What went wrong?

What went wrong?

Attached: 3453535.jpg (1080x1080, 289.01K)

Literally the biggest open world multiplayer game in the world, what do you mean?

shit mission design

so how does that make it a good game? that's the antithesis of properly designed stages

It’s soulless

Every other GTA got tons of story DLC, while this got zero.

>gta based on Any Forums
When'd that happen and what can I play it on

franklin, boring nigga, i wanted a 2.0 CJ.

I'm not saying it's good, but it sure as fuck didn't "go wrong"

Unironically the Online , 9 years and absolutely mo single player DLC.

everything. uninspired boring story, shit AI, shit gunplay, shitty minigames, shit music, mediocre driving, shitty setpiece-y missions that felt out of place in gta.

Shitty linear gameplay.

Bad writing with annoying characters and unfunny, obnoxious attempts at satire
Nu-rockstar's terrible, over-scripted mission design
Melee combat and shooting that feels worse than GTA IV
Entire north half of the map is wasted on a big fuckoff mountain with cliffs and steep slopes which is boring to climb and annoying to navigate around, actively making the whole area less fun
Not enough hospitals/respawn points, have fun spawning in paleto bay or sandy shores for the 50th time
Didn't add any of the new mechanics or content into singleplayer, even on a delayed schedule

It's still a lot better than every open world game that came after it, except RDR2.

Open world is an important feature because having more options leads to more designable strategy (because location and time define status), and making an open world that is a series of small, strategic maps (with controllable areas and routes and with fun momentary cover and movement that balances multiple classes of guns) is easy to do.

GTAO has small maps gameplay too.

GTA VI should have a more strategic open world landscape and should have quality small maps, which are easy to design but very specific to have any semblance of fluid gameplay. Vantage points, especially middle buldings, and 2-sided, clash in the middle gameplay are *not* fun, strategic, spontaneous character exploration; you want characters to make laps around the edge of the map because that's where the fewest lines of sight are.

Character movement, cover, and gunplay are obviously important. Gunplay is specifically something that the genre should innovate, centering the reticule, and having bouncy recoil, allowing shooting while running and during other actions.

I think that player expectations for mobility are higher than basic movement at this juncture. People have been playing CoD and similar for approximately 14 years. CoD: Advanced Warfare has some of the most realistic and well-designed mobility in any game, utilizing small but quick dodges so that a character can move across a small space quickly but not move across a large space as quickly, leading to small bursts of more requisite aim and to juxtaposition while dodges recharge; it also has bunnyhopping for sustained movement.

Samefag and also you're a third worlder with autism

>small map thats too empty
>too many main characters (family dollar CJ and le Reddit Trevor) should have focused on Michael
>lack of depth and more dumbed down gameplay than GTA4
>boring ass missions with too much filler
The only good things about it are its graphics and first person mode.

Nothing, still better than IV and sold 1000 times more even if faggots bawwww. Also better single player than IV.

>b-but DLC
Zoomer meme

>Literally the biggest open world multiplayer game in the world
lmao

I liked Franklin, he was a good anchor and straight man to contrast to Trevor’s insanity and Michael’s neuroses.