Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Dissapointing. Big time.

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1,003 replies to this topic
GTAaddictforever
  • GTAaddictforever

    The Duderino

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 29 Apr 2008

#901

Posted 27 July 2008 - 11:02 PM Edited by GTAaddictforever, 27 July 2008 - 11:05 PM.

rockstar's budget was $100million for GTA 4


in a simplistic form of explaining how i feel they spent their money :

$70 million went into graphics and detail

$15 million went into physics

$10 million went into multiplayer

$1 million went into features

$1 million into designing mission storyline


the other $3 million went into buying their wives big diamond rings to apologize for making violent video games and to keep their promise of toning it down this time. we will add a buddy friend system so they can take their friend to dinner or go play bowling or watch a comedy show.

-------

To those who think GTA is the best GTA ever, apparently all you need to do to please you :

- throw in a mish-mash uninspired, unepic story of the mafia

- make the graphics really pretty and shiny "oooh ahhhhh"

- make you feel more 'mature' because the game is so stuck far up into it's own anus that it takes itself so seriously






johnnyk1
  • johnnyk1

    Johnny kazuki

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2008

#902

Posted 27 July 2008 - 11:35 PM

QUOTE (GTAaddictforever @ Jul 27 2008, 23:02)
rockstar's budget was $100million for GTA 4


in a simplistic form of explaining how i feel they spent their money :

$70 million went into graphics and detail

$15 million went into physics

$10 million went into multiplayer

$1 million went into features

$1 million into designing mission storyline


the other $3 million went into buying their wives big diamond rings to apologize for making violent video games and to keep their promise of toning it down this time. we will add a buddy friend system so they can take their friend to dinner or go play bowling or watch a comedy show.

-------

To those who think GTA is the best GTA ever, apparently all you need to do to please you :

- throw in a mish-mash uninspired, unepic story of the mafia

- make the graphics really pretty and shiny "oooh ahhhhh"

- make you feel more 'mature' because the game is so stuck far up into it's own anus that it takes itself so seriously

Couldn`t of said it better myself cookie.gif

ashprior
  • ashprior

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2008

#903

Posted 28 July 2008 - 12:31 AM

you have some good points, but this stuff has been covered already in other threads. it gets boring...

williamcampbell
  • williamcampbell

    The trespasser of dimensions.

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 May 2006
  • None

#904

Posted 28 July 2008 - 02:06 AM

QUOTE (GTAaddictforever @ Jul 27 2008, 23:02)

To those who think GTA is the best GTA ever, apparently all you need to do to please you :

- throw in a mish-mash uninspired, unepic story of the mafia

- make the graphics really pretty and shiny "oooh ahhhhh"

- make you feel more 'mature' because the game is so stuck far up into it's own anus that it takes itself so seriously

Because You say so, right? Sorry, I forgot your word was the damn truth! smile.gif

PS.: Why "johnnyk" is always posting together with GTAAdiccted? I mean... Same person? cry.gif

wayninja
  • wayninja

    Do gooder

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 May 2008

#905

Posted 28 July 2008 - 03:55 AM

This game was given a 10 by most online gaming sites... let that sink in a second. A 10.

10 is perfect. Less than a dozen games in the history of gaming deserve a 10. The history of gaming.

Now think in 2 years whether or not you will be playing GTA IV. What about 6 months? If the answer is no, then a score of a 10 is a downright conspiracy.

Enough said.


Machida
  • Machida

    Send in the cows

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2008

#906

Posted 28 July 2008 - 05:52 AM

QUOTE (wayninja @ Jul 28 2008, 03:55)
This game was given a 10 by most online gaming sites... let that sink in a second. A 10.

10 is perfect. Less than a dozen games in the history of gaming deserve a 10. The history of gaming.

Now think in 2 years whether or not you will be playing GTA IV. What about 6 months? If the answer is no, then a score of a 10 is a downright conspiracy.

Enough said.

The scoring system is actually based on the times and what's possible for games to achieve within the technology available at the time.

