I was probably too hard on GTA V

[Adminsaredicks]

My mostly love/hate relationship with this game was because hollywood movie story and because Online takes the rule.

 

But as story mode game offers good times and still was mostly easy going GTA  but some ingame design was controversial.

 

 

But after playing RDR2, I realized how I love easy going GTA games and all these GTA 6 leaks feels like fever dream for me because scream realism.

 

I really hope I will be wrong, but Im already realizing how Rockstar changed and world we live in. And both can negatively affect GTA VI.

 

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Ondr4H

[Krymefull]

GTA V is a fun game and all, but a lot of things in it was downgraded/simplified or simply just wasn't good as IV, or even the older games in some aspects if we playing devil's advocate. I mean; why should I choose to play it when I can play a game that came 5 years before it and have an objectively better and superior experience.

Edited April 23, 2024 by AnythingGoner

[Adminsaredicks]

10 minutes ago, 2L8 said:

Like I previously said, I don't hate GTA V, it is still a fun & enjoyable game from start to bottom, but comparing it to IV (maybe SA too) in terms of Map, Story, Characters, Gameplay, Physics etc, it does feel like a disappointing downgrade and a weak entry from what it was hyped to be the biggest game in the series yet.

Im still hoping that all these downgrades was due PS3, Xbox 360 primary era of release. Because RDR2 made for PS4 was fabulous for what was GTA V lackluster.


After many rockstar wrongdoings started mostly after online era I cannot say, rockstar cannot do bad as I used to.

[Montana...]

I loved it. But the PC version runs like garbage. Always has and apparently always will. Makes it hard to play on PC. The last time I played all the way through was like 2016 but I never had any issues with the story, 3 protags, etc etc. 

 

What I love the most about these games is there is no difficulty. It's just a casual play through kinda game and if you miss something, you will most likely want to replay the game anyways. Live and learn.

[Krymefull]

deleted

Edited April 23, 2024 by AnythingGoner

[Role-Play Walkthrough]

On 4/17/2023 at 4:51 PM, Ondr4H said:

Im still hoping that all these downgrades was due PS3, Xbox 360 primary era of release. Because RDR2 made for PS4 was fabulous for what was GTA V lackluster.


After many rockstar wrongdoings started mostly after online era I cannot say, rockstar cannot do bad as I used to.

But even RDR2 lacked the ability to injure/"down" enemies without killing them, which was present in GTA IV and RDR1. That was probably the most groundbreaking aspect that allowed for such deep realism and incredible weapon-battle. I hereby hope to see it make return in VI, with VAST and near INFINITE hatred and INCREDIBLE disappointment pending iffin' they dont include it. I

[untitledupcoming]

I feel more and more every day that whether or not V was realistic gameplay-wise, it had a pretty realistic city, and the story is (at its very best) good. Did the Paleto Score feel like Saints Row RAGE edition? Yeah, but that wasn't the only mission in the game, others were pretty good. They're also all easy, so... do I think V is a good GTA game? Yeah. Is it demolished by IV, or SA? Absolutely. Final answer: I agree with everyone here, V is the love-hate relationship of games.

[E Revere]

Yeah GTA V is great, just not that great. That's the problem. Maybe it has to do with the game's title. Going from 2 to III and III to IV were big, so maybe we're subconsciously thinking the same way about IV to V. In truth, the series' progression wasn't completely uphill. Maybe if they gave it some kind of a spin-off like title -like VC and SA weren't just called IV and V- it would be better perceived in my mind.

 

To add to the discussion, I dislike the story and the gameplay, as well as the business habits it gave R* but it's still a solid GTA game. I just hope the next one doesn't break the ice and lose the focus completely.

Edited April 19, 2023 by E Revere

[D T]

It's kind of weird to think about. GTA V's story was the direct result of fan feedback. Nobody could stop talking about how much they miss San Andreas's map after IV came out. So Rockstar was like yeah let's go back and do a proper California. Then Three Leaf Clover was literally the most praised IV mission after launch. Nobody could stop talking about it. I'm guessing Rockstar saw how well received it was and was like oh yeah that movie Heat was set in Los Angeles too, let's move in that direction. Then they saw all the story criticism about Niko being too serious and not fitting the average person's playstyle, so they invented Trevor to appease those concerns. And instead of making the game they wanted as they did in the past (GTA IV, Max Payne 3, RDR) they made one for the fans, and it ended up being their most hated one by their core fanbase. RDR2 felt like them taking back control and making their own game again, which is probably why it felt so much more authentic both mechanically and narratively. I guess it's a lesson to just shut the f*ck up as fans and let these studios make the games they want. Often times they know better than we do about game development and writing. Nothing groundbreaking is ever made when it's no longer done out of your own passion but someone else's.

[E Revere]

32 minutes ago, D T said:

oh yeah that movie Heat was set in Los Angeles too, let's move in that direction

maybe that explains it. Heat sucked. it must have rubbed off on GTA V

[untitledupcoming]

All of V's action scenes are practically Heat shot-for-shot. That's why it feels so over-the-top for absolutely NO REASON. I do think that making fans' "dreams" come true in V was the wrong move though because it's not like the creators are psychic, they don't know exactly what people mean. I think the "magic" of SA's map is it has 3 maps and feels massive, which was the opposite in IV. And since Three Leaf Clover was nothing like any other mission in IV, so many people wanted more of it.  I don't think that warranted an entire game dedicated to extreme action sequences and one (pretty shoddy) version of a California city. Hopefully, a serious game set in San Fierro or Las Venturas can save HD San Andreas (but this is just speculation at this point).

