GTA IV is better than GTA V

More examples of V being shit, npc's can't even be arrested in V.
That shit was even in the 3d era

Attached: GTA IV vs V cop ai.webm (888x500, 2.7M)

Gross no. Four was the start of the decline for sure. Comparing four and five is like comparing matrix sequels, you might as well go back to the actual good one.

reddit is better than Yea Forums

lol hipsters. V is considered better than San Andreas so of course it is also better than the dumbed down IV shit.

>tfw I was 17 when GTA IV came out
>people on this board were probably like 8-9
Jesus you little shitters.

GTA V is better than GTA IV.

OLD GAME GOOD
NEW GAME BAD

Attached: 1560003357962.jpg (239x249, 4K)

Lol no it's not. It was boring af until Ballad of Gay Tony came out

Attached: daisy_casuale_4.jpg (1920x1080, 339K)

lolno

The only good thing about IV is the story and the characters, but it's all for naught when you can't play the fucking game without getting nauseous from its retarded piss filters. It and New Vegas are the two games I really wanted to like, but just couldn't play because of them. Even mods don't help that much, they either don't do enough or do too much and make the game look completely different and unfitting. TBoGT was pretty fun, though.

IV is mechanically way better than V.

>V is considered better than San Andreas
I had a good, hearty laugh. Thank you.

Attached: Carl Johnson.jpg (300x350, 16K)

>V is considered better than San Andreas
by whom?

>it's all for naught when you can't play the fucking game without getting nauseous from its retarded piss filters
Getting nauseous over "filters"aka specific colors?
How big of a fucking fag are you?

Saints Row the Third is better than both. last fun gta was san andreas.

Saint's Row has always been shit compared to GTA and the only reason people bring it up is for the sake of being contrarian

modded gta 4 looks way better than V

Attached: gta 4.jpg (1920x1080, 295K)

The Third goes the complete other way of being a paceless dull piece of shit that mechanically is super boring once you're desensitized to the visual zaniness.
DLC should have been in the game in the first place, villains outside the geeks sucked and even they were underused, the lost fame and fortune gimmick was invalid in all of two missions....

How is it shit? Saints Row games have better driving mechanics, better melee combat mechanics, and more fun shit to do. Also character creator, gta forces you to play as whatever the game forces on you. Good luck playing a hot babe in san andreas, 4, or 5.

>It was boring af until TBoGT introduced extremely scripted missions!
I will never understand why you retards like TBoGT better than IV or TLaD

Saints Row 2 is unironically the best game ever.

saints row 2 was better than all these games

The content was different than go there, shoot some guys and repeat

not with those shitty graphics. gta 4 with mods and gta v with mods looks like real life

youtube.com/watch?v=fUjY3KW-q-4

>better driving mechanics, better melee combat mechanics, and more fun shit to do
If you genuinely think any of these things, you might have a single digit IQ. Saint's Row's driving is fucking horrid in all games, along with simple ragdoll physics seen in early PS2 games.

Because it was a much smaller game than IV, so the pacing included set-pieces more often. Use your brain.

saints row 3 driving shits all over any gta game driving, with 4 being the worst of all time

Thanks for confirming my claim that you have a single digit IQ.
post visual proof refuting mine, or fuck off

Attached: GTA IV drive-by.webm (640x360, 2.91M)

FLASHING
LIGHTS

I dont really agree that is better than IV itself, but It was a much needed deviation of the formula. Now, the TLaD was shit

Rockstar raised the bar so high with V that I doubt VI will be able to surpass it

>Best story content
>Best side content
>Best map
>City that feels alive
>Heists
>Director mode

You can even ignore the online part/shark card bs altogether.

The only thing I really remember liking about Saints Row games was how you could just jump through the windshield to get in a car fast, I always get annoyed when in GTA you are on foot and your character takes their time getting in a car even if cops are shooting at them.

I agree that TBoGT is a great addition to IV and well needed for the folk that liked the craziness of SA. It had some great missions and the story was pretty entertaining, along with adding drug wars.
>the TLaD was shit
I disagree on that one.

>Best story content
>Best side content
>Best map
>City that feels alive
>Heists
None of that means anything without elaboration. V is legitimately the weakest in every single one of those aspects in comparison to most other GTA games.
Even the heist aspect lol, no heist in V matched up to Caligula in SA, the heist in VC, or Three Leaf Clover in IV.
V is an embarrassment in all aspects

Attached: 15457887.gif (236x224, 1.89M)

What is it with trannies and modding their shitty self inserts into every videogame?

V is the true American experience

V has best online mode. There, check mate nigger. Uninstall browser.

Attached: oh you.jpg (851x315, 20K)

OMG MIRROR ROADS
SO REALISTIC

Attached: 1560766314237.jpg (1614x775, 239K)

GTA4 has some real issues gameplaywise dude, you are hooked on the story and probably nostalgic because of it.
GTA5 is a huge upgrade.

ROCKSTAR

>"V has best online mode"
>t. zoomer that never experienced SAMP in it's glory days, or Cops n' Crooks in IV
V online is trash designed for children

Attached: Tom Cruise 4.jpg (500x333, 35K)

>GTA4 has some real issues gameplaywise dude, you are hooked on the story and probably nostalgic because of it.
It's exactly the opposite though,

Meant to say that IV's gameplay is the exact reason I keep coming back to it. V has an enjoyable enough story with entertaining banter, but I despise the gameplay compared to IV. It just doesn't feel like GTA to me

I made webm related and I see others posting it all the time.
How do you do, fellow revolutionary?

Attached: gta4tampa.webm (640x360, 1.82M)

>Most restrictive game in the series, cinematic bullshit
>"GTA5 is a huge upgrade"

Attached: 1508717347335.png (501x408, 265K)

youtu.be/ExErxURD8H4?t=28

>GTA4 has bad dri-
If only you guys could revive the multiplayer.

You are doing god's work user

Attached: GTA IV driving 2.webm (640x360, 2.85M)

Those are women, not trannies, wtf are you on?

They're wet from rain.

Dumbass...

You've gotta be kidding me, I feel sorry for your dumbass if you honestly think that isn't anything other than complete fucking shit

citizeniv.net/masterlist/

Attached: gta4bag.webm (640x360, 694K)

You could drive like that in saints row alos, sweety

Attached: END GTA IV 2.gif (410x230, 2.99M)

Are there any other games series that has consistently gotten worse with every iteration once they went 3D?
Except The Elder scrolls and Gta

Saint's Row is arcade shit faggot, similar to Watch Dogs and Sleeping Dogs. Complete crap.

