LogFAQs > #899606206

39. Grand Theft Auto V
Original Release: 2013
Developer: Rockstar
Platform: XB360
Favorite Character: Trevor Phillips

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArA3bkumvoI" data-time="

GTA5 is pretty much the complete opposite of GTA4, which is a good thing. Not that GTA4 was bad, but I feel that Rockstar were aiming for two completely different games structured the same way and succeeded at that. Obviously I think GTA5 is an improvement, but it does take a few steps back.

The theme here is excess. You've got Michael, who has it all...a life of luxury in a completely vapid, soulless city. In fact, "vapid" is the perfect word to describe GTA5's version of Los Santos. It feels like a completely different Los Santos than the San Andreas version, and I honestly miss the San Andreas version. I think that's because I preferred that game's Compton-like setting and storyline, as I was always enthralled with 90's gang life/NWA/etc. and grew up listening to Tupac and watching movies like Boyz in the Hood. I also feel that the entire city, while big and detailed, is just missing something. Then I realized that it's missing San Fierro and Las Venturas. I mean, San Andreas probably had a much smaller map but it felt more complete. Oh, and I spent some years of my childhood in San Francisco and would have loved to see a version of it here, but we only get Los Santos, and as a result the map looks kind of odd (basically an island). I liked the desert/Salton Sea bits, but never felt the map was enough and could've covered more.

The story's also a bit lackluster. Michael would have been the perfect main character --
another theme is him wanting to return to the life of crime which got him to where he is now, with Trevor coming in as his "devil" and Franklin coming in as his angel/conscience. We end up sharing the stage with both Trevor and Franklin as well, and this results in less character development as a whole. Franklin is actually quite one-note...he's apparently a banger, and uhh, that's it? Compared to both Michael and Trevor, he just seems like an afterthought, and I probably would have preferred Lamar over him. Most of the story involves getting together and robbing banks. There's no clear villain (the bad guys in this game are comical and never taken seriously) and there's little story between the three with basically no tension. The worst offender is the final mission and ending. After the last heist, there's some loose threads and you're given the option or offing either Michael or Trevor, but there's a third option of teaming up and going up against the bad guys. It is clear and obvious that this is the correct option and the only one that will give you a good ending. Not only that, but why the fuck would anyone want to kill Michael or Trevor? So basically if you choose this route (and you will), you just go around town and kill off all the bad guys that crossed you and the end. It was odd.