What is the point of GTA V?

FoxEye said:
Going to focus on this point first. Unless things have changed for the PC version, then all bets are off. But assuming the PS3 version I played is still representative...

Try getting into any car, accelerating to full speed, then having a head-on collision. Observe your newly scuffed front bumper and maybe one damaged headlight.

You do realise how much *effort* it takes to destroy cars in V? You have to have head-on after head-on after head-on. Just to get any deformation at all.

If you think that's an improvement then we clearly have different expectations from a driving game. To me, carnage is just part of the fun. When the damage is so underwhelming, it's hard to get excited about a good crash anymore :/
Click to expand...

A driving game? Since when GTA has been a driving game? Therein lies your problem. Forza is a driving game. Project Cars is a driving game. And neither of them has truly realistic damage. Do people bitch about that as well?

GTA is a sandbox with cars, helicopters, planes, bikes, bicycles and boats as modes of transport. I had crashes with a lot more than a scuffed bumper. I think it looks good enough and I actually spend most of my driving trying not to crash (that's the whole purpose of driving, isn't it?):p
Besides, crash damage can be increased with mods. Everything in V is an improvement over IV which was simply a bad game.

Even if you could damage the cars more substantially, what was the use of that a in game which made driving through it's dull, brown world a real chore? It was neither realistic or fun. I'd take GTA V driving model any day of the week, especially that the rest of the game makes IV a complete joke. It shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.

If you're so hell-bent on realism and crash damage then why don't you moan about the fact that you can still drive the car in GTA IV after having a biblical crash?:p Especially that the damage in that game doesn't even look that good? Doesn't it make the game crap?:p
 
That reminds me of Gran Turismo 2 where it was better to crash on corners then slow down, it would just bounce you off on a crash and so improve your lap time.
Is it possible to mod or get a special server for (minor) details like this that matter more to some people

Its all good at the end
 
Last edited:
Yes the GTA series are driving games. I didn't say "racing game", I said driving game. Forza et al are racing games.

Let's not forget that only in recent iterations have you been able to play golf, etc. Which I regard as complete fluff.

But to say that GTA is not a driving game (Grand Theft Auto, remember?) is madness.

"Everything in V is better than IV" is not even trying to be reasonable either.
 
Last edited:
MatTheCat said:
Due to Rockstar's decision to opt for Always On DRM, I decided not to purchase this game and instead installed the 'Full Single Player Free Demo'.

Whilst the style, authenticity, and attractiveness of the world which Rockstar have created really does have to be applauded, as does the characters they have created and the story the game tells....

....after some 30% of my way into the single player campaign, the novelty is wearing thin and the rather thin gameplay is beginning to wear on me.


Is the point of GTA V, a bit like BF4, all about the online game?
Click to expand...

Whats this 'Full Single Player Free Demo'?
 
FoxEye said:
Yes the GTA series are driving games. I didn't say "racing game", I said driving game. Forza et al are racing games.

Let's not forget that only in recent iterations have you been able to play golf, etc. Which I regard as complete fluff.

But to say that GTA is not a driving game (Grand Theft Auto, remember?) is madness.

"Everything in V is better than IV" is not even trying to be reasonable either.
Click to expand...

No, they are TPP sandbox games with cars, among other vehicles, in them. Would you call Just Cause 2 or Watch Dogs driving games? Your argumets are just preposterous... You spend quite a lot of time in the Batmobile in the new Batman. Does it make it a driving game according to your logic?

And you're trying to be reasonable? I've brought up countless reasonable arguments, yet you failed to answer even a quarter of them and I know why.


Hmm, let's compare IV to V then:

Graphics/weather effects etc.: V

World: V

Story: matter of preference (I still prefer V's, Bellic was a boring hypocrite and the missions were crap)

Side Activities: V

Number of vehicles: V

Weapons: V

Details: V

Characters: V

Vehicle modifications: V

What's left for IV, then? Cars handling like boats and developing "realistic" damage" which should render your car useless, yet it often doesn't? Are you sure I'm the one who's unreasonable?
 
Personally, I don't play GTA expecting it to be a simulator and then crying because it isn't exactly what I wish it was.

But that's me and I can understand why some don't like certain aspects.
 
