GTA4 still looked and felt like a GTA game (just). That soft glow, slightly boxy looking characters etc...

*AHEM*

Attached: 4897348754879.png (1914x348, 748K)

any mission that starts with "get in %character name%'s car"
losing said car is a failure state

are you implying that paid """""critics""""" are more important than user reviews?

sounds like you never played 3, VC or SA.

Attached: gtaiv.jpg (1100x1620, 737K)

I remember when GTAIV came out and everybody here complained it was grey and brown and was too grim and realistic compared to the ps2 era games. We've now come far enough full circle for people to start getting nostalgic about this shit.

>That soft glow, slightly boxy looking characters etc.
This is reads like a parody of people who have no idea how to explain why they enjoyed something as a kid and have to resort to terms like comfy and soul

Attached: 53584953_589572461536990_3002788748199985152_n.jpg (320x569, 20K)

GTA IV is the best GTA when it comes to core gameplay mechanics, driving and shooting.
Not to mention it has an actual good story, and quite possibly the most "alive" feeling open world to date.

Attached: Screenshot (817).png (1920x1080, 1.36M)

>GTA IV is the best GTA when it comes
>driving
Based idiot.

The xbox 360 kids grew up, IV was their first GTA so they don't know any better, Like the V kids of today

It is though, unless you're bad at it.
V is arcade trash, the 3d era was damn good for it's time and still good today. I just think IV found a good balance between realism and over-the-top handling and it worked perfect for what the game was going for.

Attached: GTA IV.webm (640x360, 1.82M)

My favorite GTA is still vice city (especially with mods), and i am huge antisocial nerd. I couldn't even bring myself to like san andreas.

Attached: bus.jpg (1024x768, 177K)

What if I played all the GTAs before it came out, but still like IV more? Do you have another fallacy to make yourself feel better?

I like to imagine my car looks exactly like this when I take corners hard and fast in my land-barge commodore.

Attached: 1536608901692.png (720x720, 394K)

The real problem with 5 is that Rockstar discovered microtransaction money.

>rockstar will have lost a once beloved franchise forever.
that ship sailed with shark cards

I played 1 when it came out and 4 is my favorite. It was the magnum opus of the old team

so you admit 4 is the worst?

Just like in one of your japanese animes!

Key word "what if" You don't make up the entire fanbase of IV now do you?

Speak for yourself faggot. I've put thousands of hours into GTA4 from when it came out on PS3, multiplayer lobbies, and replaying on PC.

that's why I'm calling the game design outdated, brainiac

I know GTA fans aren't the brightest out there, but let me try and explain myself a little better

what would really be neat in GTA 4 is removal of all failure states except death, just a mission objective and any way the player can complete it. It's edging perilously close to being a systems driven game with the level of detail that's been put into the city, but instead it's the same old rockstar bullshit sandbox paradox: total freedom outside missions, total instruction following inside missions. The best missions in the game go exactly like I'm describing my ideal scenario, one objective and any number of ways to complete it, only death fails the mission. There are only 2 in the entire game best I can recall.

>GTA 4 is and always will be the greatest GTA of all time.

every GTAIV mission: "Go to point A, kill guys, return to point B"

No variety, boring af

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 21K)

>you typed all that bullshit instead of just playing GTA4's Most Wanted and Assasination series
Yep, you never even played IV. Just like I thought.

No, I'm my own person with my own opinion. I played GTA for years before and after IV but I still like IV the most. Go ahead and keep generalizing though if it helps you sleep at night, you little pussy

GTA was lost the moment Rockstar decided they wanted to write a movie instead of a fun game. If RDR2 is any indication, GTA 6 is gonna be on rails to an insane degree.

That's IF we get GTA6 anytime soon, I think one of the rockstar higher ups said they don't wanna make a GTA in the "Donald Trump Era" whatever the fuck that means.

>drive here and shoot people in a game literally about driving to places and shooting people
Maybe GTA isn't the game for you.

>le cycle meme
Game comes out
Normies who only cared about the series for novelty fall off and your classic net dorks who always bitch
Time passes
Normies move onto the next FotM and bitchnerds have moved onto something new to rant about
Only people left talking about the game are the people who liked it
Mystery solved

4's cars are fun but let's not forget you can wobble around like that in sa with a sabre gt. where gta 4 really shined was the sultan rs and futo.

I don't count those as missions, just completionist side questing.
FYI, IV is my favourite of the entire series. It could have been so much better you tiny mind cannot even conceive.

I think every GTA game nailed the handling for pretty much every vehicle up until V

Attached: GTA SA driving.webm (480x360, 1.11M)

>IV the magnum opus
>Not GTA 3 or SA
Any idea how stupid you sound? Both 3 & SA shook the industry to it's core, GTA clones were the rage for a while, Like battle royal is today, IV is irrelevant. It was a downgrade hidden in a new grey coat of paint

they are missions you retard

>Maybe GTA isn't the game for you.

San Andreas had infinite more mission variety than GTA IV (rc vehicles, jet packs etc)

GTA V had more verticality, submarines

GTA IV was a tedious game which also looked miserable thanks to the setting

Not that guy but it perfected the GTA formula, even though some found it repetitive.
Not to mention it still has the greatest physics system of any game ever created, to this day.

Attached: gta 4.gif (300x169, 2.83M)

I think one of the Houser brothers mentioned that the world today has become far too satirical to even parody. Basically the current environment is too sensitive to joke about.

3 was your first GTA I take it

How so user?

you got balls calling anyone a retard, kid. Play a real game once or twice, then get back to me about good game design.

>Not that guy but it perfected the GTA formula
4 removed far more than it perfected. its a travesty there's no vehicle missions especially because of 4's car physics.

We already had Sleeping Dogs.
I personally wouldn't mind outside of America/Historic setting game.

Every thread there's some massive faggot who always feels the need to share his shitty opinions.

The gunplay and driving were much better than previous GTAs, and V. (I'm aware some people hate the driving, I disagree)
Combined with the best narrative in the series, and the insane jump in graphical quality from the previous games was just amazing to experience on release.
Sure it was missing a lot of things SA had like planes and gang-wars but the dlc remedies most of that

Attached: GTA IV gunfight physics.webm (960x540, 2.94M)

you can play saints row nad watch dogs, retard.

Not that guy but give me some examples of "real games"

You have to admit that SA->IV jump was insane graphically, up there with GTAII->GTAIII jump.
The impression I got from the game was
>We have brought graphics to their logical conclusion, now we are experimenting with physics
And then GTAV came out and physics felt nerfed.
Thats where part of my disapointment comes for GTAV.
More subjectively, I personally like the Big City Noir of GTAIII and IV, so the Cali aesthetic didn't really click with me, but that is purely on me and not the game.

sleeping dogs was a mixed bag, for starters they didn't have 1/10th of R* budget and the city was chitzy as fuck

>its a travesty there's no vehicle missions
what?

Damn right it was, Back when it came out in 01, I watched the series grow, Nigger,. IV was a downgrade and look at where it lead us

Attached: iv548548976.jpg (495x248, 16K)

simple fact is that 4 was too deep of a story for kids who already couldn't grasp realistic physics but then again it wasn't made for them in mind

why the holy trinity of course
deus ex/system shock 2/thief the dark project

GTA5 has the best characters of any GTA and looks the best, the cars also drive the best.

GTA IV honestly looks like complete trash especially now it looks extremely dated

>IV was a downgrade and look at where it lead us
You're making no sense if you're implying IV is at fault for V's online bullshit, especially considering how much shit that was introduced in IV that was either downgraded or just straight up removed from V- hence the reason people dislike V.

>my favorite dull, boring Rockstar sandbox with repetitive missions is better than yours
All their games are the same.

pimping, burglar, firefighter, paramedic, courier, trucking, etc. etc.

You're just another wanna-be Yea Forums boomer, frigg off faggot. Those games are good but have been outdated for a while.

On the other hand it had that Hong Hong crime film feeling, not sure if GTA could recreate that.
I guess a second go wouldn't be bad
>best characters
"no"

That's what happens when you abandon the arstyle and soul for muh graphics

>Combined with the best narrative in the series
Are you fucking retarded? The entire plot is motiveless and directionless until the last few missions.
Even silent protagonist Claude had rock solid character motivation. Niko just wants money I guess, and money serves no purpose because you can barely do anything with it.

The expansions retconed the plot into a hyperlink cinema story about diamonds but IV itself is totally bland.

Rockstar is dead. Red Bore 2 was the final nail in the coffin.

IV has the best vigilante system in the whole series, and drug deals initiated by finding vehicles for Jacob.
I'm not defending the stripping of content but most of those others just would not have fit for Niko's story, and were replaced in one way or another in certain ways, also with dlc.

This. I'm really tired of the same rehashed american theme
A theme of dirty hole-ridden roads with ugly commieblocks and lots of snow on the other hand.. now that would be some finely distilled kino

Attached: 1543039326735.jpg (600x398, 66K)

Niko's motivation was finding who sold his squad out, dumbass. Money was also a big motivator, considering it's a GTA game.
>The expansions retconed the plot into a hyperlink cinema story about diamonds
>retconned
Wow you are fucking dense, IV's story set the whole diamond thing up.

Attached: Screenshot (816).png (1920x1080, 2.49M)

YES. Trevor alone is more entertaining than Nico, and Nico was the best thing to happen to the series in a decade.

You're absolutely correct, but old = good and new = bad.

VCS and CTW did drug dealing better, I wouldn't even consider "Get from A to B before 16:30" drug dealing

Jesus christ, I normally don't call people zoomers on here but you are the embodiment of a little shit zoomer. Horrible taste.

>any of those outdated
wrong

it didn't have john woo feels because the gunplay was shit, the driving was shit only the arkham asylum style bare knuckle boxing wasn't shit.
2/3 of the game are shit, and the chintzy city ends up still being the best part of it for me

>Trevor is entertaining
how?

It wasn't just a time race, most had unique shootouts, just like in TBoGT. Although you're right, it could've been better had it used an actual system like in CTW and VCS.

>Trevor alone is more entertaining than Nico,

Attached: 1514841646843.png (458x456, 79K)

>but most of those others just would not have fit for Niko's story
who cares?? they're fun missions to play.

I've played III, VC, and SA multiple times and hardly touched anything but vigilante
unless I hit the horn on accident

>Niko's motivation was finding who sold his squad out
An event scarcely mentioned, with the traitor appearing in just one mission halfway through the game which resolves and wraps up that plot point.
That's not his motivation otherwise the game would be over immediately afterwards.

well that's you prerogative, doesn't mean they should be all out removed because they ""don't fit the story."" its extra gameplay and extra fun if you want it.

You should, You get good rewards for completing them

>An event scarcely mentioned
He mentions it to almost every single person he starts working for dumbass
>with the traitor appearing in just one mission halfway through the game which resolves and wraps up that plot point
It happens only a few missions before the end-game and it has a big impact on Niko depending on if you kill him or not, and which choices you make regarding Dimitri at the end
>That's not his motivation otherwise the game would be over immediately afterwards
You are retarded.

Claude is more entertaining than Nico. He's the worst protagonist besides Toni.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but then again, it's not a big loss at all. I'd rather have 1 solid minigame than 3 half-assed arcade ones.

Shit taste

>It happens only a few missions before the end-game
No it doesn't. I made sure to check before replying.
>it has a big impact on Niko
No it doesn't.

Just face it, Niko is essentially doing nothing for 98% of the pointless story. Remember Manny? What a

>t. didn't even play the game

how isn't he?

>No it doesn't. I made sure to check before replying
Yes it does you fucking retard, I just beat the game again last week and the mission where you kill Darko was the last one I did before killing Dimitri and Roman's wedding. Stop bullshitting
>No it doesn't.
Listen to the dialogue directly after Darko. You are either bullshitting me or just an idiot.

I won't debate you on any of that, as you said, it was a comperably low budget "Kung-Fu" game.
Do you think if there was a second go, should they go for modern Hong Kong like SD or go for 80s/90s one?

>LOOK AT ME FRANKLIN! I AM COMPLETE PYSCHO! IM FUCKING PSCYO TREVOR! DON'T PISS ME OFF OR ILL SKULL FUCK YA!
You find meth head whose only character trait are manic episodes entertaining?

>No it doesn't. I made sure to check before replying.
"That Special Someone" is literally the third to last mission

yes, his spiral downwards is fun to watch, especially when he realizes you betrayed him.

He has many character traits besides wild mood swings, that's what makes him interesting. He's the only GTA protagonist where the player's actions are authentic.
Anything you can do he would do, half the other fuckers wouldn't even run over a civilian canonically.

GTA5 did tone down the realism from GTA4. And I don't miss those shitty trees.

he's the embodiment of the destructive urge that inevitably comes with the GTA experience, but we also get to see it lead to his downfall.

this, all of rockstars modern games all have this obsession with realism and prioritizing animation over control fluidity, I can't ever see them returning to fluid controls after read dead 2 because of normies and their expectation of the cinematic meme, rockstar is just going to double down on that shit.

GTA4 sucked dick and was probably the first game in my life that truly pissed me off

I prefer GTA 4 but you can't literally host private lobbies in GTAOnline that are just like GTA 4. The same with private multiplayer matches etc.

After that bullshit tutorial you don't have to interact with any of the public lobbies if you don't want to. I put about 100 hours into GTAOnline this way with friends and it was a blast.

>Dude, Trevor is like, commentary on you, the player bro!
You see, I got my
>WOW, I CAN DO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING AND KILL EVERY ONE AND EVERY THING
out of my system by GTA III, typing gunsgunsguns and tortoise, hiding behind Portlands PD and shooting missiles at the 4 star cops that would come after me, so by the time I played GTA V, this idea that I, the player, am the real psycho fell flat.
Rockstar themselves moved away from "GTA is pure mayhem!" to more fleshed out world building by San Andreas, where getting money by just blowing up cars and rampage missions were complete gone.
Trevor being a "commentary on the destructive urges of players" felt as hamfisted as "How could you kill all those people" did in Spec Ops The Line.
>He has many character traits besides wild mood swings
Such as?

