What is your problem with GTA IV?

Some might say the series needed to be "slimmed down" or "focused". To that, I say: GTA isn't about that, it's about MORE, MORE, and MORE, period. GTA was never bloated to begin with. Mordred19

To be fair, ever since the first iteration, GTA has gotten progressively focussed.

In the first two games, all you needed to do was smash into cars and blow them up, run over pedestrains, and your bank account would collect so much moolah it was amazing you were still alive after all that carnage. If you thought GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas was fun because it had those crazy elements, GTA 1 & 2 was video gaming nirvana.

But the GTA III series got more mission-focussed, and the craziness from the PSX versions were toned down. The main reason GTA III was praised despite being less than its predecessors? It's irreverent humour, great story, great characters (Vice City had even better characters and story which was noted by critics and fans) and it had the benefit of being the first 3D GTA; it was the closest thing we had to a living city in a video game.

It's no surprise then, that GTA IV has continued that route of getting more realistic and more focussed. The reason it is praised? Great story, great characters, and it's the closest thing we have to a living, breathing city in a game yet.

Oh yes, having to juggle mulitple friendships was annoying. VERY annoying.

Mordred19

You need to play more Sims. I'm doing rather well with juggling friendships. My sister is an absolute master at cheating on multiple women and keeping them at the same time. That's while she's progressing through the main game :P.

I dont' think they should have removed any of the features that San Andreas excelled with. In 4, we only get 1 pair of good sunglasses, and they're not that great either. :P Taking away so many options like clothing, tattoos, hairstyles, and car mods/customization. What is Niko supposed to do with all that money if he can't buy new places to stay? I mean, I love the auto save, but I also like manually saving, and being able to conveniently manage multiple save files.

Some might say the series needed to be "slimmed down" or "focused". To that, I say: GTA isn't about that, it's about MORE, MORE, and MORE, period. GTA was never bloated to begin with.

Hey, the gunplay is awesome, and the shooting action is made into one of the most satisfying and visceral experiences thanks to the Euphoria engine, but the rest of the city you're in feels a bit shallow without the things SA introduced.

Oh yes, having to juggle mulitple friendships was annoying. VERY annoying.

There is a reason for everything. I say it was multiplat development. >_>

Mordred19

The only thing that I'm happy they removed is the gym. I mean, losing stamina and all that was just as annoying as getting multiple calls from your 'friends' (who can't take a hint) in GTAIV.

GTA is about MORE. I agree. I don't get why more means less realistic, it doesn't have to be, and it shouldn't matter anyway if more = fun, which it does. GTA has always been about longevity to me and this one won't have the amount that the past versions did I feel.

Multiplat development is probably the reason. They played it safe to acquire a new fanbase, and I'm really hoping I'm wrong about this, but I think the DLC might add what was taken out from SA. Could be wrong though cause Houser has only hinted at side missions, but that really wouldn't justify a purchase of the DLC imo.

If the DLC was car customistion that would totaly fn rock! Thats whats missing. Your theories about why IV is so watered down are pretty good. What I think is that 3 years, er 36 months isnt that long for a game thats GTA quality. That isnt enough time i dont think to be starting from scratch. Vice to SA took only 2 years, but it was on the same system gen. And had a lot of the same charecter modles that they could just pull over. I expect a new GTA quicker than anyone expects.

EDIT: yes i totall agree with Mordred19 about the Euphora Engine. Its like R* just stopped and amired what the engine could do and never really started again. The veichle crashes are great! And the money system is stupid. each death costs like 10K. Thats all you can buy, to be revived.

To be fair, ever since the first iteration, GTA has gotten progressively focussed.

In the first two games, all you needed to do was smash into cars and blow them up, run over pedestrains, and your bank account would collect so much moolah it was amazing you were still alive after all that carnage. If you thought GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas was fun because it had those crazy elements, GTA 1 & 2 was video gaming nirvana.

But the GTA III series got more mission-focussed, and the craziness from the PSX versions were toned down. The main reason GTA III was praised despite being less than its predecessors? It's irreverent humour, great story, great characters (Vice City had even better characters and story which was noted by critics and fans) and it had the benefit of being the first 3D GTA; it was the closest thing we had to a living city in a video game.

It's no surprise then, that GTA IV has continued that route of getting more realistic and more focussed. The reason it is praised? Great story, great characters, and it's the closest thing we have to a living, breathing city in a game yet.

FrozenLiquid

How was SA more focused than the older versions? It added heaps, even VC added a lot of what was missing in GTA III. GTA IV was a step back in additions which could have made the game more enjoyable.

There's nothing wrong with making the game more realistic. I think that's great, but it doesn't mean they should cut back on additions which increase the longevity of the game.

While the game feels like a jump forward in many areas, it also feels like a step back in quite a few, and I never got that feeling with GTA III, VC, or SA, and I've played all 3 for more than 100 hours at least.

@ Big Smoke and Liquid:

I mean, why can't Niko swim underwater, customise his cars, get tattoos etc, none of that is unrealistic. It's something that was expected in this and while we got some great new additions like the phone and GPS etc, none of those are exactly essential to the game's funfactor, and that is what should be the most important thing.

the-very-best

To be honest I think the customization in San Andreas was only truly effective for that San Andreas MMO on the PC.

About 'toning it down to get a new fanbase' -- San Andreas is the biggest selling GTA III chapter, no? Then obviously it's not about gaining a new fanbase.

And in fact, the sim aspect of it pretty much got my sister and all the Sims fanbase hooked onto GTA. So yeah, I don't think it was to attract a bigger fanbase.

