Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

We Are Not The Same Players

107 replies to this topic
SantiagoDomingo
  • SantiagoDomingo

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2008

#61

Posted 25 June 2008 - 03:45 PM

QUOTE (Tatertotts @ Jun 25 2008, 15:30)
QUOTE (Ph3L1z14n0 @ Jun 25 2008, 10:55)
QUOTE
That still doesn't make up for the fact that this game could have and should have been so much more than it was.

Thanks again, this is another one of the points i adressed, you had expectations, but what expectations did you had? what did you expected? most likely you didn't know what you wanted, maybe if someone asked you could've said "more stuff to do", but in reality you didn't know what to expect, and thus it ruined your experience when you got the game, specially since IV takes more than 3 hours to get better (for a player like me who finished it in 60 hours).

I didn't know what to expect? And that somehow ruined the game for me? That doesn't even make sense. Doesn't matter anyway, because your entire point rests on yet another a baseless assumption. What do you know about my expectations? What makes you think you know what I'm thinking "in reality"?

I don't think it is unreasonable to 'expect' that GTA IV would incorporate everything from the previous GTAs and expand upon that base . . .

Tatertotts
  • Tatertotts

    This is me using science for good.

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 May 2008

#62

Posted 25 June 2008 - 04:18 PM

QUOTE (SantiagoDomingo @ Jun 25 2008, 14:45)
The story in IV isn't even all that great.  I could hardly force myself to finish it.

Yeah, the story is good, but it's really no better than the stories in SA and VC.

People keep saying the story of IV is better, more mature, more realistic, but the themes of SA are no less mature or realistic. Both are about revenge and justice. Both have protagonists who struggle with the past: Roman tells Niko to start anew, let go of the past, while Sweet is there to remind CJ that he can't escape his past. There are other themes in both stories, but I can't see that any of them are more or less mature or realistic.

If anything, SA is the more complete story, with a protagonist transformation and a resolution. IV doesn't even feel finished yet (probably because it's not). There are loose ends everywhere, and by the end Niko may or may not have even learned anything.

.:Alex:.
  • .:Alex:.

    Bitter and Twisted

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2006

#63

Posted 25 June 2008 - 04:26 PM

Yeah, but SA's story was so far feteched in places and became annoying. CJ has no control, he would just do everyone's bidding no matter what it involved like some sort of mindless drone. Niko at least demands payment and becomes concerned if he is tasked to do something that is either dangerous or could possibly implicate him.

SuperJay
  • SuperJay

    Caporegime

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Oct 2006

#64

Posted 25 June 2008 - 04:28 PM

Wow, you really don't find the written elements of IV to be *any* better than VC or SA?

SA just felt like a cheesy gangsta movie to me. It was great fun, but story? Are you kidding me?

VC was also fun, but also felt like a parody of the Scarface/Miami Vice genre without a lot of depth in the slightest. I loved Tommy Vercetti (in large part b/c of Ray Liotta) but I didn't exactly feel a lot of emotional connection to him as a character.

IV feels (so far) like there's much more depth to these characters. They are realized as human beings far more than most of the characters in VC or SA, who were often caricatures - funny and enjoyable ones, but walking jokes or cardboard stereotypes nonetheless. The storyline itself in IV is more interesting to me, but your mileage may vary.

Tatertotts
  • Tatertotts

    This is me using science for good.

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 May 2008

#65

Posted 25 June 2008 - 04:41 PM

QUOTE (SuperJay @ Jun 25 2008, 16:28)
Wow, you really don't find the written elements of IV to be *any* better than VC or SA?

SA just felt like a cheesy gangsta movie to me. It was great fun, but story? Are you kidding me?

VC was also fun, but also felt like a parody of the Scarface/Miami Vice genre without a lot of depth in the slightest. I loved Tommy Vercetti (in large part b/c of Ray Liotta) but I didn't exactly feel a lot of emotional connection to him as a character.

IV feels (so far) like there's much more depth to these characters. They are realized as human beings far more than most of the characters in VC or SA, who were often caricatures - funny and enjoyable ones, but walking jokes or cardboard stereotypes nonetheless. The storyline itself in IV is more interesting to me, but your mileage may vary.

Cardboard stereotypes, yes. Like Brucie, Jacob, Packie, Bernie, etc.

SantiagoDomingo
  • SantiagoDomingo

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2008

#66

Posted 25 June 2008 - 05:25 PM

QUOTE (Tatertotts @ Jun 25 2008, 16:41)
QUOTE (SuperJay @ Jun 25 2008, 16:28)
Wow, you really don't find the written elements of IV to be *any* better than VC or SA?

SA just felt like a cheesy gangsta movie to me. It was great fun, but story? Are you kidding me?

