10 months later - Was GTA V a disappointment?

  • 139 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Edited 4 months, 27 days ago

Poll: 10 months later - Was GTA V a disappointment? (159 votes)

Not a disappointment in the slightest. It lived up to all of the expectations, and it was easily one of the best games of last-gen. 51%
Mildly disappointing. It is a really great game, but it just barely missed the mark. 19%
Moderately disappointing. Still a good game, but it could have been so much more. 24%
Highly disappointing. It shamed the GTA name. Rockstar really fucked it up. 5%

So, it has been approximately 10 months since Grand Theft Auto V released, and I wanted to see what the general consensus is on it. There was a lot of hype built up around this game. Was the hype worth it?

In my opinion, it was mildly disappointing. I shall list pros and cons.

Pros

- Gorgeous, detailed and believable open-world.

- The writing is easily some of the best I have experienced in a video game, easily a Hollywood-quality script, and the characters are stellar.

- Improved gameplay over GTA IV.

- Trevor.

- The first half of the main story is well written and well paced.

- Trevor.

Cons

- The second half of the main story is a convoluted and horribly paced mess. And don't even get me started on the endings....

- Way too short. Like, really... way too short.

- Don't flame me for this, but i'm just saying... I wish there were some better-quality female characters.

- The law enforcement is just awful. Like... wow, awful. Why the hell should a police officer shoot me dead just for standing in from of him/her for 10 seconds?

Anyway. For me, Grand Theft Auto V was an 8/10 game. Kind of a disappointment.

So SW, how does Grand Theft Auto V hold up now, ten months after release?

#101 Posted by LustForSoul (5887 posts) -

The way the game looks and runs on a last gen console, it's easily one of the best.

#102 Posted by Zelda187 (961 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

@shadowkiller11 said:

One of the best games this generation hell it's top 3. Only minor disappointment is the law enforcement being way to prevalent. and the Third act seemed abit rushed compared to the amazing first and second act.

I couldn't agree more with the law enforcement being too prevalent. That's right on the money. The law needs to be heavily toned down in V, it's absurd when you kill someone out in the middle of nowhere and you immediately get a 4 star level. It's almost like the ESRB told Rockstar, "you can make this game, but you better severely penalize the player for wrongdoings before we approve it". You can't get away with shit in V. I could barely go on any rampages. It was ridiculous and detracted from the fun.

On a side note, am I the only one bored of the GTA formula? How many times am I going to jump out of a plane? How many stunt jumps can I fly off of with a smile? What good is SCUBA? When is the "open-worldness" of GTA going to be seen? When is economy going to play a big part? Where is the black market and my battle for control over it? Why can't I hire goons to do my bidding and send them on errands of destruction? Or deal drugs (a brilliant part of CW that's yet to be seen again)? Let me be a criminal more than just shooting people. Many crimes in RL are non-violent in nature. I don't necessarily only want violence (though I'd like to retain the option), I want POWER. I want to be able to bribe people, or intimidate them. Corrupt the police and politicians. Becomes a weapons/drug dealer. Set up deals. Betray people.

But no, GTA has done what? Skydiving, stunt ramps, skydiving, flying. Big whoops. What are you people giving accolades for, exactly? Can you understand how much potential is being wasted in these games? Sure, they are a technical marvel and I know they give off one hell of a first impression, but looked for any depth under the surface and they are as shallow as a puddle. Goddamn it R*, you've created the world. Now let me truly control it. Heists and the stock market were huge leaps in the right direction, but there needs to be a lot more. Make it a crime simulator, not just a playground. GTA deserves to be much more than it is.

Exactly

I'll never understand people who say they are "blown away" by the exploration in GTA games. What exploration? All you can do is drive/fly around in an open area. You can't even go inside of any buildings besides a handful of clothing stores. Hell, you couldn't even go inside the fast food places in GTA V.

