Grand Theft Auto Grieving Thread - Yep, I've been drinkin' again...

Favorite GTA?

  • Grand Theft Auto

    Votes: 61 2.4%
  • Grand Theft Auto: London 1969

    Votes: 54 2.1%
  • Grand Theft Auto 2

    Votes: 106 4.1%
  • Grand Theft Auto III

    Votes: 203 7.9%
  • Grand Theft Auto: Vice City

    Votes: 735 28.7%
  • Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

    Votes: 1,033 40.3%
  • Grand Theft Auto: Advanced

    Votes: 12 0.5%
  • Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories

    Votes: 74 2.9%
  • Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories

    Votes: 73 2.8%
  • Grand Theft Auto IV

    Votes: 655 25.5%
  • Episodes From Liberty City (The Lost & Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony)

    Votes: 198 7.7%
  • Grand Theft Auto V

    Votes: 371 14.5%
  • Grand Theft Auto: Online

    Votes: 91 3.5%
  • My Mother's My Sister!

    Votes: 306 11.9%

  • Total voters
    2,565
For most people, GTA V is their ONLY experience of the GTA series. Even so, just the online.
I hate to have to admit this, but I actually fall into that camp where GTA 5 was my first 3D GTA game since I played Chinatown Wars first. In my experience one of the first things I noticed playing SA and 4 were the difference in mechanics. For SA it was how sensitive the controls were when driving cars compared to 5. And with GTA 4 it was the inertia of driving the cars and the cover system isn't as fluid or smooth as 5.

None of the stuff really made either game unplayable for me, but a lot of things like simple motor movements had to be relearned. What really kept me sticking around and playing was the immersion that the former games offered. There's such a level of activities and details that keep me coming back for more. Even as a person who had no reference point to base any of this off of, I haven't enjoyed playing GTA 5 very much in general because it's just very bland. Also online there isn't much besides doing boring grinding delivery missions or fighting other players.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: The Last Stand
I've run out of things to waste money on and I cannot be arsed buying a yacht. A heist, nightclub sell and a few bunker sales and I'm easily making over two million a day without any sweat. It's helped pass the time whilst in lockdown but I fancy a change and I enjoyed the "original" RDR.
Is RDR online any good?
 
Is RDR online any good?
Depends. If you want a leisurely grind going around the map then sure, but it's really only fun in that aspect if you manage to get a solo session set up. Consoles don't have to worry about hackers, but there's still griefers and the PC is a fucking mess with hackers. It's nothing like the RDR 2 campaign, though, even if it has a story campaign for itself. I prefer it to the hectic grind of GTAO, though, but I'm not particularly happy I couldn't transfer my information to PC like I could GTAO.

It's definitely the red headed step child to its step brother GTAO, though.

EtA: They are planning to release an enhanced version for PS5 and Series X, though, so if you want to wait till then if they actually manage to pump those machines out more... that's a thing you can look to.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Captain Syrup
The Housers were the first "get into games because I can't get into Hollywood" guys.

They never actually made a secret of it, they just gave so few interviews that a lot of people didn't notice or care at the time because the games were fun. But the Housers have always said it was their dream to get into music and movies I believe.

IIRC Sam Houser is actually getting into music now, and Dan basically kept making the games more and more like movies as the technology improved because like all modern AAA rejects that was the actual dream.
That perspective though I think is a big part of what made their games good, viewing video games as a storytelling medium same as movies is a good thing, I know some developers don't always pull that off *cough* Last of Us 2*cough* but viewing this as an artistic medium is better than treating it like basically a toy or a sport.

It's sad to think Rockstar's post GTAIII heyday didn't even last 20 years, but close to it is a pretty good run.

I'd bet good money Dan leaving had something to do with Take Two prioritizing GTA Online so much. I'm no game analyst or anything but I've seen some people make a compelling case that RDR2's entire story has a lot of subtext in Rockstar Games being taken over more and more by Take Two.
A lot of people have read the story that way and yeah, it seems like it's pretty obvious that was the subtext.