[Ryo256]

12 hours ago, D T said:

GTA V's story was the direct result of fan feedback.

Tell me, which fan wanted to be a washed-up cucked failure of a husband/father that is Michaels whose family hate him, that keeps resisting the idea of committing crime in a crime-based game?
Which fan wanted to be a black gang member that hates the idea of being a gangster, mocking the very Green Gang we loved in GTA SA?

Which fan wanted to be a immature, edgy, cannabilistic, rapey meth-head with mommy issues that would end up killing one of the fans' favorite (Johnny)?

GTA V is not a result of direct feedback, it is just the surface-level feedback sprinkled on something Rockstar wanted to do on their own, they were just forced to steer the exterior on appealing to as many people as they wanted but GTA V is not appealing to me as an older fan. And don't get me started on the mission design, what kind of GTA fan wants to play Scouting The Port mission, therapy or yoga?

Edited April 20, 2023 by Ryo256

[dictatorial]

3 hours ago, Ryo256 said:

what kind of GTA fan wants to play Scouting The Port mission, therapy or yoga?

A lot of missions in the older games were a bit boring as well. Mission design is objectively better in V than all the other titles, you can choose how you want to approach heists, the people you meet in the world can then be recruited to help you during the heist with their bonuses, etc. It's not just a "Hey CJ, Tommy, I got some problems that I need you to take care of. Go there and kill them. MISSION PASSED +$1000".

Edited April 20, 2023 by dictatorial

[Ryo256]

2 hours ago, dictatorial said:

A lot of missions in the older games were a bit boring as well. Mission design is objectively better in V than all the other titles, you can choose how you want to approach heists, the people you meet in the world can then be recruited to help you during the heist with their bonuses

I could argue about this but that's not the point I'm making.

If the claim is that GTA V is a product of direct feedback of fans then why did Rockstar look at us complaining about boring missions and then decided "Oh, let's add even MORE boring missions.", if GTA V is a product of direct feedback as claimed, then it should have less boring missions, not same amount if not more.

And personally I would take this: 

 

2 hours ago, dictatorial said:

"Hey CJ, Tommy, I got some problems that I need you to take care of. Go there and kill them. MISSION PASSED +$1000".

Over the fact that you have heists like Merryweather where you do tasks, GET NO PAYMENT for those tasks and then have your score stolen by Lester anyway, regardless of whatever choice you make for the heist. So not only the new missions are boring, they even have reduced rewards or no rewards at all. This is why RDR2 and GTAO are better, no matter how tedious the missions can be, they always reward you for your efforts. GTA V makes you do boring tasks and then rewards you in peanuts, adding to the frustration that exciting missions like heists are surrounded by boring tedious tasks like traveling all the way to Paleto bay to shoot a bank alarm and then drive all the way back because yea, that's what I wanted....right, oh I love how Rockstar took our feedback seriously, amirite?

Edited April 20, 2023 by Ryo256

[DeltaV20]

People hate gta v because of how los santos feels in terms of satire, lifeless atmosphere, characters, fancy rich lifestyle But that's really what R* wanted to do, to show or portray what Los Angeles really looks like irl 

[Nebula666]

I kind of get what you guys mean, but I still adore the hell out of this game. The again I haven't played without mods for like... five years...

[Frogzilla]

I don't hate gta5 but not the best story either. gta 4 was better. Wished it as a little of each game (gta vice city, 4, 5) start poor and work your way up, including buying apts and businesses, and not needing to manually pick up the money from the businesses. 

[JetNormalGuy]

On 4/20/2023 at 2:29 PM, Ryo256 said:

Tell me, which fan wanted to be a washed-up cucked failure of a husband/father that is Michaels whose family hate him, that keeps resisting the idea of committing crime in a crime-based game?
Which fan wanted to be a black gang member that hates the idea of being a gangster, mocking the very Green Gang we loved in GTA SA?

Which fan wanted to be a immature, edgy, cannabilistic, rapey meth-head with mommy issues that would end up killing one of the fans' favorite (Johnny)?

I liked Micheal, the idea of a retired crook with anger issues fits well for a crime game, his family is insufferable and he's a snake and a hypocrite who can't decide what he wants which makes freeroaming as him feel natural and in character, pretty good fit for a GTA game in my opinion.

 

I liked Franklin, you say that he's a gang banger who mocks and criticises the gang life but thats also what CJ is, he abandons the gang for 5 years and pursues other things, and the whole CJ and Sweet relationship is is about how CJ is how one wants to makes something of himself because the gang thing didn't work and the other berating him for not being down with the gang. "What the hood done for me? Always bringing me down! ever since I got out the hood sh*ts been poppin' " "The world is bigger than this hood" and there are other examples in the last strands of missions in GTA where CJ says something along those lines, but the only reason he sticks around is because his brother guilt trips him into doing sh*t for his gang "You sound just like Smoke right now!" "When Kendl needed shoes I went out and got the money" ect... . But when Franklin does this people complain he ain't gangsta like CJ even though he also criticises the whole gang banging sh*t and how they put in all this work only for all the money to go up the ladder into the OGs pockets, so he wants out and wants to start making moves independently, which gives an opportunity for characters like Lamar and Stretch to do their thing (although its a shame that Stretch wasn't more prominent, there's a bunch of phone calls with him and Frank but they're either optional or simply never happen which would have been a really nice thing to add into the game to reinforce the fact that Franklin is leaving the gang), Franklin is similar to every other protagonist in the franchise, he wants to make money.