It sure as hell can't come close to the exploration offered in the Fallout and Elder Scrolls games. How awesome would it be to just stroll into a random apartment complex, kick in a door and see people watching TV on the couch, cooking in the kitchen, etc....and blow them away? LOL

And I totally agree that the mission structure is the same that it's been in these games ever since GTA III. Drive from point A to point B, shoot some guy, and then drive back to point A. It's beyond repetitive at this point. You could easily argue that the GTA games have gotten more and more shallow since San Andreas. Rockstar just rinses and repeats the same shit over and over again with improved graphics and people keep eating it up.

I'd much rather see a new Red Dead game or see them attempt something completely new instead of rehashing GTA over and over again.

#103 Posted by Wasdie (50003 posts) -

Not at all. Easily my favorite game in the series.

Despite the game clearly being built for the next gen consoles and PC, the PS3 and 360 version still ended up being super fun.

#104 Edited by toast_burner (21791 posts) -

No. GTA4 wan't that good, so I had low expectations.

GTA5 is pretty good from what I've played.

#105 Edited by fueled-system (6304 posts) -

There are some disappointments for me but overall it is solid

The online though.... people are still waiting for something that will probably never come

#106 Edited by vashkey (33750 posts) -

Yes, the online multiplayer was needlessly convoluted. Hiding vehicles and weapons behind progression system and cash is stupid. All anyone wants to do if screw around and have fun. We should be able to high jack eachother's vehicles and just goof around and have fun. The multiplayer was the most diapointing part and there was no excuse for all the issues it had or it's tardiness at launch.

The campaign was okay but it really do enough to set it's three protagonists apart, the single wasn't really that special compared to previous entries and the ending was absolutely stupid. "hey, lets just kill everyone we don't like" teh end. wow, why didn't they do that from the start, it's just so stupid, hamfisted and contrived.

#107 Edited by IamAdorable (402 posts) -

In some ways, but I blame myself for it. I hyped this up way too much :p. I had a good time with it though. I am also looking forward to the PC release.

#108 Posted by cainetao11 (17775 posts) -

Not for me. It was my GOTY

#109 Posted by MirkoS77 (7633 posts) -

@Zelda187 said:

@MirkoS77 said:

I couldn't agree more with the law enforcement being too prevalent. That's right on the money. The law needs to be heavily toned down in V, it's absurd when you kill someone out in the middle of nowhere and you immediately get a 4 star level. It's almost like the ESRB told Rockstar, "you can make this game, but you better severely penalize the player for wrongdoings before we approve it". You can't get away with shit in V. I could barely go on any rampages. It was ridiculous and detracted from the fun.

On a side note, am I the only one bored of the GTA formula? How many times am I going to jump out of a plane? How many stunt jumps can I fly off of with a smile? What good is SCUBA? When is the "open-worldness" of GTA going to be seen? When is economy going to play a big part? Where is the black market and my battle for control over it? Why can't I hire goons to do my bidding and send them on errands of destruction? Or deal drugs (a brilliant part of CW that's yet to be seen again)? Let me be a criminal more than just shooting people. Many crimes in RL are non-violent in nature. I don't necessarily only want violence (though I'd like to retain the option), I want POWER. I want to be able to bribe people, or intimidate them. Corrupt the police and politicians. Becomes a weapons/drug dealer. Set up deals. Betray people.

But no, GTA has done what? Skydiving, stunt ramps, skydiving, flying. Big whoops. What are you people giving accolades for, exactly? Can you understand how much potential is being wasted in these games? Sure, they are a technical marvel and I know they give off one hell of a first impression, but looked for any depth under the surface and they are as shallow as a puddle. Goddamn it R*, you've created the world. Now let me truly control it. Heists and the stock market were huge leaps in the right direction, but there needs to be a lot more. Make it a crime simulator, not just a playground. GTA deserves to be much more than it is.

And I totally agree that the mission structure is the same that it's been in these games ever since GTA III. Drive from point A to point B, shoot some guy, and then drive back to point A. It's beyond repetitive at this point. You could easily argue that the GTA games have gotten more and more shallow since San Andreas. Rockstar just rinses and repeats the same shit over and over again with improved graphics and people keep eating it up.