Are there any articles/videos that really deep into that?

I mean, there is an entire backdrop of the "old way" (single player) dying in favor of a money obsessed corporatization of America (Online Microtransactions).

And if that didn't convince you, let's not forget that it's heavily implied the the gang considered themselves modern day Robin Hoods who would uplift and help the poor...until a character named Strauss came in with a profitable yet immoral loansharking business that would directly hurt the poor people they once uplifted and directly lead to the breakup of the gang and the death of the main character.

(Reminder that Strauss Zelnick has pushed microtransactions over single player content that has directly fucked the consumer while greatly boosting profits, and that all of the OG's from Rockstar have now been fired or left the company)
Heh, that can't be coincidence.

I give not one single shit about bullshit like Fortnite for GTA Online, if that's the future of games then I guess I'll be done, I'm in this for compelling story and characters, same reason I care about movies or books, it's art, it's the humanity, the ghost in the machine, everything else just feels like a waste of time to me or at least fun in short doses, but not the main draw.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: X Pac Heat
That perspective though I think is a big part of what made their games good, viewing video games as a storytelling medium same as movies is a good thing, I know some developers don't always pull that off *cough* Last of Us 2*cough* but viewing this as an artistic medium is better than treating it like basically a toy or a sport.

Big time disagree here. Video Games have actively gotten worse since they have treated them as a form of cinema. Video Games are a different form of art, and simply making them like a movie takes away from that as has been seen with how boring the AAA market has become. Much in the way cinema should be show, not tell video games should be play, not show.

A game like Outer Wilds is infinitely more artistic and does far more to push the medium as art than any recent AAA title. I actually felt something playing that game, and the story was told almost entirely through gameplay not a single overly produced cutscene or even monologue to be seen.

GTA Online isn't a failure because it doesn't have some overly produced rip off of a bunch of movies, it's a failure because despite being an almost entirely gameplay driven experience, the gameplay just flat out sucks. It's nothing but endless fetch quests that are designed to be damn near impossible to complete without cheating the system.
 
Big time disagree here. Video Games have actively gotten worse since they have treated them as a form of cinema. Video Games are a different form of art, and simply making them like a movie takes away from that as has been seen with how boring the AAA market has become. Much in the way cinema should be show, not tell video games should be play, not show.

A game like Outer Wilds is infinitely more artistic and does far more to push the medium as art than any recent AAA title. I actually felt something playing that game, and the story was told almost entirely through gameplay not a single overly produced cutscene or even monologue to be seen.

GTA Online isn't a failure because it doesn't have some overly produced rip off of a bunch of movies, it's a failure because despite being an almost entirely gameplay driven experience, the gameplay just flat out sucks. It's nothing but endless fetch quests that are designed to be damn near impossible to complete without cheating the system.
What I was trying to say is simply treating games as a storytelling medium, not literally trying to imitate a movie, but taking the approach that story and characters matter, the same way someone doesn't make a movie that is literally just a guy running around shooting people mindlessly, that's what I meant when comparing it to movies.

Something like Fortnite is closer to a toy than what I'm talking about, now I'm not saying I wish games like that didn't exist at all, in theory there should be room for all types of games, I just dislike the idea of Fortnite crowding anything with a story out.

But I'll be honest, movie shouldn't be such a dirty word in gaming, games were better when "it's like playing a movie" was what attracted people to them and not the bullshit that attracts normie audiences today, which is closer to a virtual sport, there's nothing wrong with a game taking a cinematic approach so long as, of course, there's still plenty of gameplay, it's just another way of making a game, it's not an objectively "wrong" way to do it.

Why is the word "movie" the magical word to summon so much butthurt from gamers? Do you really not think that's a better approach than a mindless frag fest like Call of Duty? Or at the very least it's something worth preserving than being rendered extinct by esports?

However a game does it though, whatever the gameplay is, all I'm saying is story and characters should matter.
 