 

Although Trevor has his problems with how Rockstar wrote him to be extremely hard to like even with all those tidbits shown in the game to tell us he's human, I still think he's a good protagonist, he's the perfect excuse to go do all the crazy sh*t we're used to doing in GTA games without it seeming out of character. Something that really pisses me off in GTA IV is freeroaming as Niko, you simply can'tgiven the context of the story, the more you progress the more this becomes a problem, Roman tells him to give up this revenge and killing mentality and learn to live a new life, Kate also wans Niko to give up the life because she doesn't want him to get killed, Niko himself tells Roman that he cannot keep dealing with all the violence and killing he's doing towards the endgame, and after killilng Darko it makes zero sense for Niko to keep doing this sh*t, and the only thing that pushed him back into it was the promise that Pegorino's deal would be the final favour he does for them before he stops, yet in gameplay you can't even make up a good excuse as to why Niko would even steal a vehicle at that point of the game, with every other protagonist in the franchise it isn't a problem except with Niko and Vic who were painted as people who dont like their line of work but are forced to do it to survive, Micheal can jack a car but Micheal is a f*cking hypocrite and he doesn't want to admit that he's addicted to chaos, Franklin is like your typical GTA character and just jacks the car cuz he's a selfish greedy prick who just wanted to steal the car because he liked it, and Trevor is Trevor.

 

On 4/20/2023 at 2:29 PM, Ryo256 said:

And don't get me started on the mission design, what kind of GTA fan wants to play Scouting The Port mission, therapy or yoga?

Older GTAs also had missions like this, who wants to fly a sh*tty toy helicopter that so slow I might aswell just turn off my brain for the next 5-10 minutes just to plant those bombs in the building? Who wants to drive around town just to answer a phone call at different payphones? Who wants to go through a bunch of dumbass flying tutorials just to be hit with a mission that asks you to fly to the other side of the map in a sh*ty plane at low altitude with PS2 render distance and being at risk of crashing your plane every 10 seconds because of it? every GTA has a moment like this, its understandable with Scouting The Port but its preparation for a heist, and the yoga bit is done in 3-4 minutes, can't they sit down for 3 without complaining?

 

On 4/20/2023 at 7:33 PM, Ryo256 said:

If the claim is that GTA V is a product of direct feedback of fans then why did Rockstar look at us complaining about boring missions and then decided "Oh, let's add even MORE boring missions.", if GTA V is a product of direct feedback as claimed, then it should have less boring missions, not same amount if not more.

More boring missions? the game that starts with a heist, gives you a gun on the third mission, and has a bunch of other heists where you get to plan the job instead of just being a hired gun is the most boring GTA? whats the logic in this? the game is over the top with gunfight missions and heists.

 

On 4/20/2023 at 7:33 PM, Ryo256 said:

Over the fact that you have heists like Merryweather where you do tasks, GET NO PAYMENT for those tasks and then have your score stolen by Lester anyway, regardless of whatever choice you make for the heist. So not only the new missions are boring, they even have reduced rewards or no rewards at all.

Final mission gives you more than enough money to do whatever you want, atleast now you have sh*t to spend on instead of just resupplies for ammo and armor and hospital bills, GTA 3 has this, Vice City missions don't give you enough money to buy the rest of the assets so you have to go do other stuff (not a bad thing of course) and most SA missions pay you in RESPECT lol, something pretty much useless, if you do storyline missions in GTA games you shouldn't be doing them for immediate rewards, those missions are there to unlock parts of the map or extra side missions, in GTA V they unlock guns and upgrades at LS Custom and some side missions like buying properties or hunting or joining a cult... if you find it annoying then this complaint applies to the other GTAs (f*ck you GTA LCS/VCS and your sh*tty mission payouts). Red Dead games are better at this since I remember in both games having a decent amount of money to do other stuff in the middle of the story.

[E Revere]

GTA V is a good example of how you don't solve a problem or respond to tickets for them. People said cars are too hard to control and bob too much, so let's make them overly stale instead! They also said shootouts are too easy, so let's fix it by giving everyone aimbot instead! People said the story was too serious, so let's make it overly goofy instead! Instead of addressing problems normally, they tried to fix them by going too far in the other direction. GTA IV may have had problems, but they would be problems of idealisation, not execution. Everything worked as intended. It was the intentions that people questioned. GTA V on the other hand had poor execution.

 

Making a bad car that still drives is one thing. But there's no excuse for making a car that flat out doesn't work.

Edited April 22, 2023 by E Revere

[ddarko12]

The game still has an appeal because it's still something you can just jump in and play. I've had a biggest love/hate relationship with this game for sure. Ultimately, it is still one of a kind. I do feel like Rockstar took the lifeless/soulless approach to an extreme. To the point of impeding on actual content to be honest. But I do appreciate its interpretation of LA and there's nothing else quite like it.

 

Spoiler

This is not a B&M post and I'm really not having it today. Do not start tripping just because I posted, I don't appreciate feeling targeted.

 

[Ryo256]

11 hours ago, JetNormalGuy said:

I liked Micheal, the idea of a retired crook with anger issues fits well for a crime game, his family is insufferable and he's a snake and a hypocrite who can't decide what he wants which makes freeroaming as him feel natural and in character, pretty good fit for a GTA game in my opinion.

