In response to what ColonelMartyr and Semperhi said on the last thread...

@Colonel - I think the main story and the DLCs were on par with each other. I agree that GTA V characters the pickings are slim. I haven't been through the entire story yet, only up to whe. re Tr evor arrives in Los Santos. I don't need any major character for a DLC. Remember Johnny was a very minor character in the GTA IV main story. You did a job for Elizabeta and it involved him and it was early on and that was it. Your crossings with The Lost was few. Point is, you can build a DLC off a chracter you barely met. Maybe even old characters from San Andreas.

@Semper - yeh it was a bunch of crap. I have faith they won't because they haven't taken M$ money since for any title. RDR, Midnight Club, L.A. Noire, Max Payne....as far as I know or remember, everything was same day. I wish other devs would have learned this and dedicated equal resources to both platforms (*coughBethesdacough*)


---------------------------------------------------------

The maitenance period from a couple nights ago really seemed to work, a lot of the abusers are gone and there are more people playing. I'm liking it so far.

No no, I just mean I don't recall any characters who could really come off as a potential DLC character besides Lamar, who is about as tolerable as a puppy with poor bladder control in a room with a 10,000 dollar rug. I mean, Johnny was a biker and Louis was an eager to get ahead guy, but in GTA V, there really aren't any minor potential characters to play as, unless they spin a story using Dave Norton, Lester and Ron, I doubt there's really any character who lives at the end of all three endings you could play as in a DLC.

That might be true at the end of the three endings, but again who says you have to play at the end of those storylines? GTA Iv you didn't. The Lost occurs right after Niko's encounter with Johnny, the Ballad occurs right when Niko and Packie are robbing the bank. So there isn't a rule there either. I'm having a hard time myself, but I trust R* writing. They'll figure it out and it will be at least acceptable. At least that is what my faith is saying.

I honestly think GTA IV is by far the worst GTA even with the DLC. Whatever the future is for V and it's DLC, it'll be better than that streamlined garbage that IV was. My biggest gaming disappointment ever are GTA IV. So much was cut from San Andreas it was disturbing. V is even still missing a lot of stuff like casinos/gambling, lack of interiors, no paramedic side missions, no ambulance missions, no vigilante (which IV had), gang wars is probably the biggest omission. There's all these activities, but what is so ironic is that GTA, a game about criminal activity, is severely lacking in criminal side activities. Yeah, we have triathlons, tennis, golf, yoga, parachuting, but where are all the criminal activities? San Andreas is still the definitive GTA as far as activities go. Vanilla IV was a travesty in that regard on top of a pathetic small map, no planes, smallest vehicle list from GTA III onward, color saturation was terrible, controls sluggish, etc. Yes, I despise IV. V is redemption thus far. No, I'm not done ranting. I'll add more later.

Edit: This is one reason why I say "Rockstar saved us". They redeemed themselves after I lost hope in them. Well, it started with RDR, but I enjoy V more solely because I prefer GTA era over westerns. The other main reason I say it is because someone was finally able to knock CoD and Activision off the throne. It took all console generation to do it, but at least Rockstar went out on top and not Activision.