I had a lot of problems with the GTA games. Here's one: I would start a mission and the first and the first task would be "Drive to location X" and then I would have to drive there, and not 'crazy mayhem' drive there, but 'careful don't piss off the cops' drive there, and after that, then I would start the actual action part of the mission. Then when I failed I would have to the non-action, non challenging driving part again. Some of GTA IV's missions allowed you to take a taxi to the action part of the mission, which is an improvement, but I still had to find a taxi get in, wait through the loading screen, get out, probably steal a getaway car, and run to the real mission start. Well over a minute long process.
So here's my idea: Missions where the action starts when the mission starts and a f**king checkpoint system. This allows for longer more involved and challenging missions, and gets rid of some of the tedious traveling. In fact missions that don't involve any tedious traveling would be awesome, but god forbid they put some thought into mission design.
Also I want to be able to select previously completed missions from a menu, because some of the missions are really fun and worth a second or third play, but not fun enough to warrant playing the entire game again for.
Also How bout a new setting. Lots have said london, and I'd be all for that. Someone also suggested a 5th element like future city which would be awesome. Or the 70's could be fun, I just want something new.
I'm ready for the game to pick a side. Be immature and violent and f-bomb happy and satirical like San Andreas or mature the f**k up and stop sounding like you were written by a 14 year old boy with a cursory knowledge of Steinbeck novel. Offensive stereotypes does not automatically equal brilliant satire, and it certainly doesn't help if you're trying to tell a serious story. (which IV was?) Bad writing plagues this series but at least before IV it felt like it was intentionally bad. It was going for a certain feel and it achieved it though its bad writing. It was a tongue in cheek kind of offensive(almost effective satire even). IV was just offensive. (But we were all desensitized to it, and it was even toned back from SA so its not like it was really offensive.)