What's with the 3 ugly cars in IV comparison?

Is GTA5 Online still alive? Was thinking about reinstalling and making a new guy

Whoever made that godawful video.

arcade style is the most fun

>die in mission
>have to drive all the way back
>fail mission
>have to drive around and back for it to reset

Maybe if you're gay

GTA IV is a bare bones tech demo with a meandering plot and several missing features.

Git gud, checkpoints are for fucking losers.
Count yourself lucky there is even a mission restart option, since you've obviously never played the 3d era GTA games.

Are you talking about gta iv or your wife's boyfriend there pal

Damn... I can't even get it to run on Windows 10.

GTA3/VC/SA were great.

GTA4 was shit as fuck.

GTA5 was really great desu.

>Launch GTA 5
>Press the win button
>End credits play for 6 hours
Money well spent

And you're a buzzword using bitch who can't articulate themselves or give legitimate examples.
V is a hell of a lot more "meandering" when it comes to the plot.
And speaking of "missing features" at least IV eventually added something as simple as gang wars in the dlc, not to mention there was actual criminal activities like drug peddling in the original game. V has shit side missions and shit side activities, unless you like yoga which your faggot ass probably does

Meanwhile Saints Row 3 has everything and didn't need dlc for it.

okay, this is just sad. looks like sped up footage, like action scenes in old black and white movies.

IV chad here.

I just booted up SA and got this time on City Slicking first try. Therefore, my opinion on the matter is worth more than your opinion on the matter.
IV has better driving than V.

If a V "muh arcade" child like
Can post a faster time, at any point throughout the life of this thread, then said child maybe allowed to have an opinion.
Until then, it is worthless.

Attached: file.png (800x600, 643K)

I agree. I actually have fun causing mayhem in 4. 5 has somewhat better music I guess tho

This. Checkpoints are a godsend. GTA V >>>>>>>>>>>> GTAIV

the obvious improvement from this isnt the driving but the fact npc are not purposely driving into the player like they do in gta v and rockstar deny it even though there is mountains of proof

Attached: 1512873659233.gif (640x360, 2.72M)

people that think gta iv had the best driving mechanics probably don't have a driving license themselves, and have never driven a single car.
i wish i saved it, but someone has to post the firstperson cockpit mod for gta iv and show everyone how fucking retarded the ingame driving actually looks like.
fucking zoomers.

Attached: 1560460665393.gif (500x375, 618K)

That dude survived Columbine.

>he thinks GTA is supposed to be realistic
based retard

also post your time or shut the fuck up retard

Attached: gta3esperanto.webm (800x600, 2.08M)

Very. It's still shit, though.

Saints Row>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gta, sorry

So it's not fun and it's not realistic either
What the fuck were they trying to do then?

I liked the story and car handling more in IV.

There's something i loved from IV that V didn't brought back: that you could defeat people without killing them, they would try to get up and run away. Wish non-killer superhero game devs steal that feature.
Oh and the melee combat was in general more fun

But it plays like shit so that doesn't matter
Quality over quantity homie

SR has great gameplay, both driving and the combat. I loved the melee combat in SR3, better than any of these other open world city games.

>i-it's not fun!
Take your shit opinion down from the pedestal

Saint's Row is fucking dog-shit

A man of taste.
Executing enemies who were wounded but still alive on the ground was quite entertaining, the fact that V got rid of all injured states for npc's was a giant step backwards

Not to mention being able to disarm people

Attached: GTA IV disarm.webm (720x405, 1.18M)

I can't believe people picked up the shitposting and webms I made and started. It's very humbling. Thank you all for the support.

this is the pleb opinion. gay tony is the worst of the three.

hire this man

Oh my fucking god i completely forgot about that menu top right... bring so many memories man. shit talking on xbox live was the fucking best

V takes a big fat shit on the depressing grey mess that is IV.
I'm sorry you were 12 when IV came out and it blew your brain out of your skull but when you're done wanking over wacky physics and TECHNOLOGY you stop paying attention to after seeing it once it's pretty obvious which one is the better game.

Weapons in V suck and hate that some of the good ones (like the revolver) are online exclusive.

You never used this feature in actual gameplay. It was an irrelevant footnote.

>that one autist who keeps pushing saints row 3
go ahead, remove the (You)s in Microsoft Paint to prove these aren't all one person.

>grey mess
Wow it's almost like the game takes place in a fictional New York

Attached: NYC 2.jpg (1024x685, 181K)

My favorite place in the entire map was the hospital lobby, to punch the ever loving fuck of everyone in there, and barricade myself there from the cops.

Details are details, they're not all supposed to be absolutely mandatory to the gameplay, dumbass.
But go ahead and keep justifying the removal of features.

Do you have the paramedic one? That's even worse, they don't even try in V.

Based

Attached: GTA IV.gif (380x171, 1.99M)

>the entire city of Los Santos only has one strip club

That sole fact made the city feel small.

yes. 4 is the better game and it's not close.

in favor of 5:
checkpoints

that's it. end of list. meanwhile all the story missions are annoying hollyweird garbage with a billion cutscenes and handholding "gameplay". police chases suck. all NPC interactions suck in general. driving physics (especially collisions) suck. the game keeps deleting your cars even if you park them in supposed save spots. every radio station sucks. the map is big but empty. trevor's missions are the worst but the others aren't much better.

>the removal of features
You mean the absence of irrelevant footnotes. Are you going to justify the absence of actual features that GTAIV removed from SA that were returned in V?
They're both good games but V was a return to form. I'm sorry you were brainwashed by a Youtube video like a retarded little lemming but GTAV is better than GTAIV.

Did the same tried to survive the longest possible with friends on random lobby
Nice and based

It's not a feature to be "used", it's a detail to be appreciated that should occur naturally.

III, VC, SA >>>> IV, V

hello my friend

that types

like an illiterate redditor
i disrespect you're opinions

>the absence of irrelevant footnotes
A completely different physics system is not an "irrelevant footnote"
>features that GTAIV removed from SA that were returned in V?
No, but there's an actual reason why planes (the only worthwhile missing feature worth mentioning) was missing from IV. There is no reason for V to have downgraded everything from AI to the physics from IV.

GTA 4 was a tech demo focusing on tech stuff

GTA 5 was an actual game focused on gameplay.

then why is the gameplay so much worse?

