What's wrong with GTAV?

[lil jetski]

I felt this way when V first dropped. San Andreas is probably my favorite game of all time. IV was almost as good. It was just missing too many features (country side and planes to name a few). V, on paper, was the perfect combo. All of the features of SA, plus graphics even beyond IV. I was positive this would be the new king, but it just...didn't click. I can't really explain why. I recently bought the Xbox One remaster and realized I still feel this way.

I dislike the three character setup. I think the driving and flying is way worse (controversial opinion, I know). All in all, I think it's too "gamey" somehow. There was an element of unpredictability with the earlier ones, like you could do things the game hadn't planned on. V is just too polished or something. It's just "a game", sans the magic of the precious entries. Or I've just gotten older.

Does anyone else feel that V just wasn't right, and if so, could you please tell me why that is? It's been a mystery to me for five years now. It should, on paper, be my favorite game of all time, but in reality it's like 7/10.

 

[Linus815]

Nothing is particularly wrong with the game, you just don't like it... it happens. It's one of my fav games ever, and to me it felt like an almost-perfect sequel to San Andreas.

 

[LabRat]

it's an amazing sandbox but the main storyline is pretty lame plus way too short and while i like michael i didn't really give a crap about trevor and franklin.
it's still a 10/10 in my book just for the amazing open world, i also sometimes just start the game to play some tennis.

 

[Djost1kk]

Downgraded Euphoria for me, personally, especially when it comes shooting and how body reacts to it. I really hope RDR2's shooting is at least closer to the GOAT Max Payne 3.

 

[lil jetski]

Nothing is particularly wrong with the game, you just don't like it... it happens. It's one of my fav games ever, and to me it felt like an almost-perfect sequel to San Andreas.

Click to shrink...

Sure, I have no problem accepting that I simply don't like the taste of saffron in cooking or the music of Mumford & Sons, but this is different. It's like an objectively superior version of my favorite game of all time. So WHY aren't I enjoying it?

 

[HussiZooT]

The only problem's I had with V was how I felt it took a step back in many things after IV.

Yes it did a lot of things right, but taking away the IV car handling, IV's Euphoria Ragdoll system, IV's destruction / particle effects, rubbed me the wrong way.

Also having an open world that felt so empty... it wasn't something I expected from Rockstar, especially after how lived in IV felt.

Hoping RDR2 lives up to the hype.

 

[Conkerkid11]

When's the last time you played San Andreas?

Nothing.

Click to shrink...

I don't know how anybody could think this.

 

[Khaos Prime]

Nothing. Phenomenal game and easily the best GTA game.

 

[Soap]

I would echo the view that v felt more empty than previous entries, but after playing a lot of open world games with busy work I think I'd find that kind of refreshing today.

 

[Deleted member 1777]

My biggest issue with most of Rockstars games since moving to the RAGE engine is that their controls just aren't as good as they can be. I think the closest they've gotten was with Max Payne 3 (and even then I'm mostly talking about on PC with m/kb) but basically everything since (and including) GTA IV has been pretty clunky and I don't understand why they never really get called out for it. Take a game like Mafia 3, which I consider to have the best open world combat/gameplay, and Rocksatar just aren't 'there' yet. Still, their amazing worlds still make the games fun to explore but it's the one component that always lets me down, I'm not expecting much different from RDR2 tbh.

 

[Bond]

It's a good game, but not the best GTA title.

 

[Keldroc]

I like it but it's pretty obvious the heist stuff was supposed to be a much, much bigger part of the single player game that got carved out of it and turned into GTA Online content. They introduce all the team recruiting and leveling up stuff but none of it ever amounts to anything.

 

[Deleted member 4372]

The biggest problem I have with GTA V is that it's almost too good.

 

[Aurc]

Trevor was the only protagonist worth a damn, and too much of his screen time is spent hanging out with Mopey Michael and Forgettable Franklin.