If the DLC was car customistion that would totaly fn rock! Thats whats missing. Your theories about why IV is so watered down are pretty good. What I think is that 3 years, er 36 months isnt that long for a game thats GTA quality. That isnt enough time i dont think to be starting from scratch. Vice to SA took only 2 years, but it was on the same system gen. And had a lot of the same charecter modles that they could just pull over. I expect a new GTA quicker than anyone expects.LOXO7

lol, but why should we have to pay extra for car customisation, something that was already in the GTA series... last gen.

I think we'll get a new GTA in 2 years and they'll probably just update from everything that was set out by GTAIV, and since the game is so graphically beautiful, I have no concerns about the presentation, just the fun factor/longevity. Hopefully it's set in VC and adds everything that was missing from GTAIV.

[QUOTE="the-very-best"]@ Big Smoke and Liquid:

I mean, why can't Niko swim underwater, customise his cars, get tattoos etc, none of that is unrealistic. It's something that was expected in this and while we got some great new additions like the phone and GPS etc, none of those are exactly essential to the game's funfactor, and that is what should be the most important thing.

FrozenLiquid

To be honest I think the customization in San Andreas was only truly effective for that San Andreas MMO on the PC.

About 'toning it down to get a new fanbase' -- San Andreas is the biggest selling GTA III chapter, no? Then obviously it's not about gaining a new fanbase.

And in fact, the sim aspect of it pretty much got my sister and all the Sims fanbase hooked onto GTA. So yeah, I don't think it was to attract a bigger fanbase.

Well, I had SA on PS2 and loved the car customisation. Of course, my cars kept disappearing from the garages, but I had a lot of cash (just like I do now in GTAIV, except I've got nothing to spend it on).

SA is the biggest selling and also the most contested, quality-wise, in the GTA fanbase. VC is the most highly praised and that one had the best story, so I can understand why they went for focus on story/characters in GTAIV, but they forgot all about replay value unfortunately. VC had property buying too. I just don't get why they took that out. And all the other cool things too...

I'm fine with GTA being more like the Sims. Your friends need to call a bit less, but otherwise, since I like the Sims itself, I like simulation in GTA.

My main gripes with the game so far (just finished the first part of the city)

1. missions haven't been very fun or interesting
2. restarting missions from the beginning is frustrating
3. controls and combat feel clumsy and the camera is a little wonky

I am disappointed so far , but I am going to play through the next section of the city/story and see if I start liking the game more.

They went too far down the realism route and it took out a lot of the fun for me. If I wanted to go bowling, get drunk or any of that other ****, I'd do it with my real friends. I don't need it in my games aswell.

They also took out far too much from previous games, like flying planes, buying businesses, parachuting etc. The game feels bare bones. I preferred the crazy GTA to this realistic, dull one.

Repetitive missions aswell. I've tried really hard to complete this game 100% but I just can't bring myself to play it for more than 20 minutes at a time now that the story is done.

you know what i really want car customisation but i would settle for being able to drive into a respray shop and picking the colour i want my car to be instead of having to drive in back out drive in again untill i get my desired colour that to me is something that should be fixed. . .

and on the subject of realism . . . what sort of city has a gun-ship with 4 mounted mini guns on it thats flown around like a comercial chopper? surely they could have atleast put a tank or even a water firing APC in. . .

My main gripes with the game so far (just finished the first part of the city)

1. missions haven't been very fun or interesting
2. controls and combat feel clumsy and the camera is a little wonky

I am disappointed so far , but I am going to play through the next section of the city/story and see if I start liking the game more.

Nike_Air

You will like the game more, the story gets great from the 2nd island and onwards. You'll get used to the controls eventually (took way too long to get used to them though) but you'll probably find yourself missing some aspects of the game that were present from the last entry. Also, all that money you garner is useless unfortunately since there's nothing to spend it on after the story is over.

How was SA more focused than the older versions? It added heaps, even VC added a lot of what was missing in GTA III. GTA IV was a step back in additions which could have made the game more enjoyable.

There's nothing wrong with making the game more realistic. I think that's great, but it doesn't mean they should cut back on additions which increase the longevity of the game.

While the game feels like a jump forward in many areas, it also feels like a step back in quite a few, and I never got that feeling with GTA III, VC, or SA, and I've played all 3 for more than 100 hours at least.

the-very-best

Vice City and San Andreas aren't sequels. They're part of the GTA III series. It uses the GTA III formula and of course expands with each successor.

I've heard the complaint that GTA IV is smaller in scale to San Andreas. Legitimiate complaint? Maybe. But why wasn't anyone complaining that GTA III only takes place in Liberty City, compared to Liberty City, Vice City and San Andreas in the first game?

The first GTA game had multiplayer. San Andreas had co-op, and only GTA IV introduced a multiplayer created by Rockstar. See, GTA III took a step back in terms of scale and what it had going for it compared to the original GTA. Another example is the gang system. GTA 2's system was conceptually better in that the gangs would turn in favour in how you played the game. In GTA III, it's fundamentally tied to the story i.e who's missions you undertake, correct? After X amount of missions, rival gang members would shoot you no questions asked. In a way, that system is more archaic. Why is it more acclaimed than the first game though? I kinda don't want to repeat myself, but you know what I'm going to say.

Think of GTA IV as a foundation for the new generation of GTA games, much like the original GTA III. Once the fundamentals are set up, the new additions come with the new chapters.

GTA V for the next generation of systems will once again be taken to the drawing board, remove some features, and add all new ones. The whole process recycles itself.

