Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Is GTA IV overrated?

161 replies to this topic
Sting4S
  • Sting4S

    I have no patience for you V section lurkers

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#121

Posted 29 August 2013 - 03:42 AM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Wednesday, Aug 28 2013, 22:00)
While I appreciate the effort put into that post there's something I don't agree with. You say all you have to do is play GTA III to see how much of a disappointment GTA IV is, but I played GTA III when it was new just like VC and SA and GTA IV is anything, but a disappointment IMO.

Sure it has its faults, but the scrutiny it gets at times has always been a bit over the top to me. confused.gif

Agreed. I can play San Andreas and be amazed by it but it still makes IV feel like a better more improved game.

TonyMontanaCDL
  • TonyMontanaCDL

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2013

#122

Posted 29 August 2013 - 11:19 PM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Thursday, Aug 29 2013, 03:00)
While I appreciate the effort put into that post there's something I don't agree with. You say all you have to do is play GTA III to see how much of a disappointment GTA IV is, but I played GTA III when it was new just like VC and SA and GTA IV is anything, but a disappointment IMO.

Sure it has its faults, but the scrutiny it gets at times has always been a bit over the top to me. confused.gif


Compared to San Andreas, it could have been a lot better. If the game wasn't treated as if it was the greatest thing ever, it would be different, but the game was a massive disappointment. It's not a bad game, but it is far from perfect. I will never understand why it receives the praise it gets. I played it numerous times trying to like it, but became very aggravated and bored with it quick. III changed everything, it revolutionized games, I don't see where IV did that at all. If anything, it probably made them realize they went too far with realism. Driving in III and VC is cake, driving in IV is a pain in the ass. If you like it, that's great. Don't let me ruin it for you.

Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#123

Posted 30 August 2013 - 05:56 AM

QUOTE (TonyMontanaCDL @ Friday, Aug 30 2013, 10:19)
QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Thursday, Aug 29 2013, 03:00)
While I appreciate the effort put into that post there's something I don't agree with. You say all you have to do is play GTA III to see how much of a disappointment GTA IV is, but I played GTA III when it was new just like VC and SA and GTA IV is anything, but a disappointment IMO.

Sure it has its faults, but the scrutiny it gets at times has always been a bit over the top to me. confused.gif


Compared to San Andreas, it could have been a lot better. If the game wasn't treated as if it was the greatest thing ever, it would be different, but the game was a massive disappointment. It's not a bad game, but it is far from perfect. I will never understand why it receives the praise it gets. I played it numerous times trying to like it, but became very aggravated and bored with it quick. III changed everything, it revolutionized games, I don't see where IV did that at all. If anything, it probably made them realize they went too far with realism. Driving in III and VC is cake, driving in IV is a pain in the ass. If you like it, that's great. Don't let me ruin it for you.

I don't think it's perfect either, but I do think people tend to take their criticisms a bit far to the point of being sheepish hate.

Either way it doesn't deter my GTA IV interest. VC is the only GTA from the GTA III era on level pegging with GTA IV. cool.gif

BabeRuth
  • BabeRuth

    Bronx Bombers Stadium

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2010

#124

Posted 30 August 2013 - 07:19 PM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Friday, Aug 30 2013, 05:56)
I don't think it's perfect either, but I do think people tend to take their criticisms a bit far to the point of being sheepish hate.


Miami, you must admit you take your criticism a little bit too far with SA. dozingoff.gif

reform
  • reform

    Beaten, battered, bruised, Told to get down

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2009

#125

Posted 30 August 2013 - 07:24 PM

It's overrated and underrated depending on who you're talking to.

da_KING
  • da_KING

    Anger Of Beast

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2012
  • None

#126

Posted 30 August 2013 - 07:29 PM

Nope smile.gif

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#127

Posted 30 August 2013 - 08:30 PM

QUOTE (TonyMontanaCDL @ Thursday, Aug 29 2013, 23:19)
III changed everything, it revolutionized games, I don't see where IV did that at all. If anything, it probably made them realize they went too far with realism. Driving in III and VC is cake, driving in IV is a pain in the ass. If you like it, that's great. Don't let me ruin it for you.