In two years time perhaps GTA would score less, as of right now GTA's pretty next gen. The game fits so much into a disk it's unreal.

wayninja
  • wayninja

    Do gooder

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 May 2008

#907

Posted 28 July 2008 - 06:03 AM

QUOTE (Machida @ Jul 28 2008, 05:52)
QUOTE (wayninja @ Jul 28 2008, 03:55)
This game was given a 10 by most online gaming sites... let that sink in a second.  A 10.

10 is perfect.  Less than a dozen games in the history of gaming deserve a 10.  The history of gaming.

Now think in 2 years whether or not you will be playing GTA IV.  What about 6 months?  If the answer is no, then a score of a 10 is a downright conspiracy.

Enough said.

The scoring system is actually based on the times and what's possible for games to achieve within the technology available at the time.

In two years time perhaps GTA would score less, as of right now GTA's pretty next gen. The game fits so much into a disk it's unreal.

Nonsense. Gameplay is gameplay regardless of the technology or platform that 'runs' that gameplay.

I've stated this before but I guess it's just not well understood. If scores were based even partially on technology then old games simply would never hold up to newer games regardless of the genius of their design. We would still not be playing or holding as benchmarks games like tetris, chess, fallout, street fighter, zelda etc.

A score should be timeless. It should be based on the design of the game and not Moore's law. In this instance the score is just not justified. No one will be holding GTAIV next to Civilization 2 or Super Metroid or GTA3 or Xcom or Diablo etc in 5-10 years time.

Machida
  • Machida

    Send in the cows

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2008

#908

Posted 28 July 2008 - 06:09 AM

QUOTE (wayninja @ Jul 28 2008, 06:03)

Nonsense. Gameplay is gameplay regardless of the technology or platform that 'runs' that gameplay.

I've stated this before but I guess it's just not well understood. If scores were based even partially on technology then old games simply would never hold up to newer games regardless of the genius of their design. We would still not be playing or holding as benchmarks games like tetris, chess, fallout, street fighter, zelda etc.

A score should be timeless. It should be based on the design of the game and not Moore's law. In this instance the score is just not justified. No one will be holding GTAIV next to Civilization 2 or Super Metroid or GTA3 or Xcom or Diablo etc in 5-10 years time.

Yes gameplay is what the game is scored on. But the technology shifts the actually scoring system. Unfortunately you'll never get a timeless game. The limits are often changing, rendering alot of previous 10 rated games obsolete. Unplayable to some.

wayninja
  • wayninja

    Do gooder

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 May 2008

#909

Posted 28 July 2008 - 06:16 AM

QUOTE (Machida @ Jul 28 2008, 06:09)
QUOTE (wayninja @ Jul 28 2008, 06:03)

Nonsense.  Gameplay is gameplay regardless of the technology or platform that 'runs' that gameplay.

I've stated this before but I guess it's just not well understood.  If scores were based even partially on technology then old games simply would never hold up to newer games regardless of the genius of their design.  We would still not be playing or holding as benchmarks games like tetris, chess, fallout, street fighter, zelda etc.

A score should be timeless.  It should be based on the design of the game and not Moore's law.  In this instance the score is just not justified.  No one will be holding GTAIV next to Civilization 2 or Super Metroid or GTA3 or Xcom or Diablo etc in 5-10 years time.

Yes gameplay is what the game is scored on. But the technology shifts the actually scoring system. Unfortunately you'll never get a timeless game. The limits are often changing, rendering alot of previous 10 rated games obsolete. Unplayable to some.

Again, nonsense. There is such a thing as timeless game design. If you deny that you deny the entire theory of game scoring. Technology does not shift the scoring system. It's analogous to gilding a book with gold leaf and adding stunning, da vinci style artwork. The piece of literature can still be rated on it's merits while removing it's presentation.

I'm not saying that there is nothing to be said for the technology, graphics, presentation etc, just that those elements are separate from the design of the game itself.

If you find previously 10 rated games obsolete based on nothing but technological advancement, then you are missing out on some of the greatest games in history and contributing the decline of game desing in general.

