gta v vs gta iv

Edited 1 year, 11 days ago

Poll: gta v vs gta iv (134 votes)

gta5 74%
gta4 26%

ather the hype and beating i feel i still think gta4 was the better game the plot felt more invloing and chatters where better wot do u gusy think?

#1 Posted by Grissefar (2842 posts) -

What happened man, did your dog eat your shift key or what?

But year man, the ending credits in 4 were far superior.

#2 Posted by CitizenCoffeeCake (606 posts) -

Having just beat IV when V came out I can definitively say I think V is better. GTA IV felt like a chore to finish and V has just been fun. Just my opinion but, hey, that's what you're asking for I guess.

#3 Edited by CaLe (4039 posts) -

I definitely think GTA V had the better plot and chatters. It also had Trevor so... it just wins, everything.

#4 Posted by wjb (1688 posts) -

East coast is the beast coast, imo.

#5 Edited by oliver (124 posts) -

i like they where trying give you more a chater study around niko and more a grounded aponce to the crim underwrold of liblty city small time durg dealers etc but the misson did begin to feel like chore i admite drive to point b kill warehouse full od dudes etc felt borrring

#6 Posted by mosespippy (4366 posts) -

Three was a huge jump from two, Vice City was a huge jump from three, San Andreas was a huge jump from Vice City, four was a huge jump from San Andreas and five was just another GTA. Mechanically five is sound. Artistically it's not great. The main characters are fine but the supporting cast are all lame. Wade sucks, Ron sucks, Lamar sucks, Floyd sucks. The villains are lame. Rich guy, FIB guy, Chinese guy and gangster guy are all weak villains.

I'd rather play five, but four is the better game.

#7 Posted by marc (553 posts) -

IV i thought the game play mechanics got in the way for me. And the missions were just.. bleh. I'd love to experience that story, but the game for me was too much of a chore to bother with. V isn't perfect by any means, but it was fun all around, therefore the better game in my opinion.

#8 Edited by OtakuGamer (1278 posts) -

GTA 5 by far for me. I loved GTA 4 but the story, characters and improved gameplay of GTA 5, there's no competition here.

#9 Posted by Apparatus_Unearth (3215 posts) -

I had a lot more fun playing V and the story had me more engaged. IV was trying to be pretty serious but also had a lot of really dumb shit in it. I liked the more adventurey tone of V.

#10 Posted by fr0sterson (57 posts) -

Absolutely no competition. IV was alright but it was a slog and the basic mechanics made it feel like you were driving soap bars and walking through water. V really tightens things up and for me was the first GTA that felt really polished and fun the whole way through

#11 Posted by DonutFever (3561 posts) -

GTA V had the best chatter.

#12 Posted by RazorRamen (49 posts) -

GTA V and it's not even close for me. Mechanics, characters, story, and environment were all a huge improvement in V.

#13 Posted by ManMadeGod (1580 posts) -

Three was a huge jump from two, Vice City was a huge jump from three, San Andreas was a huge jump from Vice City, four was a huge jump from San Andreas and five was just another GTA. Mechanically five is sound. Artistically it's not great. The main characters are fine but the supporting cast are all lame. Wade sucks, Ron sucks, Lamar sucks, Floyd sucks. The villains are lame. Rich guy, FIB guy, Chinese guy and gangster guy are all weak villains.

I'd rather play five, but four is the better game.

You would rather play 5 but four is better? How does that make sense?

#14 Posted by WickedFather (1733 posts) -

GTA IV has an wonderfully emotional ending if you play it the one way. GTA V is a rollercoaster gathering speed and ends up in excitement and while I loved it there wasn't that poignant end.

And fuck having to choose a better one. It's as bollocks as this GOGGTAG crap.

#15 Posted by mosespippy (4366 posts) -

@mosespippy said:

Three was a huge jump from two, Vice City was a huge jump from three, San Andreas was a huge jump from Vice City, four was a huge jump from San Andreas and five was just another GTA. Mechanically five is sound. Artistically it's not great. The main characters are fine but the supporting cast are all lame. Wade sucks, Ron sucks, Lamar sucks, Floyd sucks. The villains are lame. Rich guy, FIB guy, Chinese guy and gangster guy are all weak villains.

I'd rather play five, but four is the better game.

You would rather play 5 but four is better? How does that make sense?

Like I said, GTAV is fun. Parachuting is fun, hunting is fun, golf is fun. The things to do in between missions are all great. But if I'm gonna play through a story I'd rather have interesting characters like Packie, Jacob and Dwayne with intimidating villains like Vlad, Dimitri and Bulgarin. The driving and shooting and side stuff in GTAIV are all clunky and stiff. The act of playing the game sucks but the artistry is much greater. GTAIV is a great game to watch someone else play; GTAV is a good game to play but it's nothing you've never seen before.