GTA IV's heavy realism approach was just fine. I liked the realistic driving and car handling. IV just simply lacked depth and substance with regards to having more fun and interesting features and things to see and do.

But I agree with you, GTA IV just simply did not have the same kind of great impact on me that all the III-era GTAs had have on me. I was blown away by the new HD-makeover and brilliantly detailed world and graphics I will admit. But still, IV could have much that bit much more to it and I'd be praising it to this day.

Still a great game though cool.gif

Racecarlock
  • Racecarlock

    The floor here will kill you, try to avoid it.

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009

#128

Posted 30 August 2013 - 09:17 PM

GTA IV is sidewaysrated.

G D
  • G D

    Praise the sun, or die trying.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 May 2013
  • None

#129

Posted 30 August 2013 - 10:22 PM

QUOTE (BabeRuth @ Friday, Aug 30 2013, 23:19)
QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Friday, Aug 30 2013, 05:56)
I don't think it's perfect either, but I do think people tend to take their criticisms a bit far to the point of being sheepish hate.


Miami, you must admit you take your criticism a little bit too far with SA. dozingoff.gif

I'm in the middle, but with all the people hating on IV... it may of swayed some of my decisions.

Sure, IV had it's flaws, but SA sure as hell had alot too.

But when V comes out, it will finally stop the debates over which GTA is the best. icon14.gif


But it will not stop the SA vs IV war...

Miami and BabeRuth's grand children will fight over which GTA is the best; VII or VIII. ph34r.gif

BabeRuth
  • BabeRuth

    Bronx Bombers Stadium

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2010

#130

Posted 31 August 2013 - 01:33 AM

QUOTE (gdsaqqq @ Friday, Aug 30 2013, 22:22)
I'm in the middle, but with all the people hating on IV... it may of swayed some of my decisions.

Sure, IV had it's flaws, but SA sure as hell had alot too.

But it will not stop the SA vs IV war...

Miami and BabeRuth's grand children will fight over which GTA is the best; VII or VIII. ph34r.gif

I know SA had alot of loopholes. I'm not saying Miami doesn't have his right to express his opinions, but he does take the criticism a little far for SA.

And if we have grand kids we'll fight out of love and friendship, of which game is better. smile.gif

Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#131

Posted 31 August 2013 - 01:54 AM

QUOTE (BabeRuth @ Saturday, Aug 31 2013, 06:19)
QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Friday, Aug 30 2013, 05:56)
I don't think it's perfect either, but I do think people tend to take their criticisms a bit far to the point of being sheepish hate.


Miami, you must admit you take your criticism a little bit too far with SA. dozingoff.gif


Sure I admit to being critical of SA, but I try to keep it within context instead of just bashing it for no reason.

I've been in threads in general gaming chat that have nothing to do with GTA IV only for someone to bash it for no logical reason.

I don't believe I'm that bad when it comes to my SA criticisms. I've always said it's still a great game in its own right, but GTA IV is better for me.

Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I have moved to a new account.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#132

Posted 31 August 2013 - 09:18 AM Edited by AceKingston, 31 August 2013 - 09:35 AM.

You guys are forgetting that only 6 review sites gave GTA IV a 10/10. The average ratings of other sites is about 9.5. So no it isn't overrated.

QUOTE (TonyMontanaCDL)
Compared to San Andreas, it could have been a lot better.


Comparing IV to San Andreas is an absolutely moronic piece of criticism. Considering that there is a 4 year gap between the initial release of San Andreas and IV. IV is logically far superior than San Andreas. In terms of Graphics, Game play. I'm not talking of opinions, I'm talking logically. So that is a comparison that should be avoided.

QUOTE
If the game wasn't treated as if it was the greatest thing ever, it would be different


Over exaggeration.

QUOTE
but the game was a massive disappointment.


How was it a 'massive' disappointment. Elaborate, please. And I'm going to rule out any criticism that compares IV to SA.