Amatsubu said:
Graphics/weather effects etc.: V
World: V
Story: matter of preference (I still prefer V's, Bellic was a boring hypocrite and the missions were crap)
Side Activities: V
Number of vehicles: V
Weapons: V
Details: V
Characters: V
Vehicle modifications: V

What's left for IV, then? Cars handling like boats and developing "realistic" damage" which should render your car useless, yet it often doesn't? Are you sure I'm the one who's unreasonable?
Click to expand...

The things you mention tho are icing on the cake.

Which means nothing if you don't like the core game mechanics. V's world is big - great! But if you don't like (eg) FPS the biggest FPS out there is no more appealing than the smallest FPS :)

I am not arguing that V is not more detailed, or larger, or doesn't have more of everything imaginable. I'm sure it does.

Does that mean that I should ignore my dislike for the core gameplay and just focus on the fact that V has more of everything? That would be silly.

Also I'm not a gfx ho, so that doesn't bother me. 4's gfx were more than adequate.

PS 4's story was forgettable. But it was a great game to just drive around in and cause chaos. I spent far more time in both SA and 4 just driving around wrecking stuff than doing the story. Although I did complete the story in both. SA wins that fight hands down, no doubt. I can't comment on V's story as I didn't like the core gameplay enough to care about the story.

Core gameplay > all. Everything else is details. And for me, the core gameplay of GTA is DRIVING. If the driving is poor, I cannot enjoy it, despite how much bigger and how much more of everything there is. So your comparisons are meaningless to me.
 
Uncle Petey said:
Personally, I don't play GTA expecting it to be a simulator and then crying because it isn't exactly what I wish it was.

But that's me and I can understand why some don't like certain aspects.
Click to expand...

I'm perfectly fine with people not liking GTA V for story/setting/crappy graphics/the general feel of the game etc. That's perfectly reasonable.

But I'm arguing with a bloke who's trying to say that GTA V is crap because you can't apply "realistic driving techniques" or "opposite lock", labels it a driving game and the calls me unreasonable:p I have yet to hear anyone moan about cars not handling realistically in Burnout, Hot Pursuit, Fuel etc. which are REAL driving games, where you can do little else:rolleyes:
 
FoxEye said:
The things you mention tho are icing on the cake.

Which means nothing if you don't like the core game mechanics. V's world is big - great! But if you don't like (eg) FPS the biggest FPS out there is no more appealing than the smallest FPS :)

I am not arguing that V is not more detailed, or larger, or doesn't have more of everything imaginable. I'm sure it does.

Does that mean that I should ignore my dislike for the core gameplay and just focus on the fact that V has more of everything? That would be silly.

Also I'm not a gfx ho, so that doesn't bother me. 4's gfx were more than adequate.

PS 4's story was forgettable. But it was a great game to just drive around in and cause chaos. I spent far more time in both SA and 4 just driving around wrecking stuff than doing the story. Although I did complete the story in both. SA wins that fight hands down, no doubt. I can't comment on V's story as I didn't like the core gameplay enough to care about the story.

Core gameplay > all. Everything else is details. And for me, the core gameplay of GTA is DRIVING. If the driving is poor, I cannot enjoy it, despite how much bigger and how much more of everything there is. So your comparisons are meaningless to me.
Click to expand...

Just like your ramblings about proper handling are meaningless to me. I found driving in V to be perfectly enjoyable and a lot more suitable for as you say "carnage". Besides, I don't know how you could cause carnage with a car in IV:p You drove it, crashed it, it stopped and then you accelerated again. Rinse, repeat until it broke down. Very realistic. And causing havoc in San Andreas with cars? They handled and looked like lego blocks and had similar damage:p In IV, you couldn't even drive like a maniac because the game's engine thought the car was full of concrete.

Anyways, let me just bring up one final point as I see you're conveniently omitting all the parts of my posts that expose flaws in your logic:

If you say that all I listed is meaningless in a sandbox game and it's core gameplay that matters, which you consider to be DRIVING and REALISTIC DAMAGE, and you found IV's story etc. underwhelhing then why didn't you play a proper racing game focused on handling and damage simulation instead? Or some crazy arcade racer like Burnout et al if you wanted to cause some driving mayhem?