Attached: 1415203611972.png (500x500, 9K)

>every player is you
>Rockstar themselves moved away from "GTA is pure mayhem!"
it didn't though, there is just more going on. people still look for that experience though, look at the popularity of games like retro city rampage or hotline miami, or even more over the top saints row.

THIS.

GTA III is still the peak of R* game design, even if only because they haven't progressed since then (beyond making missions easier and player control ever more sluggish). Meanwhile all their competitors learned from GTA III and made free-roaming worlds where you actually -can- approach missions in any way you see fit, total sandbox freedom. It's such a shame for GTA IV and RDR2 specifically, because those games have insane tech going on within them, despite completely trashing that achievement through the dated game design.

Such as his deep-seated neediness, urge to be accepted by others and his relationship with his mother. Trevor is a kicked dog who is as likely to bite as he is to whimper.

I loved all GTA games, but GTA V was the only one I felt disappointed by. I’m not a fan of the three protagonist structure.

>free-roaming worlds where you actually -can- approach missions in any way you see fit, total sandbox freedom
I don't know too many of those actually

>Do you think if there was a second go, should they go for modern Hong Kong like SD or go for 80s/90s one?
I had an idea for a deus ex style game set entirely in 1990s vision of cyberpunk Kowloon Walled City

> there is just more going on
But the presentation is different.
As I said, in GTA III, money is treated as points you can only do 4 things with
>Buy guns
>Put a bomb on car
>Escape cops
>Heal yourself
And you can get money by simply blowing up vehicles in game.
As the series progressed, it started treating money as actual money you can buy burgers and real estate with.
It was a conscious design choice to move away from rewarding just purely messing around with the game to having to actually play the missions.
>every player is you
I understand this, there are people for whom GTA V was their first GTA and then there are people like me for whom it is the sixth entry in the series, as I did not play the Stories ones other than at a friends house. I have played their competitor games, mainly Mafia and Saints Row 2, and both of those games present "Extremes" of what Rockstar does with GTA.
Mafia is on the "Serious narrative" side, while Saints Row 2 is on the "Wacky Mayhem" side. Rockstar wants to do both and as a result you end up with such exhilarating side missions as Tennis and Golf and such realistic and grounded scenarios as robbing the Feds of their prototype secret weapon.
If Rockstar wants GTA to be serious, then go and be serious satire. If Rockstar still wants GTA to be that crazy mayhem game, then let the players go on a crazy mayhem without trying to one up then with your character writing.
>Such as his deep-seated neediness
Which is not a likable trait, and mostly comes through during one of his manic episodes
>urge to be accepted by others
That is almost exactly the same as neediness
>his relationship with his mother
cliche, and again, given as the reason for why he is the way he is.
>Trevor is a kicked dog who is as likely to bite as he is to whimper
Also known as mood swings
I don't see how any of this makes Trevor a well written, likable or entertaining character.

Loads of parkour and martial arts kind of deal?

those things make him entertaining, he's a fun bad guy. one you are not necessarily suppose to like and hopefully don't identify with.

GTA V sold me on it's first person mod. Really liked the animations and how it felt.

I don't think there's a bad GTA game.

>likable
You can still like unsympathetic and flawed characters. "Likability" is the stupidest compliment / complaint imaginable that should never be considered outside of capeshit.

gta moscow when

asia has been done before
south america has been done before
europe has been done before
australia would end up being a monster hunter game

>I don't think there's a bad GTA game.
make way for the best, and only valid take in the entire thread.

Attached: 1541969101941.jpg (593x610, 91K)

>those things make him entertaining
How, exactly? Name an example
They make him grating and chore to play with. It doesn't help that he is introduced at the expense of Lost MC. Yes, that does establish him as a real mean bad guy, but it is a pretty big screw you in the face of those who played LatD by Rockstar, so he starts out on a sour note and not once in the whole game does he have a redeeming quality that isn't a cliche
>He is such a bad guy but look how he cares so much for Michaels family!
That is a low ball attempt at trying to get sympathy for him.
>he's a fun bad guy
In what way is he fun? Do you find a character who causes problems fun? Did you find the way how he stole that drug dealers wife hilarious, because at that point I complete wrote him off as a tool to convolute the story even further.
> still like unsympathetic and flawed characters
There has to be something to like in the first place.
Is it his meth addict aesthetic?
Is it his irrational and detrimental choices to players progression?
Is it his quips?
What exactly is makes him "entertaining"?

more like all the shoddy construction falling over if you bang on the wall too hard

but there's no way computers and consoles of today can handle something like that, never mind crysis did it in 2007

it would be fucking kino but rockstar would never do it, too risky

you are absolutely right, that is the weakest point.
but i liked the driving physics the feel of shooting guns, and story was great

Attached: 6345324723532.jpg (1279x622, 75K)

What? GTA4 is the most realistic GTA to date. GTA5 is less realistic.