I appreciate that the cars in IV took more skill with handling but they were simply not good car physics. Driving a car shouldn't feel like a boat.

V is the most scripted game in the series when it comes to the "gameplay" though?
Also the easiest, by far.

except Gta V sucked ass and was super boring middle to end of game

Hey user are you able to defend the fact that in V even the wildlife can call the teleporter cops on you?

I would say that V was focused moreso on just being fun.

Zoom zoom

test

but it isn't fun. not to someone who played previous GTAs. be it the ancient 2D ones, Vice City, SA or 4, all previous GTAs are much better than 5. 5's only accomplishments are technical in nature, related to graphics and animation on last-gen consoles.

your revolution has boosted gta 5 to 110 million sold lol

It is fun. I had way more fun in 5 than 4. It's far closer to the style of 3/VC/SA than 4 is.

>the average GTA 4 VS GTA 5 thread
You faglords aren't any worse than Fromfags shitflinging over DS2 and DS3

Attached: circlejerk.gif (700x478, 925K)

I'm playing the long game user. This is about saving GTA VI, not about destroying V.

how can you say that when the main pillar of the whole series, the police chase AI, has never been worse than in 5? it's awful for that reason alone.

V is more fun to play than any of the previous games. The PS2 games have atrocious controls in comparison

I'm sensing that's a bait post, its still bullshit and here's why:

'tech stuff' directly translates and impacts moment to moment gameplay.

you don't transition from that to "an actual game focused on gameplay" by taking out the tech stuff and hand holding you through a story and scripted missions.

Seriously , replay the mission where you have infiltrate google GQ to plant a bomb and tell my its an actual game about gameplay. Every mission happens like this, just going to the maker and pressing a button and everything. Everything was on scripted and rails. The guard turns at the right moment, you get guided to the locker room, you go to the specific locker a where the arrow is and press the button to do the thing.

Attached: 1554322856931.jpg (1118x1692, 291K)

GTAIV and RDR1 were the last old school Rockstar games. Everything after that has sucked.

>It's far closer to the style of 3/VC/SA than 4 is
youtu.be/F4vbAz3-jvs
I've put hundreds of hours into every single GTA, even V for how much I dislike it. And V is BY FAR the worst when it comes to feeling like a genuine GTA game, too much scripted bullshit and the 3 protag crap crippled the game.

>You mean the absence of irrelevant footnotes
>an open world game, where you're expected to enjoy the downtime between missions and fuck around in the overworld should have no quirks or ways to manipulate unstructured, player-made gameplay events
>also you aren't allowed to have these same quirks affect NPC interactions in missions either
vacuous brainlet logic

>absence of actual features that GTAIV removed from SA
too bad IV doesn't have Gang Territories™ to make the fun as structured as humanly possible to cater to your progression autism

Attached: gta 4 bad day.webm (1920x1080, 2.32M)

it's not fun, the police mechanics are dogshit, thanks for ruining GTA

>The PS2 games have atrocious controls in comparison
Christ, at least try to hide the fact that you're underaged

The reason they dont shitfling about DS1 is because we all know its the best

>night
>rain
*sips* yeah that's realism all right

And the kicker? Because it sold the most, Rockstar will continue in GTAV's direction from here on out. lmao. Whale gamers and franchise whores (buying games o brand alone) fucked up.

what does age even have to do with it. if anything you are just proving the point.

lol not with unrealistically flat, boring roads. The roads in SR games have no undulation. It's cardboard.

>what does age even have to do with it
Considering you have to be 18 years old to post here, it has everything to do with it.
I'm onto you, punk

>grey mess
That's what NYC is like. Everything else you said is garbage. You're the type of fucker who liked Dead Rising 4.

for a game where it's such a big part, it really is dog shit. I remember Driver 1 on ps1 having better chases.

GTA4 was a huge step in the right direction, and then they just regressed for the retards.

>I did a crime with no witnesses
>psychic police sense it, now I have a star
> two choices.
> choice [A], go and hide for a bit until star goes away . then continue playing the game. FUUUNN.
> choice [B] keep doing things, rack up a few more stars. time to lose the cops! = driving to an underground area to again hide, with dumb simpleton cop cars just spawning and rear ending you along the way there. FUUUUN.
> oh, there's also a helicopter that spawns and occasionally one-hits you through the roof of your car. Also fun.

It's just total shit. And people will just be in total denial about it and say shit like 'git gud'. The point is not that it's hard, the point I'm making is that it's not an enjoyable gameplay loop its boring and feels cheap.

Attached: Birdo_MP9.png (1796x2755, 1.94M)

This drives me nuts. They run red lights or pump the brakes when going through an intersection or just speed up to create an impact.

they need to have two modes, a proper mode with physics and stuff, and a kiddie mode that controls like gta v

nope. both games were way too "cinematic" and stifled gameplay in favor of presentation all over the place. the old attitude of making shit slick and responsive and trusting in emergent complexity had already been replaced with "make sure this thing isn't interfered with by that other thing". the gameplay of 4 and RDR are compartmentalized in different "modes" that require a certain un-fun playstyle of you.
>follow the chattering NPC. don't break your "immersion" with silly antics, take all of this seriously, this is like totally real, but also cool like a movie, don't you think?
it's obnoxious, condescending, the player is seen as a threat to ingame events unfolding as the developers believe they should. the player becomes a reluctant actor in the devs' movie project.

the driving in 4 was satisfying as fuck, getting the perfect drift between the cars when cornering or trying to get really close to the inside curb

I thought this was already figured out by the community. that it's the AI drivers' threat detection being ignorant of road conditions. anything that's on a collision course with them prompts some kind of reaction (braking or changing course) - ignoring the fact that you're constantly on collision courses in real traffic. they just wrote the whole driving AI wrong for 5 and were too proud or unable to go back to how it worked in 4.

If you liked vice city and san andreas, the undisputable bets ones, GTA 5 has much more in common with them than GTA 4. I somehow feel people who like gta 4 more than 5 were too young too play vice city and san andreas and gta 4 was their first one. But then again people who only like gta 5 are even younger

When it comes to core mission design, IV is 100x closer to III, VC, and SA than V was.
The only thing it was really missing was the "cuhrazy whacky" missions of SA, which were brought back in TBoGT.
V is the outlier when it comes to actual mission design, it relies too heavily on scripted sequences and there is almost zero player choice in the missions.
IV and SA both had multiple missions that could be completed in multiple different ways, instead of just picking different routes at the beginning through a menu like the "heists" in V, if you could even call them "heists".