It isn't "Grand Theft Auto." It isn't quirky, styIish or cartoony. It went all "gritty" and "real" and left out a lot of the gameplay elements that made all the previous GTA's enjoyable. Instead of giving the player the ability to do what they want when they want (a large sandbox full of loads of digging tools, trucks and other sand toys), it has gone for more of a cinematic narrative that forces the player to pay attention to the extraordinarily cliched characters and story (a smaller sandbox with a pail and shovel).

I wanted to mess around when I first tried it (a friend's already through a portion of the game file)... but was constantly bombarded by text messages and phone calls from people who wanted to hang out. I just wanted to go on a killing spree but my phone just kept ringing. The city also doesn't seem as open or as good for crime sprees.

My favourite thing about the GTA games is having epic rampages and car chases. Vice City made them the most fun and the best. When I tried to get a police chase going in GTAIV I could never find a place that made it fun or exhilarating and the cops would always lose me before I could get above three stars (unless I used cheats to get big guns to blow stuff up with).

I don't like where the series went with San Andreas... but at least San Andreas had an assload of other stuff to do besides the story.
foxhound_fox

Right. It's like Rockstar forgot that they were making a sandbox game. They've always been the leader of the pack imo, so I don't get why they needed to play the game down to fit in with what every other game is doing.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with going for a more realistic route as long as it doesn't get rid of so many things to do in the game, which were taken out of GTAIV for some odd reason. It's like they tried to scale down the fun. The worst part about all this is that no reviewer picked up on the flaws so I wouldn't be surprised if we got them again in the next entry.

They went too far down the realism route and it took out a lot of the fun for me. If I wanted to go bowling, get drunk or any of that other ****, I'd do it with my real friends. I don't need it in my games aswell.

They also took out far too much from previous games, like flying planes, buying businesses, parachuting etc. The game feels bare bones. I preferred the crazy GTA to this realistic, dull one.

Repetitive missions aswell. I've tried really hard to complete this game 100% but I just can't bring myself to play it for more than 20 minutes at a time now that the story is done.

BZSIN

How is buying businesses/properties etc, unrealistic? That's something that happens in the real world so I don't get why it was taken out. It's more fun to have it in, and games are about fun.

Also, bowling/drinking is fun once. Maybe twice. That's it.

Lol. One of my pet peevs* from SA was that it seemed like if you walked on the sidewalk every MOT#&*@(#~! car would honk its horn. now this is a little off topic, but it kindof gets at the "city is really detailed" part. Now in IV. while driving, if you would nearly hit a ped, they would yell either one of two words,"####!" I didnt like the car horns, and i dont like hearing that same word from everyone in the city. I liked Kane and Lynch, but it did have WAY to much f bombs. Unnessassary. Could Liberty City just be at least a little more varyied? IDK.

People also carried things, but before you'd even touch them they'd drop it. I kindof wish they had a button that pushes asside people, like in AC. lol. but you can't have everything.

Oh, and the gangs in SA sucked, so I'm glad that was taken out too. Gangs and Gyms. That's it. Everything else should have returned.

Vice City and San Andreas aren't sequels. They're part of the GTA III series. It uses the GTA III formula and of course expands with each successor.

I've heard the complaint that GTA IV is smaller in scale to San Andreas. Legitimiate complaint? Maybe. But why wasn't anyone complaining that GTA III only takes place in Liberty City, compared to Liberty City, Vice City and San Andreas in the first game?

The first GTA game had multiplayer. San Andreas had co-op, and only GTA IV introduced a multiplayer created by Rockstar. See, GTA III took a step back in terms of scale and what it had going for it compared to the original GTA. Another example is the gang system. GTA 2's system was conceptually better in that the gangs would turn in favour in how you played the game. In GTA III, it's fundamentally tied to the story i.e who's missions you undertake, correct? After X amount of missions, rival gang members would shoot you no questions asked. In a way, that system is more archaic. Why is it more acclaimed than the first game though? I kinda don't want to repeat myself, but you know what I'm going to say.

Think of GTA IV as a foundation for the new generation of GTA games, much like the original GTA III. Once the fundamentals are set up, the new additions come with the new chapters.

GTA V for the next generation of systems will once again be taken to the drawing board, remove some features, and add all new ones. The whole process recycles itself.

FrozenLiquid

Except that while GTAIII took out so much, it still retained the epicness of GTA, it was both crazy and gritty at the same time. GTAIV is only gritty and while they could have turned the crazy aspects (like planes) into something realistic, they just took it out entirely. Not to mention property, tattoos, car customisation, hair/clothes styling, swimming underwater etc, NONE of which are unrealistic.

I am hoping you are right about the new additions in the next GTA and do think you are, but I still feel too much was removed from GTAIV and the additions weren't enough to get rid of that feeling of too much being taken out.

[QUOTE="BZSIN"]

They went too far down the realism route and it took out a lot of the fun for me. If I wanted to go bowling, get drunk or any of that other ****, I'd do it with my real friends. I don't need it in my games aswell.

They also took out far too much from previous games, like flying planes, buying businesses, parachuting etc. The game feels bare bones. I preferred the crazy GTA to this realistic, dull one.

Repetitive missions aswell. I've tried really hard to complete this game 100% but I just can't bring myself to play it for more than 20 minutes at a time now that the story is done.

the-very-best

How is buying businesses/properties etc, unrealistic? That's something that happens in the real world so I don't get why it was taken out. It's more fun to have it in, and games are about fun.

Also, bowling/drinking is fun once. Maybe twice. That's it.

I know, it sucks. SA wasn't my favourite story wise or character wise (it had its moments) but I was still going back to it a year after it came out because there was an absolute assload of stuff you could do. I could spend ages in the casinos gambling my millions away or just going for a mess around on the jetpack or whatever.

Well BlackBond's first problem with GTAIV is this. Well um its not really a problem with GTAIV its a problem with BlackBond. GTA games really just don't appeal to BlackBond but I enjoyed GTAIV and I'd give it an 8.5 and that's a great score coming from someone who doesn't like these kind of games.

BlackBond's issues

1. Why doesn't the camera remain fixed behind your car? Why should I have to manually manipulate a camera while driving?
2. The cover mechanics are sloppy. They aren't on par with Rainbow Six Vegas let alone Gears of War.
3. Lack of Weapon Variety.
4. Like Zelda money is kinda useless and has no real importance but to buy minor equipment.
5. Fighting mechanics revolve around shooting and melee. There could have been something more. I mean hell even True Crime Streets of L.A had better Melee imo.
6. Lack of Gang/Turf Presense. I remember past games where you didn't want to roll into the wrong neighborhood and mess up because certain people ran certain places. I don't think I ever got into anything more then a scuffle with any citizens.
7. I never even bothered driving from place to place to do a mission. I always just took the Cab and hit start. They didn't make the City into something I would have liked to drive though. Rather they made it something I found it to be a chore to drive though.
8. The whole Darko thing was stupid. $1000. Thats it? Here I expected something epic to unfold something with an effect as dramatic as when Travis met his brother in No More Heroes. The Darko thing was a joke.
9. And the Diamonds are a main focal point? Man that snuck up and bit me in the but. Really they should have made it more of a big deal if it was the main focal point to so many links.

Other then that I believe the game is solid.

I've never played a GTA game all the way through. So i don't really know how IV stacks up to the rest. But the main thing i don't like about this game is the fact that i litterally cannot play it for more than an hour at a time. I don't know what it is, but i just get so bored after an hour.

The first hour i played the game I hung out with my cousin for 25 minutes and then went bowling with a girl named michelle. The game is just so uneventful. I've maybe put 4 hours into the game and I just dread playing it again. In the back of my mind, i'd love to give it another try, but another part of me just wants to give up on it.

If the game didnt feel like a giant chore i might be more inclined to play it again.

I know, it sucks. SA wasn't my favourite story wise or character wise (it had its moments) but I was still going back to it a year after it came out because there was an absolute assload of stuff you could do. I could spend ages in the casinos gambling my millions away or just going for a mess around on the jetpack or whatever.

BZSIN

SA wasn't my favourite story-wise either. Honestly, I can't remember much from it at all. The sheer longevity of the game and replay value due to stuff like casinos, planes, property etc was what made the game memorable for me.

GTAIV could have had an excellent story AND great longevity but it only has one of those, and it is the one that is less important for a GTA game.

Except that while GTAIII took out so much, it still retained the epicness of GTA, it was both crazy and gritty at the same time. GTAIV is only gritty and while they could have turned the crazy aspects (like planes) into something realistic, they just took it out entirely. Not to mention property, tattoos, car customisation, hair/clothes styling, swimming underwater etc, NONE of which are unrealistic.

I am hoping you are right about the new additions in the next GTA and do think you are, but I still feel too much was removed from GTAIV and the additions weren't enough to get rid of that feeling of too much being taken out.

the-very-best

To be honest I've only ever fully played Vice City and Liberty City Stories in the GTA III series, but I've played both the first two GTA games.

Honestly, GTA III didn't feel as epic as the original GTA (GTA 2 was some other random city/state). Liberty City didn't feel that big, though in compensation it was incredibly detailed at the time. San Andreas was the closest, but you have to play the original game to get a true feel for how big it was.

If you want crazy, you still don't know the original GTA. You can download it free from Rockstar I've heard. GTA III/GTA IV took out multipliers, and multipliers just made the game extremely crazy sexy fun. I think it was GTA 2 where racking up all the multipliers with your car then smacking an Elvis guy on the street brought up a hilarious "He's left the building" message.

I think it was San Andreas in which my friend show me his six star assault. All he did was hide in some sort of parking complex, and use the A.I stupidity to their disadvantage, only coming out after five minutes of picking off the SWAT teams and then trying his luck getting in a Rhino and getting out of there, only to die from being outgunned. Apparently that was "crazy".

You should hope. I know. I saw GTA 3 turn into a beautiful "inferior" game from GTA 1/2 (I was too young at the time to appreciate the maturity of the game, and then by the time I got round to it was old enough to see the immaturity underneath it all), but then, as I studied media production, and currently am part of that system, I understood the processes it takes to make a piece of entertainment, and I appreciate what they've created in this day and age.

GTA IV is no small feat, and to be honest I feel sorry for R* for getting the whiplash by hardcore gamers. They probably don't feel sorry for themselves though. As well as knowing they did their best with their latest game, they're laughing all the way to the bank. That's the best situation to be in as a media producer.

Well BlackBond's first problem with GTAIV is this. Well um its not really a problem with GTAIV its a problem with BlackBond. GTA games really just don't appeal to BlackBond but I enjoyed GTAIV and I'd give it an 8.5 and that's a great score coming from someone who doesn't like these kind of games.

