Is the idea of GTA, a game that has everything, a mistake?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

GTA V has gunplay, but it's very limited, I guess in order to be more accessible for people who aren't just playing it for that. It has no shoulder swapping, making it impossible to see enemies when you're going around a right corner. There's no way to evade. The dodge roll only works when you're aiming over the shoulder, and you can only roll left and right. Max Payne 3 had a 360 degree roll. You can shoot without the zoomed in OTS view, but your character will take a moment to point his gun. The animations are sluggish.

GTA V has driving, but it's made to be as accessible as possible. Vehicles are very easy to steer and you never have to worry about your car flipping onto its roof, since you can magically flip it back. Traffic is super thin, so that you can drive really fast all the time and are never required to carefully weave between cars in a chase. This is partly so that you can get to your next mission quicker. You'll be doing a lot of commuting. The other cars drive at 30 mph max, even on freeways, so you won't see any cool crashes.

GTA V has multiplayer, but because it's a story-driven open world game, you'll spend a lot of time in lobbies and looking at loading screens. Deathmatches are almost never playable because they require an exact number of participants. It can't just be you and a stranger. The game will keep searching for opponents until everyone gets bored of waiting and leaves. Your character is a mute. In Max Payne 3's multiplayer, they at least taunted each other, but here, they have nothing to say, which makes cutscenes quite awkward.

GTA V has many minigames, but you can find better versions of them in sports games and probably on the internet.

GTA V has a stealth mechanic, a slow walk with bent knees, but it's too slow and almost never useful.

GTA V has a cinematic story, but the open world makes it feel fragmented and dragged out. The character you play as may not mirror the character you see in cutscenes. They may act more or less normal, as if they have a moral code, but then when you run someone or something over by accident, they will mock and insult the dead. They will shout at a poor deer to evolve some ears, for example.

GTA V does many things adequately, but none of it stands out, aside from the level of detail in the world.

It doesn't have everything. It doesn't try to have everything. It desires to be a grounded sandbox with various grounded distractions and activities laced with humour and succeeds at that efficiently enough to please and entertain a lot of people. So...no?

The best criticism about the GTA series came from a video game critic reviewing San Andreas: It's a jack-of-all-trades, but a master of none. Every aspect of the GTA games are mediocre to bad. Apparently, except for the story, which I have to take their word for it. I have never finished a GTA game, because of their shitty controls.

Considering how many people like them, apparently not.

Never could get into them myself. Was a bit too sandboxy.

I think the GTA series has some bloat for sure, but it still doesn't do enough to breath real life into its game world. Nearly everything is non dynamic and closed off. They need to improve on that in 6 or they risk getting 9.9's instead of 10's.

I have been saying this since years. since GT times, since when i join GT for first time that GTA games did everything but bad. shooting bad and done better in other shooting games, driving bad and done better in other driving games, mini games bad and done better in sports games etc. then some useless dating, nightlucb, sexulaizing etc that i despite in video games because i think games should be clean of this crap.

even mob crime story done better in mafia by far.

its by far most overrated franchise of all time.

GTA is a fine series, you just dont like it.

Even if the points you made are true, it comes together as a fun experience and that's enough for me. I, like a lot of people, had fun from beginning to end and that's enough for me. While I still prefer Red Dead Redemption if I had to pick, it's still well recognised as a very well put together open world experience. Many people don't like it because it's too mainstream. Not sure if you fall into that category but it's still a great game either way.

Xsjadoblayde:
It doesn't have everything. It doesn't try to have everything. It desires to be a grounded sandbox with various grounded distractions and activities laced with humour and succeeds at that efficiently enough to please and entertain a lot of people. So...no?

Yep.

Saelune:
GTA is a fine series, you just dont like it.

Yep.

dscross:
Even if the points you made are true, it comes together as a fun experience and that's enough for me. I, like a lot of people, had fun from beginning to end and that's enough for me...it's still well recognised as a very well put together open world experience. Many people don't like it because it's too mainstream. Not sure if you fall into that category but it's still a great game either way.