Why does it take more than 3 lanes of traffic to make a u turn when going 20 miles per hour in GTA4?

Needs liberty rock radio. Also the willard but I'll let it slide because the Hakumai is based same with the fortune.

just not true

I liked vice city, san andreas and gta 4, and don't like 5

the simple car physics and controls worked in the older more cartooney games , they feel stupid and dumbed down in V

GTA IV was fucking boring and unironically the most disappointing game of all time.

Learn to use the handbrake retard

Top fucking Kek!

Shit, I meant V*

if you drove a car ever in real life you'd not be asking this

uhhh

You shouldn't need to use the handbrake if its trying to be realistic.
I don't know what shitty SUV your mom owns but a regular car can turn just fine at that pace.

Not to mention that stupid fucking angled view.

>You shouldn't need to use the handbrake if its trying to be realistic.
Pull a U turn at 20 mph irl and see how wide of a turn you have to make. You might be legitimately retarded.

>gta 4 bank mission so good they remade it 5 times in gta 5 and none of them came close

3 lanes of traffic, thats all you should need, not fucking 5 like GTAIV does.

Over-exaggerating doesn't help your already flawed argument.

>Needs liberty rock radio
There, I added it.

Attached: 1558717230194.jpg (3840x2160, 3.69M)

>the autist taking all the credit for the webms
>the saints row shit fight
>the dumbass who thinks the driving in GTA IV is not arcade and is in fact very realistic
what a spastic thread
SR3 was fantastic

The Saint's Row faggot is back with a vengeance

Good shit. I don't get the IV has a weak soundtrack meme, hell just between The ones pictured Especially broker, LRR, and Vladikostok I think it has one of the best the other stations are all good too.

Attached: 220px-Iggy_Pop_-_pinkpop87.jpg (220x335, 17K)

I'm legitimately another guy.

SR3 is the most fun I've had in a video game in 10 years.

Attached: SR3.jpg (313x138, 17K)

you played a game you bought in 2012 for only 42 hours, and it's the most fun you've had with any game since 2009? that's sad.

>42 hours
Pleb, I'm in here talking shit about GTA V because it's shit. At least I have the hours to back up my opinion.
42 hours is fucking nothing in the grand scheme of things, I only played SR3 when it came out back in the day before I had a PC to play games, but I can guarantee that I put more than 42 hours into that piece of shit game.

Attached: Screenshot (992).png (272x121, 49K)

doesn't 4 send you a message on the phone to ask if you wan't to retry the mission?

cheesy vaginas

That's correct.

Attached: gaymes.jpg (944x1200, 228K)

Bully is literally the only good game out of all those

I like GTA IV and GTA V, but shut the fuck up with this "old good new bad" argument, I can still *barely* remember the shitposts on GTAForums that used this exact same argument by saying San Andreas is better than GTA IV.

>you have to play a game for more than 42 hours to recognise if its good or bad
you're a fucking dumb cunt
how old were you when GTA IV came out?

I remember that shit too, suprised it still isn't going on, came on around the time IV came out, and left a bit after V. I can't fathom why I even used that place as long as I did.

>Putting more time into games doesn't give you a better basis on the quality of it
Dunce
>how old were you when GTA IV came out?
18, you?

that's not an old good new bad argument though. San Andreas had plenty of things 4 failed to deliver and was all around a more fun game. it's possible for a series of games to decline in quality two games in a row, you know.

>Putting more time into games doesn't give you a better basis on the quality of it
You must be a slow learner then.

>18, you?
The same. You should know better then. I remember everyone complaining about how boring GTA IV was a week after it came out and the initial excitement of the tech demo wore out. People all of a sudden praising GTA IV after GTA V came out is literal contrarianism.

Oh, so you've used it longer than I've done, but left way before I joined. I've used it for just two years and gotten sick of it by the summer of 2018.

It *is* that kind of argument. I've killed an entire summer playing through every GTA from III to V, including the PSP stuff, and San Andreas isn't that special. San Andreas was a bigger sandbox, sure, but the side-activities that weren't the demolition derbies or racing or stunting circuits were unimaginative. Yes, even the dancing and lowrider contests, they're a poor man's DDR.

Half the fun in GTA IV was the dynamic physics, and I'd have rather that than a big empty world.

Attached: Shiggy Smoke.png (619x619, 462K)

>people
you know people is plural right
that means more than one
now you might not believe this but different people can also have different opinions

>You must be a slow learner then
Not as slow as you considering I realized Saints Row is fucking trash and you still haven't
>You should know better then
>Literally "I'm right, you are wrong!"
Embarassing
>I remember everyone complaining about how boring GTA IV was a week after it came out and the initial excitement of the tech demo wore out. People all of a sudden praising GTA IV after GTA V came out is literal contrarianism.
You know it's possible to think for yourself as an individual. Your generalizing and blaming "da hive-mind!" is very telling about your own line of thinking.
I played GTA IV and I liked it, I don't have any ulterior motives to appeal to a mass group of people like you seem to think, dumbass.

personally I prefer VC over SA for the theme / atmosphere. and then 4 for the physics. the other 3D GTAs don't do much for me and I doubt 6 is going to change it. but 5 is definitely the worst game in the whole series (mobile titles excluded).

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Is this some sort of obtuse semantics bullshit?

>Not as slow as you considering I realized Saints Row is fucking trash and you still haven't
You said it takes you more than 42 hours to decide if a game is good or bad. That means you played SR3 for more than 42 hours without enjoying. You sound like a window licker.

>I played GTA IV and I liked it, I don't have any ulterior motives to appeal to a mass group of people like you seem to think, dumbass.
You mean you didn't start this thread with a hot opinion so you get heaps of replies? Don't play stupid. The fact that you have to defend your game over 10 years after it came out speaks volumes. I don't see anybody doing it for any pre-GTA IV games. I wonder why that is?

>Oh, so you've used it longer than I've done, but left way before I joined. I've used it for just two years and gotten sick of it by the summer of 2018.
Yeah from about late 08 or early 09 till about 2014. There was nothing there for me really online while interesting at the time wasn't something I discussed outside of with the dudes I played it with, and every other game was just the same shit over and over again being talked about. Off-topic shit could be done better elsewhere.