Surely IV's driving mechanics and damage weren't amazing enough to trump all of its flaws and an uninteresting story? Those real driving games I mentioned surely do a better job at the things you consider "core gameplay" of a GTA game? Burnout even had a more fun setting:p

And to reverse your point, how much does damage/handling mean in a game with a dull world, nothing to do and a crap story? Was it really so fun to drive about a flat, brown city that it made GTA IV a completely unique experience, a lot better than V (especially that you missed its very decent story and a lot of fun things it had to offer because "core gameplay" was crap)? Not to mention that driving in V is only different in that you can go faster, fast cars actually feel like fast cars, not like 1850's oxen carts and that you don't have to run around like an idiot looking for another one every 20 seconds?
 
Back to the OP and side stepping the driving physics issues.

Overall I was very pleased with GTA V and finished my first play through on around 80% completion. However... I haven't been back for a second go (yet). Why?

Most of it was very good but I did find to some extent the story was driving the sandbox, rather than the other way round. Yes there was a variety of things to do but much of that only unlocked quite late in the game by which time I was content to skip it (like trying to find alien artefacts). To be fair when I played through GTA SA earlier in the year, other than the graffiti tags which award decent weapons early on, I skipped most of the oyster/photo ops/horseshoe collection, too.

Having three protagonists was an interesting idea but on joint missions got confusing as you rapidly switched between characters. The constant bickering between Trevor and Michael towards the end also started to wear thin, there really seemed to be more emphasis on Franklin and Michael with Trevor's role being edged out.

The main missions towards the end started getting very samey and really seemed like padding to make the game more than it was. Okay it's GTA so there's always going to be car chases but chasing down your shrink... really? Having played titles like Deus Ex or Mass Effect in the interim between IV and V, maybe I craved a bit more sophistication. The heist missions (should have been more of these) addressed this by offering differing approaches, but there were no real rewards for doing things differently such as using stealth or a non-lethal takedown. Relying on the stockmarket to make sufficient money to buy up property was also a stretch too far IMHO, should have been more money up front on missions or side tasks to cover that.

Found the range of weapons very confusing and not that easy to switch during combat. Even the toughest armour seemed to evaporate very quickly in combat though the re-generating health was a good innovation, as was the ability to step by a segment you were stuck on (flying the Cessna inside the cargo plane for one).

I found the graphics very good, light years ahead of GTA SA or even IV, detail really immersive actually felt I was in SoCal.

Having just finished a double play through of Deus Ex and with Fallout 4 still a little time away, I may fire up GTA V for another go over the next few weeks but try and do things a bit differently.
 
I never even finished GTA4, although I did enjoy it for a while. I think folks are right, the detailed environments of GTA have disguised somewhat shallow gameplay in single player. The premise just hasn't been allowed to evolve. They've been missing a huge opportunity to build on that IMO.
 
Playing GTAV is like a woman who likes to ride big ones. She loves it compared to smaller ones. But then along comes a guy with an uncomfortably large one and it just becomes painful. It's just so big she can't take it all in and when she tries it just hurts and kills the encounter stone dead.
 
BuffetSlayer said:
Playing GTAV is like a woman who likes to ride big ones. She loves it compared to smaller ones. But then along comes a guy with an uncomfortably large one and it just becomes painful. It's just so big she can't take it all in and when she tries it just hurts and kills the encounter stone dead.
Click to expand...

Erm, come again?

So to speak.
 
Jim99 said:
Erm, come again?

So to speak.
Click to expand...

:D

The point is, GTAV is arguably too big, so much so it ruins the experience for many. Too much going on, too much to see and do and it means it loses focus on the main story and main objectives kind of become almost an option when playing because the 'fun' can be had without ever going near a story. This is always an issue with sandbox games.
 
I enjoyed GTA V, I feel like Rockstar are sort of going back to their roots.

Anything that came after San Andreas I didn't enjoy, but GTA V I put a lot of time into playing the singleplayer and playing the multiplayer.

Hopefully the GTA franchise is on the up.
 
BuffetSlayer said:
The point is, GTAV is arguably too big, so much so it ruins the experience for many. Too much going on, too much to see and do and it means it loses focus on the main story and main objectives kind of become almost an option when playing because the 'fun' can be had without ever going near a story. This is always an issue with sandbox games.
Click to expand...

I think I can honesly say that you're the first person I have seen say that, maybe I haven't noticed it before or my brain blocked it out, but I have never to my knowledge heard/seen someone say that the game world is too big.

I want it bigger! It's a great size now, but for 6 I want moar!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom