Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Just admit you're a dumbass. You picked the stealth route on a mission and expected to blow shit up.
Stop acting like if San Andreas doesn't have some of the worst missions in the entire franchise. The heli simulator crap was one of the worst things to come out of GTA.
I liked GTA 3's occasional open mission design. Where the sandbox could be used to solve missions in different ways. I preferred this method of gameplay over the super stylized violence of Vice City and the Strategic elements of San Andreas.
Of course it is. Every next GTA has been better than the last, this has been invariably true since the second game came out, and unlike many pussies here, I've played all GTA games.
Of course it is. Every next GTA has been better than the last, this has been invariably true since the second game came out, and unlike many pussies here, I've played all GTA games.
pretty much. With the exception of GTA 4, every new GTA has been better than the last. GTA is an iterative series, like a sports game or racing game. Every new one should be better than the last since they go by the same formula. It only doesn't work when the devs fuck up like they did with GTA 4.
The case can be made that GTA 4 is better than GTA 3, but I don't go there because GTA 3 was the first 3D GTA. It's old so the newer ones should be better.
Too bad that the series has never really done this in an interesting way. At best you might get an extremely simple, generic murder mission that allows you to vary your approach a bit, but whenever things get a bit more complicated you're always just running in tight leash from one scripted event to another. I don't think GTA 3's mission design was any better than in the later games (quite the opposite, in fact), it just had a larger number of simplistic fetch/kill missions whereas Vice City and the later games were generally shooting for more elaborate and memorable mission design. Vice City managed to pull it off very well because it was just oozing style, and San Andreas was for the most part pretty good as well because of the sheer amount of variety, but since then the linearity has gotten increasingly annoying with each game. For me the highlight of GTA V's mission design was probably the early mission where you broke into Michael's house, as you could actually choose your own route there instead of having to follow a strictly defined path of bright yellow checkpoints that say "jump over the fence here" or "watch out for this gardener here". It made almost zero difference gameplay-wise, of course, but it was fun that even once you had the chance to just look around a bit and plan your approach.
No I didn't expect anything except a fun mission. Stealth is fine, but give me a stealth mission. Mopping floors has nothing to do with stealth. It is a retarded mission and so are you for trying to defend something that is clearly terrible.
Stop acting like if San Andreas doesn't have some of the worst missions in the entire franchise. The heli simulator crap was one of the worst things to come out of GTA.
It was the best in the whole series. Adding flying stuff was essential to the already boring constantly rehashed series. It also had lots of other new ideas like the hood wars. GTA5 has no new ideas at all, and yet somehow does everything worse than previous games. I can't even imagine how many millions they spent on all those shitty mini games. Golf, tennis, watch a movie, ride on a jet ski, walk a dog, etc.. etc.. Millennials are retards with no standards and no frame of reference. Nobody else would find this kind of boring shit acceptable.
Vice City was the best by far. City was big enough to not feel restricted yet small enough to not feel tedious going from place to place. Had the best satire and setting and soundtrack. Would love another 80's GTA.
Only shit that sucked was the remote control helicopter/plane bits. Fuck those with a barbed wire dildo.
It was the best in the whole series. Adding flying stuff was essential to the already boring constantly rehashed series. It also had lots of other new ideas like the hood wars. GTA5 has no new ideas at all, and yet somehow does everything worse than previous games. I can't even imagine how many millions they spent on all those shitty mini games. Golf, tennis, watch a movie, ride on a jet ski, walk a dog, etc.. etc.. Millennials are retards with no standards and no frame of reference. Nobody else would find this kind of boring shit acceptable.
I already stated this before but I'll state it again, everything that existed in San Andreas and exists in GTA V is done better in the latter than the former. From the combat, to the story to the mission structure, amount of content and how well made it is. GTA V does it better. Heists are a new idea. To say the least, I prefer a golfing and tennis mini game over eating a burger to become fat. I prefer occasional heists missions over a required plane/helicopter simulator. I prefer actual side missions over randomly generated taxi, ambulance, cop and stupid Zero missions. Every GTA game has really stupid shit in it, GTA V has less of it that interferes with how I want to play. Therefore it is far better than all its predecessors. I don't care about time or era or atmosphere.
