Grand Theft Auto Series

[Bushy.]

^

Lucky, I'm still way behind because I don't have a TV in my room & I play 1 or 2 hours every other day.

[Crazy.]

Would appreciate some clearance on this matter. So we all know that if we purchase a vehicle online (say, a car), it is transported to our purchased garage. But, say, if I take it on a ride from there and leave it on any random location to enter a new car (say, a road) and save my game. The next time I start the game, will the purchased vehicle still show up in the garage, even though I left it mid-road, or is it gone forever due to me not storing it back in the garage before saving the game and exiting my previous session?

[Sexual Tyrannosaurus]

Such a great game. Really enjoyed it. Can't wait for the extra parts.

[Captain Backwoods]

Would appreciate some clearance on this matter. So we all know that if we purchase a vehicle online (say, a car), it is transported to our purchased garage. But, say, if I take it on a ride from there and leave it on any random location to enter a new car (say, a road) and save my game. The next time I start the game, will the purchased vehicle still show up in the garage, even though I left it mid-road, or is it gone forever due to me not storing it back in the garage before saving the game and exiting my previous session?

If yet online yes the car will be in the garage, I believe. In story mode, the car would be gone forever.

[Crazy.]

 

Would appreciate some clearance on this matter. So we all know that if we purchase a vehicle online (say, a car), it is transported to our purchased garage. But, say, if I take it on a ride from there and leave it on any random location to enter a new car (say, a road) and save my game. The next time I start the game, will the purchased vehicle still show up in the garage, even though I left it mid-road, or is it gone forever due to me not storing it back in the garage before saving the game and exiting my previous session?

If yet online yes the car will be in the garage, I believe. In story mode, the car would be gone forever.

I've completed the story, I'm talking about post-story offline free-play.

[Rockstar™]

The car gets sent to the impound, Spearson, that's located on the map.

[Royal Nakamura]

Idk if it's just me but after not playing this game for over a month...I realised that in GTA IV, I felt deep sympathy for Niko and Roman but in V - I don't feel anything for the three protagonists (well, I think Trevor is the best but I mean in the sense of being truly connected to them).

 

Maybe it's due to the freedom and dynamic being heavily focused on this time round (even becoming the USP). I love GTA V, don't get me wrong but I'm just claiming that I felt a strong connection with IV's characters. I don't get that here.

[Crack.]

GTA V lacks something that the other GTAs had. The feeling of it is really noticeable even though I don't know exactly what it is.

[Undercard Jamoke]

Idk if it's just me but after not playing this game for over a month...I realised that in GTA IV, I felt deep sympathy for Niko and Roman but in V - I don't feel anything for the three protagonists (well, I think Trevor is the best but I mean in the sense of being truly connected to them).

 

Maybe it's due to the freedom and dynamic being heavily focused on this time round (even becoming the USP). I love GTA V, don't get me wrong but I'm just claiming that I felt a strong connection with IV's characters. I don't get that here.

 

I really felt sympathy with Michael. I thought that he was very relatable to everyday people because of the problems he has to deal with concerning his wife and children.

[Royal Nakamura]

 

 

Idk if it's just me but after not playing this game for over a month...I realised that in GTA IV, I felt deep sympathy for Niko and Roman but in V - I don't feel anything for the three protagonists (well, I think Trevor is the best but I mean in the sense of being truly connected to them).

 

Maybe it's due to the freedom and dynamic being heavily focused on this time round (even becoming the USP). I love GTA V, don't get me wrong but I'm just claiming that I felt a strong connection with IV's characters. I don't get that here.

I really felt sympathy with Michael. I thought that he was very relatable to everyday people because of the problems he has to deal with concerning his wife and children.

His children and wife are too whiny for me to even care about what Michael goes through. Like, they irritated me to the point where when they

 

moved out of his house,

 

I felt liberated.

GTA V lacks something that the other GTAs had. The feeling of it is really noticeable even though I don't know exactly what it is.

More powerful storyline, I feel. My mom made a cool comment when she watched me play GTA V once, she said:

 

"I like the story of this game but I don't know, I feel like I've already seen these type of things take place. I like the bank robberies and how you have to plan all of them but with the last game (IV), the story was more powerful because Niko came from his country to support his Cousin and everything."

 

I know a stronger storyline isn't what they were pushing for but, hey, this is GTA; the best video-gaming franchise right now and possibly of all-time.

 

I did expect a much better campaign but because it was significantly shorter with less focus on the protagonists and their relationships, I felt like I was having a blast but not also experiencing any struggle I did with Niko (e.g. when Roman's business and flat got burnt down for example -- that was quite a great and emotional moment for me).

