shows Franklin and Lamar's relationship, but never explores it. It introduced Stretch, but never explores him. It introduces the Cheng Triad, but never explores it. It introduces Devin Weston, but never explores him.

 

You haven't addressed all of my points anyhow. How about the fact that the main plotline and the antagonists are weak? You don't see Devin Weston's character and supposedly-rich life outside of car thefts and his lawyer. Devin Weston is supposed to be an interesting person in a lot of ways but you never see one of them. Had this been GTA IV, his character would be a lot more interesting than "I'm a rich dick. Steal five cars for me so that I don't pay you." Not being paid for stealing cars is the worst buildup to an antagonist in any GTA game. There's nothing personally upsetting about that. The game doesn't make you hate the main antagonist. And the same could be said about Haines.

[Homicidal Hipster]

3 hours ago, E Revere said:

It doesn't. There's usually only one "odd mission" two if you're lucky. Not many.

 

I felt like they do. Their introduction isn't cemented. They do one job together where they barely interact then they're suddenly friends? It felt weak like most of GTA V. And while we're on the topic, hangouts in GTA V are boring too. The dialogue is terrible and uneventful, especially Jimmy's hangouts.

Also, Trevor confiding in Lamar is yet another stupid moment. The dialogue is stupid and it feels like it was thrown in there in order to explain things to the player, so it's just there for exposition. That's not good writing, objectively, since we're throwing

the word around so much. Because everybody knows that show, don't tell is the number one rule of writing.

 

Ok. But where's the part where he has to convince his family to come back? Where's the part where he proves that he's no longer a psychotic criminal? The game built up to these and then ignored it.

These happen jarringly abrupt. The antagonist gets introduced, barely gets expanded as a character, disappears the whole game then suddenly reappears once so they can be confronted. That's much worse than Big Smoke and Jerry Martinez. Even they screwed with you more times than one during their disappearance. It's not strong writing to have antagonists that you didn't have time to develop any understanding towards. I feel like you're not really addressing my points here. Did you really read my OP?

Like I said in the main thread, constantly taking the piss out on itself doesn't mix well with serious moments. Bury the Hatchet has a serious moment, then it gets pissed on by Trevor falling through a fence and a ridiculous argument erupting from that.

I like to do this too but GTA V's story is so short and uneventful you don't have enough time to hang out with characters. In GTA IV, you could do a couple of missions THEN hangout and it would feel just right. Not in GTA V. That's because the problem is with the game. It rushes through itself. Mafia II is a game that had a more straightforward storytelling approach yet it still did its characters justice with development and screentime and proper pacing. Everything in that game is perfectly memorable even though it happened within a short span of time. Because unlike GTA V, it wasn't ridiculously badly-written.

 

Being too straightforward doesn't work well if you have  few subplots. Everything ends in a brink. It's boring and weak.

 

This is veering on off topic and I said I didn't want to make this V vs IV battle but I'll indulge you. If you pay enough attention, you'll find that most things in GTA IV have something or another to do with Niko's main journey. Dwayne is a self-image of Niko. It allows him to see what others see when they talk to him, and also shows him what he will turn into if he doesn't let go of revenge. Brucie isn't just another character thrown in. He has a personality and a character arc, something all GTA V characters lacked. And he's also another way for Niko to explore America and see the craziness within. Subplots exist for a reason. They get you hooked into the atmosphere. The Pegorino family are actually based on New Jersey gangsters. Phil Bell was an awesome character with lots of personality despite his low screentime, very memorable character. They're not all just blank stereotypes. I'll give you that one about the Peg becoming the final boss, that WAS weak. About Kate, you're not right, definitely not "objectively." Maybe the game did do that, but not completely. If you do the hangouts with Kate, you'll know that Kate is the one and only person who ever truly makes him consider leaving the life of crime behind. Not his family, not his friends. That's powerful. After that, it's not difficult to see why her death would shake Niko up so much. He decides to become a better person for one second and it falls apart.