Yep.

Ezekiel:
*questioning GTA's existence*

GTA just isn't for you, dude! You've compared it and/or it's mechanics to other games which you clearly enjoy, but I don't think GTA ever tries[i] to be them; it [i]tries to be GTA, the gold standard for sandbox debauchery, just so happens you don't like it and that's fine, doesn't mean they went wrong anywhere. As popular as it is, it's clearly doing "SOME things right" just not "EVERY thing PERFECT by your exacting standards."

Just stick to Max Payne 3 dude. You don't have to like every game out there.

The problem I've had thus far with the HD games is that they don't seem to know what makes them fun. Planning and executing heists and climbing the ranks of various crime syndicates as a newly arrived immigrant to America is fun. Filler like getting phone calls to go bowling with Jacob every ten minutes or fucking around doing missions for those contemptible assholes at the FIB is not fun.

In this sense, I feel like the Grand Theft AUTO IV DLC The Lost and Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony are far superior to anything the main games have to offer. They were much more focused and tight. They knew what kind of story they wanted to tell and didn't fuck around doing it.

The problem with the GTA games isn't the controls (not that they are good anyway) or all the side stuff you can do, it's that they are open world games that don't merit their open world. What I mean by that is that missions are linear and very rarely open-ended in any meaningful way. Ubisoft: The Game succeeds far better at open-ended mission structure than GTA, I'll take Watch Dogs' stealth and hacking options over a GTA mission where I just go to Point B and kill a bunch of spawned enemies with average shooting. Why am I playing GTA then when something like Uncharted does linear shooting levels better? Everyone that likes open world games should go back and play the original Mercenaries, that game has so many different ways to complete a mission it becomes more akin to a puzzle game to complete missions without the "enemy" faction knowing it was you. Mercenaries ruined GTA and most open world games for me as it showed me what the genre was supposed to be like. And controls aren't THAT important, Mercenaries has that PS2/Xbox era 3rd-person shooting that hasn't aged well at all, but the game is still fantastic.

KissingSunlight:
Every aspect of the GTA games are mediocre to bad. Apparently, except for the story, which I have to take their word for it.

The story is shit too. The PS2 GTAs are fun enough stories, especially Vice City, but then Dan Houser thought he was some legitimate amazing writer and he thinks he has extremely important messages and themes to convey. Just watch the opening of RDR and characters are talking politics on the train.

Phoenixmgs:
The problem with the GTA games isn't the controls (not that they are good anyway) or all the side stuff you can do, it's that they are open world games that don't merit their open world. What I mean by that is that missions are linear and very rarely open-ended in any meaningful way. Ubisoft: The Game succeeds far better at open-ended mission structure than GTA, I'll take Watch Dogs' stealth and hacking options over a GTA mission where I just go to Point B and kill a bunch of spawned enemies with average shooting. Why am I playing GTA then when something like Uncharted does linear shooting levels better? Everyone that likes open world games should go back and play the original Mercenaries, that game has so many different ways to complete a mission it becomes more akin to a puzzle game to complete missions without the "enemy" faction knowing it was you. Mercenaries ruined GTA and most open world games for me as it showed me what the genre was supposed to be like. And controls aren't THAT important, Mercenaries has that PS2/Xbox era 3rd-person shooting that hasn't aged well at all, but the game is still fantastic.

Eh. Some linearity is fine. I couldn't get into Just Cause 2 at all, and as for Ubisoft, I find the entire Assassin's Creed series and Watch Dogs tedious and unplayable. They have bad controls, too many systems and too many menus and prompts.

Ezekiel:
Eh. Some linearity is fine. I couldn't get into Just Cause 2 at all, and as for Ubisoft, I find the entire Assassin's Creed series and Watch Dogs tedious and unplayable. They have bad controls, too many systems and too many menus and prompts.