BlackBond's issues

1. Why doesn't the camera remain fixed behind your car? Why should I have to manually manipulate a camera while driving?
2. The cover mechanics are sloppy. They aren't on par with Rainbow Six Vegas let alone Gears of War.
3. Lack of Weapon Variety.
4. Like Zelda money is kinda useless and has no real importance but to buy minor equipment.
5. Fighting mechanics revolve around shooting and melee. There could have been something more. I mean hell even True Crime Streets of L.A had better Melee imo.
6. Lack of Gang/Turf Presense. I remember past games where you didn't want to roll into the wrong neighborhood and mess up because certain people ran certain places. I don't think I ever got into anything more then a scuffle with any citizens.
7. I never even bothered driving from place to place to do a mission. I always just took the Cab and hit start. They didn't make the City into something I would have liked to drive though. Rather they made it something I found it to be a chore to drive though.
8. The whole Darko thing was stupid. $1000. Thats it? Here I expected something epic to unfold something with an effect as dramatic as when Travis met his brother in No More Heroes. The Darko thing was a joke.
9. And the Diamonds are a main focal point? Man that snuck up and bit me in the but. Really they should have made it more of a big deal if it was the main focal point to so many links.

Other then that I believe the game is solid.

Blackbond

I agree with most of that except I didn't really have an issue with the camera like most are, and gangs were annoying in SA so I'm glad they took that out.

The city feels empty at times, I agree with you. I think it's simply because there is not really much to do in it. I love exploring the cities in GTA games but I usually get sidetracked doing something else in the city... I didn't get sidetracked in GTAIV cause there isn't much to do once the story is over, and all that money is useless.

GTAIV could have had an excellent story AND great longevity but it only has one of those, and it is the one that is less important for a GTA game.

the-very-best

That right there is the most important statement both R* and video game fans need to agree upon.

With every iteration R* have become more focussed on the story and its characters. From the arcade roots of GTA, to the very tightly-scripted GTA IV that borders on cinematic obsession, it's obvious where R* thinks that story is more important to them.

What I suggest is that GTA fans step out and address those issues before the GTA series turns into some sort of visual novel.

To be honest I've only ever fully played Vice City and Liberty City Stories in the GTA III series, but I've played both the first two GTA games.

Honestly, GTA III didn't feel as epic as the original GTA (GTA 2 was some other random city/state). Liberty City didn't feel that big, though in compensation it was incredibly detailed at the time. San Andreas was the closest, but you have to play the original game to get a true feel for how big it was.

If you want crazy, you still don't know the original GTA. You can download it free from Rockstar I've heard. GTA III/GTA IV took out multipliers, and multipliers just made the game extremely crazy sexy fun. I think it was GTA 2 where racking up all the multipliers with your car then smacking an Elvis guy on the street brought up a hilarious "He's left the building" message.

I think it was San Andreas in which my friend show me his six star assault. All he did was hide in some sort of parking complex, and use the A.I stupidity to their disadvantage, only coming out after five minutes of picking off the SWAT teams and then trying his luck getting in a Rhino and getting out of there, only to die from being outgunned. Apparently that was "crazy".

You should hope. I know. I saw GTA 3 turn into a beautiful "inferior" game from GTA 1/2 (I was too young at the time to appreciate the maturity of the game, and then by the time I got round to it was old enough to see the immaturity underneath it all), but then, as I studied media production, and currently am part of that system, I understood the processes it takes to make a piece of entertainment, and I appreciate what they've created in this day and age.

GTA IV is no small feat, and to be honest I feel sorry for R* for getting the whiplash by hardcore gamers. They probably don't feel sorry for themselves though. As well as knowing they did their best with their latest game, they're laughing all the way to the bank. That's the best situation to be in as a media producer.

FrozenLiquid

I have the original GTAs on PS1 but don't really like them too much, they're immature and too crazy, and get dull after a while. I like it more realistic like GTA III and VC. GTAIV is also very realsitic but it takes out too much.

The 6 star thing in SA was Area 51 and that was really fun, I agree with your friend.

I don't really feel sorry for R*... how can you feel sorry for them when they're making so much money? I am interested to see how the next GTA goes in terms of sales though. Last gen they all moved up after GTA III. I don't think we'll have a repeat of that this gen since both hardcore and casual gamers seem to want more longevity for GTAIV and it could put them off the series.

It lacked the crazyness that has been in every GTA up until 4, it also cutout alot of freedom given in San Andreas, and replaced it with the annoying 'do stuff with friends' system.... In which most of things you could do was damn boring.

In san andreas there was stuff to do - and muck around with, when you wernt concentrating on the story. In GTA IV these things feel like they are there to sidetrack you from the story.

The humor in the game was also off. You had a contrast of ultra serious, and ultra stupid. Really weird.

The game is still damn good though, and one of the best this generation.

[QUOTE="the-very-best"]

GTAIV could have had an excellent story AND great longevity but it only has one of those, and it is the one that is less important for a GTA game.

FrozenLiquid

That right there is the most important statement both R* and video game fans need to agree upon.

With every iteration R* have become more focussed on the story and its characters. From the arcade roots of GTA, to the very tightly-scripted GTA IV that borders on cinematic obsession, it's obvious where R* thinks that story is more important to them.

What I suggest is that GTA fans step out and address those issues before the GTA series turns into some sort of visual novel.

Well, if you think about it logically, you'd assume that they'd give us a great story next time around (which I want obviously) but continue to add upon GTAIV, rather than simply repeat the exact same process.

This is the first time Rockstar has ever cut back and not added enough instead, but I don't see how they can cut more out and not give us enough next time around. I really hope they just ignore reviewers entirely. I don't want them to get their heads up their asses too far.

The city feels empty at times, I agree with you.

the-very-best

Does it?

Apart from comparing it to real life New York, I thought the city was pretty damn alive. GTA 1 & 2's cities felt like static backgrounds for carnage, and GTA III and Vice City (can't vouch for San Andreas as much) felt like that even moreso, with the civilians standing around doing nothing, walking around aimlessly, and enemies standing out like sore thumbs due to their relative engagement with the player.