Was fun there during the hype train to V though especially the autism thread about ID'ing cars and shit lel.

i honestly fin gta5 to be a waste of potential, the focus on online fucking killed it for me.

I'M LEAVING HERE WITH ROMAN!

AHHHHHGH I'LL RIP YOUR FUCKING HEART OUT

GTA 4 is the last time I was impressed by TECHNOLOGY in video games. There's so many little details.

>You said it takes you more than 42 hours to decide if a game is good or bad. That means you played SR3 for more than 42 hours without enjoying. You sound like a window licker.
Playing a game thoroughly and doing everything it has to offer usually takes a lot longer than that anyway, and I like to get my money's worth if I pay full price for something like that. If anyone is the window licker, it's you for rampantly defending a game you put so little time into.
>You mean you didn't start this thread with a hot opinion so you get heaps of replies?
No I started it with video evidence showing an example in which it's better than its sequel.
>The fact that you have to defend your game over 10 years after it came out speaks volumes
You realize this is a board for discussing video games right? If you don't agree with the arguments posted in defense of GTA IV than you're welcome to refute them instead of whining like the little pussy you are.

TEST ME! TEST ME!

San Andreas had a crazier mission progression, more extensive customization and a more diverse map. You're not disproving other people's arguments as pure nostalgia-based bias just because YOU personally don't miss these features.
I recognize the detail and work R* put into IV, but for a lot of people these aren't replacements for stuff that didn't make it over from SA.

>Playing a game thoroughly and doing everything it has to offer usually takes a lot longer than that anyway
Maybe I don't like doing everything it has to offer?
I beat the story, had my fun and then moved on to another game. I don't have to autistically go around and collect everything to get 100% to enjoy the game.
> I like to get my money's worth
stop being so poor
>No I started it with video evidence showing an example in which it's better than its sequel.
with the intention of getting a lot of replies. You wouldn't have started a thread hoping that nobody would respond to it.
>You realize this is a board for discussing video games right? If you don't agree with the arguments posted in defense of GTA IV than you're welcome to refute them instead of whining like the little pussy you are.
I did refute them, you spastic.

TECHNOLOGY has been frozen since 2013 thanks to the low power laptop CPUs in consoles. if it weren't for them we'd have had huge destruction physics by now. the shit that they claimed you would need "the cloud" for, we would have that simulated in regular multiplatform games on the local hardware, way better than red faction guerrilla. the new zen2 consoles can't come soon enough.

>Maybe I don't like doing everything it has to offer?
And that's okay, just like it's okay for me to think it's shit. The only difference is my opinion is factually more valid because I experienced more of the game, for longer.
>stop being so poor
Faggot tier argument, I bet you get upset over people pirating games too.
>with the intention of getting a lot of replies
And you fed right into it, just like I planned
>I did refute them, you spastic
The only thing you refuted is the idea that you were ever a heterosexual

HAVING A GOOD DAY?
I'LL RIP YOUR FAUCKING HEART OUT!

And couple that with their incessant desire of releasing GTA V on old-gen consoles right as they're getting replaced instead of aiming at a PS4/Xbone release, but, then again, they would've sold less copies that way.

The beta hunt thread on GTAForums really burst up when the PC version came out, and all the beta stuff that has been hidden in the code due to it being unfinished or "incompatable" with the game's design (despite disposing all that philosophy in Online), or even just left as scraps only to be released for Online a handful of years later, like the Arena and lowriders.

>crazier mission progression
Progressing from doing hood stuff to stealing a jetpack in a military base was wacky, sure.
>more extensive customization
Only four cars having extensive customizations in one garage, which are the lowriders in Los Santos, and another set of four cars having extensive customization in another garage, which are the tuners in San Fierro. All the other cars have generic parts.
As for player customization, yes, I will give you that, but GTA IV was supposed to have a barber and more brands that Rockstar cut out for some reason.
>more diverse map
Besides the private airport, San Andreas utilized the diverse map poorly. It's either flat empty wilderness, or towns that you never visit or only go to once with little to do in them.
GTA V, on the other hand, did this much better, even if the entire eastern coast isn't utilized much. They even went to imply that there's no sea to the east, and the body of water to the north of Paleto Bay is actually a river.
>You're not disproving other people's arguments as pure nostalgia-based bias just because YOU personally don't miss these features.
Except these people do make these arguments out of nostalgia, anyone who claims that GTA IV is shit for not being San Andreas 2 is ignorant, and so are the GTA IV 2 crowd.
There are things in San Andreas that shouldn't come back, like the crane car export.

Red Dead Redemption is also better than Red Dead Redemption 2

>And that's okay, just like it's okay for me to think it's shit. The only difference is my opinion is factually more valid because I experienced more of the game, for longer.
What's the arbitrary cutoff point for you then if 42 hours isn't sufficient? You think that if I go an play the game for another 20 hours or something that I'll suddenly decide that it's terrible? If I've played the game for 42 hours and you've played it for 43, does that make my opinion invalid? It's a strange and illogical argument that you're trying to make.

>Faggot tier argument, I bet you get upset over people pirating games too.
Not at all. I don't buy a game and then panic when I don't like it because I think I may have wasted my money. If I like it, I keep playing it. If I don't, I stop. Simple.
>And you fed right into it, just like I planned
Edgy. You totally just backflipped on what you said from 2 posts ago.
>The only thing you refuted is the idea that you were ever a heterosexual
have sex

>You think that if I go an play the game for another 20 hours or something that I'll suddenly decide that it's terrible?
Go try it out, maybe that's exactly what will happen.
I played Witcher 3 for about 40 hours while enjoying myself for the most part, it wasn't until I hit about 50-60 hours that I realized the game is shallow in all aspects, from the rpg elements to the combat
>I don't buy a game and then panic when I don't like it because I think I may have wasted my money
If anyone is panicking, it's you over the fact that you can't fathom someone disliking a game. Also the fact that you're implying I'm in the wrong for putting time into the game in an attempt to find some enjoyment out of it, especially after paying for it, then you're just straight up retarded.
>Edgy. You totally just backflipped on what you said from 2 posts ago.
What a surprise that the mongoloid can't detect obvious sarcasm.
>have sex
No thanks, I disrespectfully decline your offer to gay sex

I liked the wilderness between cities because I felt it gave a sense of distance, and if you didn't like that things were far from each other you could always steal a plane. But I see your point. What I meant by diverse environments though were the cities themselves, each of the three had an unique vibe to them that I feel was lackluster in IV's Liberty City even though it's more carefully designed.
>GTA V, on the other hand, did this much better
I disagree. Chilliad occupied too much of the map and its overall shape was restrictive. Plus since there's nothing too big outside LS there aren't many reasons to leave the city. I haven't played Online so I don't know if anything changes in relation to that.
>anyone who claims that GTA IV is shit for not being San Andreas 2 is ignorant, and so are the GTA IV 2 crowd
This is correct but it's also not the point I'm arguing. What I'm saying is that there are enough features people miss from SA to make a legitimate argument that someone might find it more enjoyable than IV, nostalgiafaggging notwithstanding.