So Red Faction Guerrilla destruction physics as well?

>tries to drive straight
>car keeps wobbling left and right
Are you trying to prove that cars control like shit in GTA4?

>the driving physics
No that's the weakest point of the game. The on foot physics are amazing though and so is the shooting.

I would like to see GTA6 to be set somewhere up north, near Canada, with snow and shit, with Fargo vibe to it, Ludendorff section of GTAV was great.

I have a mod rn that makes car damage 3x as powerful. It looks like a real car crash when you wipe out and no other GTA handled cars like that.

Also I never minded the boring missions because the physics carried so hard. I was younger then though.

Main point of the game is driving and driving in IV is shit, you posted proof thinking it shows the contrary

After what GTA5 was I have sorta low expectations. I didn't enjoy the sandbox for some reason and I honestly can't figure out what's missing. I also really dislike the downgrade is gore and physics. I don't know why they would take a step backwards.

I played 4 before I played SA so I never knew an alternative at the time and I though it played very well. The cars should be able to take sharpers turns for sure and the car spins out way too easy.

> I don't know why they would take a step backwards
Trying to make it work for PS3 and Xbox360 and test audiences most likely

Before V came out I was enjoying IV a lot and also expected great things from V. Trailers for the game looked awesome, first look article (I still have it saved) gave an impression, that V will be everything good about IV and more. Boy, how was I wrong.

Attached: 1352410781535.jpg (1024x768, 245K)

ok, we get you don't like the character. but he doesn't need redeeming".

>hey make him grating and chore to play with.
in what way?

> It doesn't help that he is introduced at the expense of Lost MC.
that was one of the best parts.

>>He is such a bad guy but look how he cares so much for Michaels family!
never said that, he's not suppose to likable, just real.

>In what way is he fun? Do you find a character who causes problems fun? Did you find the way how he stole that drug dealers wife hilarious...

yes.

>There has to be something to like in the first place.

you don't have to want to get a beer with a guy to find him entertaining, this is not a good metric.

>OLD GOOD, NEW BAD!
Where does this cancer come from? Why don't you go back to Plebbit where you belong?

Attached: v in a nutshell.jpg (590x385, 15K)

I think R* is putting more into environment and graphics than it is gameplay. RDR2 was boring as hell. I loved the story but shooting the endless waves of police was only fun for 40 minutes at a time. I feel like that game had much more potential.

Literally every free-roam classic between Looking Glass games (which predate even GTA III) and BOTW. Were you comatose those decades?

Just discussion sorry you can't wrap your small brain around it.

LITERALLY THIS. This whole circlejerk over IV is the same contrarian bullshit over and over and over again. It's the same fucking "OLD GOOD, NEW BAD" attention-seeking crap that internet losers have been peddling for decades in an attempt to seem cool and alternative and edgy. It's fucking pathetic.

V is a superior game to IV in every single conceivable way. IV has a user score of 7.9 on Metacritic and V has an 8.3, and users are the ones that matter.

I'm not saying IV is a bad game because it isn't; it's a fucking great game. It was the best GTA game when it came out. It's just that V is better in every single way. The multiplayer in particular is LEAGUES ahead of what IV had. If you don't like some of the modes in multiplayer, you don't have to play them. You can play what you want. If you just want a simple deathmatch like GTA IV, then you can have that in GTA V too.

Also IV is just inherently a more limited game, of course. Still a fantastic game, but the whole thing is set in a grimy, grey urban sprawl. V has so much more variety. The city, the woods, the rolling hills, the desert. And of course there's vehicles - GTA IV doesn't even have planes but V does.

IV was an amazing game, but V is better.

Attached: gta v.jpg (575x703, 111K)

GTA IV is middle of the road, chronologically. This is bait.

I disagree. Also you're reading into it too much. You care more than the people that you're posting about.

The problem is that on any measure that makes V better than IV, the original trilogy would be even better still. People hold up IV because it has the best tech wizardry going on within it. V having slightly better design and fallback to the trilogy means it does nothing best, it's a jack of all trades, master of none. Which is really mediocre when you realise GTA has had so many masterful competitors over the decades.

Also forgot to mention Max Payne 3. I was seriously hoping what the combat system from it will be implemented into GTAV, but it never happened and I don't know why.

Attached: 1352410748693.jpg (1024x768, 161K)

>4 comes out
>people call it too different from older games
>5 comes out
>omg 4 was so much like the older games lol

Attached: 1554370803782.png (317x392, 134K)

Fuck you, all of you.

