Is GTA V the best in the series?

Washington Irving

gnfnrhead wrote: »

CJ was even less likable than Niko, and that takes some doing.

Couldn't disagree more. Not only was CJ by far the most likable character from any GTA, but Niko was pretty good too (as much as I disliked IV) imo. No offence, but I find myself strongly disagreeing with almost everything you've said in this thread especially regarding SA (I guess I'm too emotionally attached to that game, take any criticism of it too personally .)




For me San Andreas had it all. Great world, great characters, great music, great setting, great story, great missions, vehicle/character customisation, a property system that actually works.

The way CJ so subtly grows as you progress gave a real personal feel and really making the character your own. Not just my favourite GTA but my favourite game of all time by a distance.



Vice City would be second. The setting would be the only thing that it surpasses SA in. The radio is a toss up if compared directly but it fitted the game perfectly. Flash FM was to VC what Radio Los Santos was to SA.

The story was good though not on par with SA. However the map was quite poor in terms of size and layout compared to the other games.



GTA V. A close third. So much hype and it's a fantastic game though there is certainly something lacking which I can't quite put my finger on.

Have finished the main story and bulk of the side missions twice and while the missions were as diverse and enjoyable as SA, they felt very convoluted in relation to the plot as though the story was written around a template of missions rather than the other way around. It felt somewhat forced like Rockstar were making a far too obvious point of getting players to do every single activity in order to progress.

I feel Michael and Franklin are weak characters, possibly my least favourite from the 3D universe while Trevor comes in joint second with Tommy Vercetti (pair of psychos :P).

I really liked the effort Rockstar went to with this game and feel it really payed off. PS I feel including the online portion of the game would be unfair given III, VC and SA came in an era where this was not possible so I won't go into that.



GTA IV. Disappointing. Poor map, depressing colours (I know some argue that this was deliberate to emphasise the story and general feel of Liberty City but it was too much if that was the case), horrible driving, forgettable side characters, boring missions (for the most part).

The only redeeming part of the game was the story which deviated a bit from other GTA games was gritty yet enjoyable. Niko had similarities to CJ in that he was at heart a good guy in a bad world doing bad things. Always quite liked him.



GTA III. Overall, would rate this about the same as GTA IV. Pretty basic. Set it up for VC and SA to really show what Rockstar were capable of.



I've probably left a lot of things out, will add them if I think of any.


TLDR: San Andreas, Vice City, V , IV, III

wnolan1992

I genuinely think Niko was the best written protagonist in the series. He felt like he really had a back story and there were some incredible scenes with him:

Killing Vlad and Niko first starting to confide about what he did in Europe and Roman going ballistic along the lines of "Do you always get sentimental when you kill people?".
Finding Florian/Bernie and Niko smashing in and saying "I'M THE ONE, WHO SURVIVED!"
Facing Darko in the airport and conversation on the drive home dependent on your choice.
The wedding scene and Niko's reaction depending on who dies.
The scene in the car if Kate McReary is the one who died.

I really have a soft spot for the story in IV. IMO it's the best in the series. VC was just an amalgamation of 80's movies, SA started and ended well, but was pretty awful in the middle because it didn't seem to know what it wanted to be, V is good, and maybe I'll grow to love it as much as IV's in time, but atm it's just not pushing the same buttons as IV did for me.

For me, IV was the tightest, most thought out story in series. To use Saul's point on V, it felt like they wrote the story and then put missions around it. It felt like a logical progression for Niko. Arrives in Hove Beach -> Works for Roman -> Works for Vlad to protect Roman -> Works for Faustin -> Has to leave Hove Beach for Bohan -> Works with Mallorie's friends up there -> Meets the McRearys through Elizebeta -> Meets the mob guys through the McRearys -> Gets Revenge on Dimitri/Pegorino.

wotzgoingon

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I genuinely think Niko was the best written protagonist in the series. He felt like he really had a back story and there were some incredible scenes with him:

Killing Vlad and Niko first starting to confide about what he did in Europe and Roman going ballistic along the lines of "Do you always get sentimental when you kill people?".
Finding Florian/Bernie and Niko smashing in and saying "I'M THE ONE, WHO SURVIVED!"
Facing Darko in the airport and conversation on the drive home dependent on your choice.
The wedding scene and Niko's reaction depending on who dies.
The scene in the car if Kate McReary is the one who died.

