Did GTA4 deserve the praise?

Hmm, I dislike both GTA4 and Uncharted 2. Both bored me to tears. I wont vote on that poll.

GTA4 was a chore to play through and the worst game I played in 2008. The game was incredibly repetitive and I got sick and tired of police chases that would never end (due to police officers spawning in front of me, in a linear road), car chases got old quickly, the characters were unlikable, the missions were bad, the story was meh, the gunplay was weak. The only thing it did right was the city everything else was terrible, and that was done really well, but even that is not enough to save this game from being bad, I would give the game a 4/10.

No. It had poorly executed story that take itself waaay too seriously, bad, ambiguous characters (hi Niko Bellic), stupid design choices (phone simulator), lackluster humour and music, and outdated sandbox game design. It still had its merits and wasn't a bad game, but I think a 7.5 is about right.

Yes, hundreds of independent reviewers didn't give it a 10 for nothing. This game is spectacular and rewarding on so many levels that just go completely over the head of most people here on SW.I could swear that if Zelda: OoT was released in 2008 it would receive the same amount of hate that IV does. That's the problem with the internet, every nut is given a platform to share his opinion.

Yes, hundreds of independent reviewers didn't give it a 10 for nothing. This game is spectacular and rewarding on so many levels that just go completely over the head of most people here on SW.I could swear that if Zelda: OoT was released in 2008 it would receive the same amount of hate that IV does. That's the problem with the internet, every nut is given a platform to share his opinion.

outatime557

So if I have an opinion that differs from you and a couple of reviewers, I am a nut?

Okay.

It didn't. It was the Swan Song of the previous generation and was a "10" in comparison to those, but it took a few steps backwards while dropping features.

and MGS4 is not a "10" either. If those are the games all other games must be compared to then something is wrong. they are great games with tremendous flaws.

No, it deserved a 8.5. Why? because it lacked some things that were givens. Stats such as fat and stanima, local multiplayer, real cheats, ability to fly the air planes. I'll admit that the lacking doesnt warrant 1.5 score being subtracted from the 10. But it is 8.5 instead of 9 because of some bugs that annoye me to death.

The story was good, the graphics were good in my opinion, I enjoyed ever second I played the game (I still play it), but it is just lacking too much.

The engine was well made.

... that's about it.

I believe it is a great game. I really like it, and the DLC for it.cainetao11

I know its cool to act like GTA 4 sucked and it was the worst GTA game so far, but GTA 4 is easily in my top 5 favorite games of all time. Everything about it was great. I remember stepping out of Roman's apartment for the first time and just being so amazed at how beautiful everything was and how realistic the city felt. I was actually very happy that Rockstar made GTA 4 more serious and realistic than past games. GTA 4 gave me a feeling while playing it that I have only experienced with two other games in my life (Zelda OOT and TES IV Oblivion). Just a feeling of awesomeness and immersiveness...thats the only way I can describe it.

Regardless of whether you enjoyed it or not I think it did. Pretty much a near-flawless game for what it set out to achieve and you get plenty of bang for your buck. I thought the story dragged on too much though, and I can never get passed a GTA game without cheating, the amount of times I got completely nuked and with no health kits in sight...eugh.

I love GTA 4, but I think critics were a little too easy on it. I think it is worthy of a 9.0-9.5. A lot of fun, decent cast of characters, with crappy ones here and there. Stupid cell phone gimmick was lame as hell. I do like how the cars control and act now though. millerlight89

I'm pretty harsh when it comes to scoring games but I ended up giving it a 9.5. Despite this fact, it did not win my personal game of the year, which was awarded to Fallout 3.

[QUOTE="millerlight89"][QUOTE="Kan0nF0dder"]People just love to bash GTA 4, I dunno why, the game was a goddam masterpiece. What's up with the poll options? GTA 4 and UC2 are the console games of the gen, it's not a question of which, it's both.Kan0nF0dder

The scale was actually a downgrade in comparison to the previous games, not to mention some more recent sandbox titles; the satire was also very poor compared to GTA 3 in particular; the gunplay was better than in the old games, but still quite lousy; a lot of the characters, including Niko Bellic, were either superficial or contradictory.

Certainly no 10/10 if you ask me.

GTA4 was a slap in the face to SA, no, it was Rockstar spiting in SA face.

Less area, less fun activities, less vehicles, more tedious ****** that no one wanted.

Pretty much loved GTA IV so yeah! :D

[QUOTE="Kan0nF0dder"][QUOTE="millerlight89"] Great game, but far from "masterpiece."DraugenCP

The scale was actually a downgrade in comparison to the previous games, not to mention some more recent sandbox titles; the satire was also very poor compared to GTA 3 in particular; the gunplay was better than in the old games, but still quite lousy; a lot of the characters, including Niko Bellic, were either superficial or contradictory.