 

I don't like GTA IV's story because it's dark. I like it because it's actually written. GTA IV was the first game to actually utilize proper writing techniques in the GTA franchise. Like pace, main plotline, theme, tone, progression, character development, tense and downturn. Things like that. And I don't dislike GTA V's story because it's bright and sunny. I dislike it because it didn't make good use of these techniques. I'll admit, maybe if it wasn't superseding GTA IV, it wouldn't have mattered as much. But the fact that GTA IV is better written isn't what makes me dislike GTA V.

 

That's objectively untrue. Worldbuilding and engagement are an essential part of writing a story. I'm not talking about filler here. I'm talking about development. GTA IV's many missions are about other characters and they develop those other characters. GTA V doesn't do this. You meet Solomon Richards and your only two or three missions to him are about defending him. His character doesn't get explored, revealed or developed. The only thing we know about him is that he's a passionate movie producer that Michael likes. We don't get to know about him, what he likes. Nor do we get to know about what Michael actually does as a producer and how it has affected him. From where the game stands, the only thing Michael does in way of producing a movie is having his name on the credits. Maybe they were trying to send a message about how hollow the term "producer" is in real life which would make it true to life. But it's a bad way to write a subplot. If GTA V was meant to be straightforward, then it shouldn't have so many sublots. Because it ignores them and they just feel weak.

I didn't say it should've been about the mob. My complaint there wasn't directed at the fact it wasn't about gangs. It was about how it didn't explore anything. I've felt like I've explained this through multiple angles by now. The game lacks depth. It takes you around its world, but never explores it. You have no idea what is going on around the city that the game takes place in because the game never takes you around the city. You don't see what kind of people live in specific neighbourhoods of the city. You don't see what makes the port different from East LS or what it's like in the west. In other GTA games, I always knew most of the layout of the map. In GTA V, I never did because the game doesn't encourage exploration. I never learned the names of the neighbourhoods or streets like in the other games. If the wasn't remotely going to be about exploration, what was the point in making such a big city with such a variety of colours? What it does show, it doesn't explore either. It shows Trevor's business and relationships but never explores it. Trevor kidnaps Patricia and this is supposed to be a moment where the game shows us something new about Trevor's character. But it doesn't. Because their only interaction happens off-screen. And by the way this development was very cheap. It's a cliché stockholm syndrome. A crazy psychopath kidnaps someone very good, yet the good person claims to see a light in the darkness in his/her kidnapper. Textbook stockholm syndrome cliché in storytelling. Anyway. The game shows Franklin and Lamar's relationship, but never explores it. It introduced Stretch, but never explores him. It introduces the Cheng Triad, but never explores it. It introduces Devin Weston, but never explores him.

 

You haven't addressed all of my points anyhow. How about the fact that the main plotline and the antagonists are weak? You don't see Devin Weston's character and supposedly-rich life outside of car thefts and his lawyer. Devin Weston is supposed to be an interesting person in a lot of ways but you never see one of them. Had this been GTA IV, his character would be a lot more interesting than "I'm a rich dick. Steal five cars for me so that I don't pay you." Not being paid for stealing cars is the worst buildup to an antagonist in any GTA game. There's nothing personally upsetting about that. The game doesn't make you hate the main antagonist. And the same could be said about Haines.

You're obviously very stubborn and aren't willing to accept any point of view that isn't your own so let's end it there. 

[E Revere]

13 minutes ago, Homicidal Hipster said:

You're obviously very stubborn and aren't willing to accept any point of view that isn't your own so let's end it there. 

If you dont want to discuss, just don't. Dont tell people stupid things like this.

[Cheatz/Trickz]

On 3/19/2023 at 12:54 AM, Homicidal Hipster said:

Better pacing literally means "moving at a brisk, steady speed." Which Vs story does. Of course there's the odd mission that may not advance the FIB plot. But it will at the very least progress the characters relationships. Trevor/Franklin Trevor/Lamar Frank/Lamar.