#16 Posted by Deranged (1856 posts) -

GTA V felt like a more congested package with little quality to it. The main characters were very well crafted, as was the world but everything in between was just bland, uninspired and lacking of emotional impact to keep me going. I never felt like any of the decisions made were of real import nor did I care for what happened in the separate lives of Trevor, Michael, and Franklin. It just never took itself seriously and while I adored the hilarity and chaos it brought, there needs to be a balance.

GTA IV's replication of NYC was pretty rad but in comparison to Vice City and San Andreas, it was less creative. It felt constricted in a sense. The gameplay was the toughest part of the game since everything on foot felt like a chore but my god, Niko and the supporting cast were the most interesting characters to grace the GTA series, bar NONE. Every character you met was interesting, had a purpose to further Niko's story and the setting and premise just made you feel for everything that happened to him.

So while GTA V was mechanically, technically and artistically superior in every way, it fell apart quickly when it came to narrative and utilizing its world in an innovative way that the previous installations in the series managed to do.

#17 Edited by FunkasaurasRex (847 posts) -
#18 Posted by Vic2point0 (42 posts) -

They both suck, IMO. Sleeping Dogs was way better.

#19 Edited by natetodamax (19217 posts) -

I had a much better time with IV.

#20 Edited by JacDG (2128 posts) -

GTA V had some cool character moments, but the overall story arch and plot line was so uninteresting and it went nowhere remotely interesting, there was a whole lot of agents just popping in, giving you another dumb assignment and then just vanishing again until their next mission, those characters were incredibly uninspired, which most, if not all of the side characters were, no one near Brucie level. In terms of events, aside from the first heist, Michael reuniting his family and Trevor going to Northhampton, there weren't really any major event that got me excited, even the final heist felt flat, which most of them did to me, the gameplay was tighter and messing around in the world is as fun as ever, but GTA IV was more memorable in almost every way, so I'll pick that.

#21 Posted by HatKing (6059 posts) -

I think when I was asked this back when GTAV first came out I said that is was the better made game, but the narrative in IV was better. I still think that is mostly true. I had a friend come visit several weeks back though. We used to play IV together, taking turns just dicking around in that world. We tried that with V and the charm wasn't there. The physics are a lot tighter in V, making a more realistic feeling game, but one that isn't as open to insane wrecks and bizarre ragdoll. Ultimately, I think I had more fun playing IV, and I certainly played it more than I did V (which went back on the shelf about a day after finishing the story). I can't help but wonder if part of that is that I've changed as I've gotten older, become less charmed by unrestricted destruction and total freedom, and that I'm more interested in being told a narrative and seeing events unfold. Regardless, I have to give my vote to IV.

#22 Edited by jasbir (107 posts) -

I prefer V it has everything more stuff to see and do and the graphics look better than IV.

#23 Posted by Yummylee (22276 posts) -

I would say V is the better game, but IV has a much more engrossing story and cast of characters. Besides Trevor and Michael, none of GTAV's characters were especially memorable to me, and I felt like Rockstar pushed too hard in sculpting this cynical view of American culture, leaving most characters as predictable caricatures. Oh, and getting drunk in V fucking suuuuuucks compared to how it was in IV.

#24 Edited by SharkEthic (1062 posts) -

V is the better game in almost every aspect, but I enjoyed my time with IV more.

Edit: And I honestly can't put my finger on why that is...

#25 Edited by Humanity (9835 posts) -

Everything about GTA IV was downright terrible. All you people talking about the engrossing story in IV are out of your goshdarn minds. Niko's story was awful as were almost all characters in the entirely longwinded experience. Never before in a GTA game have I felt like everyone around is completely dragging me down instead of helping me come up. Roman was terrible, Player X was terrible, every person you meet is quite frankly terrible, with the small exception of Packie and the Irish gang who were alright. Halfway through the game, the plot starts to meander, dally and generally overstay it's welcome. Then all of a sudden it does an about face and you execute a mad dash to the finish line. I suppose the conclusion was engrossing in that like Niko, I stood there, wide-eyed, confused and angry - this is it? This is what I've been playing for? For nothing? Brilliant commentary on life and a great way to reinforce the statement that games really are a huge waste of time.