QUOTE
It's not a bad game, but it is far from perfect. I


Who said that the game is perfect? Getting a 10/10 does not mean that the game is perfect. It was a great game for it's time, no game is perfect and nothing is perfect. Everyone knows that. The Last of Us got numerous 10/10 scores, but does that mean the game was perfect? No. If a game gets a 10/10, it just means that it is exceptional, but not perfect.

QUOTE
III changed everything, it revolutionized games, I don't see where IV did that at all.


Yes III changed everything, but saying that IV didn't revolutionize anything is another moronic statement. I'll tell you what IV revolutionized:

1) Expanded use of Cellphones. First time in a GTA Game.
2) Branching storylines. First time in a GTA Game.
3) Usage of computers. First time in a GTA Game.
4) Cover system. First time in a GTA Game.
5) Highly detailed Liberty City, a much more closer renedition of New York City. First time in a GTA game. (Although GTA III already resembled New York but not with the detail IV had)
6) Ability to call friends and hang out. First time in a GTA Game. In San Andreas you could only go out with your girlfriends and you had very limited options.
7) First Current-Gen GTA game with current gen graphics is itself a revolution.
8) Ability to take taxi-rides. First time in a GTA Game.

And there are so many more features that I can list.

QUOTE
If anything, it probably made them realize they went too far with realism


How long can GTA stick with the same old 3D graphics and gameplay when other games are going ahead? It's time for GTA to move on, to start a new trend. If you don't like it, you might as well stop playing GTA.

QUOTE
Driving in III and VC is cake, driving in IV is a pain in the ass.


While IV did have bad handling, I also think that this isn't the game's fault as a whole but an inexperienced player behind the keyboard/controller.

GroundZero
  • GroundZero

    Criminally Insane

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2010
  • Greece

#133

Posted 31 August 2013 - 09:40 AM

QUOTE (AceKingston @ Saturday, Aug 31 2013, 12:18)
You guys are forgetting that only 6 review sites gave GTA IV a 10/10. The average ratings of other sites is about 9.5. So no it isn't overrated.

QUOTE (TonyMontanaCDL)
Compared to San Andreas, it could have been a lot better.


Comparing IV to San Andreas is an absolutely moronic piece of criticism. Considering that there is a 4 year gap between the initial release of San Andreas and IV. IV is logically far superior than San Andreas. In terms of Graphics, Game play. I'm not talking of opinions, I'm talking logically. So that is a comparison that should be avoided.

QUOTE
If the game wasn't treated as if it was the greatest thing ever, it would be different


Over exaggeration.

QUOTE
but the game was a massive disappointment.


How was it a 'massive' disappointment. Elaborate, please. And I'm going to rule out any criticism that compares IV to SA.

QUOTE
It's not a bad game, but it is far from perfect. I


Who said that the game is perfect? Getting a 10/10 does not mean that the game is perfect. It was a great game for it's time, no game is perfect and nothing is perfect. Everyone knows that. The Last of Us got numerous 10/10 scores, but does that mean the game was perfect? No. If a game gets a 10/10, it just means that it is exceptional, but not perfect.

QUOTE
III changed everything, it revolutionized games, I don't see where IV did that at all.


Yes III changed everything, but saying that IV didn't revolutionize anything is another moronic statement. I'll tell you what IV revolutionized:

1) Expanded use of Cellphones. First time in a GTA Game.
2) Branching storylines. First time in a GTA Game.
3) Usage of computers. First time in a GTA Game.
4) Cover system. First time in a GTA Game.
5) Highly detailed Liberty City, a much more closer renedition of New York City. First time in a GTA game. (Although GTA III already resembled New York but not with the detail IV had)
6) Ability to call friends and hang out. First time in a GTA Game. In San Andreas you could only go out with your girlfriends and you had very limited options.
7) First Current-Gen GTA game with current gen graphics is itself a revolution.
8) Ability to take taxi-rides. First time in a GTA Game.

And there are so many more features that I can list.

QUOTE
If anything, it probably made them realize they went too far with realism


How long can GTA stick with the same old 3D graphics and gameplay when other games are going ahead? It's time for GTA to move on, to start a new trend. If you don't like it, you might as well stop playing GTA.

QUOTE
Driving in III and VC is cake, driving in IV is a pain in the ass.


