GTAGaming Forums

GTAGaming Forums (
-   Grand Theft Auto V (
-   -   My problem with GTA V (spoilers here...) (

J.Orlando 02-07-2014 09:26 AM

My problem with GTA V (spoilers here...)

Sorry -- I know that it might seem like overkill to put my entire comment in spoiler tags, but I would hate to read something like this and have a game ruined for me.

My biggest problem with GTA V has more to do with how its protagonists can kill so many people without getting caught. This is more important to me than the usual "oh, cars don't drive like this" or "how can a single human being carry a shop's worth of guns & ammo on his person?"

Those gripes are legitimate -- because they do deal with real-world issues, reality-based gaming, and reality period. But let's all take a step back and assume that the FiB and iAA are truly covering for Trevor, Franklin, and Michael.

In real life, some reporter or some PD somewhere would connect the dots. Almost nobody gets away with murdering upwards of 500 people and does not get caught. It hasn't happened, as far as well know, in modern history, at least -- since the printing press, newspapers, photography, and forensics have existed.

And for anyone who feels like being smart -- remember -- bin Laden, Milosevich, and Mubarak all got caught or killed. Hitler died. Goebbels died. The only dictator on the planet who may escape the jaws of justice is Kim Jong Un -- and even he might get sent to Pluto in a space-coffin.

So -- that's it. No biggie. Just complaining because, well, I'm bored and I feel as though I have nothing better to do than to complain. Which is partly why I put this in spoiler tags -- because let's face it -- everyone has something to say that is negative about GTA, at some point or other. Although, I'll also say this -- I do love this franchise, and this game is the best out of all of them so far -- yes, even with the sharpshooting trigger-happy police "officers" who are really just processor-based killbots hell-bent on preventing us from having any fun.


rappo 02-07-2014 10:00 AM

Hasn't GTA always had that issue, though? How do you suggest they mix the joy of mindless killing in a video game with reality? Mission #2 would be your trial and #3 would be 20+ years in prison, and #4 would be your lethal injection execution.... not a very good video game :P

Killerfist 02-07-2014 11:28 AM

You shouldn't take games so serious, it's a fun way to experience (to a certain degree) the thrill that goes along with doing stuff like that without having to face the consequences. Fun always precedes realism, sure it isn't realistic that you can carry a whole arsenal but it sure as hell makes things alot more fun and practical. It just would be too much of a hassle if you always want it to be realistic, it takes alot of the fun away too. What'd you imagine to happen after one of Trevor's rampages? He gets caught.. sent to the electric chair and that's game over? You want games to conform you to a law-abiding citizen? Because we've got enough of that in real life

Oh and btw goebbels was the guy in charge of the press (and propaganda) so I don't know why he belongs in your list

thenotsogoodtrickster 02-07-2014 01:19 PM

Something to ponder on, but not intended as a definitive solution by all means.

The way I see it is that the people you really only kill are the people in the campaign. Everyone outside of a mission? That's just you goofing around (although I appreciate that Michael speaks about stuff you've done during his therapy sessions, but I'm not too sure) and doesn't tie in with the world as much.

It's also worth noting that (until V), it's unclear if each character exists on an official, national database, level.

eli 02-07-2014 03:40 PM

It would make for a great storyline though. If there was this small group of cops that's trying to solve a street murder and gets on your tail.

Havok_Jro 02-07-2014 04:36 PM

So the opposite of L.A Noire.

Russ 02-16-2014 08:38 AM

What made III and Vice City so popular was the sheer level of mayhem and destruction you could cause. I think they tried real hard to find the middle ground between those and how gritty-real IV was. I have no complaints.

masteratt 04-27-2014 04:06 PM

i had bigger problems...outlined here:

if linking not allowed, pasted (mods can remove link):

How Rockstar succeeded but failed with GTA V

GTA V is the biggest, most activity filled GTA to date. It succeeds on 'giving fans what they want', so then why is it the first GTA I have ever played that didn't have that 'GTA magic'?

I think it is because Rockstar gave fans what they want.

Living in the shadow of 2004 San Andreas in 2013 San Andreas

One of the things with this game is, it feels like Rockstar went to the drawing board after the mass 'dislike' (or 'louder' dislike) of IV.
This is sound in principle but lame in execution. As a company, especially one the likes of Rockstar, they really need to push their own limit. Not only in technology (which they have done in V) but in design, and craft their own game.

But instead it feels like when they went back to the drawing board, they went to the one from 2004 San Andreas release and basically re-ticked everything they've done almost a decade ago.

This is not exciting for couple of key reasons:

1) We've already seen it all.

2) We are now 9 years older and want to play something more grown up.

Let me quickly note IV addressed these two key points in the following ways:

1) They crafted a brand new next-gen engine that was more physics focused. Which eliminated the arcadey/cartoonish feel of the mechanics, leading to a more 'hardcore' experience.

2) The story was original, mature in themes it touched on and despite keeping the humour, felt close to heart and down to earth, itching that scratch of the grown up fans.

V doesn't address these two key points and fails in both. They devolved the game back to 2004. Giving us less advanced physics and more arcadey everything, and gave us a story and characters that are very forgettable and more cliché.