I guess I'm just spoiled by Vice City which to this day remains the most cohesive and satisfying of Grant Theft Auto plots to me. In Vice City you felt like Tommy Vercetti was always working towards a goal. He was working for people, doing various missions, but at least half the time it felt like the things you did got you closer to becoming something more in this convoluted world of crime. You had aspirations. In San Andreas CJ was a very flat character that hardly had a mind of his own and went around doing odd jobs without much motivation apart from someone simply egging him on. The entire OG Loc plotline was absurd in terms of why CJ would engage in any of it. By the end of that game you own a Casino, an Airport, you have a ton of new and impressive crime world connections - yet your brother steers you back on track "I ain't no busta, Grove Street fo' life son but I guess you forgot about that" and so CJ kinda shrugs his shoulders and gives up everything he accomplished to slink back to the run down cul-de-sac in the ghetto in order to "represent." But at least you achieved something throughout your illustrious criminal career. You did things that had a tangible impact on the game world. Niko on the other hand achieves nothing. His entire character arc is a flatline. From the moment you come to Liberty City you simply kill and murder with the goal of not killing and murdering anymore.

Grand Theft Auto V at least tries to build. Throughout the story you get some decent character progression - mostly for Michael, a little bit for Franklin and basically none for Trevor. The trio repeat the GTA loop of doing errands for various people, some of which don't deserve your time but for the sake of the game you do them anyway (like the Franklin tow-truck missions). Michael comes to terms with his mid-life crisis, Franklin gets a chance to get out of the hood game and Trevor finally let's go of the past. GTA V rectifies my ending-woes a really rushed and haphazard way. In a really awkward out of the blue mission you get a chance to take revenge on all the people that wronged you in the game, ending a lengthy adventure on a somewhat positive note. It may not be perfect, and certainly it's not the glorious shot of Tommy Vercetti sitting on the steps of his mansion that's been painting with blood, while the camera pans out to a beautiful 80's soundtrack, but hey it's not half bad.

#26 Posted by Yummylee (22276 posts) -

@humanity: Niko's arc in GTAIV is a classic case for how revenge isn't the answer -- that, and of course how overly-romanticised the stereotypical 'American Dream' is. It's left all dour, like you hadn't accompolished anything, because that's the point. It's supposed to reflect on revenge and how it won't suddenly solve all of your problems, and taking that path won't suddenly give you the satisfaction you craved. Niko's journey was spurned on by revenge; it's the reason he was working for people he hated, it's the reason he kept getting his cousin who he loves as a brother in danger (and potentially killed), and GTA IV's story (while not perfect) at the very least felt like it had more of a point than GTA V's.

#27 Edited by Nodima (1275 posts) -

GTAV for me, easily. There were so many subtle things they did to show progress in this game, from housing design to character vehicles. But it really isn't about the story for me when comparing the two, and why would it be? The first two 3D GTAs had fairly compact stories by comparison and were great for talking about that stuff, a lot of memorable characters and high quality, famous voice actors. But when comparing GTA IV to GTA V, for me it all comes down to one thing: options. And the one option that makes this quite easy for me even before all the other stuff: those rolling hills on the outskirts of Los Santos and all over Blaine County. I've never experienced anything quite like a police chase can evolve in this game, nor can I remember the last time I had so much fun simply trying to traverse a mountain range. Maybe Smuggler's Run or one of those open world ATV games? It's been a long time.

Throw all the amazing explosions, upgraded combat system (contrary to most hardcore gamers, I think GTA has the best targeting system around, it's so satisfying to flick the stick from one target to the next), jaw dropping skyboxes and lighting, variety of locales and sense of scope...GTA IV was an amazing experience, I've beaten it through four times and have a deep, deep love for Liberty City. But GTA V represents, for me, many of the same shifts San Andreas did. In some ways it's a lesser experience, but not in any of the ways that make it a game.

Plus, GTA IV online was a free-for-all that provided the most memorable action on my part I think I'll ever experience, which is a whole other two paragraphs about a man on a motorcycle and the man chasing him in a lamborghini that concludes with a missed rocket launcher and a drifting, John Woo-style headshot, but GTA V online is endlessly tantalizing. I don't mess with the single player side of the game at all now that I've beaten it, other than when I was watching my now-ex-friend-with-benefits play through the game. GTA Online provides all the free roam chaos I require with 15 other people looking for the same thrill, plus a bunch of missions that really seem to challenge the player, if only because you're absolutely overwhelmed by enemies at almost every turn. Ever since cracking level 25, I've felt like most missions require a second or fifth attempt to really get a handle on, and the rush of finally completing a mission is matched by little else from this generation.

I'll also agree with anyone who didn't find Niko's story particularly amazing. I remember certain story beats but most of the memorable structure comes prior to Roman's cab company being burned down. After that, the game begins to spin wildly out of context at really random moments, and Rockstar loses sight of the gravitas they keep attempting to grasp. GTA V smartly eschews all that, instead attempting to make a less-offensivly tone deaf Michael Bay movie.