If I were to follow some random guy at a decent distance on the street in GTA IV, sometimes they turn around and tell me to **** off because apparently they don't like it. At random places I see police stopping people on the side of the road, and others with their engines overheating. Then there are those random quests you'll find around the city that are just hilariously low-key and unnecessary but add to the atmosphere, though at times they do make you feel that the city still keeps its distance from the player's interactivity.

It lacked the crazyness that has been in every GTA up until 4, it also cutout alot of freedom given in San Andreas, and replaced it with the annoying 'do stuff with friends' system.... In which most of things you could do was damn boring.

The humor in the game was also off. You had a contrast of ultra serious, and ultra stupid. Really weird.

The game is still damn good though, and one of the best this generation.

skrat_01

Agreed. Despite all its flaws (and there are some glaringly obvious ones), it is still the best game of the gen for me, and completely deserving of high praise. I'd say 9.5 though personally, but I can see where the 10s are coming from, and really, an 0.5 difference isn't much.

[QUOTE="the-very-best"]

The city feels empty at times, I agree with you.

FrozenLiquid

Does it?

Apart from comparing it to real life New York, I thought the city was pretty damn alive. GTA 1 & 2's cities felt like static backgrounds for carnage, and GTA III and Vice City (can't vouch for San Andreas as much) felt like that even moreso, with the civilians standing around doing nothing, walking around aimlessly, and enemies standing out like sore thumbs due to their relative engagement with the player.

If I were to follow some random guy at a decent distance on the street in GTA IV, sometimes they turn around and tell me to **** off because apparently they don't like it. At random places I see police stopping people on the side of the road, and others with their engines overheating. Then there are those random quests you'll find around the city that are just hilariously low-key and unnecessary but add to the atmosphere, though at times they do make you feel that the city still keeps its distance from the player's interactivity.

It feels empty at times in the sense that while the exploration aspect of it is fantastic, there's not that much to do in it. Little things that increase the game's replay value have been taken out.

I'm talking about the actual buildings, rather than the pedestrians and the general atmosphere which I thought were incredible this time around.

Like, things like seeing people fix their engines, or put something in the trunk, or talk on the phone etc, I love that and I hope they keep adding on that for the next entry.

But things like the cabaret, bowling, bars etc, they're so much less interesting to me than property and all those other things taken out (excluding gyms/gangs which sucked).

[QUOTE="the-very-best"]

The city feels empty at times, I agree with you.

FrozenLiquid

Does it?

Apart from comparing it to real life New York, I thought the city was pretty damn alive. GTA 1 & 2's cities felt like static backgrounds for carnage, and GTA III and Vice City (can't vouch for San Andreas as much) felt like that even moreso, with the civilians standing around doing nothing, walking around aimlessly, and enemies standing out like sore thumbs due to their relative engagement with the player.

If I were to follow some random guy at a decent distance on the street in GTA IV, sometimes they turn around and tell me to **** off because apparently they don't like it. At random places I see police stopping people on the side of the road, and others with their engines overheating. Then there are those random quests you'll find around the city that are just hilariously low-key and unnecessary but add to the atmosphere, though at times they do make you feel that the city still keeps its distance from the player's interactivity.

Agreed. The setting was a huge step forwards in GTA IV, that being how life like it is. Fist time in a long time ive been satisfied with the environment in a GTA game, although I miss the broad scope of different locations in SA... alot. However id say my favourite moment in GTA IV was watching some else attacking me get arrested. finally the police acted like police rather than player focused sentry drones.skrat_01

If you bump a car into a police car, the police will get out and arrest the dude who bumped into them, despite you being the one who caused the accident. :lol:

Those might be little things but it's those details which make GTAIV have the best atmosphere of all GTA games thus far, imo of course.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

Well BlackBond's first problem with GTAIV is this. Well um its not really a problem with GTAIV its a problem with BlackBond. GTA games really just don't appeal to BlackBond but I enjoyed GTAIV and I'd give it an 8.5 and that's a great score coming from someone who doesn't like these kind of games.

BlackBond's issues

1. Why doesn't the camera remain fixed behind your car? Why should I have to manually manipulate a camera while driving?
2. The cover mechanics are sloppy. They aren't on par with Rainbow Six Vegas let alone Gears of War.
3. Lack of Weapon Variety.
4. Like Zelda money is kinda useless and has no real importance but to buy minor equipment.
5. Fighting mechanics revolve around shooting and melee. There could have been something more. I mean hell even True Crime Streets of L.A had better Melee imo.
6. Lack of Gang/Turf Presense. I remember past games where you didn't want to roll into the wrong neighborhood and mess up because certain people ran certain places. I don't think I ever got into anything more then a scuffle with any citizens.
7. I never even bothered driving from place to place to do a mission. I always just took the Cab and hit start. They didn't make the City into something I would have liked to drive though. Rather they made it something I found it to be a chore to drive though.
8. The whole Darko thing was stupid. $1000. Thats it? Here I expected something epic to unfold something with an effect as dramatic as when Travis met his brother in No More Heroes. The Darko thing was a joke.
9. And the Diamonds are a main focal point? Man that snuck up and bit me in the but. Really they should have made it more of a big deal if it was the main focal point to so many links.

Other then that I believe the game is solid.

the-very-best

I agree with most of that except I didn't really have an issue with the camera like most are, and gangs were annoying in SA so I'm glad they took that out.

The city feels empty at times, I agree with you. I think it's simply because there is not really much to do in it. I love exploring the cities in GTA games but I usually get sidetracked doing something else in the city... I didn't get sidetracked in GTAIV cause there isn't much to do once the story is over, and all that money is useless.