While IV did have bad handling, I also think that this isn't the game's fault as a whole but an inexperienced player behind the keyboard/controller.

Pretty much summarizes my opinion icon14.gif

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#134

Posted 31 August 2013 - 09:27 PM

@ AceKingston

QUOTE
Comparing IV to San Andreas is an absolutely moronic piece of criticism. Considering that there is a 4 year gap between the initial release of San Andreas and IV. IV is logically far superior than San Andreas. In terms of Graphics, Game play. I'm not talking of opinions, I'm talking logically. So that is a comparison that should be avoided.


The only comparison that should be avoided between GTA IV and San Andreas is that of the graphics, effects and animations. IV obviously had better graphics than SA, it was a HD-era game after all.

Gameplay wise, I think comparisons had to be made, at least show just how far IV had come since the III-era. I'm sorry, I know you really like IV, but SA did have better gameplay and content overall than IV in my opinion (and that of many). SA's world just felt more alive and full of energy with regards to what was happening in the streets, especially with random crimes, shootings and gang wars that erupted out of nowhere. SA had so many fun and more interesting things to do, a great deal more than IV had. It does not automatically make SA the better game at all, but in these areas, SA definitely wins over IV.

Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#135

Posted 31 August 2013 - 10:22 PM

I have question to you. Have you tasted the game or run from beginning to the end? My question comes from a fact that there is no possibility that SA can be considered as more alive world than IV.

Sure there were lack of people in some places in IV, but SA was like middle of Sahara. Streets were empty, sidewalks were empty and those few people walking here and talking from time to time didn't make this alive. People in IV are in fact alive, they walk, talk, smoke, buying stuff, fight and do many things you may accuse people of. Have you ever see guy coming to a cop, making a prank and run? Or hooker dancing next to some car just to be picked minute after?

IV is slow game, it tastes best when you try to be there, walk from time to time, stop on a red light, take a cab from a bar and watch the people live. SA was like buildings built for western movies, front was there, but the rest was non-existent. Scripted car chases or gang bangers fighting on the borders of their territories were just bad. SA felt like a bad hood flick, everything was there, but fake without any emotion.

You can say that IV lacked activities, rewards, funny cheats or similar stuff, but I won't agree that SA was more alive than IV.

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#136

Posted 31 August 2013 - 11:25 PM Edited by Official General, 31 August 2013 - 11:38 PM.

QUOTE (Tycek @ Saturday, Aug 31 2013, 22:22)
I have question to you. Have you tasted the game or run from beginning to the end? My question comes from a fact that there is no possibility that SA can be considered as more alive world than IV.

Sure there were lack of people in some places in IV, but SA was like middle of Sahara. Streets were empty, sidewalks were empty and those few people walking here and talking from time to time didn't make this alive. People in IV are in fact alive, they walk, talk, smoke, buying stuff, fight and do many things you may accuse people of. Have you ever see guy coming to a cop, making a prank and run? Or hooker dancing next to some car just to be picked minute after?

IV is slow game, it tastes best when you try to be there, walk from time to time, stop on a red light, take a cab from a bar and watch the people live. SA was like buildings built for western movies, front was there, but the rest was non-existent. Scripted car chases or gang bangers fighting on the borders of their territories were just bad. SA felt like a bad hood flick, everything was there, but fake without any emotion.

You can say that IV lacked activities, rewards, funny cheats or similar stuff, but I won't agree that SA was more alive than IV.

My friend, I own both games and I have played both games extensively from beginning to the end. I'm in a more than good enough position to be able to have a very informed opinion on this.

I really meant that SA felt more alive in the Los Santos part of the game. For an older generation game, SA sure had a lot more going in LS than GTA IV did in Liberty City. The detail in Liberty City was nice and all that, but there was generally no crime or violence happening in the streets, and that is primarily what GTA games are about. SA had all of this, so to me SA's environment felt more alive in that respect. Just seeing normal people going about their everyday lives and business in lovely detail was not enough for me in IV, I wanted to see LC come alive with drama, crime and action, and I just did not get that (unless I started it). In SA, the streets of LS at night were teeming with gang members, criminals, drug addicts, thieves, there were random gang wars and gunfights, there would be police helicopters hovering, police chasing criminals and shooting it out with them, so much was going on. The riots at the end in LS was just pure classical stuff. LC in IV did not have all this, so to me, SA overall had more life to it's environment. Even Vice City felt more alive to me (in the crime perspective) than LC in IV.