GTA San Andreas was, is and always will be THE best GTA game ever created. If you don't agree with this objectively right statement you can go fuck yourself.

I still play Max Payne 3 to this day. That game is so underrated. I wish there were more mods though.

>OLD GOOD, NEW BAD!
Where does this crap come from and why don't you go back to Plebbit where you belong?

Attached: brainlet.jpg (558x614, 18K)

alright bro

Attached: 3215 314.png (326x382, 299K)

OP is saying that about one single feature, which is probably irrelevant compared to the remainder of the games. It's still the consensus that GTA V is a compromise between IV and the III trilogy. OP is an anomaly.

GTA IV is proof that you can have realistic driving, shooting mechanics, and a deeper, more complex game, but people will still hate it and prefer bland arcade trash i.e GTA V

Attached: 1540355790071.jpg (734x580, 39K)

No it's not bait, you're just mentally incapable of assessing things on their merits, and instead resort to an "OLD GOOD, NEW BAD" approach of advertising your tastes, in an attempt to appear cultured and above-it-all. But all it does is make you look like the child that you are.

I find III to have way better pacing for replays. At the time all of SA's content was incredible, but it's that same padding that makes the new games repetitive. But I could see how any game in that trilogy is arguably the best, the pacing gets even worse after SA.

I liked it since release. I still think it's the best GTA and probably the best open world game of its kind. I don't know what else to tell you. I knew it got a lot of hate at the time, and still does, but some people liked it and some didn't. It's not that hard of a concept to understand.

youtube.com/watch?v=GWVtZJo-HqI

Definitely feel like they put more love into GTA4. The jump in tech was a bold new era and they probably put all they had into. They knew GTA5 was gonna please investors so they put less work into it. Just my opinion though onion boys.

OLD GOOD
NEW BAD

Attached: c2f.png (667x670, 430K)

ok buddy, put your pants back on.

(and what I mean by pacing/padding is that in III everything revolves around the main missions and you try to sandbox solution those as much as you can - the games after that get more into narrative and world-content padding, not so much changing the mission structure at all, besides maybe becoming easier).

And cockstar panders to them because they care about selling shark cards than making a quality game.

I'm not arguing for GTA IV at all, though. In fact I hate its realist aesthetic. I'm just pointing out that your post is lame bait and anti-debate. The meme is irrelevant here since GTA IV IS THE SECOND MOST RECENT GAME IN THE SERIES (discounting RDRs). Fucking retards can't make great bait, they don't even understand when classic bait is appropriate to use.

But there are so many places in the US that haven't been explored because "th-that's not an iconic city some towelhead in a third world country would recognize from a Hollywood movie!". If the game and story are good enough I doubt anyone gives a shit where they set the game.

This guy is right and a prime reason why 4 was shit. It was limited and lacked variety. On top of that the driving sucked, it was too serious, and honestly just fucking depressing.

Retards take all of this and believe it gave the game depth. But in reality both San Andreas and V are much more enjoyable overall.

Welcome to Yea Forums. Only weeb shit gets praised during release.

>The multiplayer in particular is LEAGUES ahead of what IV had. If you don't like some of the modes in multiplayer, you don't have to play them.
Problem is, no one plays those modes. Some of them are quite interesting, but the lobby system is so shitty literally no one is playing them.

Like, holy shit, there was a mode where two guys on bikes should escape from two guys on trucks. I loved this mode, it's intense af and full of adrenaline, but the only I was able to play it was when I had 3 friends online to play it.

Compare it with IV's system. You enter the multiplayer and immediately see a list of servers with game mode names and the number of players. You can choose what you want and play it in the matter of seconds. This is how cool multiplayer with steady playerbase looked like.

> but he doesn't need redeeming
Not redeeming as in
>"God, Mike, I have been such a bad guy"
but redeeming in the sense of
>God, this character sucks, when does he get good
Hint: He never does.
>in what way?
His demeanor both in free play and his presence in mission cinematic are of an irrational lunatic. At times it feels his actions are dictated not by some internal character logic but by where the writer wants to take the story, and uses Trevor as the means to get the story there, as his "I am so wild you don't know what I will do next!" can be used to handwave completely irrational actions. It is not helped you start playing him in a complete backwater with nothing to do while, as I mentioned, using previously established characters as throwaways.
>never said that, he's not suppose to likable, just real.
I did not imply that you said it, its what Rockstar tried to say, and he is no way "real".
>you don't have to want to get a beer with a guy to find him entertaining
Can you not read? Where did I say that? I asked if you think him looking like complete drugged out degenerate is what gives him value
Many characters are irredeemable and unjustified, but they have great design, or they have great lines, or they have some sort of merit that they can be appreciated for.
I found nothing in Trevor.
He does not have an aesthetic value, he is constant detriment to player narrative wise, his personality of "I am the crazy one" loses its novelty almost as quickly as he is introduced.
>that was one of the best parts
>yes
What was your first GTA?