They ticked the boxes from the 2004 in a heartless way and when you do it just for the sake of doing it, it lacks that spark.

Rockstar, if I want to play 2004 San Andreas, I will play 2004 San Andreas. I don't want to buy a 2013 GTA to play a 2004 one.

Let's aim for every goal, hit none

Another key flaw of V I felt, outside its lacking heart and originality is the extension of that, in that it tries too much. It tries to please every fan that ever had to say anything about GTA. Each character is basically a representation of one GTA crowd. Franklin being San Andreas, Michael the Mafia, stylish white male (GTA I/II/III/VC) vibe and worst of all, Trevor, who everyone who hasn't played GTA thinks what GTA is about; a maniac for the sake of being a maniac.

This is a huge cop out by Rockstar and is very cheap. To top it off, I feel Trevor is pretty much insulting to the GTA fans to say "yep, this is what this game is now lulz" along with the simple fact, playing a maniac who is a maniac is just not fun. Well, maybe it is if you are 10 years old, but is that the crowd Rockstar wants. You wouldn't think so since Michael has to deal with family issues and go to therapy sessions.

So really the game is all over the place, never having a focus and in that failing to draw someone who is looking for something satisfying and substantial out of the game's story. These three characters do not have enough weight to draw in you into all their lives. Maybe you will connect with one, maybe. But Rockstar basically threw (3) shits to the wall, hoping one would stick and hoping they would come together in the overall story arc. Again there wasn't enough heart and attention in the overall story for that to work, not to mention it felt pretty short and rushed in some aspects to be able to pull off that scale.

Does Rockstar still love GTA?

Now, let me end this by saying, I still thought V was a fun game. But as a 25 year old life long gamer, it just didn't satisfy me the same way IV did. With IV, GTA grew up, with V, Rockstar listened to fans who were stuck in 2004. That's not bad, I enjoyed the game, but didn't love it (as I have done with every GTA so far).

I overall felt V didn't push the boundaries (outside the amazing technology), which is highly disappointing for a GTA and a Rockstar game.

Now, the fact Rockstar is actually listening to us is worrying. They are a company who are quite, tight lipped and usually have great confidence in what they are doing and executing. So why then so much crowd chatter went into V. Did they think IV was "bad" too so their confidence was shattered to the point they felt they need to turn their ear to the crowd?

Or even worse, do they no longer care enough about GTA internally so they just went through the motions to create one that just ticked off whatever the crowds were shouting for?

Or maybe it is me. Maybe I have outgrown what GTA "should be" and I should stop being a grandpa and shut the hell up. Maybe so, but I hope in some GTA soon, Rockstar decides they want to grow up again.

ZCAB 04-28-2014 11:54 AM

GTA IV was arguably the most commercially successful GTA until GTA V, selling almost as many units as San Andreas in about half the time. If Rockstar was trying to appeal to the fans as blindly as you're trying to make it out, GTA V would have been more like GTA IV, not less. Can you really accuse them of not having feeling for what they're creating, when they've so obviously looked at the fans' wishes for GTA V rather than just at what's been proven to sell? They make their games for their fans, not for their own creative expression.

How exactly are GTA V's physics less advanced than its predecessor's? They're backed up by the exact same technology, which is implemented no differently besides on character movement and vehicle handling. Character movement is snappier, but no less lifelike (unless you consider it unrealistic to be able to turn around in less than 5 seconds), and driving is more loose and responsive, which makes it more comfortable and fun to many people. It's not quite a driving simulator, but the vehicle physics in GTA IV weren't exactly spot-on either.

Having a more focused and emotional story is good and all, but here's the thing: the more emphasis a video game puts on its story, the more obvious it becomes that the overall standard of writing is so much higher in older storytelling mediums like TV, film, or novels. A scene like Niko telling Roman about the fifty children against the church wall might seem profound by video game standards, but it's just another version of the traumatic tale you get from every war veteran in Hollywood movies since Jaws. GTA V, unlike its predecessor, knows this is an uphill struggle and chooses to emphasize gameplay. To reference another work of crime fiction with much more "grown up" writing than GTA IV: "You cannot lose if you do not play".

By the way: many people can actually enjoy a serious story with mature themes one moment, and some stupid immature fun another. This is absolutely no reflection of their "maturity". It's a reflection of how sometimes, a person just wants to have some brainless escapism after a day at the proverbial salt mines, instead of having to drive his virtual cousin to the bowling alley while listening to good-by-video-game-standards dialogue.

Killerfist 04-29-2014 07:27 AM


Originally Posted by masteratt (Post 2315321)
...and worst of all, Trevor, who everyone who hasn't played GTA thinks what GTA is about; a maniac for the sake of being a maniac.

This is a huge cop out by Rockstar and is very cheap. To top it off, I feel Trevor is pretty much insulting to the GTA fans to say "yep, this is what this game is now lulz" along with the simple fact, playing a maniac who is a maniac is just not fun. Well, maybe it is if you are 10 years old, but is that the crowd Rockstar wants. You wouldn't think so since Michael has to deal with family issues and go to therapy sessions.

