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.
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.
Fair point for sure and thanks for reading! This piece was more about the gameplay. I'll be addressing the story in my review coming later this week!
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.