>There are things in San Andreas that shouldn't come back, like the crane car export.
Out of curiosity, why this specifically?

Watch Dogs 2 is better than both

Oh, great, it's this thread again.

>check out this cool webm of some autistic little detail in GTA IV's engine!
>that totally excuses the fact that the game is a bland piece of garbage that's devoid of content, story, or fun!
>let's also forget that it has the lowest scores of any mainline GTA game and was disliked by GTA fans on release (but we like it now because we're ebin contrarians

So if I read a book and it took me 42 hours and then I told you I didn't like it, do you think you could reply to me with "well it took me 43 hours and I liked it, so your opinion is invalid"?

It's stupid and it doesn't make sense. The breadth of a book is constrained to the words on its pages; much in the same way a video game is constrained to the limits of its engine, the missions and the map. It's a finite experience and there are points when you realise that you've experienced most of what there is to experience.
>it's you over the fact that you can't fathom someone disliking a game
I can fathom it. You yourself said the point of threads is to have a discussing and provide opposing opinions if need be - which is what I've done. I appreciate that you like GTA IV. You don't appreciate that I dislike it because you've made up some silly moving arbitrary qualifier that I could never possibly meet in your eyes.

All you've done is create a thread, put your fingers in your ears and told everyone who disagrees with you that their opinion doesn't count. Worst of all, you're trying to pretend that you're doing the opposite.

You're a fucking idiot.

>Police AI is "some autistic little detail"
Typical Vtard

rdr 2 is the best game rockstar has ever made though

story was shit
side content was shit
map was shit
city was shit
heists were shit
director mode never used
add to that
characters were shit
driving was shit
physics were shit

next

Attached: 1544207757865.gif (330x166, 2.11M)

half the posts ITT belong to the police AI autist. Good lord I hope you get caught by the cops irl you fucking annoying cunt.

>do you think you could reply to me with "well it took me 43 hours and I liked it, so your opinion is invalid"?
Well if you only read half the book then yeah maybe
>You don't appreciate that I dislike it because you've made up some silly moving arbitrary qualifier that I could never possibly meet in your eyes.
No you just haven't made any valid counter-arguments meanwhile me and many others are posting literal side-by-side videos comparing the 2.
>All you've done is create a thread, put your fingers in your ears and told everyone who disagrees with you that their opinion doesn't count
Once again, your opinion doesn't count when you can't come up with a valid argument fool

If I do then at least I know they won't shoot me on sight for a misdemeanor like in GTA V, the game with the worst police ai in the series

It *is* a little detail relative to how shit and uninspired the rest of the game is. Having better police AI doesn't make up for all of the enormous flaws in GTA IV that people have recognized for fucking ages, and have only started to excuse as of late because the game is over 10 years old. SA's engine didn't have a lot of the autistic shit people cream themselves over in GTA IV, but almost everybody would agree it's a far superior game.

It’s their worst. They’ve never made a game that feels so shitty to just play and control

>heists were shit
Heists were fun as fuck with friends--the only thing that was shit about them was that Rockstar was lazy and only made a handful, and some of the later heists were a bit generic. I remember having a great time with the prison break heist, though.

Name some of these "enormous flaws" besides the missing planes and RPG shit from SA.
And no, you not liking the driving physics is not a flaw.
also the fact that you're trying to act like police ai is not one of, if not the biggest aspect of a GTA game is hilarious

>control scheme is sluggish and enslaved to momentum no matter what
>combat is built around EZ modo soft-lock and fumbling through an awkward weapon wheel no matter what
>game will always play like a clunky early-00s title designed by out-of-touch boomers no matter what
Fuck Rockstar, fuck RDR and fuck GTA.

Attached: 1553228387561.png (1300x862, 793K)

they do that shit in rdr2 too

But I beat the game and fucked around in the sand-box until I had enough fun and moved on to something else. It was an enjoyable experience for me. You're trying to tell me it wasn't. It's honestly bizarre.

You said you had an opinion on Witcher 3 after 50 hours which is only 8 more hours and in a much larger and deeper game than SR3. Are you seriously that deluded?

How can I make a """"valid"""" argument when all you reply with is >muh 42 hours ?

Go play TW3 for a thousand more hours, you weird sperg.

I'm out.

they felt disconnected and unnecessary over the top
the jewelry store heist was decent, but it went all downhill when you blow up the ship, then you get to secret labs and weird shit like that which has no connection to anything in the story besides muh FBI informant wants it done
its stupid bullshit, storytelling took a big hit in V

What is it with Yea Forums and terrible analogies? Books are linear experiences, and are not interactive. Videogames depend on your input, and sometimes how much you're willing to go out of your way to experience all of a game's features. They're not books.

You didn't actually have fun, you just deluded yourself into thinking you did.
>Go play TW3 for a thousand more hours, you weird sperg.
you know what, I think I will. I could potentially end up enjoying it if I end up putting some more time into it.

The fact that a bunch of missions boils down to just driving to an abandoned warehouse and having a shoot out.

The fact that every mission is super easy because targeting boils down to flicking up the analogue stick for a headshot.

The fact that every car chase is scripted to all hell, making it completely pointless trying to kill your target before the game decides that you've seen all the epic scripted moments.

The story and humor basically just trying to copy the Daily Show. Niko was a huge, hypocritical bitch too. He constantly criticized and complained about the shit going on America, with nobody pointing out that he's part of the problem.

Attached: 1390157886862.jpg (197x173, 12K)

Given that it was multiplayer, I didn't really pay much attention to the story side of them, so I guess it didn't bother me too much. I just remember having a really grand time bumbling my way through each heist with my dumbfuck friends & self, constantly failing in the most hilariously retarded ways.

Please commit suicide, it's not even the best entry in the series.