Certainly no 10/10 if you ask me.

[QUOTE="MrSelf-Destruct"]I can understand if people like the game, but best in the series? Seriously? I just... I... Is this even real anymore? lolLto_thaG

Both UC2 and GTA4 didnt deserve the praise

*shrug* I've played every GTA since DMA's old top-downs, I disagree completely. GTA 4 is by far the best yet. What sand-box game has better shoot-outs/gunplay? There's nothing wrong with contradictions in characters such as Niko, it makes them more realistic. There's no way you can say the scale was downgrade from previous GTA's , even San Andreas was full of empty space. The radio satire might have been better in older GTAs but in all other places it's inferior.Kan0nF0dder

What sandbox game has better gunplay? Tons of FPS sandbox games like Arma 2, Crysis and Stalker. I realise this may be a bit of an unfair comparison, seeing as GTA is not centered mainly around the gunplay, but that doesn't change the fact that the action in GTA IV is far from amazing. It's functional and pretty good as far as the so-called 'crime simulators' go, but it's nothing mindblowing. The broken cover system didn't really help either.

It depends on if you mean scale as in pure space, or in terms of how well it's utilised. You seem to go for the latter definition, in which case GTA IV is indeed an improvement, but nothing amazing if you ask me. They did manage to make the city feel more alive, but still most of it seems pointless as soon as you finish the storyline.

The radio satire was downright pathetic except for the Fox spoof. But it didn't end there. The inherent flaw in the satirisation of American culture was that the game actually took itself seriously. If you look at GTA 3 and Vice City, the parodies and cultural references felt much stronger due to the over-the-top zaniness of the game. In my view, GTA IV tries to retain the same anarchistic wit while trying to be deep and political at the same time, resulting into unfunny Daily Show-esque attempts at humour that just made it feel like the developers tried too hard.

And I don't mean contradictory in terms of human hypocrisy, but in terms of what the writers were aiming for with a character like Bellic and how poorly it was executed. A lot of reviewers commented on he was more likeable than previous GTA protagonists. I actually disagree with this. I can see how the developers went for the 'nice guy' approach, yet Bellic spends most of the game carelessly killing people for money under the banner of some kind of debt. This also makes the simplistic moral choices lose a lot of their power. Why does the game force you to kill and harass people you have never met to progress the story, yet wants to make you think about your actions whenever things get personal? I remember not killing that Darko guy and Bernie telling me on the way back that 'I had a good heart'. Yeah, tell that to the dozens of people I had already killed in the game's storyline. I get that committing crime is kind of the point of the series, but Carl Johnson, to me, came across much more as the nice guy getting caught up in all kinds of problems against his will. Bellic just ssemed like a bipolar weirdo who'd commit cold blooded murder one moment, and turn into a sentimental crybaby the second. Not to mention that his superficial criticisms on American society felt awfully forced and out of place.

tl;dr I disagree

[QUOTE="Kan0nF0dder"]*shrug* I've played every GTA since DMA's old top-downs, I disagree completely. GTA 4 is by far the best yet. What sand-box game has better shoot-outs/gunplay? There's nothing wrong with contradictions in characters such as Niko, it makes them more realistic. There's no way you can say the scale was downgrade from previous GTA's , even San Andreas was full of empty space. The radio satire might have been better in older GTAs but in all other places it's inferior.DraugenCP

What sandbox game has better gunplay? Tons of FPS sandbox games like Arma 2, Crysis and Stalker. I realise this may be a bit of an unfair comparison, seeing as GTA is not centered mainly around the gunplay, but that doesn't change the fact that the action in GTA IV is far from amazing. It's functional and pretty good as far as the so-called 'crime simulators' go, but it's nothing mindblowing. The broken cover system didn't really help either.

It depends on if you mean scale as in pure space, or in terms of how well it's utilised. You seem to go for the latter definition, in which case GTA IV is indeed an improvement, but nothing amazing if you ask me. They did manage to make the city feel more alive, but still most of it seems pointless as soon as you finish the storyline.

The radio satire was downright pathetic except for the Fox spoof. But it didn't end there. The inherent flaw in the satirisation of American culture was that the game actually took itself seriously. If you look at GTA 3 and Vice City, the parodies and cultural references felt much stronger due to the over-the-top zaniness of the game. In my view, GTA IV tries to retain the same anarchistic wit while trying to be deep and political at the same time, resulting into unfunny Daily Show-esque attempts at humour that just made it feel like the developers tried too hard.