Then consider the amount really fun and interesting things you could do in SA - gang wars, burglaries, drug-running, gamble money in the casinos and betting shops, lift weights and get muscular, boxing, basketball, buy properties and businesses etc.

I'm sorry but SA beats IV hands down in that department.

Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#137

Posted 01 September 2013 - 02:01 AM

To me what makes a video game environment feel alive is every aspect. Not just one. I agree there's more random crime in SA, but as soon as you step outside of the ghetto things become dull and uninteresting IMO.

Lets compare Downtown LS to Star Junction. I mean people always complain that Star Junction doesn't feel like Times Square. I can't give an accurate opinion on this since I've never been there. I'd imagine the game would run quite poorly if it was, but still Star Junction is quite vibrant and ambient all things considered.

Downtown LS on the other hand feels like one of the towns and hell even at times the towns out in the countryside feel more alive (pathetic right?).

To me with LS anyway the further west you go the more dull it becomes. It's all well and good to have a healthy gang environment, but it shouldn't be a glass half full/half empty kind of feeling.

GTA IV's LC may lack the random crime of the GTA III era, but the whole city overall feels more life like. When I walk the streets of LC it feels like I'm in a real place.

From the minor details such as steam coming up through potholes to seeing joggers jogging through Middle Park of a morning. One of my favourite things to do is simply walk around.

SA doesn't convey that sort of feeling as far as I'm concerned.

redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#138

Posted 01 September 2013 - 07:19 AM

GTA IV was a let down.

Sure they had some good things to it.

Liberty City looking like New York. That was a huge positive.
The physics engine was decent at its time. Still is good.
The cover system was a great idea but wasn't to it fullest.

There was a couple of things wrong with the game for me.

1) The combat system was bad. You felt so slow and the aiming wasn't that good. ( In San Andreas the guns felt more fluid when killing and you can switch faster )
2) Driving a boat isn't really fun for me. I mean you go 5 MPH and overturn a turn. How is that fun?
3) Repetitive missions, it was Niko go here or Niko drive me here. Anything different?
4) Story took away from the freedom, ( Same goes with RDR ) when someone plays a GTA game. Most play it cause of its Sand Box quality. Well what was there to do after you beat the story? Go on a date? Not really fun after a while.
5) Everything ALWAYS felt safe. In GTA SA things didn't always feel safe. Once in a while you see cops chasing gangs down in the street or other random acts. It made the GTA world feel more alive while IV felt more like a safe sims world.
6) Lack of anything to spend your money on. You make all this money and in the middle of the game already have half a million with nothing to spend it on. ( The story had Roman gambling so why couldn't Niko go to a illegal gambling spot? )
7) No stealth, I mean for a game ALL about killing why isn't there any other way to do missions. Let the players have a choice.
8) Lack of planes. Don't give me that BS that the map was too small. VC had a plane. Most likely there wasn't any planes cause of the physic engine at the time.
9) Lack of tanks, I mean really?? Why would you forget about a fan favorite vehicle?
10) Lack of customization for your protagonist. You can only do a few clothes/pants and etc.. with all the money you had.
11) Friend system was very annoying and got in the way of personal enjoyment. This also goes with point 4.
12) Lack of fun side activities that gave good rewards and not useless money
13) The grey color and nothing else but grey



Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#139

Posted 01 September 2013 - 08:59 AM

I'm playing through a save of GTA IV atm and the settings I have don't make it look grey. confused.gif

I wish people would adjust their settings as GTA IV can look quite vibrant, rich and colourful with the right amount.

Or am I wasting my time saying that?

Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I have moved to a new account.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#140

Posted 01 September 2013 - 09:33 AM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Sunday, Sep 1 2013, 14:29)
I'm playing through a save of GTA IV atm and the settings I have don't make it look grey. confused.gif

I wish people would adjust their settings as GTA IV can look quite vibrant, rich and colourful with the right amount.