I'd much rather see a new Red Dead game or see them attempt something completely new instead of rehashing GTA over and over again.

I don't mind not being able to go into every building. Given the scope of these games, asking for such freedom is just unrealistic and rendering all those indoor areas simply to give the player the freedom to go on rampages indoors is a bit of misallocation of resources that could be better used elsewhere. And this is largely the problem with GTA in general for me. With each game, R* loves to proclaim how much bigger the new world is opposed to the last, as if this is supposed to somehow assure us that we'll be afforded more freedom or the game will play better simply because there's more geography. We're not. We're in the same damn cell we were before, just one we can walk/drive/fly longer in a straight line for. BFD. How, after 5 games now, are gamers still content with this? I would be very, very OK if R* decided to halve the world's breadth in order to lend it some significant depth instead.

Even within a linear mission construct, there still could be a hell of a lot of options instead of (what you mentioned) "go to A, do this", "now go to B, do that". I get so frustrated being commanded like this in a game so large and fully realized which gives off the impression of enormous freedom. It's time to evolve. The world's been perfected, the tech is there. Essentially, I want a Hitman-esque GTA. If I'm given a mission to assassinate someone, give me options in how I go about it. Let me hire someone to gather intel of the mark's daily routine so I can set up a hit in the manner I please, when and where I choose. Or take a chance and hire someone to do it instead of me. In between missions, let me run the criminal side of my empire. Weapons/drug dealing, extortion. Let me adjust interest rates. Let me hire and place drug dealers at certain spots on the map and decide what they charge/how much to pay/arm them with. Let me fully run a prostitution ring. And let these decisions impact the world. Let me degrade/improve neighborhoods with my actions. Let me buy police protection or bribe them to ignore some of my moves. Etc etc etc....

I just want to be calling the shots in these games. I'm sick and tired of being the errand boy told what to do. Perhaps at the start I can understand this as I work my way up, but late game I want to be running an empire where I can delegate lower priorities to subordinates (though still do them on my own if I wish). Christ, there's SO MUCH more that could be done. For as big as it is, it really is a prison. No more skydiving, SCUBA, hunting. No, give me real depth please.

#110 Posted by faizan_faizan (7866 posts) -

@freedomfreak said:
@faizan_faizan said:

What the hell is this?

A thread made by Gamespot user Kevlar101 on the System Wars board.

Infobot doing what it does best. Thank you programmers!

#111 Posted by blamix99 (2067 posts) -

i don't know why idiots hate this game, it's a 9.5/10 for me

#112 Posted by Wiiboxstation (280 posts) -

@speak_low said:

I thought it was an incredible game and, yes, towering achievement. Rockstar could've made this a slight enhancement over GTA IV (and Episodes from Liberty City) to quickly cash in on the close of a Gen 7, but you can tell it's a major overhaul that they took seriously. Instead of a minor follow-up, Rockstar made a real Sequel and a statement with this game (and the amount of awards shared with TLOU last year showed it). It's one of the biggest technical leaps I've seen between "sequels" made in the same generation (along with Uncharted 2).

The Euphoria engine (animation system) is better utilized, the lighting/water effects are breathtaking, the draw distance (while not perfect and limited by the PS360) is incredible, and the three-character structure was a terrific idea. We get an even better sense of openness and sandbox freedom, and more dynamic interplay/humor now with three characters available at any time. I'm glad they thought of this idea and have said they'll include it in their future games.

And what used to be muddier, blurrier, jankier and even 'primitive' is now sharper, livelier and way more polished in every way. Most devs probably would've gotten to a similar level with 2-3 games. Rockstar got there immediately, right after GTA IV production, and I'm still amazed at the detail and polish they packed into the game.

And what's exciting is Rockstar saying they never get to hundreds of things after each GTA game is finished (time and technology always holding them back), so I have no doubt next-gen GTA 6 will have more staggering improvements that will make the industry take notice again. I'm not waiting to see what Saint's Row 5 or Sleeping Dogs 2 or even Watch_Dogs 2 will do next for sandbox games. I'm waiting to see what Rockstar will do with GTA 6 first.