That's not the point I was making and I have clarifed this to other guy but I'll clarify it again. The claim that I have responding to suggests that GTA V is a result of fan feedback. Which is why I asked, that while you like Michael for all you stated but I ask you, on point I was making, did you sit between 2008 and 2012, before you GTA V announced, and said to yourself "Oh boy I want a GTA V character that his family hates, his wife cheats on him, his son is annoying and basically someone who whines about crime throughout game even though that's exactly what we didn't want after Niko?" Did you ask for Michael, did Rockstar respond to your feedback or just ended up doing their own thing? That's the point I'm making. Because the induction of the argument I was responding to is suggesting that GTA V is exactly what fans wanted i.e it is your fault, my fault, our fault that GTA V is hated, because we got what we wanted, so maybe the conclusion they made was "so we fans should just shut up and let Rockstar do their own thing" but I'm arguing that Rockstar did do what they wanted and now we are, the fans, are being blamed for what GTA V is, it's not right. That's the argument, not a typical "GTA V bad or previous game good" that you think I'm making.
 

 

11 hours ago, JetNormalGuy said:

I liked Franklin, you say that he's a gang banger who mocks and criticises the gang life but thats also what CJ is, he abandons the gang for 5 years and pursues other things, and the whole CJ and Sweet relationship is is about how CJ is how one wants to makes something of himself because the gang thing didn't work and the other berating him for not being down with the gang. "What the hood done for me? Always bringing me down! ever since I got out the hood sh*ts been poppin' " "The world is bigger than this hood" and there are other examples in the last strands of missions in GTA where CJ says something along those lines, but the only reason he sticks around is because his brother guilt trips him into doing sh*t for his gang "You sound just like Smoke right now!" "When Kendl needed shoes I went out and got the money" ect... . But when Franklin does this people complain he ain't gangsta like CJ even though he also criticises the whole gang banging sh*t and how they put in all this work only for all the money to go up the ladder into the OGs pockets, so he wants out and wants to start making moves independently, which gives an opportunity for characters like Lamar and Stretch to do their thing (although its a shame that Stretch wasn't more prominent, there's a bunch of phone calls with him and Frank but they're either optional or simply never happen which would have been a really nice thing to add into the game to reinforce the fact that Franklin is leaving the gang), Franklin is similar to every other protagonist in the franchise, he wants to make money.

Except you missed the part where he spends a lot of time believing in the Green Gang, helping it build up, fight its war, help its people get weapons and kills its enemy. It took dozens and dozens of mission until CJ realizes that Grove Street is not worth the trouble but in the end, he concluded, no it is the most important thing. That never happens with Franklin because he's a character that wants to above being a gangster and the game always treat the Green Gang and petty crime doers as failures. But again I must go back to the point I'm making, Franklin can be whatever he want but did you ask for this? Did you ask for a CJ without all the good parts that makes CJ popular in the first place? Did you ask for Towing a truck in place of a gang war? Would you agree Rockstar listened to your feedback and ended up giving what you wanted, a guy that would chase after his ex Tanisha, for Grove Street (most fans' beloved home) to be taken over by Ballas? Is that what you wanted? Is this your and my fault? Are we the reason GTA V is this way? That's the point I'm driving, again not a "Franklin bad, CJ good" but is Franklin our vision or Rockstar's? And also while Franklin is similar to the money-making aspect, that's the not only thing other protagonists had btw, because that would means you can basically interchage Franklin with any protagonist and it would work but it doesn't e.g Niko is more willing to die for revenge than for money. So no, not a good argument IMO because we had protagonists that did more than just make money and because Franklin did not have a fleshed out arc like CJ, that's why he kinda feels flat. Which I argue again, to go to my point: Is it because we asked for this or was it again Rockstar just doing their own thing?
 

11 hours ago, JetNormalGuy said:

Although Trevor has his problems with how Rockstar wrote him to be extremely hard to like even with all those tidbits shown in the game to tell us he's human, I still think he's a good protagonist, he's the perfect excuse to go do all the crazy sh*t we're used to doing in GTA games without it seeming out of character. Something that really pisses me off in GTA IV is freeroaming as Niko, you simply can'tgiven the context of the story, the more you progress the more this becomes a problem, Roman tells him to give up this revenge and killing mentality and learn to live a new life, Kate also wans Niko to give up the life because she doesn't want him to get killed, Niko himself tells Roman that he cannot keep dealing with all the violence and killing he's doing towards the endgame, and after killilng Darko it makes zero sense for Niko to keep doing this sh*t, and the only thing that pushed him back into it was the promise that Pegorino's deal would be the final favour he does for them before he stops, yet in gameplay you can't even make up a good excuse as to why Niko would even steal a vehicle at that point of the game, with every other protagonist in the franchise it isn't a problem except with Niko and Vic who were painted as people who dont like their line of work but are forced to do it to survive, Micheal can jack a car but Micheal is a f*cking hypocrite and he doesn't want to admit that he's addicted to chaos, Franklin is like your typical GTA character and just jacks the car cuz he's a selfish greedy prick who just wanted to steal the car because he liked it, and Trevor is Trevor.