Or am I wasting my time saying that?

Can't believe a GTA IV lover like you hasn't noticed Miami. tounge.gif Well, before it rains, the game sort of becomes grey but that's how it is. In real-life too before it rains, it becomes cloudy and grey. I personally don't have a problem with it.

QUOTE
Gameplay wise, I think comparisons had to be made, at least show just how far IV had come since the III-era. I'm sorry, I know you really like IV, but SA did have better gameplay and content overall than IV in my opinion (and that of many


That is incorrect. SA did not have more content. If it did have more content than IV, the file size would be more than 20 GB, yet San Andreas is only 4.7 GB, IV is at least 20 GB.

While IV did cut some features from SA, it added some, to make up for it.

Having played both San Andreas and IV, I'll give you a list of features for both the games, other than the map and story.

San Andreas:

1) Gambling.
2) Ability to fly planes and helicopters.
3) Play pool.
4) Date girlfriends.
5) Customize your car.
6) Clothing Customization.
7) RPG character development.

These are the MAIN features than San Andreas had.

IV:

1) Expanded use of the cellphone. You can now use your cellphone to call your friends, access multiplayer, change your theme etc. So many features in one point.
2) Play pool, bowling and darts.
3) You can now not only date girl-friends but you can also hangout with your friends. You can either call them or they will call you to arrange a plan.
4) Clothing Customization equal to San Andreas.
5) Cover system. You can take cover behind almost anything.
6) Usage of Computers and the internet.
7) Ability to take a cab ride.
8) GPS system.

There are so many features in the features itself. Plus if I include minor features for IV and San Andreas, IV will still have more content.

QUOTE
SA's world just felt more alive and full of energy with regards to what was happening in the streets, especially with random crimes, shootings and gang wars that erupted out of nowhere.


There is no way that San Andreas felt more alive than LC. LC had more detail, much more detail. It feels like your in the as Miami said.

Yes San Andreas was more dangerous but that does not make the city feel more alive than LC. There is simply no way that SA is more alive than LC.

QUOTE
SA had so many fun and more interesting things to do, a great deal more than IV had.


I've already stated that IV has more content than SA had in my first point.

QUOTE
It does not automatically make SA the better game at all, but in these areas, SA definitely wins over IV.


No, it does not, I've already stated why and this is why it is invalid to compare SA to IV. Both games were from different eras, different platforms. If you want to compare a game with GTA IV, take Mafia II or Saints Row II. I'd accept then, but I will not accept comparing SA to IV.

Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#141

Posted 01 September 2013 - 09:39 AM

Oh it definitely becomes grey just as it's about to rain, but to me redx seems to be implying everyhing is grey when it's not. GTA IV looks amazing when it's a bright and sunny day.

Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I have moved to a new account.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#142

Posted 01 September 2013 - 09:41 AM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Sunday, Sep 1 2013, 15:09)
Oh it definitely becomes grey just as it's about to rain, but to me redx seems to be implying everytjing is grey when it's not. GTA IV looks amazing when it's a bright and sunny day.

And in the night. Try cruising in a car across plumber's skyway in Night. You'll get amazing views. Plus looking at Algonquin's skyline from Hove Beach is just an amazing view.

I used to dislike the Night time (because R* did a crappy job with the PC port) but then I turned on my settings to High and it looks amazing. And that is something that SA never captured.

B Dawg
  • B Dawg

    Looks like the diversion worked!

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2008
  • Bosnia-and-Herzegovina

#143

Posted 01 September 2013 - 09:49 AM

QUOTE (AceKingston @ Sunday, Sep 1 2013, 10:33)
Wall Of Text

Coding doesn't take much space. It's the audio and texture files.

And IV lacked a countryside, which would have been perfect because of the new driving physics.

San Andreas had more features, but I still prefered IV because of the new physics that made everything so fun.

Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I have moved to a new account.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#144

Posted 01 September 2013 - 09:54 AM

QUOTE (DarkKingBernard @ Sunday, Sep 1 2013, 15:19)
QUOTE (AceKingston @ Sunday, Sep 1 2013, 10:33)
Wall Of Text

Coding doesn't take much space. It's the audio and texture files.