I also notice the ones who "hated" GTA: Vice City, GTA: San Andreas, GTA IV and now GTA V, keep coming back and playing the newest one. They seem to be putting on this exaggerated, embittered online persona of a 'Rockstar-hater' but actually like the games, because they keep buying and playing every single one. That's good. Rockstar even made characters in GTA V mocking these types of split personalities. They got you covered dog. Everyone is considered and represented (and skewered) in Rockstar's world.

This is an excellent post. I have always loved the GTA series, it has done so many great things. GTA 4 still looks good to me, its just GTA 5 looks incredible. I liked every gta game that i have played although i struggle to go back to the ps2 versions now because of the game mechanics in it. They are frustrating after you get so use to the GTA V game play.

Also like somebody has already said GTA V was the first GTA that I have ever completed and I have owned every GTA game bar China town wars on the ds. I have been stuck on the last mission on GTA 4 for years. I definitely like the fact on 5 that there are mission check points.

#113 Posted by Boddicker (2813 posts) -

@Boddicker said:

Let's not forget something that has plagued us since GTA3, and I think we've all gotten so used to it that we hardly recognize it anymore for the huge crock of shit it is.

When in a car suddenly 80-90% of other cars become that one. Think about it. You're in a XXXXX, suddenly every car on the street is a XXXXX.

Does this happen on PC?

I think GTA is finally dead to me. It had a great run and I will always treasure the memories.

I'm just gonna quote myself here.

I would like to add even if they fix this for the inevitable GTA6 it would have to be in the far future for me to be interested.

#114 Edited by Macutchi (4143 posts) -

it was pretty much a masterpiece of gaming. beats vice city as my favourite in the series

#115 Edited by ominous_titan (733 posts) -

For some reason I buy all the Gta games but tire of them easily. This one was really good though I still play it now and then. Will definitely get the ps4 version. Trevor is fucking awesome my best bro was crazy like him. Hes dead now but fuck did he ever leave his mark on the world

I'd like rock star to make a fantasy game or a Sci Fi they do open world quite well. Another red dead is a must redemption was tied with skyrim for me as best open world

#116 Edited by mgools (905 posts) -

Have yet to play a good GTA game, so didn't get this one as I assumed it was no better than the others.

#117 Posted by lamprey263 (24236 posts) -

Yes, apparently Rockstar had no desire to create more content for the game without MS bankrolling it for timed exclusivity. The game's world is huge but the in game activities feels rather narrow in scope. The property buying system never really found its way to be used for me. I mean I had property it just couldn't make money like it could like say in Vice City. I realize there's some take-the-time-to-research-it-on-the-internet kind of ways to make money with the stock market, but I really didn't feel like it was worth the bother. The soundtrack was disappointing. I didn't mind the characters but I hated the split narrative. It was an entertaining game, wasn't great. I've a feeling Rockstar decided to spend most their time in development tinkering with GTA Online rather than focusing on creating a well crafted single player narrative. When I started playing the games and wasn't getting the perfect run through on the missions I told my obsessive compulsive self that I'd go back and knock them out one by one throughout the game... by the time I was finished though I had no desire to do that, I had no desire to go out and score money to buy the properties. The game can be very bland at times. There was so much potential here but it was wasted.

And to think people were upset Caroline gave the game a 9/10, I'd say she was pretty generous. I don't really care this is getting a next gen port, I didn't enjoy it enough for a repurchase.

#118 Posted by chocolate1325 (32555 posts) -

I thought it was a very good game not 10 out of 10 though but RDR was better.

#119 Posted by heretrix (37435 posts) -

The single player was satisfying, the multiplayer was not. I paid 60 for the single player and the multi was free.

I'm good with that and I'm buying it again on the PC because I know I'm gonna play the hell out of it. Hopefully the PC versions multiplayer will be better and finally bring the heists.

#120 Posted by Big_Pecks (5364 posts) -

It was hyped to be perfect.

It was not.

Flop.

#121 Posted by biggest_loser (24063 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

I don't mind not being able to go into every building. Given the scope of these games, asking for such freedom is just unrealistic and rendering all those indoor areas simply to give the player the freedom to go on rampages indoors is a bit of misallocation of resources that could be better used elsewhere. And this is largely the problem with GTA in general for me. With each game, R* loves to proclaim how much bigger the new world is opposed to the last, as if this is supposed to somehow assure us that we'll be afforded more freedom or the game will play better simply because there's more geography. We're not. We're in the same damn cell we were before, just one we can walk/drive/fly longer in a straight line for. BFD. How, after 5 games now, are gamers still content with this? I would be very, very OK if R* decided to halve the world's breadth in order to lend it some significant depth instead.

Even within a linear mission construct, there still could be a hell of a lot of options instead of (what you mentioned) "go to A, do this", "now go to B, do that". I get so frustrated being commanded like this in a game so large and fully realized which gives off the impression of enormous freedom. It's time to evolve. The world's been perfected, the tech is there. Essentially, I want a Hitman-esque GTA. If I'm given a mission to assassinate someone, give me options in how I go about it. Let me hire someone to gather intel of the mark's daily routine so I can set up a hit in the manner I please, when and where I choose. Or take a chance and hire someone to do it instead of me. In between missions, let me run the criminal side of my empire. Weapons/drug dealing, extortion. Let me adjust interest rates. Let me hire and place drug dealers at certain spots on the map and decide what they charge/how much to pay/arm them with. Let me fully run a prostitution ring. And let these decisions impact the world. Let me degrade/improve neighborhoods with my actions. Let me buy police protection or bribe them to ignore some of my moves. Etc etc etc....

I just want to be calling the shots in these games. I'm sick and tired of being the errand boy told what to do. Perhaps at the start I can understand this as I work my way up, but late game I want to be running an empire where I can delegate lower priorities to subordinates (though still do them on my own if I wish). Christ, there's SO MUCH more that could be done. For as big as it is, it really is a prison. No more skydiving, SCUBA, hunting. No, give me real depth please.

Great post that summarises the problems with this game.

#122 Posted by da_illest101 (7531 posts) -

Best game of the gen for me. Still playing it alongside gta online. I still prefer SA though

#123 Posted by indzman (18210 posts) -

@R3FURBISHED said:

My favorite game of 2013, my favorite game of the entire Grand Theft Auto series and one of my favorite games from last generation.

Fantastic game all around in my eyes. From the awesome characters, immensely improved driving and gameplay and new way to tell the story, even the oftentimes frustrating multiplayer.

#124 Edited by starjet905 (1936 posts) -

Is this one of those "now it's coming to PC, so we must get ready to call it a disappointment" things?

#125 Edited by GunSmith1_basic (9822 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

I don't mind not being able to go into every building. Given the scope of these games, asking for such freedom is just unrealistic and rendering all those indoor areas simply to give the player the freedom to go on rampages indoors is a bit of misallocation of resources that could be better used elsewhere. And this is largely the problem with GTA in general for me. With each game, R* loves to proclaim how much bigger the new world is opposed to the last, as if this is supposed to somehow assure us that we'll be afforded more freedom or the game will play better simply because there's more geography. We're not. We're in the same damn cell we were before, just one we can walk/drive/fly longer in a straight line for. BFD. How, after 5 games now, are gamers still content with this? I would be very, very OK if R* decided to halve the world's breadth in order to lend it some significant depth instead.

Even within a linear mission construct, there still could be a hell of a lot of options instead of (what you mentioned) "go to A, do this", "now go to B, do that". I get so frustrated being commanded like this in a game so large and fully realized which gives off the impression of enormous freedom. It's time to evolve. The world's been perfected, the tech is there. Essentially, I want a Hitman-esque GTA. If I'm given a mission to assassinate someone, give me options in how I go about it. Let me hire someone to gather intel of the mark's daily routine so I can set up a hit in the manner I please, when and where I choose. Or take a chance and hire someone to do it instead of me. In between missions, let me run the criminal side of my empire. Weapons/drug dealing, extortion. Let me adjust interest rates. Let me hire and place drug dealers at certain spots on the map and decide what they charge/how much to pay/arm them with. Let me fully run a prostitution ring. And let these decisions impact the world. Let me degrade/improve neighborhoods with my actions. Let me buy police protection or bribe them to ignore some of my moves. Etc etc etc....

I just want to be calling the shots in these games. I'm sick and tired of being the errand boy told what to do. Perhaps at the start I can understand this as I work my way up, but late game I want to be running an empire where I can delegate lower priorities to subordinates (though still do them on my own if I wish). Christ, there's SO MUCH more that could be done. For as big as it is, it really is a prison. No more skydiving, SCUBA, hunting. No, give me real depth please.

You seem to understand that we can't have it all. Being able to go into every building is a waste for sure. I could see maybe if they made a way for the computer to generate it rather than spend time and resources building it themselves, but sure, for now it's unfair to criticize Rockstar for that unrealistic fantasy.

However, you then go on to basically say something equally unrealistic. I remember after playing Fallout New Vegas, I found myself wanting a game that had the game world of Fallout but the stealth quality and depth of a game like MGS4. The problem there is that you can't just halve the game world and then turn the entire gameplay mechanic from a shallow one into a deep one. It requires an EXPONENTIALLY greater increase in investment. The game you want would take a decade to make because those game mechanics would require a lot more play testing and refinement than they would in a tighter game world like in Hitman.

Rockstar isn't going to revolutionize a product that sells extremely well as it is, and even if they did make the game as you say, just as many gamers would hate the change as would love it and so there's no way that Rockstar could come out ahead.

The only way to get the product you desire is for a different developer to see the potential and make a new series. I guess they would need a pile of money and resources as well. In the mean time you just shouldn't expect the next GTA to be fundamentally different from the previous games. If you do, you will be disappointed again.

#126 Edited by sonic_spark (4660 posts) -

Production values, story, variety, all great.

But I will say it again for those who are unaware of my position on this series, and that is that the gameplay is still not without issue. The shooting mechanics are poor, and the character movements are not fluid. Considering that's the bulk of the game aside from the driving, then that seems to be an issue that is always overlooked by reviewers and GTA fans alike.

#127 Edited by happyduds77 (1488 posts) -

Mildly disappointed.

- The story is too short and badly written

- Franklin and Michael had few or forgettable missions compared to Trevor

- The cops are way too aggressive at point where they start shooting you just for standing right in front of them let alone starting a killing spree.

- Half of the map was never used in any of the missions or side missions

- Some of the activities are pointless and downright boring. Who the hell wants to play yoga in a video game? What were they thinking?

- A lot of content was cut out from previous games to Grand Theft Auto V

- Oh and the underwater exploration they hyped about is non existent.

9/10

one of my favorite game of last gen

#128 Posted by MirkoS77 (7633 posts) -

@GunSmith1_basic said:

@MirkoS77 said:

I don't mind not being able to go into every building. Given the scope of these games, asking for such freedom is just unrealistic and rendering all those indoor areas simply to give the player the freedom to go on rampages indoors is a bit of misallocation of resources that could be better used elsewhere. And this is largely the problem with GTA in general for me. With each game, R* loves to proclaim how much bigger the new world is opposed to the last, as if this is supposed to somehow assure us that we'll be afforded more freedom or the game will play better simply because there's more geography. We're not. We're in the same damn cell we were before, just one we can walk/drive/fly longer in a straight line for. BFD. How, after 5 games now, are gamers still content with this? I would be very, very OK if R* decided to halve the world's breadth in order to lend it some significant depth instead.