I really have a soft spot for the story in IV. IMO it's the best in the series. VC was just an amalgamation of 80's movies, SA started and ended well, but was pretty awful in the middle because it didn't seem to know what it wanted to be, V is good, and maybe I'll grow to love it as much as IV's in time, but atm it's just not pushing the same buttons as IV did for me.

For me, IV was the tightest, most thought out story in series. To use Saul's point on V, it felt like they wrote the story and then put missions around it. It felt like a logical progression for Niko. Arrives in Hove Beach -> Works for Roman -> Works for Vlad to protect Roman -> Works for Faustin -> Has to leave Hove Beach for Bohan -> Works with Mallorie's friends up there -> Meets the McRearys through Elizebeta -> Meets the mob guys through the McRearys -> Gets Revenge on Dimitri/Pegorino.

Did you just play IV recentently, as I cannot remember all their names.

wnolan1992

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Did you just play IV recentently, as I cannot remember all their names.

No, but I've finished IV at least six times at this stage, if not more.

Washington Irving

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I genuinely think Niko was the best written protagonist in the series. He felt like he really had a back story and there were some incredible scenes with him:

Killing Vlad and Niko first starting to confide about what he did in Europe and Roman going ballistic along the lines of "Do you always get sentimental when you kill people?".
Finding Florian/Bernie and Niko smashing in and saying "I'M THE ONE, WHO SURVIVED!"
Facing Darko in the airport and conversation on the drive home dependent on your choice.
The wedding scene and Niko's reaction depending on who dies.
The scene in the car if Kate McReary is the one who died.

I really have a soft spot for the story in IV. IMO it's the best in the series. VC was just an amalgamation of 80's movies, SA started and ended well, but was pretty awful in the middle because it didn't seem to know what it wanted to be, V is good, and maybe I'll grow to love it as much as IV's in time, but atm it's just not pushing the same buttons as IV did for me.

For me, IV was the tightest, most thought out story in series. To use Saul's point on V, it felt like they wrote the story and then put missions around it. It felt like a logical progression for Niko. Arrives in Hove Beach -> Works for Roman -> Works for Vlad to protect Roman -> Works for Faustin -> Has to leave Hove Beach for Bohan -> Works with Mallorie's friends up there -> Meets the McRearys through Elizebeta -> Meets the mob guys through the McRearys -> Gets Revenge on Dimitri/Pegorino.

Can't argue with any of that. I agree that Niko was the best written protagonist though I preferred CJ, Tommy and Trevor in terms of their dialogue, personality etc.

Story was probably the best/most thought out too, though again I preferred SA but that's just down to personal taste.

You're right about the lull in the middle of San Andreas after leaving Los Santos up until Bone County. San Fierro (and The Badlands to an extent) certainly wasn't utilised near as well as the other two cities or the desert. I would put it down to that more so than the story not knowing where it was going though as I feel it was meant to feel like that as CJ (and the GSF) was forced out of Los Santos and had to find his feet elsewhere.

You mention the logical progression of Niko which I think can be applied to CJ, Tommy and Claude as well, but not Michael, Franklin and Trevor. Possibly the reason (or one of them) why the story seemed to lack something.

gnfnrhead

SaulGoode9 wrote: »

Couldn't disagree more. Not only was CJ by far the most likable character from any GTA, but Niko was pretty good too (as much as I disliked IV) imo. No offence, but I find myself strongly disagreeing with almost everything you've said in this thread especially regarding SA (I guess I'm too emotionally attached to that game, take any criticism of it too personally .)

Niko was an asshole for the majority of the game. Only liked him on a couple of occasions. Think he would have been better as a supporting character rather than the main one. For me, he didnt have enough in his favour to be the main character.

If Niko was an asshole, then CJ was just a downright prick with no redeeming qualities at all. He bitched and moaned from the very start and was never once likable in my opinion. Playing as Sweet would have been a better story.

For me San Andreas had it all. Great world, great characters, great music, great setting, great story, great missions, vehicle/character customisation, a property system that actually works.

Map and music were the pluses for SA. Nothing else was anything special. The best characters were done away with far too quickly, while the worst characters stayed to the end. I hated the story too. Hey CJ, your mom just died, lets go rob a casino! Only a few missions werent "lets just get it over with" type missions.

Dont really care for vehicle customisation but can see why others do. Personally, I dont see the point when you can just rob a car whenever you want. The constant need to eat and go the gym etc was just downright annoying.

The property system was essentially a copy and paste from VC.

The way CJ so subtly grows as you progress gave a real personal feel and really making the character your own. Not just my favourite GTA but my favourite game of all time by a distance.