Yeah, SOME linearity in an open world game is fine, problem with GTA is linearity is par for the course. I even remember one mission in RDR where a guy was in a barn and you had to get him and of course, the game instructs you to climb a ladder, then another ladder, and go through a window. There's no point to Rockstar's open worlds. I got to Mexico in RDR and just gave up as I heard that was the "boring" part. Don't get me wrong most open world games are bad because it takes a really talented dev to actually make it work. Assassin's Creed is easily Ubisoft's worst open world, it is basically "assassins" GTA. The 1st AssCreed was the best, it was structured like Hitman (lite version mind you), then AC2 just went full-on GTA. The Farcrys and Watch Dogs (which control really well BTW) definitely fare better as there's a bit of openness to the mission structure and the core gameplay is decent to good. Just Cause 2 probably isn't better with regards to mission structure (I only played the demo), but the hookshot/parachute mechanic along with the game's physics afford the player more creativity than GTA. I had more fun with the Just Cause 2 demo than probably any Rockstar game since Vice City. But, yeah, Mercenaries is still the best.

Chewster:
The problem I've had thus far with the HD games is that they don't seem to know what makes them fun. Planning and executing heists and climbing the ranks of various crime syndicates as a newly arrived immigrant to America is fun. Filler like getting phone calls to go bowling with Jacob every ten minutes or fucking around doing missions for those contemptible assholes at the FIB is not fun.

Yeah, that was more or less my take on GTA 5. The first and last heists (the couple of in between "heists" are just elaborate missions where you don't get any input) are really the highlights. The rest is padding with a subpar 3rd person shooter, and story beats stolen from more interesting works. Then post-story you're left with an empty sandbox. The only activity is buying real estate (inanely expensive and not even money making compared to price), stock market simulator, and robbing convenience stores (again a worthless value proposition, more likely to get you sniped by omniscient endless cop armies shooting guns with laser physics).

Then 2 years down the road, buying a second copy for the new gen console if you were an early adopter), they finally added some meaningful content. But its buried in their MP. Which is a treadmill designed to sell microtransactions, and even if it weren't, suffers from awful servers that don't even work as stated most of the time. Then the heists have their own weird mechanics where disconnects end the mission and force restarts. So you need to drag four friends together every time you want to do one. All still bolted around that core lackluster TPS gameplay.

The only real problem that I have with GTA is mission structure. For an open world game the missions are 100% linear instead of being open-ended like missions in Mercenaries from way back in 2005 or its spiritual successor The Saboteur from 2009, which is also a better GTA game than most GTA games. Just give us the tools and the end goal and let us figure out how to complete a mission. Hopefully they'll do something about this in RDR2, but I'm not holding my breath.

Haven't played a GTA game since San Andreas but I always thought they're car games first and foremost with a bit of gunplay between driving.

Phoenixmgs:
The problem with the GTA games isn't the controls (not that they are good anyway) or all the side stuff you can do, it's that they are open world games that don't merit their open world. What I mean by that is that missions are linear and very rarely open-ended in any meaningful way. Ubisoft: The Game succeeds far better at open-ended mission structure than GTA, I'll take Watch Dogs' stealth and hacking options over a GTA mission where I just go to Point B and kill a bunch of spawned enemies with average shooting. Why am I playing GTA then when something like Uncharted does linear shooting levels better? Everyone that likes open world games should go back and play the original Mercenaries, that game has so many different ways to complete a mission it becomes more akin to a puzzle game to complete missions without the "enemy" faction knowing it was you. Mercenaries ruined GTA and most open world games for me as it showed me what the genre was supposed to be like. And controls aren't THAT important, Mercenaries has that PS2/Xbox era 3rd-person shooting that hasn't aged well at all, but the game is still fantastic.

KissingSunlight:
Every aspect of the GTA games are mediocre to bad. Apparently, except for the story, which I have to take their word for it.