Even within a linear mission construct, there still could be a hell of a lot of options instead of (what you mentioned) "go to A, do this", "now go to B, do that". I get so frustrated being commanded like this in a game so large and fully realized which gives off the impression of enormous freedom. It's time to evolve. The world's been perfected, the tech is there. Essentially, I want a Hitman-esque GTA. If I'm given a mission to assassinate someone, give me options in how I go about it. Let me hire someone to gather intel of the mark's daily routine so I can set up a hit in the manner I please, when and where I choose. Or take a chance and hire someone to do it instead of me. In between missions, let me run the criminal side of my empire. Weapons/drug dealing, extortion. Let me adjust interest rates. Let me hire and place drug dealers at certain spots on the map and decide what they charge/how much to pay/arm them with. Let me fully run a prostitution ring. And let these decisions impact the world. Let me degrade/improve neighborhoods with my actions. Let me buy police protection or bribe them to ignore some of my moves. Etc etc etc....

I just want to be calling the shots in these games. I'm sick and tired of being the errand boy told what to do. Perhaps at the start I can understand this as I work my way up, but late game I want to be running an empire where I can delegate lower priorities to subordinates (though still do them on my own if I wish). Christ, there's SO MUCH more that could be done. For as big as it is, it really is a prison. No more skydiving, SCUBA, hunting. No, give me real depth please.

You seem to understand that we can't have it all. Being able to go into every building is a waste for sure. I could see maybe if they made a way for the computer to generate it rather than spend time and resources building it themselves, but sure, for now it's unfair to criticize Rockstar for that unrealistic fantasy.

However, you then go on to basically say something equally unrealistic. I remember after playing Fallout New Vegas, I found myself wanting a game that had the game world of Fallout but the stealth quality and depth of a game like MGS4. The problem there is that you can't just halve the game world and then turn the entire gameplay mechanic from a shallow one into a deep one. It requires an EXPONENTIALLY greater increase in investment. The game you want would take a decade to make because those game mechanics would require a lot more play testing and refinement than they would in a tighter game world like in Hitman.

Rockstar isn't going to revolutionize a product that sells extremely well as it is, and even if they did make the game as you say, just as many gamers would hate the change as would love it and so there's no way that Rockstar could come out ahead.

The only way to get the product you desire is for a different developer to see the potential and make a new series. I guess they would need a pile of money and resources as well. In the mean time you just shouldn't expect the next GTA to be fundamentally different from the previous games. If you do, you will be disappointed again.

I don't find it equally unrealistic at all, as many previous GTA games have touched upon some of the things I've mentioned: CW had an (albiet shallow) drug dealing game that was (forgive the pun) insanely addictive. V introduced the stock market into play, which you probably would've imagined people hating it, but it turned out to be loved and was a great way to make money for those willing to make the right moves at the right time. It also introduced heists, allowed the hiring of people, which got nothing but universal praise from gamers and vocal demands for more of it.

Speaking of the stock market, one problem I found with V was the prices of the real-estate compared to the money the missions gave. It wasn't enough. R* needs to balance this out (the market was there, but it was always a gamble aside from the net getting together to plan havoc in the world after buying low so as to sell high for massive profits. Do you think implementing a fleshed out drug dealing/extortion/prostitution rackets or a superficial black market would really rise developmental costs exponentially, especially given the scope of the world scaling back (or just remaining the same)?

There is obviously a huge desire out there for the leash to be cut from many players into allowing true freedom to be had in such an open-world game. Don't get the wrong impression, I'm not asking for a full on socio-economical-political simulation in the next games, I understand the gravity that would entail to implement what essentially would amount to a fully functioning government to be manipulated, and the many dynamic variables that would constantly introduce would be just insanity to test and execute properly. What I am expecting is baby steps towards it that lend us at least the illusion on a mission to mission basis, and more importantly, the illusion of more freedom when not in missions. But at least begin building the foundations to run a criminal empire. Especially if the world were reduced in size (which is really what is causing 100s of millions to be spent, and while testing this very limited infrastructure that I'm advocating may be work intensive, I can't agree that it'd exponentially increase in investment in comparison to creating kms of geography and buildings that, tbh, are empty and go there sitting unused). Only go as far with the resources freed for underlying infrastructure that are saved by limiting geographical expansion.