I only see this opinion on Yea Forums

>The fact that every car chase is scripted to all hell, making it completely pointless trying to kill your target before the game decides that you've seen all the epic scripted moments.
that was in GTA3 already, I remember that guy you chase to some inn and you were never able to catch him until he stopped no matter what car you used

>The fact that a bunch of missions boils down to just driving to an abandoned warehouse and having a shoot out.
Same as every GTA except for V where they replaced fun shootouts with cutscenes and walking sections
>The fact that every mission is super easy because targeting boils down to flicking up the analogue stick for a headshot.
Literally the same as in V only worse, IV's gunplay is miles ahead
>The fact that every car chase is scripted to all hell
Also 10000x worse in V
>The story and humor basically just trying to copy the Daily Show
You don't have to like IV's humor but if you're seriously claiming it's worse then V's then idk what to tell you other than I feel sorry for you.

>Given that it was multiplayer
fuck off zoomer

Attached: 1558625247677.jpg (443x455, 96K)

YES HELLO THIS IS SOUL

Attached: GTAIV 6_18_2019 7_18_40 AM.jpg (3840x2160, 950K)

Everything you just listed applies to V far more than IV though

>Out of curiosity, why this specifically?
Because it was inconvenient. So was the truck driving, for instance.
In San Andreas, if you wanted to export a requested car, you cannot simply drive into a garage, you had to park it somewhere on the pier and then get out and operate a crane that's always positioned on the boat, lift the car, then drop it on the boat.
In GTA IV, you got a picture of the specific car that's requested and the address it's parked at, and then you simply stole the car and drove it into the export garage. This is also in GTA V, but it's Online exclusive and rather controversial, so I'm not getting into that.
What I'm saying is that not all the activities in San Andreas are good. Some were badly designed, others were just lame.

>I liked the wilderness between cities because I felt it gave a sense of distance
I get that, but like I said, it's mostly useless towns and long-winding roads on empty countrysides. That's besides the fact that the AI for driving the cars on highways is horrible, hence why I preferred to steal a plane and parachute if I need to go long distances.
The reason I said GTA V did this better is because of random encounters, wildlife, a more managable driving AI, and the roads are just much better designed. Sure, Chilliad eventually became a pain since you can't just cut through the top half of the map, you have to go around it everytime, but every other spot is fine.

>What I meant by diverse environments though were the cities themselves
I can agree with you there. The different cities were a plus, and if GTA V at least had San Fierro, it would've had a longer lifespan, both it and Online.

>Same as every GTA except for V where they replaced fun shootouts with cutscenes and walking sections

That's a lie. SA was extremely varied as well as Ballad of Gay Tony and V. There were a bunch of different scenarios for missions.

This was literally one of the biggest criticisms for the game when it came out.

>Literally the same as in V only worse, IV's gunplay is miles ahead

No, once again, this is a lie. While V is not great, IV was extremely easy. Seriously, try playing it again.

>Also 10000x worse in V

Another lie. You can kill most of your targets in car chases from the get go in V. Like you can kill the Italian mobster from IV within moments when you encounter him again in V.

I miss it so much lads.

>brown and bloom is SOUL now

Attached: 1548512496608.gif (200x200, 948K)

this is true cope more Yea Forums

Holy fuck, I was 27 when GTA IV came out.

God damn I am old.

because you only go on Yea Forums

Oh, my mistake, I didn't realize you were talking about the single player heists. I honestly didn't even register them as a distinct component of the single player campaign because I didn't feel like they were really much different than a typical mission. I more distinctly remember the multiplayer heists because they were actually fun.

No, there is a lot more varied stuff in V's mission selection. You never use any planes or anything like that in IV like you did in V, you also aren't put into differing situations either. Like regaining consciousness in a hospital and stealing a virus from there.

GTA is still a singleplayer game for me, people in multiplayer are cancer expect you get a group together that actually wants to play
I would rather play Payday 2 than GTA multi

letteralmente frocio

>SA was extremely varied as well as Ballad of Gay Tony and V
SA was varied without having the scripted bullshit of TBoGT and V. Perfect example is actually driving the bike onto the plane in "Stowaway" whereas in TBoGT it just cuts to a cutscene when you get close to the plane in the last mission. Same as almost every situation in V, the intrusiveness of the scripted sequences in that game are off the chart. It's also a huge problem in RDR2.
>While V is not great, IV was extremely easy
No GTA's have "hard" gunplay, but IV's is still genuinely more fun than V. Having to actually aim at peoples limbs sticking out of cover, and the actual good physics system made it far more enjoyable than V's simplified crap.
>You can kill most of your targets in car chases from the get go in V
That doesn't matter, you can do that in many of the chases on IV. Being able to kill them early on doesn't mean the chase isn't still scripted.
Plus V has tons and tons more scripted chases where you can't even kill the person. Remember the tennis coach? Or Molly? Or the paparazzi missions? All scripted chases

In the 3D era the cops would just kill criminal citizens too. Only IV had actual arrests

V has entire missions dedicated to scripted chases, that mission where you steal the cars for Devin is just one gigantic script that takes you across the whole map and takes like 20 minutes
youtu.be/UtDowxmR-yg

>best story
Generic heat rip off with boring characters.
>best side content
Literally no one plays any of the side missions let alone singleplayer.
>best map
It's literally just a generic city with a whole lot of nothing attached to it.
>city feels alive
Scripted events that happen every once in a blue moon has been done to death already.
>heists
Boring and near impossible to do with random, pay out isn't even worth it now with how overly expensive vehicles get with each update.
>director mode
IV had the same shit, also nobody uses it

i cant wait to see this threads for GTA V when VI releases

that's a new one

I don't disagree. For the most part, GTA V multiplayer was absolutely horrible--Rockstar just doesn't fucking know how to do multiplayer. Once we beat the heists, there wasn't really jack shit for us to do. It has the most bottom of the barrel community of any multiplayer game I've ever seen in my life--I got my Rockstar account hacked and defaced by a fucking Arab I had killed one time, and Rockstar support actually had the gall to say "there is no evidence of any unauthorized activity on your account".

>dumbed down IV

lol

You aren't supposed to kill any of those people in those scripted chases. That's not the objective of those missions.

In IV, you're supposed to kill them, but the game literally makes them invincible until a certain point has been passed. Once again, this was one of the big criticisms against the game.

>aving to actually aim at peoples limbs sticking out of cover, and the actual good physics system made it far more enjoyable than V's simplified crap.