While It's true that fans did want a character they can rampage, the actual issue is what you highlighted. Did people have a problem rampaging with Tommy? No, because the problem isn't that we wanted a rampaging character, we wanted a character that didn't have moral issues but GTA V is full on lecturing the exact issue we didn't want. Trevor is always condemned and the fact Ending A exists just to tell you that you should kill this man proves the problem. We wanted freedom to do whatever wanted without characters like Niko moaning about it but did Rockstar listened? No. And again I ask, did you ask for Trevor? did you ask for a cannablistic, rapey, methhead that will brutally kill Johnny? Is this a result my and your feedback? Did you think Rockstar gave us, the fan, what we exactly wanted in GTA V? Are we to be blamed for all this just like the guy who I responded to eariler is claiming in this very thread? That's the argument I'm making.

 

11 hours ago, JetNormalGuy said:

Older GTAs also had missions like this, who wants to fly a sh*tty toy helicopter that so slow I might aswell just turn off my brain for the next 5-10 minutes just to plant those bombs in the building? Who wants to drive around town just to answer a phone call at different payphones? Who wants to go through a bunch of dumbass flying tutorials just to be hit with a mission that asks you to fly to the other side of the map in a sh*ty plane at low altitude with PS2 render distance and being at risk of crashing your plane every 10 seconds because of it? every GTA has a moment like this, its understandable with Scouting The Port but its preparation for a heist, and the yoga bit is done in 3-4 minutes, can't they sit down for 3 without complaining?

Which proves my point again. If GTA V is different, if GTA V is claimed by the person in this thread to be a direct result of fan feedback then we wouldn't have boring missions of the past, wouldn't we but we do have as you admitted! Which proves what? That Rockstar ended up doing what they wanted, not what we wanted. GTA V mission design is not what fans wanted, That's the point I'm making when I asked "Which fans asked for this? "Which fan would enjoy this?" Because GTA V is not a fanservice game, it's not built for the fan, it's not a result of fan feedback, that's the argument I'm driving here. And also even if that wasn't my argument, suggesting that "It's exists in previous game so newer game having is no issue" is a poor argument, if something sucks in previous game, as an improvement it shouldn't exist in what was claimed to be the best entry in the series. Furthermore Scouting the Port isn't the only mission with boring design, what about all the Michael family missions? What about buying masks, shooting a bank alarm in Paleto Bay, flying a slow ass helicoper as you scan for the Z-type? I can safely find at least 25 missions out of 69 that I have a problem with, in fact they are more but just for the sake of driving my point, I'll settle for 25 and tell you that's like 36% but compared that to previous game example you gave and tell me, how many missions can you out of total missions of previous games had boring design? Like if GTA SA has a hundred missions and flight school had like 15 then that's like 15% so my argument was that if GTA V is a result of direct fan feedback why we are getting the an increase in amount of boring missions from previous games like 15% to all the way to 36%? And also what kind of argument is that's its heist prep so it's okay? Are you going to learn alegbra and calculus for a heist? Or mow the lawn? We don't come GTA for that, we want to skip boring parts of life so we can go exciting stuff, tell me the most loved heists known as Three Leaf Clover had a heist prep? No, yet Rockstar thought it was a good idea to put so many boring preps because why? Did you ask for it? Did I ask for it? Did Rockstar answered our feedback? Would you agree that GTA V flaws is your fault? That it is us fans that should shut up and let Rockstar do their thing when it is clearly them doing their own thing and this thread just putting the blame on us? You see what I was arguing against?

 

11 hours ago, JetNormalGuy said:

More boring missions? the game that starts with a heist, gives you a gun on the third mission, and has a bunch of other heists where you get to plan the job instead of just being a hired gun is the most boring GTA? whats the logic in this? the game is over the top with gunfight missions and heists.

Just because you can list a few exciting ones does not excuse that it has boring missions like Chop, Did Somebody Say Yoga?, Scouting the Port, Paleto Bay Casing, Jewel Score Casing, Friend Request, Fame or Shame, Minisub, Cargobob, Boiler Suits, Masks, Eye in the Sky, Minor Turbelance etc. The problem again is not that boring missions exists but they exist in more amount, they are more spread across story and you would think that the story would just get constantly good ones like Three's a Company but it constantly makes you do nonsense like driving all the way to Paleto Bay to shoot a bank alarm and then drive all the way back even if you recently had a good one, good missions are sandwiched between mundane nonsense because yea. Again, if Rockstar wanted this fine but Don't claim that I wanted this, don't claim we, the fans wanted this. We didn't. That's what I'm saying so that then people wouldn't be saying "Well maybe you should have not asked for it then GTA V wouldn't be so hated!" That's that argument I'm debating with. GTA V is NOT a fanservice based game, it is vision of Rockstar, not fan's vision, don't put the blame of it on us, that's what the guy I was responding to, was claming to do: to put the blame on us the fans for what GTA V is.
 

11 hours ago, JetNormalGuy said:

Final mission gives you more than enough money to do whatever you want, atleast now you have sh*t to spend on instead of just resupplies for ammo and armor and hospital bills, GTA 3 has this, Vice City missions don't give you enough money to buy the rest of the assets so you have to go do other stuff (not a bad thing of course) and most SA missions pay you in RESPECT lol, something pretty much useless, if you do storyline missions in GTA games you shouldn't be doing them for immediate rewards, those missions are there to unlock parts of the map or extra side missions, in GTA V they unlock guns and upgrades at LS Custom and some side missions like buying properties or hunting or joining a cult... if you find it annoying then this complaint applies to the other GTAs (f*ck you GTA LCS/VCS and your sh*tty mission payouts). Red Dead games are better at this since I remember in both games having a decent amount of money to do other stuff in the middle of the story.

GTA III, GTA SA, IV, TLAD, TBOGT, GTAO and RDR2 all give you money midgame, all give you means to make money on your own. And honestly, you can claim that you shouldn't do this and that for immediate gain BUT previous games gave you immediate gains AND still unlocked part of the maps and other rewards. You get it? We had more before, Now if the claim was that if Rockstar listened to feedback then normally that would mean that we would get even more rewards and unlocks, not less right? That would be the result if Rockstar was a fan-based game, that honored our feedback but I argue it's not. List how many missions in GTA SA gave you purely respect and divide it by total number of total missions and you will realize that very few missions gave you pure respect as a reward in GTA SA! (So no, not a convincing argument) By the time you are doing stuff for Sweet and Big Smoke , they start throwing some money your way anyway (which they argue for a "smokey smoke" or "some beer") and most importantly you get even paid for working for govt agents like Mike Toreno while getting little to nothing when working for FIB in GTA V (and please do not argue realism aspect again, it's a video game, if RDR2 can make a german randomly pop out a golden brick for us as a surprise, it's not too much to ask for FIB to pay us for our services in a GTA game). 

Also last mission payment is not very impressive, you can't buy the golf course and even if you spend money on buying cars or something, you will eventaully run out of money (no proper way to earn money). The only way to get a lot of money is to play the stock market and do you know how we play it? By sleeping with our characters. Yea, either wait or sleep around because what's what we wanted in a GTA game right? To sleep and wait for Stock come in our favor so we can get a billlion dollars. What a terrible system. Again, is it because you asked for it? Did we ask for it? Again I ask on point, did we ask for all this or is it again just Rockstar doing their own thing and people blaming fans for it because Rockstar can't do no wrong? I won't agree to this.

Conclusion: The point that I was originally making, the person I was replying to in this thread claimed that GTA V is different and hated because it is a product of fan feedback. I argued that there are many things that hasn't changed from previous games (which you help argue for in my favor) or are worse (the increase in bad missions and things we didn't ask for) so this disproves the claim. Secondly the induction this person made was that fans should just stop giving feedback because GTA V is bad because of us asking for stuff and now we got it, we are complaining so we should let Rockstar do their own thing or something but I argue that's exactly what they did. I would take the L if GTA V was exactly what I wanted but it's not , yet we fans are being blamed for making GTA V into what we wanted even though we didn't get what we asked for. We got Rockstar's vision-based game that was poorly painted with Los Santos stuff just to get some GTA SA fans on board, only to realize we get things that are not what we asked for. GTA V's faults and accomplishment are Rockstar's, not the fans. Don't blame us for this. That's the point I was making, not the a typical "GTA V bad, old good" but rather GTA V is good or bad, because Rockstar got their way, not the fans.


 

Edited April 23, 2023 by Ryo256

[Cluckin Bell CEO]

10 hours ago, JetNormalGuy said:

I liked Micheal, the idea of a retired crook with anger issues fits well for a crime game, his family is insufferable and he's a snake and a hypocrite who can't decide what he wants which makes freeroaming as him feel natural and in character, pretty good fit for a GTA game in my opinion.

 

Michael has anger issues? Where did we see that in the game?

 

 

10 hours ago, JetNormalGuy said:

 

 

 

Although Trevor has his problems with how Rockstar wrote him to be extremely hard to like even with all those tidbits shown in the game to tell us he's human, I still think he's a good protagonist, he's the perfect excuse to go do all the crazy sh*t we're used to doing in GTA games without it seeming out of character. Something that really pisses me off in GTA IV is freeroaming as Niko, you simply can'tgiven the context of the story, the more you progress the more this becomes a problem, Roman tells him to give up this revenge and killing mentality and learn to live a new life, Kate also wans Niko to give up the life because she doesn't want him to get killed, Niko himself tells Roman that he cannot keep dealing with all the violence and killing he's doing towards the endgame, and after killing Darko it makes zero sense for Niko to keep doing this sh*t, and the only thing that pushed him back into it was the promise that Pegorino's deal would be the final favour he does for them before he stops, yet in gameplay you can't even make up a good excuse as to why Niko would even steal a vehicle at that point of the game, with every other protagonist in the franchise it isn't a problem except with Niko and Vic who were painted as people who dont like their line of work but are forced to do it to survive, Micheal can jack a car but Micheal is a f*cking hypocrite and he doesn't want to admit that he's addicted to chaos, Franklin is like your typical GTA character and just jacks the car cuz he's a selfish greedy prick who just wanted to steal the car because he liked it, and Trevor is Trevor.

 

Free roaming is completely different from the story though, and most people have no problems separating the two. You going on a rampage with Niko in free roam has nothing to with what's happening the story, because going on a rampage is the player's choice and different from the story events.

 

Even other characters like Tommy or CJ would never go around rampaging for no reason, so your issue only being with Niko seems strange.

[JetNormalGuy]

2 hours ago, Ryo256 said:

Conclusion: The point that I was originally making, the person I was replying to in this thread claimed that GTA V is different and hated because it is a product of fan feedback. I argued that there are many things that hasn't changed from previous games (which you help argue for in my favor) or are worse (the increase in bad missions and things we didn't ask for) so this disproves the claim. Secondly the induction this person made was that fans should just stop giving feedback because GTA V is bad because of us asking for stuff and now we got it, we are complaining so we should let Rockstar do their own thing or something but I argue that's exactly what they did. I would take the L if GTA V was exactly what I wanted but it's not , yet we fans are being blamed for making GTA V into what we wanted even though we didn't get what we asked for. We got Rockstar's vision-based game that was poorly painted with Los Santos stuff just to get some GTA SA fans on board, only to realize we get things that are not what we asked for. GTA V's faults and accomplishment are Rockstar's, not the fans. Don't blame us for this. That's the point I was making, not the a typical "GTA V bad, old good" but rather GTA V is good or bad, because Rockstar got their way, not the fans.

I apologise for throwing a wall of text at you because I completey disregarded the fast that you were responding to someone else and not the OP lol my bad on that one, I just saw that typical argument of giving a vague and pejorative description of the main characters and I assumed it was yet another "GTA V bad" post. I understand that you were just trying to make the point that V isn't a result of Rockstar listenting to the fans, I agree with you for the most part but there are part about V where they feel like they wanted to stray away from GTA IV and turn towards things from the 3D era games like car and player customisation, the huge map, the driving and the variety of vehicles to toy around with which just so happens to be the stuff fans complained about in IV.

 

2 hours ago, Darth_Cruiser said:

Michael has anger issues? Where did we see that in the game?

Did you play the game? if yes, did you skip the cutscenes? if no, did you make sure your screen wasn't turned off and there was sound? I don't have to tell where and when we see that in the game because its the most obvious thing ever, Micheal's got a temper, he goes to a therapist for this sh*t, his familiy call him out on his violent outburts and behaviour, and his freeroam dialogue and character switches give you a clear picture of what kind of person Micheal is.

 

2 hours ago, Darth_Cruiser said:

Free roaming is completely different from the story though, and most people have no problems separating the two. You going on a rampage with Niko in free roam has nothing to with what's happening the story, because going on a rampage is the player's choice and different from the story events.

 

Even other characters like Tommy or CJ would never go around rampaging for no reason, so your issue only being with Niko seems strange.

Alot of things don't make sense to be doing in freeroam to the story like going around extinguishing fires and delivering pizza or shooting 200 pigeons or collecting oysters, but the problem with Niko is that he takes a clear stance on what he thinks about murdering people and he's aware of it yet we can still f*ck around and do this sh*t which doesn't fit Niko. CJ and Tommy never state their opinions on it, hell, they give us clear cut examples of their characters being 100% assholes, remember the old "Hmm, Nice bike!" where Tommy steals an innocent guy's bike just because he liked it and felt like taking it? remember when CJ massacred a whole construction site because he didn't like the way they spoke to Kendl? or when you shoot and jack people during the freeroam they have lines of dialogues like "Oh sh*t! I got a gat!" "Its my constitutional right bitch!" "Oooh! that looked painful!" "You f*ckin' with a maniac!", Niko on the other hand tells people "Stay down or I will finish you off!" "Don't make me kill you!" just as you're emptying a whole mag on an innocent pedestrian who was just carrying a bag of groceries to take them back home. I love Niko but I feel like thats a part of him that doesn't work as well compared to other protagonists.

[Ryo256]

23 minutes ago, JetNormalGuy said:

I apologise for throwing a wall of text at you because I completey disregarded the fast that you were responding to someone else and not the OP lol my bad on that one, I just saw that typical argument of giving a vague and pejorative description of the main characters and I assumed it was yet another "GTA V bad" post.

Yea it's okay. I know how GTA V is treated nowadays so it is natural for people to defend it on sight.

Sorry for any misunderstandings/miscommunications on my part.

Edited April 23, 2023 by Ryo256

[Cyper]

Even if GTA V was more akin to RDR2 I'd still consider it a pretty bad GTA.

 

The melee combat system is as simple as it was in GTA III. You mash a button a few times and the ped dies. The gun combat suffers the same fate. The vehicle deformation is poor and there isn't much variation in handling among different vehicles.

 

The AI isn't very good either; cars deliberately trying to crash into you, and police cars AI pathfinding is so bad that it uses a rubber-band effect to catch up to you. Peds on the street call the cops for no reason and their pathfinding is poor as well. The story is in my opinion good but short and all characters are shallow.

 

When I had played as Niko Bellic in GTA IV and switched to Luis Lopez it actually felt as if I entered a new world by looking at Liberty City from a different angle. That does not happen in GTA V. There is no real character development and no character feels fleshed out. The city itself looks very good, but that is all there is to it. Once the story is over it feels like a movie set left empty without any actors left in it. The fact that there is barely any interiors to enter reinforces this feeling. The city doesn't feel alive like gta iv did.

 

GTA V became extremely popular and it lived for a long time because of online and the modding community - not because it was packed with content.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2023 by Cyper

[Krymefull]

On 4/23/2023 at 3:46 PM, Ryo256 said:

Yea it's okay. I know how GTA V is treated nowadays so it is natural for people to defend it on sight.

From my recalled memories, GTA IV was treated the same way back then. I don't remember which year that sudden hate started but it was between 2013 to 2016, back when every mfer criticized IV for it's dated and ugly graphics, overly-realistic gameplay mechanics and dark story and praised V for the opposite IV did. And I actually felt for it back then and thought IV was a bad entry in the series. Somewhere in 2017 to 2018-19, IV got a sudden bump in popularity when every mfer who trash talked IV now calls it as "The Most Underrated GTA Game" or "The Greatest GTA Game Of All Time" or something like that, saying how underappreciated it was and some sh*t idk. 