VC was also fun, but also felt like a parody of the Scarface/Miami Vice genre without a lot of depth in the slightest. I loved Tommy Vercetti (in large part b/c of Ray Liotta) but I didn't exactly feel a lot of emotional connection to him as a character.

IV feels (so far) like there's much more depth to these characters. They are realized as human beings far more than most of the characters in VC or SA, who were often caricatures - funny and enjoyable ones, but walking jokes or cardboard stereotypes nonetheless. The storyline itself in IV is more interesting to me, but your mileage may vary.

Cardboard stereotypes, yes. Like Brucie, Jacob, Packie, Bernie, etc.

Yeah, it is no different in IV than the others. All of the characters are over the top, and goofy. Any foreigner has to be extremely foreign, just like a gay man has to be exceptionally gay, and the rasta man has to be extremely rasta.

Ph3L1z14n0
  • Ph3L1z14n0

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2007

#67

Posted 25 June 2008 - 09:05 PM Edited by Ph3L1z14n0, 25 June 2008 - 09:15 PM.

QUOTE (Tatertotts @ Jun 25 2008, 15:30)
I didn't know what to expect?  And that somehow ruined the game for me?  That doesn't even make sense.  Doesn't matter anyway, because your entire point rests on yet another a baseless assumption.  What do you know about my expectations?  What makes you think you know what I'm thinking "in reality"?

Relax, i said in my very first post is a theory, i don't know what you're thinking, i'm just making assumptions, and that theory is that a game can be hampered by expectations, jeez, don't take it so rough man.

QUOTE
Yeah, it is no different in IV than the others. All of the characters are over the top, and goofy. Any foreigner has to be extremely foreign, just like a gay man has to be exceptionally gay, and the rasta man has to be extremely rasta.

Like in any other GTA, with the exception that these people are parodies, GTA at the very essence is parody of America.

QUOTE
If anything, SA is the more complete story, with a protagonist transformation and a resolution. IV doesn't even feel finished yet (probably because it's not). There are loose ends everywhere, and by the end Niko may or may not have even learned anything.

Now this is a great example of complaining for the sake of doing it, nobody said that the story in IV is the best story ever in a game, it's not, but it's better, it's more original, it deals with a more mature issue, with a more realistic criminal world, with a character who does have a past, a game filled with symbolism, if you don't think so, then i want you to explain to me what the hell does Gambetti represent? what is the real and most important difference between Niko and Roman? what does all the foreign characters represent? these are things that you will notice if you paid the minimum of atention, certainly it's not the best story ever, but it's the biggest leap in a GTA game.

Tatertotts
  • Tatertotts

    This is me using science for good.

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 May 2008

#68

Posted 25 June 2008 - 11:50 PM

QUOTE (Ph3L1z14n0 @ Jun 25 2008, 21:05)
Relax, i said in my very first post is a theory, i don't know what you're thinking, i'm just making assumptions, and that theory is that a game can be hampered by expectations, jeez, don't take it so rough man.


QUOTE
If anything, SA is the more complete story, with a protagonist transformation and a resolution. IV doesn't even feel finished yet (probably because it's not). There are loose ends everywhere, and by the end Niko may or may not have even learned anything.

Now this is a great example of complaining for the sake of doing it, nobody said that the story in IV is the best story ever in a game, it's not, but it's better, it's more original, it deals with a more mature issue, with a more realistic criminal world, with a character who does have a past, a game filled with symbolism, if you don't think so, then i want you to explain to me what the hell does Gambetti represent? what is the real and most important difference between Niko and Roman? what does all the foreign characters represent? these are things that you will notice if you paid the minimum of atention, certainly it's not the best story ever, but it's the biggest leap in a GTA game.

I didn't take it rough at all. It's probably a good idea not to make wrong assumptions about the people you're talking to, and then use those wrong assumptions to "prove" your points. You've been doing that since the OP of this thread. Instead, you might try listening to what other people are saying instead of assuming you know better than them.

How is the second part above an example of complaining for the sake of doing it, or of complaining at all? Pointing out that the story is incomplete and that the protagonist isn't as fully developed in IV as in SA isn't a complaint; it's an observation.

Point out where I said other people were saying "the story in IV is the best story ever in a game." I didn't say anything like that. What I did say was that people are saying the story is better, more mature, and more realistic than the story in SA. And like you have now done, they never provide any reasons for this statement. I pointed out a couple of mature and realistic themes that dominate both stories. Those themes are evidence that the stories in IV and SA are equally mature. I don't see this story as that much of a leap, but if you have some evidence to the contrary, then please present it.

And btw, maybe you'd like to explain the "symbolism" you've found in the story. Don't just ask the questions - go ahead and answer them.

Ph3L1z14n0
  • Ph3L1z14n0

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2007

#69

Posted 26 June 2008 - 06:05 AM

QUOTE
You might try listening to what other people are saying instead of assuming you know better than them.