>I still think it's the best GTA and probably the best open world game of its kind.
Couldn't you elaborate on all of that? Apart from the incredible tech and details they put into it, I don't see what makes it the best to actually play.

>this guy is right but his not right
>reddit spacing

Attached: 1545915387460.jpg (960x1080, 137K)

I'm really hoping 6 is great so you will be forced to actually use words instead of memes when I say 6 and 4 are good and 5 is shit.

big yikes

ok, so we fundamentally disagree, that's fine.

>What was your first GTA?
no, I've played and enjoyed all the others except San Andreas and Vice City, why do you ask?

>IVlets think V is arcadey, and that claiming it is such is pejorative
Arcade aesthetics are the greatest in fact, and V is nothing of the kind. V is sluggish shit, just not quite as depressing as IV.

>IV
the peak of depressing realism and ultimate game for masochists (well, until RDR2) but at least has killer tech under it to play with for a bit.
>V
takes the edge off the depressive realism and instead wins back all the casuals with the WACKY PSYCHO CRAZY aesthetic that they think was the reason GTA was good in the first place (when in fact it should be the sandbox/free-roaming potential)

It's really sad to think so many fans of the 3D trilogy stuck with the series so long and didn't discover all the endless superior competitors that have arisen over the decades.

>best gta is the gta I've played first as a kid
kill yourself

>I don't see what makes it the best to actually play.
Then me describing the game to you isn't going to change your mind if you actually playing it didn't do that already.

I feel like it’s easy to do America because we don’t mind getting shit on. GTA had always been a satire (at least the 3d ones) on American culture and values. Apply that same kind of cultural criticism on say China, and now you’re being racist. That’s the political climate today.

Attached: 54E0EA57-2B71-4B18-9234-4F1C34CC3A45.jpg (864x960, 94K)

cant we all just get along?

Attached: nkb.png (405x400, 90K)

Who gives a shit what you want.

So if my opinion is one way then I'm reading into it too much, but if someone else's is another way then they're not? I don't understand what sort of perverse logic you're employing here? Perhaps it's just hard for me to understand retard-level thinking?

>The problem is that on any measure that makes V better than IV, the original trilogy would be even better still.
That makes zero sense since the 3D trilogy are less technically advanced than even IV was? In my view GTA has improved with every game - certainly not every game series achieves this, but I think it is certainly the case with GTA. In fact tons of reviews for GTA V said that it was the best GTA game to date. The 3D games were great at the time, and in fact they're still great, but they're just not as good as IV, which in turn is not as good as V, in my view. With each game they've taken the necessary time, care, and attention to make the game world more impressive (and more enjoyable) than in the game before it. E.g. V is more detailed than IV, it has a better variety of environments than IV, it has more vehicles than IV, it has a wider variety of gameplay than IV with the three protagonists, it has a more comprehensive multiplayer than IV, the graphics are far superior to IV, the weapon wheel is a huge improvement to the combat over IV, etc. Like I say, IV is still great, but V has made improvements in pretty much every single area.

By the way I want to give a shout out to GTA III as well because I feel like it doesn't get enough love - lots of people rave about VC and SA and IV, but III gets a big neglected. Yes, I still think every GTA game improved on the one before it, but of course III started the 3D GTA era. It provided the template. And it's still a great game.

Attached: Grand Theft Auto III.jpg (600x800, 310K)

Reddit is that way if different opinions upset you.

>Then me describing the game to you isn't going to change your mind if you actually playing it didn't do that already.
The difference is when I myself am playing I can only adopt my own measures of what is good. But if you describe what you like about it I can imagine/empathise with what standards others may be judging it by instead. For me, it was just too simulatory, I felt like I was forced to do too much busywork that felt like real-life chores.

damn that looks like shit. modding always was cancer (unless you're a mentally impaired autist) but this takes it to another level. GOD DAMN!

>what is fun

Attached: zoomervsboomer.webm (319x360, 2.31M)

>it has more vehicles than IV
Unfortunately they all drive like indestructible sports cars, which gets old.

seethe lol

Attached: trollman.png (375x535, 366K)

You don't know how to play the game
You cheat
You lie
You don't even know how to say goodbye
You make me want to cry
You make me want to crrrrrryyyyyy

IVbros, what's the current state of multiplayer? Do people still play it?