Machida
  • Machida

    Send in the cows

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2008

#910

Posted 28 July 2008 - 06:21 AM

QUOTE (wayninja @ Jul 28 2008, 06:16)
QUOTE (Machida @ Jul 28 2008, 06:09)
QUOTE (wayninja @ Jul 28 2008, 06:03)

Nonsense.  Gameplay is gameplay regardless of the technology or platform that 'runs' that gameplay.

I've stated this before but I guess it's just not well understood.  If scores were based even partially on technology then old games simply would never hold up to newer games regardless of the genius of their design.  We would still not be playing or holding as benchmarks games like tetris, chess, fallout, street fighter, zelda etc.

A score should be timeless.  It should be based on the design of the game and not Moore's law.  In this instance the score is just not justified.  No one will be holding GTAIV next to Civilization 2 or Super Metroid or GTA3 or Xcom or Diablo etc in 5-10 years time.

Yes gameplay is what the game is scored on. But the technology shifts the actually scoring system. Unfortunately you'll never get a timeless game. The limits are often changing, rendering alot of previous 10 rated games obsolete. Unplayable to some.

Again, nonsense. There is such a thing as timeless game design. If you deny that you deny the entire theory of game scoring. Technology does not shift the scoring system. It's analogous to gilding a book with gold leaf and adding stunning, da vinci style artwork. The piece of literature can still be rated on it's merits while removing it's presentation.

I'm not saying that there is nothing to be said for the technology, graphics, presentation etc, just that those elements are separate from the design of the game itself.

If you find previously 10 rated games obsolete based on nothing but technological advancement, then you are missing out on some of the greatest games in history and contributing the decline of game desing in general.

Then you'll hate me telling you genre changes the way games are scored too.
You pointed out games like "Civilization 2", there's a game you'd have to pay me to play. Does't mean it's not a 10/10 game, just not a game for me. In terms of genre.

wayninja
  • wayninja

    Do gooder

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 May 2008

#911

Posted 28 July 2008 - 06:30 AM

QUOTE (Machida @ Jul 28 2008, 06:21)
QUOTE (wayninja @ Jul 28 2008, 06:16)
QUOTE (Machida @ Jul 28 2008, 06:09)
QUOTE (wayninja @ Jul 28 2008, 06:03)

Nonsense.  Gameplay is gameplay regardless of the technology or platform that 'runs' that gameplay.

I've stated this before but I guess it's just not well understood.  If scores were based even partially on technology then old games simply would never hold up to newer games regardless of the genius of their design.  We would still not be playing or holding as benchmarks games like tetris, chess, fallout, street fighter, zelda etc.

A score should be timeless.  It should be based on the design of the game and not Moore's law.  In this instance the score is just not justified.  No one will be holding GTAIV next to Civilization 2 or Super Metroid or GTA3 or Xcom or Diablo etc in 5-10 years time.

Yes gameplay is what the game is scored on. But the technology shifts the actually scoring system. Unfortunately you'll never get a timeless game. The limits are often changing, rendering alot of previous 10 rated games obsolete. Unplayable to some.

Again, nonsense. There is such a thing as timeless game design. If you deny that you deny the entire theory of game scoring. Technology does not shift the scoring system. It's analogous to gilding a book with gold leaf and adding stunning, da vinci style artwork. The piece of literature can still be rated on it's merits while removing it's presentation.

I'm not saying that there is nothing to be said for the technology, graphics, presentation etc, just that those elements are separate from the design of the game itself.

If you find previously 10 rated games obsolete based on nothing but technological advancement, then you are missing out on some of the greatest games in history and contributing the decline of game desing in general.

Then you'll hate me telling you genre changes the way games are scored too.
You pointed out games like "Civilization 2", there's a game you'd have to pay me to play. Does't mean it's not a 10/10 game, just not a game for me. In terms of genre.

Genre doesn't exactly 'change' the way games are scored, just defines what makes a good game in a given genre.

In terms of innovation of design, GTA3 was far more innovative and genius than GTAIV, yet gta3 did not get a 10. Some will say that is becuase GTAIV is better, and some (more seasoned IMHO) will say it's more about inflation and the dilution of the marketplace.