 

Don’t confuse good pacing with rushing. 

 

On 3/19/2023 at 12:54 AM, Homicidal Hipster said:

Trevor and Lamar don't just randomly become best friends. They become friends throughout their hangout conversations.. Trevor will eventually confide in Lamar about the whole Brad situation.. but at first there's natrually a little tension between them.. but these are optional hangouts afterall but they definitely add to the overall story and it's suggested you do these extra activities between story missions..

 

I get this stuff, and it’s fine, but one mission doesn’t justify these two being willing to hang out. 
 

In IV you must complete mission strands with each friend before they’ll hang out. These missions establish the basis for a friendship. 

 

On 3/19/2023 at 12:54 AM, Homicidal Hipster said:

And all those other parts you mentioned, like the whole Lost debacle, Mike's movie producer story etc all these parts DO move the story forward. Trevor clearly states he wants to rid sandy shores of his competition before he departs.. so he does just that..

 

That’s all Trevor stuff. 
 

The story of V is about two friends, criminals on polar opposite ends of the moral spectrum. One betrays the other for a deal with the feds, one escapes. Years later, they’re reunited and form an uneasy alliance to commit a series of heists whilst old secrets threaten to tear apart this alliance with potentially fatal consequences. 
 

That’s a summary of V’s story. Anything else is character stuff. 

If you haven’t noticed this is why Franklin’s often thought of as a weak protagonist by people who criticise V’s story, he has very little role in overarching part of it and is pretty much a supporting character. 

 

On 3/19/2023 at 12:54 AM, Homicidal Hipster said:

And Michael's journey to becoming a movie producer is critical in his character development. He's obsessed with all that old school film stuff. But on the night of his big premier he gives up all the glory to go save his family instead..again bringing the whole thing full circle and finally cementing his love for his family. 

 

And I think Vs tone is fairly consistent. It's overall a satirical comedy. But it does have its serious moments. Eg Bury the Hatchet. But every sitcom in existence has moments of brooding seriousness.

 

And that’s Michael stuff. 
 

You can’t praise this in V only to then complain that IV’s missions don’t progress its story when many of them are all, in some way big or small, progressing and developing Niko’s character.

 

GTA V being similar in tone to a sitcom is kind of the whole issue. The juxtaposition of serious to funny in a short space of time to create humour works in a sitcom because the main characters in them are not usually depressed and/or psychotic drug dealing murdering degenerate thieves. 

 

On 3/19/2023 at 12:54 AM, Homicidal Hipster said:

And with Trevor, I don't think you're supposed to take him seriously, at least not unless he wants you too...he's literally a gas huffing, cross dressing, hitch hiker eating, sadistic sociopath with a heart of gold and a soul of blackness.

 

He's a character straight outta Deadpool or the epic movie or another parody film. Most of the time he's fully satirical...until he's not....in which case he becomes a terrifying Psychopath. It's that duality about him that I find so interesting and compelling. He can go from jovial clown to ruthless monster in the blink of an eye. That's credit to Steven oggs talent as an actor.  And I never felt the jarring abruptness that you described. But that's probably because I hang out the characters in between missions and they'll usually talk about what went down and fill in the blanks. If you rush through the story without taking a break then I could see how you'd be confused. 

 

All of this is why Trevor contributes to V’s tonal identity crisis. You’re proving my point, he’s satirical, then he’s not…etc. 
 

I liked Trevor but I never bought him as anything other than a funny idiot, and I think that’s a problem with the game’s writing. They overplayed his psychotic tendencies and weirdness so much that they come to define him instead of him being multi-dimensional. 

 

I don’t rush V either, I engage in the hangouts to get the most out of the characters. 