ANd whats up with Cabs? Sometimes there are like 10 and sometimes there aren't any. Hell sometimes they are a holes and won't stop and pull over. And in some missions its seems like its impossible to find a car to jack without running around looking. I mean seriously there are no cars in open sight lol

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

It lacked the crazyness that has been in every GTA up until 4, it also cutout alot of freedom given in San Andreas, and replaced it with the annoying 'do stuff with friends' system.... In which most of things you could do was damn boring.

The humor in the game was also off. You had a contrast of ultra serious, and ultra stupid. Really weird.

The game is still damn good though, and one of the best this generation.

the-very-best

Agreed. Despite all its flaws (and there are some glaringly obvious ones), it is still the best game of the gen for me, and completely deserving of high praise. I'd say 9.5 though personally, but I can see where the 10s are coming from, and really, an 0.5 difference isn't much.

Its a problem because as a product methinks GTA is a 10/10 game, but when you look at it from a more critical perspective that we analyse games with, rather than just an 'item to buy', the games flaws really do show. For instance the multiplayer- product perspective - it has online multi = more re-playability, better game ect. However look further into it, the multiplayer really isn't fleshed out at all, and seems rather tacked on, with loads of modes in a gta environment, just to compensate for the singleplayers flaws, and it seems to totally lack direction.

Methinks Rockstar lost focus a bit in why people loved GTA so much previously, which is a problem judging it, as is that a subjective thing, or a valid criticism? Can you relate this criticism to reviewing the game as a product?

ANd whats up with Cabs? Sometimes there are like 10 and sometimes there aren't any. Hell sometimes they are a holes and won't stop and pull over. And in some missions its seems like its impossible to find a car to jack without running around looking. I mean seriously there are no cars in open sight lol

Blackbond

lol, I haven't noticed that to be honest. I usually find a car pretty quickly, whether it be on the road or parked on the side. Actually, there seems to be heaps! But as for the cab thing, I think I've called for a cab once in the game so I don't really know much about that. I never see any cabs on the roads though, just normal cars.

I don't really feel sorry for R*... how can you feel sorry for them when they're making so much money? I am interested to see how the next GTA goes in terms of sales though. Last gen they all moved up after GTA III. I don't think we'll have a repeat of that this gen since both hardcore and casual gamers seem to want more longevity for GTAIV and it could put them off the series.

the-very-best

Rockstar isn't only in it for the money, but they know their game is good. They delay the game to polish on it and make give it excess finesse, and they release it with a smile on their face, only for people to tell that they should've done better. What I'm seeing doeI'm gonna have to stop here, because real life situations call me. It's all fun and games in GTA, but real life violence truly frickin' sucks.

I don't know about the situation on Australia, but the bloody gang wars in New Zealand has gone over the top. The country is in total deterioration for no apparent reason. I'm discussing it on internet forums, I'm watching it on the news as we speak, and right now it's happening outside my house.

Cracking skulls with a baseball bat in the Grand Theft Auto series has never been more fun than in GTA IV with the inclusion of the Euphoria engine. Tonight I'm going to remember how disgusting it is to hear the crackle of bone and blooded moans in real life. Neighbourhood watch: a unfortunate but necessary thing.

Violence ain't cool gentlemen.

I did experience a pretty funny random moment. There was a lot of traffic one time and I just decided to start ramming this car over and over and the next thing I knew it was me , this car , and another car involved in a demolition derby , they were trying to smash into me , they were smashing into each other ........ this all went on for like 10 minutes in heavy traffic so we were slamming into other cars , crashed through this wooden gate , running people over in the process until finally my car caught fire and I bailed and a huge explosion occurred.

The multiplayer seemed to result the extra 0.5.

Its a problem because as a product methinks GTA is a 10/10 game, but when you look at it from a more critical perspective that we analyse games with, rather than just an 'item to buy', the games flaws really do show. For instance the multiplayer- product perspective - it has online multi = more re-playability, better game ect. However look further into it, the multiplayer really isn't fleshed out at all, and seems rather tacked on, with loads of modes in a gta environment, just to compensate for the singleplayers flaws, and it seems to totally lack direction.

Methinks Rockstar lost focus a bit in why people loved GTA so much previously, which is a problem judging it, as is that a subjective thing, or a valid criticism? Can you relate this criticism to reviewing the game as a product?

skrat_01

This is so true. But you can excuse the reviewers, because they probably only played the story, played the online for a short time, and then reviewed it. If you do that, of course you're going to give it a 10. However, while the older games have heaps of longevity/replay value, this one doesn't, and if you play the MP for a while, you'll realise there's really not much in it and to be honest, I wish they didn't even add it. I would have rather had all the things they took out from SA than the MP we got.

How's R* gonna know the flaws of GTAIV though... no review pointed them out...

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Agreed. The setting was a huge step forwards in GTA IV, that being how life like it is. Fist time in a long time ive been satisfied with the environment in a GTA game, although I miss the broad scope of different locations in SA... alot. However id say my favourite moment in GTA IV was watching some else attacking me get arrested. finally the police acted like police rather than player focused sentry drones.the-very-best

If you bump a car into a police car, the police will get out and arrest the dude who bumped into them, despite you being the one who caused the accident. :lol:

Those might be little things but it's those details which make GTAIV have the best atmosphere of all GTA games thus far, imo of course.

ANd whats up with Cabs? Sometimes there are like 10 and sometimes there aren't any. Hell sometimes they are a holes and won't stop and pull over. And in some missions its seems like its impossible to find a car to jack without running around looking. I mean seriously there are no cars in open sight lolBlackbond

Some don't pull over because they've already got a passenger.