The story is shit too. The PS2 GTAs are fun enough stories, especially Vice City, but then Dan Houser thought he was some legitimate amazing writer and he thinks he has extremely important messages and themes to convey. Just watch the opening of RDR and characters are talking politics on the train.

Think you are being a bit harsh. If it was a less popular game I doubt you'd be giving it this level of criticism. It works extremely well. The GTA series was the blueprint for many modern open world games, including Watch Dogs, lest you forget.

I've never played GTA V, but I have played the hell out of every single other game of the series and my own impression of prior GTA's match the OP's criticism of V.

The driving mechanics have always been just OK.
The shooting mechanics? less-than-stellar.
Hand-to-hand combat? See shooting mechanics.
Running and platforming? Godawful
Helicoptor piloting? Somehow even worse than the platforming

Now sandboxes kinda always have that problem of spreading themselves too thin mechanics-wise but Witcher 3 did not have that problem as badly (swimming mechanics were still ass in that game too though).

So yeah, trying to cram everything into a game is usually a mistake. Probably not a financial mistake on the part of Rockstar though.

I actually like the shooting mechanics of GTA 4 because I feel there is weight and impact behind it when you shoot a person they react to it.

Funny thing is Older GTA, Perticularly GTA San Andreas, had better stealth mechanics, it was basic yeah but felt more effective than GTA 5's and you can properly crouch walk aswell as GTA 4.

Samtemdo8:
Snip.

This is kind of off-topic, but how you doing in light of the hurricane? You warned us that you might be out of contact.

Hawki:

Samtemdo8:
Snip.

This is kind of off-topic, but how you doing in light of the hurricane? You warned us that you might be out of contact.

Everything is back to normal here, Non Generator Electricity is back, my Water is fine so I can shower and use the toilet, and the internet is fine.

I guess my dad was right that nothing too bad will happen where we live.

Samtemdo8:
I actually like the shooting mechanics of GTA 4 because I feel there is weight and impact behind it when you shoot a person they react to it.

Funny thing is Older GTA, Perticularly GTA San Andreas, had better stealth mechanics, it was basic yeah but felt more effective than GTA 5's and you can properly crouch walk aswell as GTA 4.

I prefer the story of GTA4 but the gameplay of 5 tbh. The camera angle and movement feels much better in 5 to me.

dscross:

Samtemdo8:
I actually like the shooting mechanics of GTA 4 because I feel there is weight and impact behind it when you shoot a person they react to it.

Funny thing is Older GTA, Perticularly GTA San Andreas, had better stealth mechanics, it was basic yeah but felt more effective than GTA 5's and you can properly crouch walk aswell as GTA 4.

I prefer the story of GTA4 but the gameplay of 5 tbh. The camera angle and movement feels much better in 5 to me.

Speaking of the camera, I wish there was a way to disable some of the views. I only want the second closest view to my character's back and first person view for driving. It's still inexcusable that there is no shoulder swap in the corridor sections of the game. The only solution I can think of is to use cover. Joy...

ooh. It does everything? Time to load up this 4x grand strategy and space combat game.

Wait a minute...

gsilver:
ooh. It does everything? Time to load up this 4x grand strategy and space combat game.

Wait a minute...

It has aerial combat. Pretty much the same thing. It's also done in a mediocre way, like everything else. Would have been fun if they were propeller planes with bullets instead of missiles. Wait, there was a plane like that, a crop-duster, I think. I remember all the actual plane on plane combat being with jets, though.

dscross:
Think you are being a bit harsh. If it was a less popular game I doubt you'd be giving it this level of criticism. It works extremely well. The GTA series was the blueprint for many modern open world games, including Watch Dogs, lest you forget.

I've loathed open world games dating back to the PS2-era because of Mercenaries. I had fun with the GTAs back then because they were actually new and different, San Andreas was when I stopped enjoying GTA and the games are still the same with just better technical specs. It doesn't matter if it's GTA, Mirror's Edge, Sly Cooper, Batman Arkham; I hated how so many people would post that [insert game series] would be so awesome if it went open world. Nope, it's a horrible idea and it indeed turned out horrible like Mirror's Edge, Sly Cooper, and many many others.