I couldnt wait to finish so I didnt have to deal with CJ again. A better lead character and it may have been a more enjoyable game.

San Andreas, Vice City, V , IV, III

For me:
V (so far anyway) > TLAD > VC > III > IV > SA > TBOGT

Washington Irving

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Niko was an asshole for the majority of the game. Only liked him on a couple of occasions. Think he would have been better as a supporting character rather than the main one. For me, he didnt have enough in his favour to be the main character.

If Niko was an asshole, then CJ was just a downright prick with no redeeming qualities at all. He bitched and moaned from the very start and was never once likable in my opinion. Playing as Sweet would have been a better story.



Map and music were the pluses for SA. Nothing else was anything special. The best characters were done away with far too quickly, while the worst characters stayed to the end. I hated the story too. Hey CJ, your mom just died, lets go rob a casino! Only a few missions werent "lets just get it over with" type missions.

Dont really care for vehicle customisation but can see why others do. Personally, I dont see the point when you can just rob a car whenever you want. The constant need to eat and go the gym etc was just downright annoying.

The property system was essentially a copy and paste from VC.



I couldnt wait to finish so I didnt have to deal with CJ again. A better lead character and it may have been a more enjoyable game.



For me:
V (so far anyway) > TLAD > VC > III > IV > SA > TBOGT

Fair enough, it's all a matter of opinion after all. Thanks for the reply.

I did a chuckle out of this though:

If Niko was an asshole, then CJ was just a downright prick with no redeeming qualities at all. He bitched and moaned from the very start and was never once likable in my opinion. Playing as Sweet would have been a better story.

Timmyctc

I actually thought Claude was a better character than CJ and Niko :pac: Hated the pair of them. III then VC then V for me. The leap between GTA II and III will always be the one thing that blew my mind as a young gamer.

Straight Talker

GTA 3 was a landmark game because i'll never forget how blown away i was when i first saw it.Vice City had the best sound track and i love GTA 5.I love the environment.I love the taxi driving missions and it's just a great game with great depth to it.My favourite GTA though was San Andreas.The map was better.You had three different cities.The choice of hair styles in the barber shops was better and you could go into the Clucking Bell and Burger shot.Gta 5 could have been the best GTA yet if more time was put into it.Even the much maligned GTA 4 had police missions and i loved how you could log on to the police computer to get work.

biggebruv

aint the strangers and freaks missions basically all the interesting side missions in San Andreas put into full missions with cutscenes and everything

like for instance people say the robberies are gone but there is robbery type missions in the old couples side missions where your stealing from celebrity's

theres pickup jobs from tonya

in san andreas there was a set of robbery missions that ended they never went on and on there was only like a set of 8

alot of people just seem to think san andreas was limitless and was massive which it is but theres a hell of alot more going on here

at some point you have to reach the natural end of things to do in the gta game and i think people just dont get that they expect it to go on and on and on

i just discovered two missions from owning the taxi business were you do a private fare nice find

J. Marston

Timmyctc wrote: »

I actually thought Claude was a better character than CJ and Niko :pac: Hated the pair of them. III then VC then V for me. The leap between GTA II and III will always be the one thing that blew my mind as a young gamer.

Ah Claude, we hardly knew ye. Seriously, we hadn't a clue about him since he'd never open his mouth!

I do think it's a bit stupid on Rockstar's part that they've basically killed off all those characters by associating them with the "3D universe". CJ, Tommy, Claude, there was great potential for cameos in future games if they kept them around.

Straight Talker

biggebruv wrote: »

i just keep thinking about how awesome las vegas would be in gta6 on next gen graphics all those lights it would be real eyecandy:D lights everywhere

one thinks for sure i definatly do not want to go back to liberty city next:D

i dont think anyone would care if they used another san andreas city the fact is all the citys in san andreas were toned down because they had 3 to do its not like it was the sole focus in san andreas but just imagine if they did have sole focus on lasventuras and san fierro in the next GTA

What rubbish with regards to the bit in bold!San Fierro is one of my favourite cities in GTA history and i loved Los Venturas!It's a shame that San Fierro wasn't in GTA 5.It would have been great if they put a newer version of it at the top of the map to complement Los Santos at the bottom.San Fierro was a beautiful city and they had the resources to put another city into the game.I just would have loved to go on a big trip through the countryside from one city to another.You seem to just want the focus of a GTA game to be on a city but i like driving through the countryside visiting the hick towns.To be honest i thought the three cities in San Andreas were perfect.