#28 Edited by RonGalaxy (3262 posts) -

GTAV is better in every way except where it counts the most to me, which would be its story. GTAV is so god damn aimless. It says nothing and accomplishes nothing. I beat it, I killed a lot of people, I got the money, yay. The villains were horrible, there is not one interesting side character in that game. Sure, GTA 4 looks like shit, doesnt play as well, doesnt have as many activities, has a smaller world, but at least the story and its lot of characters were fucking interesting

#29 Posted by Humanity (9835 posts) -

@yummylee: I think you're projecting a lot more emotion than that story warrants while simultaneously devaluations V's.

#30 Posted by Yummylee (22276 posts) -
@humanity said:

@yummylee: I think you're projecting a lot more emotion than that story warrants while simultaneously devaluations V's.

Nah.

#31 Edited by Humanity (9835 posts) -

@yummylee said:
@humanity said:

@yummylee: I think you're projecting a lot more emotion than that story warrants while simultaneously devaluations V's.

Nah.

You're wrong, just admit it to yourself and let go. I mean Niko's story wasn't really about revenge*, but then again, it was such an awful attempt at serious drama that went literally nowhere that I tried really hard to purge it from my mind.

Ballad of Gay Tony was a good return to form and the only worthwhile content associated with GTA IV.

I mean I was talking about story downfalls only - the conversation about how the game is literally a step back in every way imaginable in terms of mechanics is a whole separate 5 paragraphs.

*EDIT: Well what do you know! I kept thinking "what is this revenge business .." so I went to a wiki and read the plot synopsis and wow Niko was actually looking for some guy. Totally forgot about that, all I could concentrate on was how the story was absolute garbage I guess.

#32 Edited by Yummylee (22276 posts) -

@humanity: lol and thus yet another discussion with you has reached with same conclusion, with all of the typical comically aggressive amount of hyperbole to just about scrape away any potential for serious discourse. And yet despite the fact that this is the umpteenth time this has happened, I still keep giving you another shot.

Shame on me I suppose!

#33 Posted by Humanity (9835 posts) -

@yummylee: I wrote a pretty clear and comprehensive post about why I feel the way I do - comparing and contrasting the last three games in the series. In response you wrote, really well I might add, about why you think GTA IV's story was good and proceeded to ignore every point I made summing it up with "GTA IV made more of a point than GTA V did" without actually explaining why that is. So one might say - typically I wrote up a long post with various arguments, which you sidestepped in order to reiterate your own opinion without taking mine into consideration, thus eliminating any possible discourse. It really is a shame, but I hope you will open up one day!

#34 Posted by forkboy (1174 posts) -

I love them both, but GTA5's world is more fun to explore. I enjoyed the stories of both games. GTA5 plays better mechanically, though GTA4 definitely has more interesting side characters. I like me some Brucie. Hopefully Rockstar play with it a ltitle like they did on the DLC for 4 and give us some different stories to play through.

#35 Posted by BigSocrates (418 posts) -

How is this whole thread not just about the horrible "man dates" you had to go on in GTA IV to maintain relationships and the momentum destroying "Hey cousin" phone calls? GTA IV did have some stuff going for it and people are right about the more interesting characters, but ultimately GTA IV is built to tell a story, and it's a mediocre story, while GTA V is built to let you explore a weird and fun world and it is weird and fun. Plus GTA V looks amazing and GTA IV looks like an ugly butt.

#36 Posted by GroveStreetBoy (1 posts) -

If GTA V never took out the Hot-Dog Stands and Burger-Stores, bowling & pool activities and the backseat cam for being a passenger of a taxi from GTA IV, I'd love the game like I have always loved GTA IV. Also, the storyline was more deeply engrossing in GTA IV. GTA V focuses on variety and the world around you, while GTA IV focused on the character you play as (Niko Bellic) and his cousin and the friends he meets along the way and the storyline.

#37 Edited by JonnyC0mbat (9 posts) -

Personally I hated GTA IV. It was long, boring, and the missions were all identical (bar the bank heist mission which I liked). The city was lifeless, the sub-games were awful, and the characters were just downright irritating.

Of all the people I know who played it (about 10 or more people), I was the only one who completed it. Everyone else got bored before the end and moved on to other games.

GTAV isn't perfect, but is a fantastic game. Sure the online side is extremely buggy, and full of morons, but it does have it's moments of greatness.

I found GTAV's single player was great, although I would have just kept Trevor as the only playable character and ditched Michael and the other guy (who's name has escaped me he's that boring). Trevor made GTA V for me, I thought he was brilliant, and the way he treated people was in the true spirit of GTA.

#38 Posted by Hinamotto (66 posts) -

Personally, I thought GTA V was just an overall "brighter", more colorful game (Michael and aliens, anyone?). The story was not as serious as GTA IV, and the possibility of changing characters at (almost) any time was a great way to keep things fresh. GTA IV was still a great game, just not as fun to play and follow the story.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.