 

[Neural]

I loved it and it's my favorite game in the series so far, so nothing major is wrong for me.

 

[Deleted member 19924]

-

 

[lil jetski]

Loving San Andreas and GTA 4, and disliking GTA 5 seems incredibly backwards to me especially when GTA 5 is basically a souped up version of San Andreas. GTA 4 is nothing like the two.

Click to shrink...

I absolutely agree. And this is what I don't understand about myself. It's like I'm expecting someone to point out the fact that V was entirely in black and white and I can go "aaaaah!"

 

[The Booktastic Bus]

Too many characters.

If only Michael was playable it would have been a better game/

 

[MasterVampire]

World feels empty with not much to do.

The police are too intense. Also I can kill a person with a silencer in the middle of no where and get a star.

I hate it how they changed the damage cars take. It was better in 4 how they crumpled up.

 

[Deleted member 2595]

Downgraded Euphoria for me, personally, especially when it comes shooting and how body reacts to it. I really hope RDR2's shooting is at least closer to the GOAT Max Payne 3.

Click to shrink...

Iirc the IGN guys raved about Euphoria in RDR2

I think current gen hardware is going to ramp that up a lot. Look up user 319jevity's posts, he's a GTA V modder and said tons of the hamstringing of Vs physics and AI was aggressive optimisation (only three NPCs ever having Euphoria active, etc)

 

[Rodney McKay]

Personally I've gotten a little tired of the "Rockstar open world" formula, at least for the main mission stuff.
Go to main mission icon on map, cutscene, Drive/ride somewhere while dialog happens, get there and complete objective, go to next main mission icon, repeat.

4 was my first Rockstar open world game so I didn't notice it as much there, but then while speeding through Red Dead I noticed it A LOT, and then again in GTAV.
If I'm not really enjoying the story and the game play isn't a huge draw for me either, then that formula wears thin for me really quick.

Main thing I liked that was new about 5 were the more open ended heist stuff. Planning them out, doing them in different ways, etc. Unfortunately they seemed so few and far between that I don't even think I made it through the second heist before dropping the game for one reason or another (the one with the submersible).
I wish the game had been way more focused on that stuff rather than doing random missions for the 3 main characters.

It's been long enough that I want to go back to V though, I only ever played it on PS3 I think, so I've never experienced it with better graphics or the first person mode which I think I'd like a lot.

 

[Cecil]

Can't really relate to that. I had it's flaws, like that I didn't care that much for the story, and all characters, playable and non-playable, were all so dislikable. But it has a fantastic world, where just driving/flying around would have been enough. And quests was such an upgrade on the ones from IV. And it felt more coherent and focused then San Andreas.

It's this or San Andreas that is my favorite one in the series. San Andreas felt like the better game at the time, with story missions that are better then in GTAV, but it's aged poorly.

It's definitely way better then GTAIV, that had a worse protagonist in Nico, who's origin, actions and motivations didn't fit the game and the story, worse missions that all ended up in the same action sequences, and a worse gameworld, with a city that just felt bland and lacked variations.

 

[giapel]

If I remember correctly, you can't hide from cops in IV. You can hide from cops in V. Therefore better game.

 

[cooldawn]

Yeah...didn't like most of it really. The character switching is horrid, the vehicle physics are OK at best, although the world is pretty big and dense with activities very few are engaging and worse of all the gunplay is sub-par. Grand Theft Auto IV was an adventure in a new generation but I would have through all of these aspects would have been nailed in a new game.

Oh, and I don't understand how people enjoy online so much either, even with the seemingly unlimited options for play. It plays just the same after all.

Maybe cross-generation development limited options and Red Dead Redemption II is actually much more refined for a much better game.