But again, genre doesn't change the way games are scored, just defines what makes a game good at what it's trying to be.

Southside Dukes Ballas
  • Southside Dukes Ballas

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2007

#912

Posted 28 July 2008 - 06:51 AM

QUOTE (wayninja @ Jul 28 2008, 06:03)
QUOTE (Machida @ Jul 28 2008, 05:52)
QUOTE (wayninja @ Jul 28 2008, 03:55)
This game was given a 10 by most online gaming sites... let that sink in a second.  A 10.

10 is perfect.  Less than a dozen games in the history of gaming deserve a 10.  The history of gaming.

Now think in 2 years whether or not you will be playing GTA IV.  What about 6 months?  If the answer is no, then a score of a 10 is a downright conspiracy.

Enough said.

The scoring system is actually based on the times and what's possible for games to achieve within the technology available at the time.

In two years time perhaps GTA would score less, as of right now GTA's pretty next gen. The game fits so much into a disk it's unreal.

Nonsense. Gameplay is gameplay regardless of the technology or platform that 'runs' that gameplay.

I've stated this before but I guess it's just not well understood. If scores were based even partially on technology then old games simply would never hold up to newer games regardless of the genius of their design. We would still not be playing or holding as benchmarks games like tetris, chess, fallout, street fighter, zelda etc.

A score should be timeless. It should be based on the design of the game and not Moore's law. In this instance the score is just not justified. No one will be holding GTAIV next to Civilization 2 or Super Metroid or GTA3 or Xcom or Diablo etc in 5-10 years time.

I won't even be holding GTA IV next to any game in 1 year let alone 5. GTA IV is no classic title where III, VC and SA can be considered classics and will more then likely still be played in 5 years.

As said numerous times R* must have had a hand in GTA IV scores. I beleive they payed reviewers mainly the mainstream sites and magazines because IV does not justtify a 10. The only sites or mags that gave IV reviews it deserved was less known sites and Edge. Hell even the majority of GTA fans who voted on this site about the score IV deserved was mainly 9-9.5

Let's not forget the infamous Gamespot review. GTA IV originaly received a 9.5 but all of a sudden 2 hours later it was a 10 because the review board "reviewed the original review". Also don't forget R* gave reviewers luxorious rooms for them to review the game in with room service and things like that.

III recieved a 9.5 but that was a better game overall. Better storyline, better voice actors, better music and over all more replayability. All IV added was better graphics and better but wonky physics as well as a few new gameplay elements that have already been used in other games.

.:Alex:.
  • .:Alex:.

    Bitter and Twisted

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2006

#913

Posted 28 July 2008 - 09:14 AM

QUOTE (Southside Dukes Ballas @ Jul 28 2008, 06:51)
III recieved a 9.5 but that was a better game overall. Better storyline, better voice actors, better music and over all more replayability.

Please tell me you are kidding? I could understand VC or SA, but III? People complain about IV being serious when III is the most serious of them all. The characters all sound like robots!

xAlanxEnglandx
  • xAlanxEnglandx

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2007

#914

Posted 28 July 2008 - 09:34 AM

Think about it guys, if gta 4 was the first gta game ever released by rockstar and no other game in the gta francise before this game, everyone would love and think this is the best game ever

Tony Mozzarelli 80
  • Tony Mozzarelli 80

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2008

#915

Posted 28 July 2008 - 09:42 AM

But it isn't

mkey82
  • mkey82

    Keep riding hard, son

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008

#916

Posted 28 July 2008 - 09:52 AM

QUOTE (wayninja @ Jul 28 2008, 05:55)
10 is perfect.  Less than a dozen games in the history of gaming deserve a 10.  The history of gaming.

Actually, not ONE TITLE in gamespot history has been awarded a 10. Under PC titles, Diablo is on top with a 9.6.

QUOTE (Machida @ Jul 28 2008, 07:52)
GTA's pretty next gen

Yeah right. What a funny term, this "next-gen".

