GTA VI

[Null]

Here's a clip that reminds me of the purity of gaming and the pure sweat and obsessiveness I wish I could still dedicate (he says as he sinks hundreds of hours into Death Stranding to platinum it)

https://x.com/Daoz132mx/status/2100729037580640273?s=20

[Agent]

GTA IV was incredibly built, I just felt it lacked content. The world, characters and detail was fantastic, but there wasn't enough to do in it to keep me there.

GTA IV was incredibly built, I just felt it lacked content. The world, characters and detail was fantastic, but there wasn't enough to do in it to keep me there.

I was the same. Liked the setup of the story and Niko but I just didn't enjoy the world very much. Although I did always get a laugh out of stuff like the internet cafes. Talk about a product of its time. I think the DLCs made the city feel that bit more alive which is probably a big reason why I enjoyed them so much.

I replayed it a bit today. The city is quite deliberately designed to look and function like a prison, the game is about the lie of American freedom after all. I don't think it's an accident that you can only buy dull Slavic clothes, rent shitty apartments etc either. Niko never escapes his past, every character you meet is an immigrant trapped in their own mini ethnic conflicts. They did a good job making the city feel as oppressive as the character's circumstances. There's a 4 hour video essay in here somewhere that i'm sure already exists.

[Helikaon]

GTA IV was incredibly built, I just felt it lacked content. The world, characters and detail was fantastic, but there wasn't enough to do in it to keep me there.

GTA IV was incredibly built, I just felt it lacked content. The world, characters and detail was fantastic, but there wasn't enough to do in it to keep me there.

I was the same. Liked the setup of the story and Niko but I just didn't enjoy the world very much. Although I did always get a laugh out of stuff like the internet cafes. Talk about a product of its time. I think the DLCs made the city feel that bit more alive which is probably a big reason why I enjoyed them so much.

I replayed it a bit today. The city is quite deliberately designed to look and function like a prison, the game is about the lie of American freedom after all. I don't think it's an accident that you can only buy dull Slavic clothes, rent shitty apartments etc either. Niko never escapes his past, every character you meet is an immigrant trapped in their own mini ethnic conflicts. They did a good job making the city feel as oppressive as the character's circumstances. There's a 4 hour video essay in here somewhere that i'm sure already exists.

Hmm. I have been to New York City (well, Manhattan at least) and the very first thing I noticed when I walked into Times Square for the first time was a group of four SWAT officers, in full riot gear, holding M4 carbines like it was the most natural thing in the world.

Oppressive prison is a good way to put how I felt there as an English boy who expected to feel nothing but freedom, since that's the narrative we're all told by the media.

https://site28021990.wordpress.com/2026/...city-2007/

Oh, I love GTA IV btw. I didn't when I first played it, but my perspective shifted a few years ago after a replay on my SteamDeck. Great game, just wish it ran better on consoles, haha.

[bigboss88]

In terms of narrative and story, IV wins. Even Rockstar acknowledges that that Nico is the best written protagonist in their games when they said they want Lucia to be on the same level as him snd Arthur Morgan.

Speaking of protagonists, how are you gonna play the fame first playthrough? For me, Lucia professional criminal style first playthrough and Lucia psychopath second playthrough. Then I’m gonna play with Jason for a third playthrough neutral style.

[Aragorn]

Certainly but i'm not sure the escapist Scarface simulator benefits from bringing the wife along to every mission. Each new Rockstar game seems to add more baggage and less agency to the protagonist which defeats the point of the egoistic crime fantasy. It's either being held down by grove street, or your dumbass cousin, or a wife and kids, and so on. I think SA and IV still handled it quite well but the bloke in RDR2 was comically subservient and this seems like a continuation of that.

i think it's okay for a 29 year old franchise to evolve past ''take a gun and shoot this crowd''.

I'm not even a shooter for Rockstar - I enjoyed V, RDR and RDR2 (even though it had worn its stay for me and I couldn't even get through the epilogue) but I don't think they're best in class outside of some very specific areas they excel at.

[bigboss88]

Certainly but i'm not sure the escapist Scarface simulator benefits from bringing the wife along to every mission. Each new Rockstar game seems to add more baggage and less agency to the protagonist which defeats the point of the egoistic crime fantasy. It's either being held down by grove street, or your dumbass cousin, or a wife and kids, and so on. I think SA and IV still handled it quite well but the bloke in RDR2 was comically subservient and this seems like a continuation of that.