Generally my biggest criticism towards GTA 4. It's a string of murder missions except you have even less weapons and vehicles than San Andreas to complete it. This wouldn't have been as bad if GTA 4 wasn't 90 missions with most of them being like this.
For me the highlight of GTA V's mission design was probably the early mission where you broke into Michael's house, as you could actually choose your own route there instead of having to follow a strictly defined path of bright yellow checkpoints that say "jump over the fence here" or "watch out for this gardener here". It made almost zero difference gameplay-wise, of course, but it was fun that even once you had the chance to just look around a bit and plan your approach.
Particularly why I liked the heist missions and I wished the game had more of them. Having to plan out things you needed for the next mission and executing it was far more interesting and fun than generic" go here kill x people missions" that GTA 4 had. Too bad it didn't really matter which side you chose because the story still played out the same.
GTA5 upped the ante as far as spectacle is concerned, but one of my disappointments with its mission design is that the missions are brain-dead easy compared to the ps2 era ones, and even GTA4.
The addition of checkpoints to cut down tedious driving on mission failure was welcome, but the rest of the design philosophy for the missions was completely different compared to the other 3D GTAs. Regenerating health, though a good addition for fucking around in the open world, completely fucked up the tension during shootouts in actual missions. The older GTAs rewarded one for exploring the open world, since keeping track of the health pickup and body armor locations was essential to surviving through the tougher missions. Hell, sometimes, it was even necessary to hire a prostitute to increase the max health to 125. Compare that to GTA 5, where I was never required to purchase armor, and most missions can be easily finished by taking cover and regenerating to 50% health.
Even beyond the health and armor system changes, the missions in the older GTAs were designed to be far more challenging than those in GTA5 in general. I've forgotten the story beats of the ps2 GTAs, but I'm still able to vividly remember the challenging missions from those games: GTA3's Espresso-2-go forced the player to map out the fastest route between 9 locations that can be tackled in any order, and rewarded knowledge of shortcuts from prior exploration of all 3 islands. And that same mission forced me to think outside the box and use a bullet proof vehicle so as to survive an infamous area where shotgun totting mafia assholes would blow up one's car in a second. GTA5's heists, though very memorable through their linear set pieces, never provided a comparable sense of satisfaction on completion.
Choosing my favorite GTA is not easy because I loved all the ps2 GTAs:
GTA3: GTA3 set the blueprint for VC and SA, and so I hold it in high regard. It's the roughest mechanically, but also has some of the hardest missions. Asuka's missions in particular were ridiculously challenging if unprepared.
Vice City: It has my favorite GTA protagonist, setting and cast. Lazlow's talk show channel in VC is the best in the entire series as well.
SA: The sheer breadth of content is unmatched not just in GTA, but across the entire GTA clone genre (I think only Saints row 2 comes anywhere close). The character development feature even had tangible gameplay consequences, and I've sorely missed it in future GTAs. Driving into the countryside for the first time with lightning streaking across the night sky has been seared into my memories.
The PS2 era GTA's only have some form of difficulty because there is lack of a checkpoint system. This makes a few missions challenging but the overwhelming number of missions didn't need this and end up being annoying when you fail from something little, and have to drive all the way back to restart. To be serious, the hardest mission I've played in all the GTA's was Three Leaf Clover in GTA 4, it was arguably the only great mission in the game and the hardest in the series because of the amount of enemies you had to beat and had to escape the cops afterwards.
Plus, the 3D GTA games had shit combat compared to the HD era ones. You had auto lock on all enemies but at the same time all weapons had bad aim so you waste a lot of shots shooting at enemies to kill them.
San Andreas is vastly overrated by people here. The rpg mechanics and "character developemnt" were woefully underdeveloped and didn't have many gameplay consequences. Getting muscle just meant you did a few more damage, the only other parts that did something was getting your weapons to have better aim because the weapon spread was ridiculous in that game.