 

[saenima]

I don't think that V did anything particularly wrong in relation to the ones before. I personally just think that GTA is completely played out and has been for a while. The gameplay, mission and game structure refuse to evolve, the cities are always the same fucking cities (watch VI be a rehash of Vice City), the satire has long lost its bite. The characters and story were a downgrade to IV and San Andreas though. People keep saying that V has this magnificent living world, but i really don't see it. It just feels like same old GTA with shinier graphics.

Online was probably one of the most miserable experiences i ever had with a game. How so many people put up with that shit is a constant source of wtf!?

 

[Discokuningas]

The humour is not that good anymore. It was great in older games. Now it is just so dark and ugly.

 

[ket]

My biggest issue with most of Rockstars games since moving to the RAGE engine is that their controls just aren't as good as they can be. I think the closest they've gotten was with Max Payne 3 (and even then I'm mostly talking about on PC with m/kb) but basically everything since (and including) GTA IV has been pretty clunky and I don't understand why they never really get called out for it. Take a game like Mafia 3, which I consider to have the best open world combat/gameplay, and Rocksatar just aren't 'there' yet. Still, their amazing worlds still make the games fun to explore but it's the one component that always lets me down, I'm not expecting much different from RDR2 tbh.

Click to shrink...

Mafia 3 had a lot of flaws but when it came to character movement & gunplay:
Mafia 3 >>>>GTAV imo

 

[NotLiquid]

I dislike the three character setup. I think the driving and flying is way worse (controversial opinion, I know). All in all, I think it's too "gamey" somehow. There was an element of unpredictability with the earlier ones, like you could do things the game hadn't planned on. V is just too polished or something. It's just "a game", sans the magic of the precious entries. Or I've just gotten older.

Click to shrink...

It's funny you say this between saying San Andreas is your favorite because in losing many of the franchise's wackier, more "gamey" elements, I'd fallen out of the franchise hard with GTA IV, which is why I was attracted to early Saints Row.

GTA kind of feels like an exercise in scale these days than it is good game design. V had a remarkably sized open world but I'm hard pressed to remember anything specific that I liked about it - plus I didn't care for any of it's leads except maybe Franklin. That and the tone overall feels extremely dark and self-serious in a way that comes across as incongruous in what used to be one of the silliest series I can think of.

 

[Deleted member 1777]

Mafia 3 had a lot of flaws but when it came to character movement & gunplay:
Mafia 3 >>>>GTAV imo

Click to shrink...

Oh absolutely, I adore Mafia 3 but am not blind to its faults. I'm talking about comparisons in purely player movement, gunplay, control etc.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

I liked V a lot more than IV. IV was awful, by far the worst 3D GTA.

 

[Cort]

Aside from Los Santos' finest being a police force made entirely of Robocops, GTA V is a lot of fun for me and a huge step up from what GTA was in IV. However, I think GTA IV had a better online experience, personally.

 

[ket]

I think my main problem with GTA V was how uninteresting the story was (for the most part). It just didn't grab me at all but the gunplay was fun, the side content was alright, and the graphics were still really good.

I also really wish Rockstar would scrap using Euphoria for character movement since I find it pretty clunky for close-quarters gameplay but they seem deadset on using that physics engine in their games so *shrug*

 

[Lukemia SL]

I liked V a lot more than IV. IV was awful, by far the worst 3D GTA.

Click to shrink...

This is very true, I couldn't believe just how bad it was with my least favourite GTA protagonist.

 

[Yossarian]

I mean, I prefer IV (it's my favourite), but V is a damn good entry. My only issues - and they're smalls one - is the lack of Heists, the lack of mini-games, and opportunities to explore the character swap mechanic (it was a little undercooked). Could've done with more of each.

Aside from Los Santos' finest being a police force made entirely of Robocops

Click to shrink...

Actually, yeah. That's a good shout.

 

[Zojirushi]

I think I was just too damn done with open world sandbox games by the time it dropped.. It was weird for me too because the game does some amazing stuff. Finished it once without feeling too enthusiastic about anything in particular and kinda never looked back.