Why do that when you can literally just flick the stick up and get a headshot?

>SA was varied without having the scripted bullshit of TBoGT and V. Perfect example is actually driving the bike onto the plane in "Stowaway" whereas in TBoGT it just cuts to a cutscene when you get close to the plane in the last mission. Same as almost every situation in V, the intrusiveness of the scripted sequences in that game are off the chart.

Once again, none of this actually covers the fact that nearly every one of IV's missions are the same. You can talk about the scripted portions of the missions from the other games, but the fact is that at least you're doing different shit in those other games.

VI better not be shit like V.

>he thinks that time is good
oh wow.. i got 74 and that was with a collision lol

Don't worry, the GTA V and Online 1 fanboys will champion the cycle of "old good new bad" when GTA VI and Online 2 come out.

Attached: 210.gif (505x273, 158K)

>Why do that when you can literally just flick the stick up and get a headshot?
Because that's not a viable option 100% of the time like it is in V. Enemies actually use cover, and sometimes just there arms or feet are sticking out and you can aim for those to make them stumble out of cover then finish them off. This is way over simplified in V because of shit enemy ai and shit physics.
>Once again, none of this actually covers the fact that nearly every one of IV's missions are the same
IV definitely still has some scripted sections, but nowhere even close to the extent of V

No it isn't, and you'll be claiming GTA 5 is the greatest game ever once GTA 6 comes out, won't you faggot?

actually, it was 71, my bad
so I can only assume the post I replied to was satire (hopefully)

Attached: cityslick.jpg (1882x849, 541K)

It’s amazing how rockstar gets worse with every game. RDR1 was their peak but each new game gets worse with shittier controls

lmao stick to fortnite

stop lying

GTA5 will always have a disappointing story and lack of SP DLC

GTA 2 is better than GTA 4

I just replayed GTA V the last few days, it needed a longer story mode and better endings. Ending C is fucking rushed.

No GTA was consistently difficult. Even in the old ones there were only a couple "hard" missions, and even then it was mostly because of jank shit like having to bomb speedboats with an RC plane.
>not all the activities in San Andreas are good
I agree those weren't the highlight of SA, but I don't remember them being too special in IV either. Vigilante, for example, had a better format but was also too short.
>the AI for driving the cars on highways is horrible
But you gotta admit it was satisfying creating a 20+ vehicle jam and blowing it all up with one bullet in someone's gas tank
>Chilliad eventually became a pain since you can't just cut through the top half of the map
That's not my main problem with it. Thing is, you have this huge mountain which is mostly empty or of difficult access. It feels like wasted space on a map size that had more potential.

There's not much more to argue here, I think we're reached some mutual understanding. But if I had to add something else I really miss from SA is cheats. They were easy to input, there were lots more of them and it was fun to fuck around with those. Though that seems to be a dying trend in video games in general, not just GTA titles.

>IV definitely still has some scripted sections, but nowhere even close to the extent of V

That's not what we're talking about. Every mission in IV is either a car chase or a shootout in an abandoned area.

>Because that's not a viable option 100% of the time like it is in V.

Lol, come on dude. We all played this game, we know that it was pretty damn easy with the gun controls.

>sparkly visuals, face capture and voice acting afforded by liquidized mountains of Rockstar money
>same antiquated gameplay and unresponsive controls because any r* employee who dares raises the issue gets fired
Modern GTA titles will always be shit.

i may have been 9 when it came out but atleast im not some fortnight fag

>Every mission in IV is either a car chase or a shootout in an abandoned area
It's GTA, idk what else you expect. III, VC, and SA were largely the same.
Still 1000x better than the scripted walking section/literally mopping the floor/yoga in V
>Lol, come on dude
Typical argument from some retard who likes V. You also might be illiterate considering I already said no GTA game has difficult shooting.

>disabling the frame limiter
based retard

>putting Sleeping Dogs and Watch Dogs in the same category.
>A proven IP (True Crime) with an intricate storyline that is comparable to a a Hong Kong undercover movie.
>With passable fighting dynamics, decent enough driving mechanics and customizable enough characters.
>vs something Ubisoft shat out: vehicles handle like the shittiest cars in GTA3, generic Yea Forumstard protagonist (fully customisable character: what colour hat, scarf and jacket do you want bro), boring repetitive copy+pasted mission and the storyline is so fucking retarded that Anthony Burch and GoT's Dabid & Dabid could have ghostwritten it.

You're a dumb cunt and your opinions are shit, even if you did have half a point about arcade.

Is it better because it doesn't have micro transactions?

Saints Row 2 is more fun than both.

>with an intricate storyline that is comparable to a a Hong Kong undercover movie
Yes, the story of Sleeping Dogs was shit. Why are you pretending this is a good point of the game?

Best sandbox game ever for sure. GTA games have a lot of sizzle, but SR2 is just pure steak. So much content, and every square inch of the game has purpose.

>there will never be another sandbox title with a flasher coat minigame

Attached: 1346334648157.jpg (251x231, 22K)

because it actually had a storyline, unlike Watch Dogs

But Watch Dogs did have a storyline. Have you actually played the game or are just making shit up?

do people play gta 4 online?

GTA 4 is zoomer shit

I've completed the game when it came out, because I kept playing out of interest to see how much more ridiculous it would get.
Was not disappointed: the cemetery shootout is G.O.A.T. for most retarded shit to ever happen in a videogame, after which it just
>Godfather the game, with 5 vehicle types and 3 enemy skins and 10 scripted missions in total (the only music in the game being the godfather theme, on a loop) cannot compete for the title of worst GTA clone/sandbox game, despite being 10 years older and when you take graphics into account. Ubisoft excelled themselves.

man i loved doing 2 things in IV
making random NPCs fight in the streets and robing a helicopter and trying to hit it against the police ones to see witch one would survive

>You never used this feature in actual gameplay
the fuck you talking about? throwing bricks and stealing people weapons was the best way to get god tier weapons in ealier missions

what's your point? can get like 74 with it on easily which is still much faster than that dude who claimed 81 was an unbeatable time

I never said Watch Dogs was a good game. I just said it had a story and it does. And Sleeping Dogs is no less ridiculous than Watch Dogs.

I honestly don't get why Yea Forums loves Sleeping Dogs so much. It was okay. Nothing fucking fantastic. Certainly doesn't have great writing that you could put on par with something like Infernal Affairs.

The virgin fender bender vs the chad PIT maneuver