And I don't mean contradictory in terms of human hypocrisy, but in terms of what the writers were aiming for with a character like Bellic and how poorly it was executed. A lot of reviewers commented on he was more likeable than previous GTA protagonists. I actually disagree with this. I can see how the developers went for the 'nice guy' approach, yet Bellic spends most of the game carelessly killing people for money under the banner of some kind of debt. This also makes the simplistic moral choices lose a lot of their power. Why does the game force you to kill and harass people you have never met to progress the story, yet wants to make you think about your actions whenever things get personal? I remember not killing that Darko guy and Bernie telling me on the way back that 'I had a good heart'. Yeah, tell that to the dozens of people I had already killed in the game's storyline. I get that committing crime is kind of the point of the series, but Carl Johnson, to me, came across much more as the nice guy getting caught up in all kinds of problems against his will. Bellic just ssemed like a bipolar weirdo who'd commit cold blooded murder one moment, and turn into a sentimental crybaby the second. Not to mention that his superficial criticisms on American society felt awfully forced and out of place.

tl;dr I disagree

gta 4 is a 6 for me, it was mostly boring. it's sad since san andreas is my favourite game ever

No. More like a 9 or an 8.5. No way does it deserve an AAAA. It took out features that were in San Andreas. Reviewers just got excited when they saw GTA in HD.

It's brilliant IMO.

Regarding the last paragraph, for me Niko was far more likable than CJ - perhaps it's a cultural thing, me being a Brit, but the gang-banger constantly came across as a fairly detestable person, where as Niko the eastern-euro immigrant hit-man was far more easy to identify with and find sympathy for, even as a murderous, bipolar scumbag :P

You say the satire's main flaw is that it took itself too seriously, it almost seems like you found it slightly offensive? Cause I came to same conclusion at times - it definitely seemed a little forced/like the writer's were trying too hard - but that I figured was mainly down to the fact that there was so much of it - and that it's a game, not a comedy show. e.g. "**** we've still got to cover 1hrs worth of TV and we're all out of ideas".

Overall, I found it's black comedy better than the previous GTAs for sure. The 3 games you mentioned as competition for gunplay are PC based FPSs. I did actually say in my first post in this thread that I agreed it was one of the CONSOLE games of the gen. On top of that, I'm still not seeing them recreate Heat-like shootouts like you get from GTA, with flowing gunplay that allows you to keep on the move and kill in satisfying ways.Kan0nF0dder

I don't think it's a cultural thing. I'm Dutch, so all that gangbanging bull doesn't appeal to me either. CJ was kind of different than most of the people he hung out with, though. I thought that was what made him likeable. Niko Bellic... not so much. Don't get me wrong, I love Eastern-Europeans, but Bellic was too Hollywoodesque and ambiguous to appeal to me.

I don't find the criticism offensive at all. If anything, I actually agree with what was being said to an even larger extent. The thing that bothered me was how it was delivered. Bellic seemed to have a clear set of moral ideas that set him apart from previous GTA protagonists, yet nowhere in the game does his behaviour actually differ much from the previous GTA protagonists - the no-brainer moral choices excluded.

Yes, I did say it was an unfair comparison, but you asked for sandbox games in general, so I felt the need to at least mention them. Whether it is on a console or not doesn't really matter: I still find the gunplay rather weak, and my reasons for thinking so have nothing to do with hardware limitations, but rather with weak AI, poor sound effects, and an overall lack of juiciness. It wasn't bad (especially in comparison to previous GTAs), but it just wasn't as magnificent as you and many reviewers make it out to be. It has its moments, mainly due to the player being able to use the environments to make for some fun chase sequences, but they never last too long on me.

And I don't know if that last comment refers to the games I mentioned, but if it does, I doubt you have played these games much. It's hard to compare them, as their aim is radically different, but as far as action goes, GTA IV doesn't even come close to these games.

For its time it easily deserves at least a 9.5. For its time giving it a 10 isn't really overrating it, either. Easy to look back now and hate on it, eh?

For its time it easily deserves at least a 9.5. For its time giving it a 10 isn't really overrating it, either. Easy to look back now and hate on it, eh?

AktionJakson

I don't think standards have changed too much over the past few years, especially not on consoles.

[QUOTE="AktionJakson"]

For its time it easily deserves at least a 9.5. For its time giving it a 10 isn't really overrating it, either. Easy to look back now and hate on it, eh?

DraugenCP

I don't think standards have changed too much over the past few years, especially not on consoles.

Yes they have. Games ported to another system a year later that are the same exact game score usually at least .5 lower. GTA4 was easily head and shoulders above anything else like it in terms of immersion, the world, value, and fun at the time.

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

[QUOTE="AktionJakson"]

For its time it easily deserves at least a 9.5. For its time giving it a 10 isn't really overrating it, either. Easy to look back now and hate on it, eh?

AktionJakson

I don't think standards have changed too much over the past few years, especially not on consoles.

Yes they have. Games ported to another system a year later that are the same exact game score usually at least .5 lower. GTA4 was easily head and shoulders above anything else like it in terms of immersion, the world, value, and fun at the time.

