Was this the worst GTA of its time? If so, why?

Was this the worst GTA of its time? If so, why?

I've been a casual fan of the series since the first, and while I've yet to play 5, I recall being markedly disappointed in 4 compared to Vice City and especially San Andreas.

It's the best in the series, fuck off

if you factor in multiplayer, its still better than 3 and VC.

but overall its the worst

5 is good.

But then you realize the wasted DLC potential and the atrocious online mode that doesn't even compare to how good SAMP was and you start thinking that maybe IV wasn't so bad after all.

Is 5 worth playing? What's wrong with the DLC? I went out on a limb and bought the console version for $20 like 6 months ago. Have yet to even open it.

i did like 20 missions and it felt like the game hadn't moved on at all. combined with the performance issues like going fast enough that you outrun the map loading and 4 is just garbage.

5 is worth pirating and modding

Story isn't bad imho, there is nothing wrong with DLCs because there is none of them, they just focused all of their efforts on that bullshit online crap leaving you with nothing to do once you finish the campaign.

Still, IV's writing and characters were better.

fpwp

This. 5 could've been so much more if they didn't focus on the shitty online so much. This user is right, it doesn't compare to SAMPs online. SAMP is what 5s online should've been.

I personally didn't like the map for 5 either. SA felt like it did more with less. The inner city los santos area in SA and 5 are both shit but atleast SA had las venturas, San fierro, mount chillad which was far better than 5s take on mount chiliad and the bone county desert type region. All of SA's areas had interesting things in it but 5 just had shitty los santos city, sandy shores desert type region and to the very north was just boring woodland areas.

5 had some really fun missions but that was it really.

As for GTA iv, the map did what it needed to do which was a take on New York City and it did it well. I found the map quite boring. The story was good from what I can remember. I played a lot of the online too but I remembers it being fairly pointless to strive for anything. Was just fun to fuck about in

take it back and get a refund before its too late.

I got everything I wanted out of GTA with 4

so much I didnt even bother with 5

>What's wrong with the DLC

all multiplayer dlc, and the multi is shite

>hey guys, see how much fun people had with VC and SA?
>yeah, it's amazing
>no it isn't, we'll make sure the next GTA let's you have no fun
>make it gray, make it "realistic", HAHAHAHHAHAHA
and so the suit got his way

SA = VC > GTAIII >>>> IV > V

5 and SA, overshadow it is all..

gta iv is gta for normies

true fans of gta2/gta3/vice city appreciated what R+ did in gta5 (sans gtao which is utter shit)

my only grudge is that publisher decided to sack dlc's (they were in the works) and boost production of some useless shit for shekels in gtao

no wonder Don Hauser left, now I fear that 5 will go down in history as last 'real gta'

V is. By far.

Yes
They tried to be taken more seriously with a story Rockstar thought was interesting or "good"

you're a retard. stop posting

>Online gets all the new cars/weapons/clothing while Single Player gets nothing for like 2 fucking years

>people actually praise V and call this the worst.

I can't find anything on google that supports your claim about Dan Houser leaving the studio. Perhaps you meant Leslie Benzies?

4 is the worst for trying too hard to be different. From the serious and gloomy story and setting to the death screen and slightly off driving camera angle, it just felt so different from the other games that I was seriously worried for the direction the franchise might be taking.

And he was the one responsible for GTA Online!