The game is quite fun but my problem with GTA IV is that the game is a step down in the series, it feels like a next gen revamped version of GTA III. That's how I see it, what they aimed for with this one didn't please me as much as how fun the others were, this is not what I'd want from a GTA game. I'm on the side of complaining about them taking out planes, customization and bigger city...those were great additions and shouldn't've been taken out. I don't consider the whole 9/11 excuse as valid since I assume nobody pointed a gun at Rstar ppl to use NY....again, as the setting.

I sure hope the next GTA doesn't take place in Miami, the only thing about it that would keep me from feeling like punching a baby would be if they decide to make actual additions to the city and gameplay, not just story and add physics and cus VC is the best

Rockstar isn't only in it for the money, but they know their game is good. They delay the game to polish on it and make give it excess finesse, and they release it with a smile on their face, only for people to tell that they should've done better. What I'm seeing doeI'm gonna have to stop here, because real life situations call me. It's all fun and games in GTA, but real life violence truly frickin' sucks.

I don't know about the situation on Australia, but the bloody gang wars in New Zealand has gone over the top. The country is in total deterioration for no apparent reason. I'm discussing it on internet forums, I'm watching it on the news as we speak, and right now it's happening outside my house.

Cracking skulls with a baseball bat in the Grand Theft Auto series has never been more fun than in GTA IV with the inclusion of the Euphoria engine. Tonight I'm going to remember how disgusting it is to hear the crackle of bone and blooded moans in real life. Neighbourhood watch: a unfortunate but necessary thing.

Violence ain't cool gentlemen.

FrozenLiquid

Wow... didn't know NZ had such a large problem with gang wars. We don't here in Australia... at all. I mean, we have a problem in Melbourne (where I live) with the so called "underworld", but it wasn't a major issue. Have you seen Underbelly? Yeah, that's what it was, but we didn't have many deaths or anything comparable to what you've got going on in NZ.

I know R* worked their asses off for GTAIV. You can tell. But if we don't criticise it, they're not gonna know what they need to improve on. I really hope they listen to the fans, the next entry could be phenomenal.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

The multiplayer seemed to result the extra 0.5.

Its a problem because as a product methinks GTA is a 10/10 game, but when you look at it from a more critical perspective that we analyse games with, rather than just an 'item to buy', the games flaws really do show. For instance the multiplayer- product perspective - it has online multi = more re-playability, better game ect. However look further into it, the multiplayer really isn't fleshed out at all, and seems rather tacked on, with loads of modes in a gta environment, just to compensate for the singleplayers flaws, and it seems to totally lack direction.

Methinks Rockstar lost focus a bit in why people loved GTA so much previously, which is a problem judging it, as is that a subjective thing, or a valid criticism? Can you relate this criticism to reviewing the game as a product?

the-very-best

This is so true. But you can excuse the reviewers, because they probably only played the story, played the online for a short time, and then reviewed it. If you do that, of course you're going to give it a 10. However, while the older games have heaps of longevity/replay value, this one doesn't, and if you play the MP for a while, you'll realise there's really not much in it and to be honest, I wish they didn't even add it. I would have rather had all the things they took out from SA than the MP we got.

How's R* gonna know the flaws of GTAIV though... no review pointed them out...

It also points out how flawed review systems can be, if they are judged from a single play-through, concentrating on only certain elements. It really doesn't give you good, or broad idea of the whole game itself. Though in particular, PC Powerplay here seems to do a good job countering this. It reviews games upon release, however a few months later it looks back on previously released games, or online games and sees how they have held up or evolved (reloaded - section). However the game isnt re-scored, its just given an extra assessment with pros and cons, following its release.

I agree with everything TC said. I love how they cut the fat from SA but they also cut into the good stuff that made SA long with variety.

I give it a 9,5 its a great game and astounding tech achievement and a great game but I am at the end of the day a little dissapointed. And the socializing sucked, it was so damn tedious to have to hang out with everybody or nobody liked u and u couldnt get the perks.

And that Grand Theft Awesome 4 was great. And spot on.

The game is quite fun but my problem with GTA IV is that the game is a step down in the series, it feels like a next gen revamped version of GTA III. That's how I see it, what they aimed for with this one didn't please me as much as how fun the others were, this is not what I'd want from a GTA game. I'm on the side of complaining about them taking out planes, customization and bigger city...those were great additions and shouldn't've been taken out. I don't consider the whole 9/11 excuse as valid since I assume nobody pointed a gun at Rstar ppl to use NY....again, as the setting.

I sure hope the next GTA doesn't take place in Miami, the only thing about it that would keep me from feeling like punching a baby would be if they decide to make actual additions to the city and gameplay, not just story and add physics and cus VC is the best

Dystopian-X

Well, LC in GTAIV feels nothing like the GTA III LC to me, so I'm totally fine with them going for Vice City next time around if they do it. Honestly, I hope they do it because VC was spectacular and I would love to see with the graphics they've used for GTAIV. Also, it would probably mean the return of property/customisation/planes etc, which I would like.

8.5 is what id give this game..no more no less.Saints Row 2 i have alot more confidence in

Wow... didn't know NZ had such a large problem with gang wars. We don't here in Australia... at all. I mean, we have a problem in Melbourne (where I live) with the so called "underworld", but it wasn't a major issue. Have you seen Underbelly? Yeah, that's what it was, but we didn't have many deaths or anything comparable to what you've got going on in NZ.

I know R* worked their asses off for GTAIV. You can tell. But if we don't criticise it, they're not gonna know what they need to improve on. I really hope they listen to the fans, the next entry could be phenomenal.

the-very-best

Though yeah with constructive critism should result in progress in most cases. I just hoper devs like Rockstar or to a major extent, Bethseda heed it.