Truth be told, R* has done the stock market. They've no done heists. Drug dealing. Or as the user handssss pointed out to me on page 2, that and more. You don't need to work at R* to know that they're entertaining the things I'm arguing for as they've done it here and there in small testings. Now I think it's about time to bring them together and take a large step of laying down a basic foundation that they could plug in all these different mechanics into, and build upon.

#129 Posted by 22Toothpicks (11290 posts) -

@speedfreak48t5p said:

Anyone who thinks the game is way too short is delusional. Like seriously. 30 hours plus hours of side quests and screwing around and a massive online component is more than enough for $60.

No shit, right? What were people expecting?

Anywho, GTA V is definitely one of my favorite games from last gen. It's too bad the online component was never a smooth experience for me.

#130 Edited by Dick_Derringer (328 posts) -

@Kevlar101 said:

@speedfreak48t5p said:

Anyone who thinks the game is way too short is delusional. Like seriously. 30 hours plus hours of side quests and screwing around and a massive online component is more than enough for $60.

GTA: San Andreas: 100 main missions.

GTA IV: 88 main missions.

GTA V: 69 main missions.

Who the hell plays GTA for the missions???

#131 Posted by mikhail (2336 posts) -

How about those online heists, hey guys? Man, those were amazing!

#132 Posted by mikhail (2336 posts) -

@starjet905 said:

Is this one of those "now it's coming to PC, so we must get ready to call it a disappointment" things?

Pretty much.

Console gamers have touted this as one of their big wins for the past year: "LOL PC will never get GTAV, herms!"

GTAV gets announced for PC: "Whatever you will just ruin it with mods, its not a PURE experience like Rockstar intended!"

GTAV is released for PC, looks far better than consoles could ever hope to do: "Whatever, thanks for taking out the trash we don't want herms, good luck playing Destiny!"

#133 Posted by musicalmac (23036 posts) -

I can't respond to the poll because I never played GTA5. Though I will say GTA4 left such a bad taste in my mouth, I didn't even consider 5.

#134 Posted by Bigboi500 (30106 posts) -

Online was a mess, sp was great.

#135 Posted by Blabadon (26670 posts) -

@ominous_titan: Spoiler tags yo

#136 Posted by ominous_titan (733 posts) -

@Blabadon: what did i spoil yo?

#137 Edited by Wiiboxstation (280 posts) -

I'm playing it through a second time and I'm having a blast. The missions are varied and the characters are amazing.

#138 Posted by Avian005 (4112 posts) -

The SP was fine, but the online was disappointing. I liked GTA4 more so yes, GTA5 was disappointing.

#139 Posted by handssss (1837 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

I can't respond to the poll because I never played GTA5. Though I will say GTA4 left such a bad taste in my mouth, I didn't even consider 5.

gta IV was a failure of a sequel. Can't say V as all the stuff in it that San Andreas had, but there's a good amount of content and the map is pretty large and dense for the most part. In terms of straight up gameplay, it feels 100x better than IV did since R* managed to get a lot better at modernizing their control scheme to be more fitting to the game. Before V, I only ever used the classic controls that were in place from gta 3 - gta IV (IV had classic controls as an option. didn't bother seeing if V did)

3 protagonists and what that brought to the table has spoiled me now. If gta ever goes back to just 1, I will be very disappointed.

#140 Posted by Kevlar101 (6223 posts) -

@Dick_Derringer said:

@Kevlar101 said:

@speedfreak48t5p said:

Anyone who thinks the game is way too short is delusional. Like seriously. 30 hours plus hours of side quests and screwing around and a massive online component is more than enough for $60.

GTA: San Andreas: 100 main missions.

GTA IV: 88 main missions.

GTA V: 69 main missions.

Who the hell plays GTA for the missions???

Me, since the writing and acting are some of the few good reasons to play the game for.