 

I'm not sure if these are the perfect explanations as to why I feel GTA V lacks something previous games had but the reasoning here feels quite close in some way.

[WarGreymon77]

That's kind of the opposite of what I feel. I never played GTA IV, but the PS2 games felt more like a bunch of random jobs strung together, with a strong emphasis on the "sandbox" gameplay. With GTA V, I've been far more interested in the storyline.

 

Then again, part of my reluctance to run around and cause random mayhem has to do with (a.) pedestrians now call the cops, and (b.) I find it a pain in the ass to run and hide from the cops, whereas I used to be able to go straight to the Pay N' Spray and be done with it. Oh, and (c.) the player character is extremely fragile in this game compared to the past. You get shot while in your car, have very little health, no power-ups just lying around, crashing hurts you, etc.

[Crazy.]

Yeah, the story of V is kinda underwhelming (not bad per se) and doesn't really invest you in the same way IV did. I also am disappointed that we can't enter restaurants/car showrooms anymore and cause havoc there. It used to be so fun doing that in IV. And of course, no online dating anymore. D: But other than that, the game is tremendous. The new stock market feature is cool, as well as buying properties and all.

[Royal Nakamura]

That's kind of the opposite of what I feel. I never played GTA IV, but the PS2 games felt more like a bunch of random jobs strung together, with a strong emphasis on the "sandbox" gameplay. With GTA V, I've been far more interested in the storyline.

 

Then again, part of my reluctance to run around and cause random mayhem has to do with (a.) pedestrians now call the cops, and (b.) I find it a pain in the ass to run and hide from the cops, whereas I used to be able to go straight to the Pay N' Spray and be done with it. Oh, and (c.) the player character is extremely fragile in this game compared to the past. You get shot while in your car, have very little health, no power-ups just lying around, crashing hurts you, etc.

I'm not saying GTA V isn't realistic because, as a video-game, I believe it is the most-realistic since - like you said - you rely less on power-ups lying around you to regenerate your health (making gunfights more intense).

 

However, my gripe isn't with the realism of the game but more to do with the connection between me and the plot/characters. I don't feel like I have nearly as much of a strong connection with any whereas, in past video-games like Vice City, you could find out more about Lance and even be connected to him in the sense that when he did what he did to Tommy, you would have been angry and vengeful like Vercetti.

 

But I feel much more focus had been placed on the dynamic and enjoyment factor of the game so meh, I'm not complaining. Also, yeah, you can't even enter restaurants whereas you could in IV.

 

Lol, if we're touching on the realism of V, what do the guys even eat if they can't buy food and don't even munch at home?

[Original IT Factor]

GTA V lacks something that the other GTAs had. The feeling of it is really noticeable even though I don't know exactly what it is.

Totally agree.

[TheHavoc]

I got an idea...How about starting a discussion on this thread about comparisson between GTA V and previous GTAs (i.e. GTA IV,GTA San Andrea etc.)? If y'all cool with it let me start with a question...

 

Storywise?

[Royal Nakamura]

I always felt like GTA IV had the strongest storyline in the series. Even now, I still believe IV to have a stronger storyline in comparison to the likes of San Andreas and Vice City. I LOVED SA, btw, don't get me wrong - I would certainly purchase that video-game right now if I got the opportunity to because it is one of the very best PS2 games of all-time.

 

However, I felt the pacing of the video-game suffered due to the length of the story and everything had begun to pick up or hit strides at the climax (and let's be honest, if San Andreas' story is pretty lengthy, the climax will take some time to reach, right?) I loved the references to incidents such as the C.R.A.S.H epoch, the Los Angeles Rampart scandals and the 1992 Los Angeles riots because it really added a much thicker layer of depth to the believability and feel of being in South Central L.A - or a fictionalised L.A, so to speak.

 

For me, though, I felt that due to IV being shorter, the pacing was much better. The missions were repetitive in their structure but the cutscenes were more engrossing for me that I would replay the story over and over again and not feel as if any of it is getting tedious (because of how well-written IV is). The characters felt more real and empathetic in GTA IV in comparison to SA where you either could sympathize with CJ but are more likely to grow irritated with his whiny personality.

 

The multiple storylines in GTA IV were also handled so well too (i.e. the Diamonds mini-story linking in perfectly with the main storyline and how this even affects Niko -- this proves that none of what was going on, while you played, felt filler or like throwaway moments). At times in San Andreas, I wondered why I was doing the odd jobs for Tha Truth such as those tractor side-missions.