And IV lacked a countryside, which would have been perfect because of the new driving physics.

San Andreas had more features, but I still prefered IV because of the new physics that made everything so fun.

IV did have 2 small countrysides. Westdyke and Beechwood City.

And like I said IV had more features than SA. Which was the main point I was talking about.

redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#145

Posted 01 September 2013 - 05:40 PM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Sunday, Sep 1 2013, 03:59)
I'm playing through a save of GTA IV atm and the settings I have don't make it look grey. confused.gif

I wish people would adjust their settings as GTA IV can look quite vibrant, rich and colourful with the right amount.

Or am I wasting my time saying that?

For me when I did change how it looks the game makes the city feel so fake.

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#146

Posted 01 September 2013 - 07:07 PM Edited by Official General, 01 September 2013 - 10:49 PM.

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Sunday, Sep 1 2013, 02:01)
To me what makes a video game environment feel alive is every aspect. Not just one. I agree there's more random crime in SA, but as soon as you step outside of the ghetto things become dull and uninteresting IMO.

Lets compare Downtown LS to Star Junction. I mean people always complain that Star Junction doesn't feel like Times Square. I can't give an accurate opinion on this since I've never been there. I'd imagine the game would run quite poorly if it was, but still Star Junction is quite vibrant and ambient all things considered.

Downtown LS on the other hand feels like one of the towns and hell even at times the towns out in the countryside feel more alive (pathetic right?).

To me with LS anyway the further west you go the more dull it becomes. It's all well and good to have a healthy gang environment, but it shouldn't be a glass half full/half empty kind of feeling.

GTA IV's LC may lack the random crime of the GTA III era, but the whole city overall feels more life like. When I walk the streets of LC it feels like I'm in a real place.

From the minor details such as steam coming up through potholes to seeing joggers jogging through Middle Park of a morning. One of my favourite things to do is simply walk around.

SA doesn't convey that sort of feeling as far as I'm concerned.

@ Miami

I'm the biggest fan of the way Rockstar made LC in IV, it was the most visually stunning and realistic re-creation of New York City ever seen in a video game, and this is coming from someone who has been to NYC many times and know what it feels and looks like first hand.

The living and breathing urban world of LC in IV is like no other so far, very games if any can compare to it. I have never doubted that LC in GTA IV felt very alive in the more everyday life context. Of course, it does that much better than San Andreas. Yeah, LS in SA does feel less alive than LC in IV from the everyday life perspective yes. But since GTA is more about crime, gangs and violence, if I don't get the feeling in everyday life in the in-game environment it's a major disappointment for me. All that nicely detailed and polished everyday stuff in IV alone just did not cut it for me or totally satisfy me - to me, all that stuff is just very nice bonus, not essential, but real good to have. I just felt that regardless of LC's lovely detailed realism, the lack of random crime action in the streets and limited side activities really let the environment down, it's like LC kinda got wasted a bit. Even the limited number of side activities would have got a pass from me if the streets of LC in IV were filled with all kinds of random crime and action.

San Andreas just gave me the kind of 'alive feeling' is always look for in a GTA game, and that whole gang atmosphere just made the streets of LS so dangerous and thrilling to explore. Even just to see two rival gangs blasting at each other in streets anytime, anywhere, was awesome to see. Seeing people at night getting carjacked, robbed, drug dealers on the street corner, police helicopters, police chasing criminals, that is kind of 'alive' I wanted to see in IV and I did not get it. From the crime perspective which was more important to me, IV was a letdown.

@ AceKingston

Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to that, but I believe IV and SA can definitely be judged side by side when it comes to gameplay and content.

I don't give a f**k what you are willing to accept or not accept. That is your own personal business. I'm gonna say things how I see fit. Like I said to Miami, SA definitely feels more alive than IV when it comes to the aspect of crime in the streets and environment. It is not an opinion, it's a fact. There was almost no crime happening in the streets of LS in IV, while the streets of SA really were dangerous, violent and crime-ridden.