Does it have character creation? Does it have turn-based strategic combat? Does it have procedurally generated locations? Does it have survival horror? Does it allow you to not be a criminal to advance the game?

CaitSeith:
Does it have character creation? Does it have turn-based strategic combat? Does it have procedurally generated locations? Does it have survival horror? Does it allow you to not be a criminal to advance the game?

Look up the word "hyperbole." My point, simply, is that GTA tries to do a lot of different things, but can't do any of them with depth because players might then not find it accessible enough.

Ezekiel:

CaitSeith:
Does it have character creation? Does it have turn-based strategic combat? Does it have procedurally generated locations? Does it have survival horror? Does it allow you to not be a criminal to advance the game?

Look up the word "hyperbole." My point, simply, is that GTA tries to do a lot of different things, but can't do any of them with depth because players might then not find it accessible enough.

I wouldn't know; I don't play GTA (that's why I was asking if it contained any of those things).

"Is the idea of GTA, a game that has everything, a mistake?"

Well, it's had immense critical and commercial success so...no?

There's plenty of stuff that's popular that I don't like, that doesn't mean I call them "mistakes."

So, I finally got into a Deathmatch, for the first time in forever. I was wrong about the lobby needing to be completely full. Only needed 6/16. But, as I was in the match, I remembered that the world design makes it very boring. It was on a beach, completely open space with almost no cover and no height/verticality. I then spent ten minutes in a clothes shop, got more bored and exited the game.

My problem with GTA5 isn't so much the various gameplay elements(which I think are all pretty good) but rather how scripted the missions are. They feel like cinematic setpieces(which might be a good thing for many) that leaves pretty much no room for player choice. Most of the time in GTA5 I was just wreaking havoc and trying to escape the police which is when I think the game is at it's best. The gunplay is competent but, I don't know, 'sticky' like your character is covered in glue. The driving however is I think really good though. It's just that the missions aren't fun and I hated the characters as well. This wouldn't be that much of a problem in a sandbox game but they are so present and in-your-face that they are impossible to ignore. I did really like the satire and humour(espescially the social media mockery) but the story, again, really wasn't enjoyable. So I think GTA is a pretty good game but it prioritizes the story and characters too much and don't give you many options to play it the way you want(which is kind of the point of a sandbox game). This is probably where GTA Online comes in but meh..I don't like having online multiplayer forced on me as the only choice to play the game the way I want. As for the game world itself I have to say it's probably one of the most impressive ever created. The attention to detail is insane and you can tell the physics engine had years of fine tuning. GTA5 is an incredibly well made game that can make you feel like a total badass without any real effort or player skill(similarly like Uncharted) but one I just didn't really enjoy that much(for similar reasons).

For all intents and purposes Watch Dogs does a much better job giving what I look for in a similar sandbox game. You can approach missions any way you want and the controls are much tighter. There is more variety of options and gameplay don't feel scripted. The side missions don't feel like filler to me as I really enjoy the gameplay and it gives you a lot of room to experiment with it. Even the way online blends into SP is brilliant. I prefered the story of Watch Dogs 1 and actually liked Aiden Pearce(probably the only person in the world) but enjoyed the colorful over-the-top story and cast of WD2 as well(and might have been a better fit for San Fran than the stoic Aiden). But yeah, while maybe not having the impressive physics engine of GTA I enjoyed WD a lot more.

I don't like massive open world sandbox games, and GTA (along with Skyrim) is one of the posterboys for that type of game, so I'll never play it.

But 80 MILLION. Don't think "mistake" would be the word I would use. More like the opposite of that.

To be honest/fair, GTA really lost their shine post Vice City.
They are stil not the best games, but they atleast had some decent writing, and making mistakes was more than a slap on the wrist.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here