 

The ending of IV also stayed with me more effectively than San Andreas and that's possibly to do with the fact that Niko's last cutscene felt much more relatable than CJ's last scene. I've never really explained why I liked IV over San Andreas story-wise in this much depth but thank you for this question because it enabled me to.

 

In terms of the PS2 video-games, I'm not sure whether I prefer Vice City over San Andreas or vice-versa (story-wise). They're both all-time favourites of mine and I loved VC because I grew up watching and playing that video-game whereas S.A was something I played as a teenager (so it's as if VC had more of an effect on me because of the nostalgia of enjoying it from an early age onwards).

[Crack.]

Agreed about GTA V not having a strong story like GTA IV and previous GTAs. It's like the story wasn't original and they made it too movie/Hollywood like.

[WarGreymon77]

I got an idea...How about starting a discussion on this thread about comparisson between GTA V and previous GTAs (i.e. GTA IV,GTA San Andrea etc.)? If y'all cool with it let me start with a question...

 

Storywise?

The only GTAs that I've played were GTA 2, III, Vice City, San Andreas, and V. Out of them, I would say GTA V has the strongest and most interesting story. Like I said, the PS2 games felt like a bunch of random jobs strung together, whereas V is more linear.

 

In terms of gameplay, however, Vice City is my absolute favorite. It's got all the freedom of the other PS2 games, but with one key difference: Gangs don't hate you (unless you do certain optional missions). I ended up hating GTA III, because by the end of the game, every gang in the city wants to kill you on sight. That's not fun, especially since the police only go after YOU. And then in San Andreas, the Ballas hate you straight out of the gate. VC also had the best radio stations, several melee weapons, and even stock car races. I enjoyed the helicopter in VC, but hate flying altogether in GTA V.

[Royal Nakamura]

Agreed about GTA V not having a strong story like GTA IV and previous GTAs. It's like the story wasn't original and they made it too movie/Hollywood like.

Felt clichéd to me but I think that due to the acclaim Three Leaf Clover and Episodes from Liberty City garnered, they originally wanted to fuse these elements together.

[Crack.]

Three Leaf Clover was the shit.

 

The shitty map on Vice City is one of the main reasons why I never liked that game.

[JGPLX.]

Vice City is still the GOAT. I've only completed VC, SA, IV(and DLC) and V.

 

I liked GTA V a lot, but it did feel like it was missing something. Overall, I preferred Vice City and San Andreas. It's hard for me to rank IV because I bought it years after it came out and I read spoilers before I got it. I think I preferred Gay Tony over IV though.

One thing I love about GTA V is the satire. It is probably the best I've seen in a GTA. As always, it's hilarious, but because the theme of the game(economic recession) is more relatable than IV(American Dream), it's even better.

The gameplay is also the best in the series, but the story wasn't as good as VC and maybe SA for me.

 

My affinity with Vice City is biased though. I just love the setting. I like the 80s. It was awesome driving down the beach at night listening to Billie Jean. Scarface is my favourite movie and it is partly due to this reason.

[Crazy.]

Nevertheless, if there's another thing GTA V had over previous versions, is that it gave us Trevor - arguably the greatest GTA character/main protagonist ever.

[Crack.]

Trevor and Catalina are some crazy mfers. Catalina wanted to chop dicks off.

[Sinnerman]

I only played Vice City for a little bit before I played San Andreas properly all the way through, then went back and played Vice City properly and Vice City was just pretty shit tbh. The story was better, and Tommy is better than CJ, some other good characters too, but that's it really. Pretty much everything else about SA was better.

Can't remember VC's story that well, but it was better than SA's from what I remember. I have absolutely no intention of ever playing through Vice City again. Tried playing it in 2011, and it was pretty awful. San Andreas wasn't as bad, so I played that instead. Don't give a shit about GTA III. I was too young to really have a proper opinion on it, and like VC have no intention of playing it again.

The story wasn't anything groundbreaking on V, but it was definitely better to play than IV's. IV probably has the best story of the series when it comes down to it. V's story was still good though imo, it was just more about friendships/relationships and of course money.

IV has the best story.
V has the best everything else, characters. protagonist/s, game mechanics, fun missions, online etc...

 

Story: IV, V, VC, SA

Overall: V, IV, SA, VC

 

GTA V is just simply the best game ever to me. There's a couple of minor things that are a shame (can't think right now, but off the top of my head I was a little annoyed about not being able to drive trains at first. I quickly got over that though and don't really give a shit), but in general I don't have a bad word to say about it tbh.

[Rockstar™]

Best game ever for me as well.