But I'll be honest, movie shouldn't be such a dirty word in gaming, games were better when "it's like playing a movie" was what attracted people to them and not the bullshit that attracts normie audiences today
Huge Huge HUUUUUGE disagree

The movie shit is what attracted the normie audience in the first place. Why do you think the medium blew up with the PS2? Why do you think Sony went full hog into it with the PS3?

Why do gamers get upset at games trying to be movies? Because it directly takes away from games and has brought about the worst generations in gaming. Far more money is spent on mo cap, acting talent, hack writers and advertising than on the actual game. The fact games need to be like movies now is why less and less quality games are being made. You can sugar coat it all you want, but the games that try to emulate movies have all had less or worse gameplay because of it. Grand Theft Auto being the shining example in said thread.
 
Huge Huge HUUUUUGE disagree

The movie shit is what attracted the normie audience in the first place. Why do you think the medium blew up with the PS2? Why do you think Sony went full hog into it with the PS3?

Why do gamers get upset at games trying to be movies? Because it directly takes away from games and has brought about the worst generations in gaming. Far more money is spent on mo cap, acting talent, hack writers and advertising than on the actual game. The fact games need to be like movies now is why less and less quality games are being made. You can sugar coat it all you want, but the games that try to emulate movies have all had less or worse gameplay because of it. Grand Theft Auto being the shining example in said thread.
This is just where we differ in taste I guess, to me the bigger issue is the microtransactions and esports driving out single player, story driven games.

Wokeness is another issue that is spoiling games that are story driven, so it really just seems like the entire fucking medium is being ruined lmao.

This is just my perspective and I understand I'm in the minority, I never truly started to feel passionate about games until they started telling me stories that captivated me, prior to that I remember fun being marred by frustration, like literally never not drowning when I would play Sonic The Hedgehog as a kid (but I was pretty young and inexperienced), video games were a fun way to pass the time, but it didn't start to really become an obsession until I started experiencing stories and characters I cared about.

That's just the main thing I'm here for, others are here for purely the gameplay itself, I can respect that, I just don't want story to be driven out completely, there should be room for both types of games but publishers are greedy as fuck.

Please try to understand though I appreciate good gameplay for the sake of gameplay as much as anyone, I just think people are too hard on games that lean more in favor of story.
 
Last edited:
Odds for GTA 6 being Rockstar's first "flop"?
Nope. It'll sell.
Even if it's not just bad, but flaming trash can bad, it'll still sell on name alone.
However, that'll be the last time it's name will shield it. People will have a bad taste and the brand name is tainted. A future title would have to be good again lest they want to flop and bury the IP.

I really hope it flops btw. My kingdom for a GTA that plays like III with contemporary graphics.
I don't need a "compelling" story. Do it old-school: you're a gun for hire in the worst city in America.
Loud guns, fast cars, unapologetic crime. What's not to like?
 
Nope. It'll sell.
Even if it's not just bad, but flaming trash can bad, it'll still sell on name alone.
However, that'll be the last time it's name will shield it. People will have a bad taste and the brand name is tainted. A future title would have to be good again lest they want to flop and bury the IP.

I really hope it flops btw. My kingdom for a GTA that plays like III with contemporary graphics.
I don't need a "compelling" story. Do it old-school: you're a gun for hire in the worst city in America.
Loud guns, fast cars, unapologetic crime. What's not to like?
unless you mean shit like Rawpocalypse 2077 (sold ~14M units in first month and slowed to crawl later), it WILL flop

and I will be fucking laughing
 
Reminder that Strauss Zelnick has pushed microtransactions over single player content that has directly fucked the consumer while greatly boosting profits
He's stripping it for parts. These "private equity" guys are all alike.

Currently replaying San Andreas and I don't think Rockstar will ever top it.
A much different time. Tear open your preordered copy, flip through the manual to see which celebs they got. Sperg out when you see Catalina and Salvatore listed.
 
He's stripping it for parts. These "private equity" guys are all alike.


A much different time. Tear open your preordered copy, flip through the manual to see which celebs they got. Sperg out when you see Catalina and Salvatore listed.

And Ken Rosenberg.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: The Last Stand
Back