An opinion piece about 3 ways that Grand Theft Auto V improves upon its predecessors, and 2 ways that it doesn't, but probably should have.
Grand Theft Auto V was released on PC on the 14th of April 2015. That means the game will be nine years old in four days, and it’s still among the most-played titles on Steam. With a 24-hour peak of 145K players, it’s as popular as Baldur’s Gate 3, Apex: Legends, and Destiny 2.
The freedom to explore large areas, approach objectives in multiple ways, and stumble across amusing distractions will always be an excellent format for video games, but some do it better than others. To celebrate the formula and parse the best from the best, have a look at the best open-world games of all time so far.
Red Dead Redemption 2 and GTA 5 are both classics, but movement and general interaction sometimes feels like you're possessed by a fridge.
Rockstar need to learn that 12 years of work and 5000 employees doesn’t account for one persons opinion on the internet…
Oh and hundreds of millions of dollars in revanue to boot.
Lots of complaints about gta ever since the hd era started and yet it's bugger than its ever been with gta vi up to 180 million trailer views alone. The next game is shaping it be be another genre defining game
The controls of RDR2 felt a but cluncky indeed, but it’s not as bad as some make it out to be. At no point did I get the feeling my experience with the game was held back or ruined by the controls.
But it can never hurt to optimize them a bit, sure.
I did accidentally beat someone to death a couple times. An unfortunate mistake but besides that I didn't have any problems with the controlls
Red Dead Redemption felt clunky at first but I got used to it fairly quick. I thought 2 was easier to control but it could be my experience with the first game helped me out. Great games
I wouldn't call Rockstar games characters clunky instead they feel like they move with Weight they are not twitch controls press x to instantly snap onto cover the characters instead move like a actor would ducking behind cover they are exposed while they get there.
I think the biggest problem with the HD GTA's has been the lack of coherent villain. I just don't think they're as ... memorable or as distinct as Smoke/Tenpenny/Sonny...shit, even Catalina in GTA III. The HD games try to put in a lot of characters and they *are* good characters and even funny (in V's case) but just not...unique or interesting enough to be noteworthy. What I mean is, there's a definite disconnect between the main characters and the NPC's. None of the main villains are as exaggerated or insane as the main characters you play as, making it feel a bit unjustified and anticlimactic when you eventually get revenge. I don't think Michael, Trevor, or Franklin really met their match. For example, no one was as psychotic or as exaggerated as Trevor - so there was never any real threat.
In San Andreas, it's established early on that Tenpenny was a crazy fuck who really DID interfere and cause issues, as well as posing a challenge, physically. GTA III's Catalina was, in essence, a female Trevor. It felt GOOD to get your own back. The villains in GTA V(and IV before it) just left me wondering why I didn't kill them any one of the hundreds of opportunities I had over the course of the game.
...That said, I still feel GTA V is, by far, the most fun GTA to date. But in terms of story, it doesn't seem as focused or as interesting to me as Vice City and San Andreas especially.