The older GTAs rewarded one for exploring the open world, since keeping track of the health pickup and body armor locations was essential to surviving through the tougher missions.
This point is vastly overstated by people here. You always had far more money in every previous GTA game than GTA V, because of this you always had enough money to buy enough burgers to get health back or get a bulletproof vest.
Particularly why I liked the heist missions and I wished the game had more of them. Having to plan out things you needed for the next mission and executing it was far more interesting and fun than generic" go here kill x people missions" that GTA 4 had.
Too bad that the actual heists were just scripted rollercoaster rides. It's just a waste to have a beautiful open world and not make any use of it in your mission design.
The combat in GTA III was shit mainly because you couldn't even move and fire at the same time (except with a couple of weapons), and because there was a lengthy delay between clicking the left mouse button and your character actually firing his gun. Vice City and especially San Andreas improved the combat a bit, but it never became more than tolerable. GTA IV and GTA V just have the same generic cover shooting as every other game nowadays, and it's just as bad except for different reasons.
The combat in GTA III was shit mainly because you couldn't even move and fire at the same time (except with a couple of weapons), and because there was a lengthy delay between clicking the left mouse button and your character actually firing his gun. Vice City and especially San Andreas improved the combat a bit, but it never became more than tolerable. GTA IV and GTA V just have the same generic cover shooting as every other game nowadays, and it's just as bad except for different reasons.
What do you mean you can't move and fire in GTA 3? Do you mean the game won't let you or it isn't a good way to play? I can move and shoot when I play.
It isn't as bad, combat all around is more exciting in the latter games than the former games. They also had weapons that were far harder hitting and better melee combat. Also, you don't have to play GTA V as a complete cover shooter. I still wish that R* imported Max Payne 3's combat system into GTA V's with certain improvements. We'll wait and see if RDR 2 fulfills this.
What do you mean you can't move and fire in GTA 3? Do you mean the game won't let you or it isn't a good way to play? I can move and shoot when I play.
From what I remember, you can only move and fire when you're using the pistol or the uzi. You can't strafe and shoot with anything heavier, because the character always stops when firing.
It isn't as bad, combat all around is more exciting in the latter games than the former games. They also had weapons that were far harder hitting and better melee combat.
I agree that the weapons feel better in the newer games, but it's hard to get excited about combat when you're basically invulnerable. Especially in GTA IV you could win every firefight by sitting behind a box and blindfiring everything to death, and in GTA V that's a pretty viable tactic too. You don't have to use the cover system, of course, but it's always there for you if things get tough, and some of the indoor areas feature such cramped spaces that you may encounter camera issues unless you're constantly hugging a wall.
Cover shooting is also slow and boring and not a good fit for a game series where you're constantly causing havoc in over-the-top ways.
From what I remember, you can only move and fire when you're using the pistol or the uzi. You can't strafe and shoot with anything heavier, because the character always stops when firing.
I agree that the weapons feel better in the newer games, but it's hard to get excited about combat when you're basically invulnerable. Especially in GTA IV you could win every firefight by sitting behind a box and blindfiring everything to death, and in GTA V that's a pretty viable tactic too. You don't have to use the cover system, of course, but it's always there for you if things get tough, and some of the indoor areas feature such cramped spaces that you may encounter camera issues unless you're constantly hugging a wall.
Cover shooting is also slow and boring and not a good fit for a game series where you're constantly causing havoc in over-the-top ways.
This is why GTA V needed the Max Payne 3 combat system. The game would actually be difficulty not because of lack of checkpoints like its predecessors but because of smart AI and skill.
Shooting was an improvement since IV compared to previous games but it's still not particularly good. Real improvement was driving, which is much more fun compared to older installments. I could spend a huge amount of time in IV and V just driving around the map at big speed without getting bored. Of course it's not just because of driving mechanics, it's also due to world design. In other sandbox games you need shitty side objectives littered around their copypasta gameworld to keep you engaged, in GTA simply travelling through the map can be a lot of fun. This is why this series is still the sandbox king.