>cherrypicked the car with broken handling physics
try harder

user, I...
youtube.com/watch?v=LCBfnjTmlwU

n-no that car d-doesn't count!!!!

get citizen iv-mp

Attached: infernuscomparison.webm (427x480, 2.93M)

>modding always was cancer
Consolekiddie please

>tone down the realism
>not wanting an ultra realistic crime simulator
They should go full Arma tier autism

GTA 6 Texas

post best tracks from IV
>mfw cruising through brightly lit city with FLASHIN.. LIGHTS (LIGHTS LIGHTS LIGHTS) blaring in the background

Attached: ISGOOD.gif (400x225, 1.19M)

Trevor was a fucking joke, repent zoomer.

Nothing you say is unreasonable but I have to point out that, using your logic, MOST games' sequels should always be considered superior then, because a technological advance is all but guaranteed since sequels are technical updates. My counter-point is that mere technical updates are not enough to guarantee a superior experience for most gamers, not least because doing the same thing as before just with greater quantity and detail doesn't prevent lethargy. All those additions you list really don't come down to much if the actual mission design is just as restrictive (if not more so, I don't remember failing missions for taking the wrong path or spot on the ground in GTA III whereas that was consistently the experience in RDR2) as it was in 2001 (when our standards for sandboxes were so much lower). All those additions make no sense when in the actual missions we aren't given the freedom to use them anyway we see fit. Additionally, the move towards realism is antithetical to the fun of illusion.

What am I supposed to be seeing here? That in V the cars don't seem to rock-around/have suspension?

If they did that they would lose a lot of customers. Even RDR2 and IV had a lot of backlash, and those were very inconsistent about realism. Not to mention realistic crime is just depressing, that's why only desperate people do it.

That's essentially just RDR2.

Car damage physics was bad in GTAV. Everything other good but story

>>Picking up hookers while Mama by Genesis plays
>>Anytime One Vision by Queen plays
>>Busta Rhymes Where's my Money
youtube.com/watch?v=sO9WNCm269g
>>Everything from The Journey and the DLC's Self Actualization FM
>>Wood Beez (Pray like Aretha Franklin) from the DLC disk version.

GTA 4 was the peak of video games; it was all downhill from there...

Attached: download (1).jpg (223x226, 11K)

Kino - Grupa Krovi for maximum slav experience.

journeyism.wordpress.com/

>>Good afternoon. History is ending. Who knows when? Are you hallucinating? Probably. It’s okay to hope it’s all a dream. Look up. You are in the golden twilight of western civilization. You are travelling through space. You are looking for somewhere to settle. Nobody here likes you and you are beginning to understand why. The machine is beginning to overload the senses. The self-transforming machines are about to sing their song. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Slowly, you begin to realize you are completely irrelevant. Do you ever wonder who created your character? And why your life is a computer simulation? Do you ever wonder who decided the rules of the game? We can only guess at the longing of the creator. Someone who would mean to create one such as you. We are living in a time beyond ideas. A time in which the only idea you understand is the idea that you know nothing whatsoever. Isn’t that comforting?

GTA4 had that notion blur effect anytime you moved the camera and gave me motion sickness. Thank god GTA5 didn’t have that shit.

I honestly disliked GTA IV until this day. I did find that it took itself too seriously.

GTA III was fun, arcade satire and had challenging missions.

GTA Vice City was even better with more featuers and had the best cast and characters with some challenging missions as well.

San Andreas had great features but god awful hoodrat characters that repeated the same lingo and had no redeeming qualities.

GTA V had a nice concept with three interesting characters and how their actions connect with each other but the overall missions were nothing more than glorified fetch quests and tutorial for the GTA ONLINE.

I don't get why people think the best-selling realist game ever is boomer. Realist games barely existed in the boomer era, and if you want more of them after IV there are endless simulator "games" these days.

press p then you retard

>GTA III was fun, arcade satire and had challenging missions.
>GTA Vice City was even better with more featuers and had the best cast and characters with some challenging missions as well.
So VC is longer and has more stuff but not as much challenging missions? Then it's less arcadey than III and merely a good compromise between that and the greater quantity in SA.
>San Andreas had great features but god awful hoodrat characters that repeated the same lingo and had no redeeming qualities.
Don't see how this is any different to the previous game, just instead of Italian mafiosos it's black ghetto rats. In a way it was kind of funny to feel like you were chilling with gansta rap characters. If anything SA matches the tone of gansta rap while VC is way too arcadey still to do narrative justice to the Scarface-esque theme. In terms of content, it's just VC at a state scale instead of merely city, so if you put VC above III you should put SA above VC.

>GTA V had a nice concept with three interesting characters and how their actions connect with each other but the overall missions were nothing more than glorified fetch quests and tutorial for the GTA ONLINE.
That concept is fucking stupid since it is essentially a abstraction of either proper multiplayer or having a proper CPU ally. It's fucking retarded to play more than one character "simultaneously", that's literally the point of leadership and allies, to outsource efforts. No surprise that the concept was dead before, and has been dead since V.