That can also be attributed to the simple fact that many reviewers treat ports as a rerelease and will judge it based on how well it was ported rather than how good the actual game is. In any case, there are games older than GTA IV that receive a lot of praise here at SW, so it's way too easy to simply blame it on evolving standards. Not to mention that there's no way that 3 years can turn an allegedly perfect game into an allegedly bad one: people who have been sceptical have probably been it from the start.

And I very much disagree with that last statement.

No. I find it hilarious how ( insert other game here ) gets bashed relentlessly for being repetitive or for not being innovative enough while GTA 4 can come out and be grossly identical to the ones before it and get 10's from pretty much everywhere with no mention of how it's basically GTA 3.5 with better visuals.

Missions are the same derivitive crap. Generic crap. Go kill this guy, go steal this car, go dump this body etc etc. Sure, its fun but don't try to tell me with a straight face that it is AT ALL something i have not done for 3 games already.

You could probably remaster stuff from the first 3 games, release it as a DLC for GTA4 and people wouldn't even notice they had already played that content before. Thats how identical it is.

[QUOTE="AktionJakson"]

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

I don't think standards have changed too much over the past few years, especially not on consoles.

DraugenCP

Yes they have. Games ported to another system a year later that are the same exact game score usually at least .5 lower. GTA4 was easily head and shoulders above anything else like it in terms of immersion, the world, value, and fun at the time.

That can also be attributed to the simple fact that many reviewers treat ports as a rerelease and will judge it based on how well it was ported rather than how good the actual game is. In any case, there are games older than GTA IV that receive a lot of praise here at SW, so it's way too easy to simply blame it on evolving standards. Not to mention that there's no way that 3 years can turn an allegedly perfect game into an allegedly bad one: people who have been sceptical have probably been it from the start.

And I very much disagree with that last statement.

lol

They treat a port as a release, but review it based on how well it was ported? Haha

You're missing the point completely. The question is if GTA4 deserved its praise, not if its standing the test of time. Reviews are based completely on standards for their time. It basically evelated sandbox games to the next level, and that's irrefutable.. just go and read the actual reviews, because that's what this thread is about.

To be honest, what would had given this game a tenfor me is just 3 things.

• Fly-able air planes, not just helicopters (and Im talking about the console verson of GTA IV, 360 to be honest, so I dont know anything about the pc verson; such as mods)
• more than one air port
• just like how you could do missions in a cop car by using its computer, I would had liked it if I could had done mission in the taxi car and ambulance, maybe even the buses (which I hated it how the buses were never opperating, the only time they were opperating was when you were doing missions where they were susposed to be obsticals)

Most overrated game this generation. Game felt like work about half way through. KC_Hokie

lol

They treat a port as a release, but review it based on how well it was ported? Haha

You're missing the point completely. The question is if GTA4 deserved its praise, not if its standing the test of time. Reviews are based completely on standards for their time. It basically evelated sandbox games to the next level, and that's irrefutable.. just go and read the actual reviews, because that's what this thread is about.

AktionJakson

What I meant with that is that the reviewers often do not talk about the game itself, but rather how it compares to the original. Questions such as "is this version worth getting if you've already played the original?" and "is this version suitable for newcomers?" are often central in such reviews. Take FEAR 1 on PC and 360, for example. The 360 version was released a year later and got .5 less. Was it because the game wasn't as good in 2006 as it was in 2005? Apparently not, because the complaints were mainly directed at problems with the 360-version.

And I think you're the one who's missing the point here. You said that it's easy to look back and hate on the game, as if it turned into a crap game in a few years, while that simply isn't true. And to say it evelated sandbox games is simply not true. How can it when it has the same core gameplay as GTA 3? The design actually feels very outdated for a sandbox game: you take the mission, game puts you in a more contextually confined version of the game world, you either complete the mission or die after which you return to free roaming mode. I'd say that a game like Oblivion (2006) works far better as a sandbox experience, as do Crysis (2007) and Stalker (2007). To say GTA IV elevated sandbox gaming is far from irrefutable as it sticks to an archaic template that less and less games used even in those days.

ugh

I said when the same exact games are ported, meaning not shoddy ports.

Did I ever say 'as if it turned into a crap game in a few years'? No.

FPS games are still using the same 'design', but clearly a lot of them are different are they not? Compared to previous sandbox games, GTA4 had revolutionary environments, physics, combat, and most importantly immersion. The reviews and people all said the same thing, it felt alive and like a real city. The sound, graphics, scale, all those things attributed to an experience FOR THAT TIME that made it very very believable.

My point is if you're going to determine if GTA4 deserved its praise, you have to remember the era. In boxing there's an all time great system which functions the same way. The greatest figher of all time fought in 40s and he's ranked the highest because of the dominance of his era. Nobody seems to think outisde the box on video game forums, but that's also the reason I don't post so often here. : )

I personally think it deserved AAA, becuse compared to the previous GTA, the contents on this one is much lesser.