Edited August 15, 2023 by DubiousThiny

[Ryo256]

24 minutes ago, 2L8 said:

from my recalled memories GTA IV was treated the same way back then, I don't remember which year that sudden hate started but it was between 2014 to 2016, back when every mf criticized IV for it's dated and ugly graphics, overly-realistic gameplay mechanics and dark story and praised V for the opposite IV did, and I actually felt for it back then and thought IV was a bad entry in the series, somewhere in 2017 to 2018/19 IV got a sudden bump in popularity when every mf who trash talked IV now calls it as 'The Most Underrated GTA Game', saying how they underappreciated it was and how actually it's miles better then V in terms in, well - everything.

Well if you look at the Official Complaint thread, it seems the rise of GTA V negativity started around 2014. If look at the thread before that point, the criticism is still not very strong but suddenly there is a three week gap and then boom, "Worst GTA entry" and after that point, the criticism got even more harsher.

Edited April 23, 2023 by Ryo256

[Cluckin Bell CEO]

2 hours ago, JetNormalGuy said:

Did you play the game? if yes, did you skip the cutscenes? if no, did you make sure your screen wasn't turned off and there was sound? I don't have to tell where and when we see that in the game because its the most obvious thing ever, Micheal's got a temper, he goes to a therapist for this sh*t, his familiy call him out on his violent outburts and behaviour, and his freeroam dialogue and character switches give you a clear picture of what kind of person Micheal is.

 

 

His freeroam dialogue is sarcastic, not really angry. All the characters have some angry dialogue when they hit an npc car or something, doesn't mean they have anger issues.

 

As for the family stuff, he only gets angry when Amanda's f*cking some other guy which is again natural and realistic. Any man will get angry at that. His family does messed up sh*t and then act like Michael's the weird one for getting mad at them.

That's the whole point of Michael and his family arc, he's surrounded by annoying idiots who drive him crazy and then call him crazy.

 

Your understanding of Michael is completely wrong, maybe you should play the game again (without skipping cutscenes and making sure the screen is on)

 

 

2 hours ago, JetNormalGuy said:

 

Alot of things don't make sense to be doing in freeroam to the story like going around extinguishing fires and delivering pizza or shooting 200 pigeons or collecting oysters, but the problem with Niko is that he takes a clear stance on what he thinks about murdering people and he's aware of it yet we can still f*ck around and do this sh*t which doesn't fit Niko. CJ and Tommy never state their opinions on it, hell, they give us clear cut examples of their characters being 100% assholes, remember the old "Hmm, Nice bike!" where Tommy steals an innocent guy's bike just because he liked it and felt like taking it? remember when CJ massacred a whole construction site because he didn't like the way they spoke to Kendl? or when you shoot and jack people during the freeroam they have lines of dialogues like "Oh sh*t! I got a gat!" "Its my constitutional right bitch!" "Oooh! that looked painful!" "You f*ckin' with a maniac!", Niko on the other hand tells people "Stay down or I will finish you off!" "Don't make me kill you!" just as you're emptying a whole mag on an innocent pedestrian who was just carrying a bag of groceries to take them back home. I love Niko but I feel like thats a part of him that doesn't work as well compared to other protagonists.

 

 

So Tommy stealing a bike means he'll be okay killing random people in rampages? Of course not. That scene was just a joke about the player stealing random vehicles in free roam to get around 

 

As for the CJ scene, that was just bad writing and most people agree on that. CJ's character is very inconsistent, one moment he's scared and the next he's killing some construction guys and burying them in concrete. Their freeroam dialogue was again just funny lines, they weren't written to show that the characters were assholes.

 

The Niko lines.. he just uses the same lines for enemy NPCS to normal NPCs too. This is a known thing, there was some discussion about it years ago. Looks like Rockstar never bothered to check it, it definitely couldn't have been intentional on their part.

[String]

3 minutes ago, Darth_Cruiser said:

Tommy stealing a bike means he'll be okay killing random people in rampages?

Actually he does kill a lot of innocents senselessly in one of Mitch Baker's missions, Messing with the man was it's name iirc. Baker tells you to go cause chaos in the city and you have to fill a meter in a time limit by destroying vehicles and killing innocent NPCs

 

6 minutes ago, Darth_Cruiser said:

for the family stuff, he only gets angry when Amanda's f*cking some other guy which is again natural and realistic. Any man will get angry at that. His family does messed up sh*t and then act like Michael's the weird one for getting mad at them.

Iirc at one point Michael breaks his sons TV out of nowhere or something like that, don't remember exactly. Michaels violent outbursts are a bit different to Trevor's in that he'll break tvs and jump into swimming pools than break skulls and push trailers into pools, lol

[Cluckin Bell CEO]

12 minutes ago, String said:

Actually he does kill a lot of innocents senselessly in one of Mitch Baker's missions, Messing with the man was it's name iirc. Baker tells you to go cause chaos in the city and you have to fill a meter in a time limit by destroying vehicles and killing innocent NPCs

 

Hmmm yeah I forgot about that, but he mostly kills police and police vehicles in that doesn't he

 

12 minutes ago, String said:

 

Iirc at one point Michael breaks his sons TV out of nowhere or something like that, don't remember exactly. Michaels violent outbursts are a bit different to Trevor's in that he'll break tvs and jump into swimming pools than break skulls and push trailers into pools, lol

 

That's only because Jimmy is a useless fellow who lazes around all day instead of improving himself