IV did have some nice cool side activities like Brucie's car thefts, Little Jacob's drug runs and the Police Vigilante stuff, but overall SA to me had more content was more fun and interesting in my opinion. Gang wars, claiming turf, buying property and business, gambling, Caesar's drug running and extensive character customization was way much better than playing pool, bowling, darts and shooting f**king pigeons.

And how the f**k were Westdyke and Beechwood City in IV countryside ?? Were you playing the correct game ? Are you sure it was IV ??

Beechwood City is an urban, run-down ghetto, one of the worst in LC in IV. Westdyke was just a nice quite and affluent suburb. Countryside ? You're on crack mate.

GtaIvFanboy
  • GtaIvFanboy

    I Have a Foot Fetish

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2013

#147

Posted 01 September 2013 - 11:10 PM

IV Vs san andreas 10 reasons why i think IV is Superior

1.Very good Well Written Engrossing Storyline (san Andreas was sheer Mediocrity)
2.Better Police Activity missions i liked taking out Specific Criminals In different ways at Different Locations rather than just the same Repetitive car chase.

3. Niko Was Likeable Unique and Interesting Cj was just a bland gang banger you could of seen in boyz n the hood.

4.The City is Far More Detailed And Atmospheric San Andreas Felt DEAD



5. Better side Activities/Missions i would much rather go bowling hijack a car for steve or kill some goons for little Jacob more than i would doing Boring Ambulance Missions Or pizza Missions.

6. dimitri >>>>tenpenny don't even Try and say otherwise the only reason why people like tenpenny so much is because of Samuel l Jackson his no Match for rascalov.

7.Overall Cast Of Characters in IV were better to me

8.Cover System

9.Better Driving And Shooting << how anybody can say otherwise i have no Idea.

10.The Psychics i never really used to care about this but it does make a Difference.



and people go on about how san andreas is more fun because it has more Features << how i hate that word dozingoff.gif well by that Logic Saints row the Turd is far Superior than both see what im getting at. wink.gif





Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#148

Posted 01 September 2013 - 11:54 PM Edited by Official General, 02 September 2013 - 12:24 AM.

QUOTE (GtaIvFanboy @ Sunday, Sep 1 2013, 23:10)
Cj was just a bland gang banger you could of seen in boyz n the hood.


I stopped reading and I stopped taking your post seriously after seeing this.

GtaIvFanboy
  • GtaIvFanboy

    I Have a Foot Fetish

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2013

#149

Posted 02 September 2013 - 12:36 AM

QUOTE (Official General @ Sunday, Sep 1 2013, 23:54)
QUOTE (GtaIvFanboy @ Sunday, Sep 1 2013, 23:10)
Cj was just a bland gang banger you could of seen in boyz n the hood.


I stopped reading and I stopped taking your post seriously after seeing this.

why? dozingoff.gif that's what he was in my eyes nothing Interesting Or unique about him at all and you Disagree with one thing so that means the rest of my points are not valid? people on these forums really get to me with their idiocy sometimes. confused.gif

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#150

Posted 02 September 2013 - 12:42 AM

QUOTE (GtaIvFanboy @ Monday, Sep 2 2013, 00:36)
QUOTE (Official General @ Sunday, Sep 1 2013, 23:54)
QUOTE (GtaIvFanboy @ Sunday, Sep 1 2013, 23:10)
Cj was just a bland gang banger you could of seen in boyz n the hood.


I stopped reading and I stopped taking your post seriously after seeing this.

why? dozingoff.gif that's what he was in my eyes nothing Interesting Or unique about him at all and you Disagree with one thing so that means the rest of my points are not valid? people on these forums really get to me with their idiocy sometimes. confused.gif

Well just how the f**k is watching the Boyz In The Hood movie gonna provide anyone with a fair and constructive assessment of how good a video game character CJ was, or how enjoyable and interesting his story was San Andreas ?? Boyz In The Hood, seriously ? What because CJ is black and from the hood, any 'hood film' can be used as a referencing tool ? Man you are so stupid, and you wonder why your comment even deserved a proper response.

Get the f**k outta here man.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users