TT1987
  • TT1987

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Apr 2008

#917

Posted 28 July 2008 - 10:12 AM

QUOTE (mkey82 @ Jul 28 2008, 09:52)
Actually, not ONE TITLE in gamespot history has been awarded a 10.

That's not true. Unless you're talking about PC games

Horatio Humboldt
  • Horatio Humboldt

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 May 2008

#918

Posted 28 July 2008 - 12:52 PM Edited by Horatio Humboldt, 28 July 2008 - 12:58 PM.

Pretty interesting about the scoring system. Personally I agreed with both of you. I do believe that there is such a thing as 'timeless' gameplay but I also agree that scoring does have to be based on current technological capabilities. I like the example about a books, one with fantastic illustrations. The content of the literature would would be just as valid in both copies but the illustrated one would look better.

This does translate well to games. Classic games such as Elite, FFVII are 10s IMHO but not based on todays standards. It's not just technology, its the evolution of the games. If Elite was released now with Amiga graphics, it wouldnt score a 10 regardless of the gameplay because it would be graphically inferior to what we have come to expect and the original 'Sandbox' content is now fairly commonplace.

Best example I can think of would be a chess game. Imagine a standard top-down, monochromatic Chess game. Now imagine the same game but with animation, great graphics and sounds etc. The game is exactly the same but would you give them both the same score? Of course not.

As a last point, remember that reviews are what the critics think. It is not a genuine value rather an opinion. I tend to read them because most are generally accurate, particularly when almost all revievers give the same score. I think 10 is a fine score for GTA4. I don't buy the 'conspiricy' theory that revievers gave the game a 10 because they were given a few shiny toys. Almost all developers do that anyway. Would a reviewer tarnish their professionalism because of a few perks (I mean R* wern't giving free blow jobs or anything)?

sanandreas luva101
  • sanandreas luva101

    AKA Deri

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2007

#919

Posted 28 July 2008 - 12:53 PM

Grow up and get a f*cking life! I don't understand why GTA 4 has to be the biggest game of the century! I mean, what the f*ck separates GTA from all the other games for f*ck sake!? And another thing i don't f*cking get, is that why everybody has to go whining on this forum for little disappointments and why everything has to be the f*cking same about f*cking san andreas! I was dissapointed about some small things in GTA 4, but im not gonna go whining on saying "WHERE THE FUKS ARE THE BIKES!!! AND THE LAUNDORMAT DOESN'T EVEN WORK!!!" LCS didn't have anything of that wankers list has and i don't see anyone writing any sh*t like that and their f*cking disappointments.

Horatio Humboldt
  • Horatio Humboldt

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 May 2008

#920

Posted 28 July 2008 - 12:59 PM

Sanandreas, I agree but don't get angry... it makes GTAaddictforever smile, he lives for that kind of reaction.

Heiks
  • Heiks

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 May 2003

#921

Posted 28 July 2008 - 01:29 PM

QUOTE (vettefan88 @ Jul 27 2008, 11:27)
you all seem to be infatuated with cookies, so here's a simple anaolgy for you guys:
say you had a plate holding a dozen chocolate chip cookies.
then say somebody replaces the plate with a gold platter, but takes away all of the chocolate chips in the cookies.

would you still enjoy the cookies as much?


the people who like the game only see the gold platter
the people disappointed with the game see the cookies for what they could have been.

Face it, some people don't like chocolate in there at all. That's an option as well.

Some people like the game the way it is, some want more features, some want less, some prefer previous titles, etc - it's all good. A perfect game (for everyone) does not exist. I agree, IV is not a upgrade of SA, it is somewhat a different game. I believe the developers made the game the way they wanted to and made their fortune thanks to the self-generated hype, the large-scale advertising and quite a few successful predecessors.

If you don't like it the way it is I wouldn't put my hopes on DLC, I'd rather wait/look for an other game, GTA or not, because it is not going to change the game drastically. New story mode missions might make the game a bit more than a chasing-shooting game, but we're yet to see that.

Another thing is that the user-created content on PC has remarkably raised those games' replay-value, right now the console versions haven't offered us any of that. At least I was a huge sucker for importing vehicles into SA, kept me playing for a while after completing the rest of the game. When that didn't entertain me any more, I had the possibility to download a third party multi-player patch to a game that didn't have one coming out of the box. I'd say that's pretty damn remarkable.