I'm still waiting for that one graphics mod I've been looking forward to to drop on PC to try and go back and see if I feel any different now.

 

[cowbanana]

I think it is a phenomenal game, I played it first on PS3 and then a couple of times on PC later. I really enjoyed the three main characters and all the missions. I was also disappointed in GTA IV due to the lack of countryside etc. - not a bad game, it just didn't live up to the magnificence of SA in terms of world and content. GTA V fixes all this and then some by having a large and varied playground outside the main city itself.

 

[Jedeye Sniv]

V is probably my favourite game of the gen so far (and even then it's technically last gen). Love the story and the characters and the world itself. Online was incredible fun once it hit its stride too. I think what I love most about online is how the added content gives the world context, I feel like I know every inch of it by now. The SP uses a fair chunk of the world, but the businesses and missions they added give so much more context to the various nooks and crannies of the map. I have a base in the wind farm, the antenna array has guns in it, there's a secret base in the mountain, my CEO office is in the middle of town next to my apartment, my nightclub is in the arehouse district, just down the road from my car and crate warehouses. I've got a garage just off the airport, a meth lab in the hills next to the desert, a coke lab next to the biker trailerpark. I've broken into the humane labs out east and raided the merryweather base in the south.

The world is now actually "lived in" because I've lived in it. For such a massive world, I've never felt such a connection and history to any other game world before, it's a great achievement.

My main problem with the game is that combat and enemy AI are subpar, the laser accurate cops make the game less fun to dick around in and can make certain missions a chore. But I think the game is a high watermark in the open world genre.

 

[Villaran]

GTA Online.

 

[SmarmySmurf]

CJ and Niko were cool. Michael, Trevor and Franklin all suck. Psychopath simulators like GTA only work for me when there's a decent PC to ground it, especially as the graphics become more realistic.

 

[ThreepQuest64]

I can't believe how they dumped down so much in GTA V in terms of AI, reaction, physics and stuff. But I do really miss the country side in IV.

 

[TheGreatDirector]

Only thing I really wanted the game to do aside from more interior environments was have the additional cities GTA San Andreas had.

 

[skeezx]

i didn't care for the multi character thing. it was cool in theory but switching over usually killed the pacing, a few times i wasn't even sure who was supposed to be doing what. i think michael was the only character arc i was interested in anyway

 

[laxu]

I can think of multiple things wrong in GTA V vs previous entries.

• Focus on online monetization at the expense of single player content via DLC. Not being able to even get the online-only cars without using a trainer is ridiculous.
• Lack of things to do outside missions. In SA and IV you could go to a number of stores, gym, restaurants etc and all that made the game world more alive. In V you can only rob gas stations and go to stores that have a specific purpose like buying things or changing your appearance.
• Less distinct handling between different vehicles. Even though GTA IV felt like you were driving pedal powered boats, each of the cars handled more distinctly. V is closer to modded IV in terms of handling so cars are faster and handle better but at the same time the skill required is lower so they are not as satisfying to drive.
• Bad cop response. I know it's a joke about aggressive American cops but it means there is no chill with the cops, they will try to downright kill you immediately whereas I felt in IV they tried to arrest you longer. Mods make this aspect better by not turning every encounter with a cop into a long manhunt.
• Euphoria physics drop several behaviors for performance I guess. NPCs will no longer react the same way to getting pushed for example and messing with them is no longer as hilarious. It does do some thing more realistic though.
• Lack of small interactions. Being able to hitch trucks to any trailer was a cool feature in GTA IV even if it wasn't used for most of the game. Based on mods it's like they built a lot of this in but then didn't bother implementing it for players to actually do. You can apparently put a car in a trailer but opening the trailer requires shooting the back door with a specific weapon and other ridiculous bullshit that should be just a button.