 

On 3/19/2023 at 12:54 AM, Homicidal Hipster said:

Every other GTA story suffers from mad pace problems. Take zero from SA for example. None of his toy plane missions are necessary to the plot. Same with PBX and Dwayne from IV. Great side plot but irrelevant to Niko's main journey of finding Darko. Or Brucie...just another character thrown it to increase the number of missions.

 

There’s nothing wrong with any of these things. They have their purpose. 

 

On 3/19/2023 at 12:54 AM, Homicidal Hipster said:

And the whole Italian mafia part at the end is so bloated. Rays character is great but Peg and bell were both just stereotypes of new York gangsters introduced in the final act to have some more big boss guys to do missions for. And one of them potentially becomes the main antagonist of the game when he was only introduced in the last two hours of this 30 + hour story. And don't get me started on Kate. Good concept but the writers did an absolute terrible job at making the player care for her like Niko does. And that's objectively true. 

I think the fact that Peg can become the antagonist cleverly subverts Dimitri’s role, robbing him of that honour and reducing him to a pathetic rat, a bug to be squashed unceremoniously in the bowels of a ship.
 

GTA IV overall breaks rules rather than follow them, it’s why a "fat fu*king joke" like Pegorino, introduced in the final act can be the final "boss".

 

Niko already dealt with what’s been eating away at him all this time, so who he kills in the last mission beneath the Statue of Happiness is as meaningless as the American Dream, even Niko thinks so too when he mocks them. 
 

I agree about Kate’s role btw, it is not as well implemented as it could have been, but I appreciate that it’s in there without forcing me to engage with it. 

 

Edited March 20 by Cheatz/Trickz

[Patrizio]

@E Revere

 

Fantastic posts and topic! A lot of V defenders rally against IV as an argument. How do you find V compares story-wise to the 3D era?

[E Revere]

10 hours ago, Patrizio said:

@E Revere

 

Fantastic posts and topic! A lot of V defenders rally against IV as an argument. How do you find V compares story-wise to the 3D era?

All 3D era games (even LCS and Advance) have better and stronger stories with better progression and character development than GTA V, I'd say. It's just that GTA V really doesn't set the bar high.

[Patrizio]

1 hour ago, E Revere said:

All 3D era games (even LCS and Advance) have better and stronger stories with better progression and character development than GTA V, I'd say. It's just that GTA V really doesn't set the bar high.

I'd love to see your analysis of the 3D era vs V but I appreciate that may be a lot of work! 

[2L8]

On 3/17/2023 at 9:26 PM, HenriqueV5 said:

It's been a long time since I played GTA II, so I didn't take it into consideration. GTA I, London, Chinatown and Advance I haven't finished yet.

IIRC 1, London and 2 didn't have any actual stories, just a bunch of half-baked half-assed sub-plots thrown into your character to justify your crimes against humanity. 

as for Advance and Chinatown Wars stories, they're pretty decent for me, sure it's not the Houser Brothers writing of IV and SA but it's something that I did enjoy.

[cant remember]

1 hour ago, 2L8 said:

IIRC 1, London and 2 didn't have any actual stories, just a bunch of half-baked half-assed sub-plots thrown into your character to justify your crimes against humanity. 

as for Advance and Chinatown Wars stories, they're pretty decent for me, sure it's not the Houser Brothers writing of IV and SA but it's something that I did enjoy.

That's something I find funny in 2D. You answer a phone saying kidnap people to turn them into hotdogs and the money/multiplier you get are justification enough.

 

I mostly agree with E Revere. The premise is interesting, I think it would have been leaps and bounds better if they gave the story a more serious tone and the character's weren't acting so goofy ALL the time. Give them some real struggles. Franklin appears to live more of a suburban life with his white Mustang in his aunt's house than a stuck-in-the-ghetto one. And then Lester dumps a mansion on his head. Michael lives in a fancy villa, he doesn't need to do crime he only does because he decided to wreck someone's deck. Trevor enjoys the squalor he lives in.