All in all, GTA IV isn't THAT bad, but it definitely didn't live up to the hype and definitely is not a perfect 10, if there is any at all.

NoUsHkAVi
  • NoUsHkAVi

    Jakko

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2008

#922

Posted 28 July 2008 - 01:38 PM Edited by NoUsHkAVi, 28 July 2008 - 01:45 PM.

Pathetic Get A Life And Go Swim ith Dolphins

macorules94
  • macorules94

    MACEDONIAN KING

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2007

#923

Posted 28 July 2008 - 01:42 PM

WOW

about 52 000 views.....just wow

NoUsHkAVi
  • NoUsHkAVi

    Jakko

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2008

#924

Posted 28 July 2008 - 01:45 PM

QUOTE (GTAaddictforever @ Apr 29 2008, 08:03)
if players wanted REAL LIFE driving simulations, we would buy Microsoft simulators.

what we want is a damn sandbox to play in. whatever. i have checked gamefaqs forum for this game and I already see 6 threads with my exact complaints. the driving SUCKS BAD

If Players Wanted PLANES They'd Go Get Flight Simulator
If Players Wanted Dolphins They'd Go Get Ecco The F*CKING Dolphin

Machida
  • Machida

    Send in the cows

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2008

#925

Posted 28 July 2008 - 02:04 PM

QUOTE (macorules94 @ Jul 28 2008, 13:42)
WOW

about 52 000 views.....just wow

This post owns. You rock! cookie.gif

The driving in GTA is one of my favourite things about the game. Each car is unique. There was a thread a while ago about people actually using the same car throught the game because the unique'ness' could be suited to each individuals taste.

.:Alex:.
  • .:Alex:.

    Bitter and Twisted

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2006

#926

Posted 28 July 2008 - 02:29 PM

Initially, I loathed the driving in GTA IV, but I find it's better than SA (and obviously II and VC, in which the vehicles handled like turds on ice).

g0d
  • g0d

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2008

#927

Posted 28 July 2008 - 02:40 PM

There 'are' cars with excellent handling if your looking for a car with perfect steering, etc..

You could've just spawned a GT or something, or stolen a sick ass viper-looking car.

I've driven in at least 10-15 cars with close to perfect handling, brakes, etc...

Get a good car, and save it in your lot.

RONIN1191
  • RONIN1191

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2008

#928

Posted 28 July 2008 - 03:53 PM

QUOTE (mkey82 @ Jul 28 2008, 04:52)
QUOTE (wayninja @ Jul 28 2008, 05:55)
10 is perfect.  Less than a dozen games in the history of gaming deserve a 10.  The history of gaming.

Actually, not ONE TITLE in gamespot history has been awarded a 10. Under PC titles, Diablo is on top with a 9.6.

QUOTE (Machida @ Jul 28 2008, 07:52)
GTA's pretty next gen

Yeah right. What a funny term, this "next-gen".

Yes, Diablo was visionary for its time, but you know, in trying to play it now- it just doesn't hold my interest anymore. I opt for Oblivion instead, which I find myself enjoying quite a bit.

The problem with currently established genres, is that the marketplace is flooded with mainstays and copycats- the mainstays getting complacent and the copycats doing their level best to trounce the current champions. I guess it is good for gaming in general- especially since there seems to be two schools of thought on what a GTA-like game SHOULD be.