The movement in all GTA games is pretty clunky. While I don't mind that there is some weight to the characters so they don't turn on a dime, for example Uncharted games do this a lot better where the movement is still responsive. GTA V has also a lot of rubberbanding to cover and climbing and jumping is downright awkward because the characters can't see to handle for example jumping and grabbing a ledge.

Overall my biggest beef with GTA V is a common one for many open world games: big world but low interactivity with it. It'll be interesting to see if RDR 2 manages to improve on this aspect enough.

 

[bane833]

The biggest problem with GTA V is that they dumped single player DLC in favor of the multiplayer shit. Imagine what would have been possible if they fleshed out that glorious world a bit.

 

[Net_Wrecker]

GTAV felt like Rockstar's apology for GTAIV rather than the real next step in how they present these games. It was, in many ways, reactionary, reaching back to recapture what San Andreas did to appease those pining for wacky stuff. It was the culmination of a generation that, I feel, got away from the simulation and interactivity it felt like Rockstar was reaching for in San Andreas and Bully. Funny enough, both of those games seem like huge influences on where they're taking Red Dead Redemption 2, which will also benefit from the polished presentation they built through last gen. The best of both worlds, hopefully.

Back to GTAV though, to me it was a disappointing game in all areas but world detail, the advancements they made to seamless mission presentation, and the original soundtrack. The narrative was unwieldy, the world was way less interactive than I thought it would be, the controls were still stiff and imprecise, the police AI was omniscient to the point of comedy, there was still a lack of substantial side content (like everything they've added to Online, smh), the character switching mechanic wasn't really used in interesting ways, etc,. etc. After the initial shock of just how detailed the world is (which, to be fair, can last for a long time), I was left with a game I didn't really find fun or gripping. I just went through the motions until the limp ending, and the whole thing remained in 2013.

 

[Yossarian]

CJ and Niko were cool. Michael, Trevor and Franklin all suck. Psychopath simulators like GTA only work for me when there's a decent PC to ground it, especially as the graphics become more realistic.

Click to shrink...

Niko is my favourite GTA protagonist. GTAV's bunch don't quite reach his level, but I think there's a strong central relationship between Trevor and Michael; interesting enough to pull me through the story, at least.

Trevor is a complete nutcase, but he's also really naive when it comes to relationships and loyalty which added a vulnerability I quite liked. He's quite a trip too. Like, he's fun to play as... and then he goes and does something completely beyond the pale. I quite liked that dichotomy. The design and VA were both excellent too.

Michael is a fucking, lying snake and reminds me too much of Tommy Vercetti (my least favourite GTA protagonist). I can't find any redeeming qualities in him... which I found strangely compelling for some reason. I just kept wanting to see how low this piece of shit would go, y'know?

Franklin feels something like a third wheel though. He's really underdeveloped compared to the other two, especially in terms of motivation. It's a shame, really, because I really liked the VA.

 

[Deleted member 16876]

It was rushed.

The story went too fast and never really explored the characters. (why didn't they give us more personal missions for Frank and Trevor? We never got to see Trevor's gang empire or Franklin's gang that he was building like he told Lamar). It also had too little crime based activities (and replayable side missions like Pizza boy or Vigilante).

The open world was also empty. Too little interiors, too little dynamic events and everything was scripted to hell. Even open world pedestrians doing cool shit was scripted.

The game felt unfinished and I imagine they could have finished it had they made SP dlc but we all knew how it turned out. Compare any of the other GTA games and you will see how they feel complete.

 

[mindsale]

I've never played a GTA that plays well. Even in first person they're extremely clunky affairs.

 

[leng jai]

Number one problem was that the gunplay and overall controls were still garbage. All the guns and cars sounded terrible. All the heists outside of the bank robbery were disappointing. Still a cool game but far from a 97 MC.

 

[inspectah]

The humour is not that good anymore. It was great in older games. Now it is just so dark and ugly.

Click to shrink...

This was the main reason why I never finished the story.
I hope the writing matures a bit in future GTA titles and I also hope RDR2 does better in that department.