You fail to realise your opinion is that of the minority, I believe most gta fans are quite fond of Trevor so I don't really think it's that much of an insult to gta fans. Added to the fact that for some people gta is indeed being a maniac for the sake of being a maniac, that's the beauty of gta.. you can play it however you damn well please. I personally very much enjoy playing with Trevor and just being an all out maniac, I think he's one of the best characters in any of the GTA games.

+ everything ZCAB said

Ash_735 04-30-2014 07:32 AM

I made this post on another forum about my thoughts on the story, conatins spoilers obviously:


Gameplay wise the missions were better, but actual storywise, once Trevor gets into it, and then Michael starts getting blackmailed by the FIB, it takes a huge nose dive in both quality and, well, being coherent. You don't get a sense of satisfaction at the end, all the "main" villains feel very forced in or undercooked, this is especially true in regards to the Triads, who hell, only appear slightly in like three storyline missions yet they're supposed to be the big bad for Trevor? Stretch is another one, they could have done so much with that, but after "The Long Stretch" it just kind of went quiet, and to make things worse, if you do Option A or B, then these don't even get mentioned again! Even though Franklin is alive and well in those outcomes, what, does he just forget about Stretch and the Ballas screwing him and Lamarr over?

So yeah, GTAV has a good set up, a REAL strong start, the North Yankton bank job, Franklin and Lamarr doing their thing, etc, that stuff was great, but after the first heist, when Trevor came on board, it was still action packed, but they made the first mistake there by killing off The Lost, who felt like much better enemies against Trevor, as well as setting up stuff that went no where such as the Triad connections, and Trevor declaring war on the Aztecas, which, well, again, one mission and nothing is heard of again.

It just feels all over the place, which is why I can't say it was a great story, there's too many messed up things, which is crazy considering how much GTA IV and The Lost and Damned worked out (and yes, even The Ballad of Gay Tony to an extent though that's where they changed the story to be more "fun"), the majority of GTA IV and TLAD made sense and just fit together so perfect, there were three story arcs, the cocaine, the heroin, the diamonds. All the key points in the story revolved around those three products, you know how the cocaine came into the story and who got it for Liz (TLAD), you know where it ended up with ULP (GTA IV), you know where The Lost raided the Angels of Death and stole the Heroin (TLAD), you know where it became a big thing with Dimitri getting involved to export it and betray the mob (GTA IV), and of course The Diamonds need no explanation.

Just crazy to think that a story that detailed between three protagonist was done by Rockstar, and yet in the actual game where there IS three protagonists as the focus, it's all over the place and doesn't make sense.
tl;dr - Rockstar did the three protagonists story MUCH better in GTA IV/TLAD/TBOGT than in the actual game where it's the main focus, but gameplay wise missions in GTAV were better.

ZCAB 04-30-2014 08:23 AM

And a lot of other stories did multiple protagonists better than the GTA IV trilogy. At least GTA V, being a video game, knows to let the story serve the gameplay instead of the other way around.

Ash_735 04-30-2014 08:39 AM

Yeah, Gameplay is better, but at the same time, I don't really have a desire to replay GTAV as I would do the other games, mainly because the story is pretty crap after the first heist. GTA IV had a LOT of padding and took too long to get started, I still dread playing through the Vlad missions which felt like one long ass tutorial, but the story picked up pace from Bohan onwards, and even more so if you also play along with TLAD to fill that gap of not a lot of action in the first batch of the story.

Just previous GTA games did have better writing, I don't know why, but GTAV does feel all over the place and never sure of who is suppose to be the main enemy, the last GTA game to have an enemy this undercooked was LCS.

Not to mention the length, this is the shortest GTA around, only Vice City was shorter, but Vice City had only one character and nowhere near the amount of fodder missions that GTAV has (Don't agree on how "Pick up clothes", "Pick up masks", "Pick up a truck", etc, all count as single MAIN missions to the game). It's like they looked at GTA IV and thought, well that's a bit bloated, let's cut it down, ...and then cut it too short.

victim 04-30-2014 08:46 PM

It's just overproduced. They worked on it for far too long to get the gameplay as good as it is and the story probably had to suffer through multiple rewrites. They never settled on a single direction and it really showed. It might be a coincidence but I felt like Max Payne 3 had this exact same problem.

I always find it fun being poor in GTA when you are forced to build up to bigger and better things. In V, you just get handed mansions and hundreds of thousands virtually from the start. Combined with not having new areas to unlock, you start to feel like you're just floundering instead of working towards something. That hurts the story in later stages.

I think they absolutely nailed some of the characters though. Michael, Trevor and Lamar are some of the best GTA characters ever, in my opinion.

Ash_735 05-01-2014 04:37 AM

That's understandable, the radio had the same problems, starting back in 2009, many stations were changed or dropped by the time of release that some stations feel slapped together. I agree on the "poor" aspect to, Franklin was the most interesting when he was stuck in Strawberry with his aunt and Lamarr hanging around, and then out of nowhere he gets handed a condo in the Vinewood Hills in the most lazy way possible, and after that, it just feels like Franklin is on his own with no real purpose in the story yet gets handed all the main choices.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.