There are purists out there who will argue that certain games are timeless but I disagree- in my opinion, there is no such thing in the video game world. In board games sure- you have the likes of chess which will forever be a strategists' favorite, or monopoly, trivial pursuit- whatever. These games could be considered timeless, at least in the instance of chess, but with video games being a graphical/visual as well as imaginative input means that at some point they will be rendered 'less desirable' but a later spate of games. There are a few exceptions in MY book- for instance, if I still had my PS2 I'd probably still be playing RE4 from time to time, I just loved that game and consider it the best they've delivered so far. Ummm...what else? Maybe GTA VC (for me) but even now the visuals make it difficult to get back into it. Anything else? None that come to mind; maybe SF but only because you're a SF fanboy and not necessarily because the game was all that great.


wayninja
  • wayninja

    Do gooder

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 May 2008

#929

Posted 28 July 2008 - 04:24 PM

QUOTE (RONIN1191 @ Jul 28 2008, 15:53)
QUOTE (mkey82 @ Jul 28 2008, 04:52)
QUOTE (wayninja @ Jul 28 2008, 05:55)
10 is perfect.  Less than a dozen games in the history of gaming deserve a 10.  The history of gaming.

Actually, not ONE TITLE in gamespot history has been awarded a 10. Under PC titles, Diablo is on top with a 9.6.

QUOTE (Machida @ Jul 28 2008, 07:52)
GTA's pretty next gen

Yeah right. What a funny term, this "next-gen".

Yes, Diablo was visionary for its time, but you know, in trying to play it now- it just doesn't hold my interest anymore. I opt for Oblivion instead, which I find myself enjoying quite a bit.

The problem with currently established genres, is that the marketplace is flooded with mainstays and copycats- the mainstays getting complacent and the copycats doing their level best to trounce the current champions. I guess it is good for gaming in general- especially since there seems to be two schools of thought on what a GTA-like game SHOULD be.

There are purists out there who will argue that certain games are timeless but I disagree- in my opinion, there is no such thing in the video game world. In board games sure- you have the likes of chess which will forever be a strategists' favorite, or monopoly, trivial pursuit- whatever. These games could be considered timeless, at least in the instance of chess, but with video games being a graphical/visual as well as imaginative input means that at some point they will be rendered 'less desirable' but a later spate of games. There are a few exceptions in MY book- for instance, if I still had my PS2 I'd probably still be playing RE4 from time to time, I just loved that game and consider it the best they've delivered so far. Ummm...what else? Maybe GTA VC (for me) but even now the visuals make it difficult to get back into it. Anything else? None that come to mind; maybe SF but only because you're a SF fanboy and not necessarily because the game was all that great.

I understand where you are coming from with the visuals and presentation and it's not necessarily easy to give a composite score that takes all aspects of a video game into consideration, but most review sites do break-down individual elements of a game. I happen to feel that how a game plays is much more important to how it looks. I will go back to older, worse looking, but ultimately more fun games time after time and there are still games that are decades old on my hard drive simply because they are fun. If you can see the timelessness in board games, it's not a far leap to see them in video games as well.

I also see where the marketplace gets flooded with game-alikes hoping to capitalize on a ground breaking games success. But as you say this is also does stimulate the genre to do something new.

Which brings me to GTAIV. If you were to only rate this game on it's presentation and graphics, a score of a 10 isn't really out of bounds. But if you were judge it for what it does to stimulate the genre... well, let's just say a 10 isn't nearly as fair.

D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#930

Posted 28 July 2008 - 05:01 PM

QUOTE (GTAaddictforever @ Jul 27 2008, 18:02)
rockstar's budget was $100million for GTA 4


in a simplistic form of explaining how i feel they spent their money :

$70 million went into graphics and detail

$15 million went into physics

$10 million went into multiplayer

$1 million went into features

$1 million into designing mission storyline


the other $3 million went into buying their wives big diamond rings to apologize for making violent video games and to keep their promise of toning it down this time. we will add a buddy friend system so they can take their friend to dinner or go play bowling or watch a comedy show.

-------

To those who think GTA is the best GTA ever, apparently all you need to do to please you :

- throw in a mish-mash uninspired, unepic story of the mafia

- make the graphics really pretty and shiny "oooh ahhhhh"

- make you feel more 'mature' because the game is so stuck far up into it's own anus that it takes itself so seriously

Hahaha can't have been said any better cuz, and love the inspired way of showing it via expenditure.
I really can't have said it any better myself, and not get everyone to fall asleep from my chapter-long ramblings.

I totaly agree with you, and it's great having someone who seems to think the same of GTA4.
Cookies for you bro.
cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users