Played through the modern GTA franchise and took my time with it to appreciate how the franchise evolved. When I reached V, boy I really hadn’t appreciated it tbh. I think the think the franchise matured from being just giving a gun to a mute protagonist who steals cars and kill people to a plot-driven game which you can live in the world instead of just booting a game and go destroying thing. Let’s takd V as an example since it’s what GTA last reached. You have three characters. Each one resembles a soul of what GTA stands for. Michael resembles the organized operative/thief who nos has a family drama going and you sort it out by turning from shitty dad to taking more responsible approach and be the man who wants to have a family and actually be a badass in his family’s eyes. Frank resembles the street thief who wants to make something out of his life starting from scratch. Still he’s between the hood’s past life and the professional world of espionage and robbery. Finally, Trevor resembles the player who grew up playing GTA destroying, stealing, killing snd messing up everything he touches in this world. Now, the game gives you the freedom to be any soul you like. It even gives the choice at the end to choose to embrace all three characters as they are or simply antagonize the role you don’t think fits the GTA world. This is something I realized after 13 years of not touching the game. I really came to appreciate what Rockstar is trying to do with this franchise. I think RDR2 in particular benefited the most from this evolution. That’s why I’m curious what height Rockstar will be reaching with game. This is a game you wanna take your time playing and experiencing rather than just to watch the ending and reach the credits. My philosophy about GTA really changed when I took my time doing things with each game.

[Null]

I think that's a good and fair insight BB88 and I think you're broadly right, but the problem is the characters (IMO) were not compelling in any way. Nothing about any of their arcs really had me invested.

Trevor in particular was just irritating. Michael was tedious although probably had the most potential. Franklin was okay but lacked depth. I genuinely found Lamar to be more of an interesting character, which isn't good.

I know GTA is characterised by its bright and brilliant supporting cast but I think when you end up with support characters who are more interesting than the actual playable cast its problematic.

[bigboss88]

I think that's a good and fair insight BB88 and I think you're broadly right, but the problem is the characters (IMO) were not compelling in any way. Nothing about any of their arcs really had me invested.

Trevor in particular was just irritating. Michael was tedious although probably had the most potential. Franklin was okay but lacked depth. I genuinely found Lamar to be more of an interesting character, which isn't good.

I know GTA is characterised by its bright and brilliant supporting cast but I think when you end up with support characters who are more interesting than the actual playable cast its problematic.

Here’s where I think went wrong: having three antagonists was a mistake. The game suffered from wanting to take all perspectives and pleasing everyone at the same time. Imagine a world where Michael is the protagonist with Frank and Trevor being supporting characters who are only playable in a few missions. Although it was good experimentation, it lost focus midway. I think Rockstar realized that when they made RDR2 which leads me to believe optimistic that they built on what they did with RDR2 in GTA6 in terms of writing.

[Jassassino]

Trevor

Would've been a better supporting cast member really. I really do like Steven Ogg's performance, but it felt weird that he had little to no development at all, and think R* got away with that purely based on the general idea that GTA is/was a bit silly and deliberately tropey.

Would've liked a bit more from V in retrospect, I think particularly the inclusion of Las Venturas as a sort of half-sized cityscape would've added some really sorely needed variety, but I did like the game back in the day.

R* peaked with the original RDR tho and I'll die on that hill.

[Agent]

Certainly but i'm not sure the escapist Scarface simulator benefits from bringing the wife along to every mission. Each new Rockstar game seems to add more baggage and less agency to the protagonist which defeats the point of the egoistic crime fantasy. It's either being held down by grove street, or your dumbass cousin, or a wife and kids, and so on. I think SA and IV still handled it quite well but the bloke in RDR2 was comically subservient and this seems like a continuation of that.

Played through the modern GTA franchise and took my time with it to appreciate how the franchise evolved. When I reached V, boy I really hadn’t appreciated it tbh. I think the think the franchise matured from being just giving a gun to a mute protagonist who steals cars and kill people to a plot-driven game which you can live in the world instead of just booting a game and go destroying thing. Let’s takd V as an example since it’s what GTA last reached. You have three characters. Each one resembles a soul of what GTA stands for. Michael resembles the organized operative/thief who nos has a family drama going and you sort it out by turning from shitty dad to taking more responsible approach and be the man who wants to have a family and actually be a badass in his family’s eyes. Frank resembles the street thief who wants to make something out of his life starting from scratch. Still he’s between the hood’s past life and the professional world of espionage and robbery. Finally, Trevor resembles the player who grew up playing GTA destroying, stealing, killing snd messing up everything he touches in this world. Now, the game gives you the freedom to be any soul you like. It even gives the choice at the end to choose to embrace all three characters as they are or simply antagonize the role you don’t think fits the GTA world. This is something I realized after 13 years of not touching the game. I really came to appreciate what Rockstar is trying to do with this franchise. I think RDR2 in particular benefited the most from this evolution. That’s why I’m curious what height Rockstar will be reaching with game. This is a game you wanna take your time playing and experiencing rather than just to watch the ending and reach the credits. My philosophy about GTA really changed when I took my time doing things with each game.

Where i'm coming from is that the experience of playing GTA is exploring and collecting resources so you can buy cooler toys and impose more of yourself on the game's world. The plot should ideally reinforce that experience instead of running in opposition to it. GTA IV had a great story, but it would have been great as a novel or a film too. I wouldn't normally bring up ludonarrative dissonance, but V will write the worst character in fiction (Trevor), and hide behind a meta explanation that he's a reflection of the player. It doesn't work either as a story divorced from the game, or as part of the game's experience. Then in RDR2, John Redemption's story directly gets in the way of the reason someone would buy that game in the first place, to freely explore and do as they please.

Also I played Vice City in my web browser today. Mad.