Chill out man, i told you to relax, like i said, it's a theory, it doesn't mean it's the absolute truth, i already told you it was something i noticed as a cause for dissapointment in some fans of the series, that's it, please, don't take it badly.

QUOTE
How is the second part above an example of complaining for the sake of doing it, or of complaining at all?  Pointing out that the story is incomplete and that the protagonist isn't as fully developed in IV as in SA isn't a complaint; it's an observation. 

It's an opinion, not an observation, at least you should acknowledge that, first, because like you said, your opinion isn't better than the other peoples'.

QUOTE
Those themes are evidence that the stories in IV and SA are equally mature.  I don't see this story as that much of a leap, but if you have some evidence to the contrary, then please present it. 

Let's get the facts straight, both stories from both games were awesome, but they're not equally mature, SA was a very simple and derivative story of african american gangs, nothing really new, and which made effort to be similar to the stories it was based off, such as Boyz N' The Hood and Menace 2 Society, in the end the story wasn't really about revenge, nor justice, it was about rising to the top, about the struggle of a young man to reach high.

Now in IV, the most shocking thing in the game in story terms is that the main character despises all of which CJ and Tommy stood for, he doesn't want money, houses or the big life, he wants peace in his conscience, he wants the anger to stop cosuming him, he REALLY wants revenge, sick, sad and cold revenge, as dirty as you can get, this already puts you in a more emotional stand in GTA, one which we had merely scouted in SA with Brian's death, but not as close as with Niko. The other reason why the story is so good, it's because it's product of research that R* mentioned they did, this research was about the status of crime in these days, and they got the answer that being a criminal is harder than before, which we can clearly see in the game in the form of Faustin, Dimitri, Pegorino, Boccino, Gerry and countless of other characters who really are struggling, it adds more depth and a different layer to what crime is today.

QUOTE
And btw, maybe you'd like to explain the "symbolism" you've found in the story.  Don't just ask the questions - go ahead and answer them.

I'm not talking to myself here, that's what i made this topic for, those questions were for you, anyways, have it your way:

When i asked about Gambetti, i meant Gravelli, i always confuse the names, but Gravelli is supposed to be the old kind of cosa nostra man, the classic old REAL gangster, the character itself, apart from being more than 80 years old, is a tribute to what we all know as "The Italian Mafia" and the decay it's been having over the years, because of RICO laws, the FBI. Pegorino for example is the leftover that came from the decay of the cosa nostra, goons with nothing more than ambition and greed and no brains or honor, if you could say it that way.

When i asked about the most important difference between Roman and Niko, i was talking about the time both set their minds on, Niko's greatest weakness is himself, he has planted roots so incredibly deep in the past that it is practically impossible for him to find what he really is after, which is clearness and peace. While Roman on the contrary is always living in the future, very deep inside he wasn't lying to Niko when he told him that he had mansions and cars because in Roman's mind he was already living in them, Roman was so down and into the future that he saw the present only as a mere obstacle that needed to be tackled.

When i asked about the foreign character's, well, the very simple fact that everyone who lives or has been to New York knows that it is the capital of the world, seriously, what CAN'T you find in a city like that?

Talking straight man, don't you think those things were great? it was improvement, i can only wait and hope just how better will be the story for the next GTA, just try to get more into it, sure it doesn't suck you in like other games, but it's got some great stuff in there.

mkey82
  • mkey82

    Keep riding hard, son

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008

#70

Posted 26 June 2008 - 06:52 AM Edited by mkey82, 26 June 2008 - 07:06 AM.

QUOTE (Ph3L1z14n0 @ Jun 25 2008, 23:05)
... certainly it's not the best story ever, but it's the biggest leap in a GTA game.

Definitely not. The GTA IV story is not the biggest leap in GTA series. Not by a long shot.

EDIT:

Ph3L1z14n0, you have a nice way to express yourself, this is why your words give the GTA IV story more layered structure then it really has. To a random player (take me, I have hard time to concentrate when the story offers me cutscenes longer then 5 minutes biggrin.gif ) GTA IV story is all about long cutscenes with a lot of talk and Niko standing idly by; disappearing characters and some holes (which IMHO are meant to be filled by DLC). For example, Roman is the only guy Niko has in NY (LC). Why didn't they evolve more on that connection? This would be a natural way of things. A classic story would be: Roman calls Niko in LC, he puts him in a lot of trouble, Niko solves stuff, they become a bit alienated at first, but then Niko sees Roman as his only friend, as the only guy he can trust. Now the story can become a bit Roman heavy (for example, Niko can help him become a regular man, instead of a wimp) with some missions. Then if you want a twist, you bring someone (usually a woman) that will turn Niko against Roman at first, but after some problems and rough issues, Niko and Roman come together and wrap the story up. Something like Tommy and Rosenberg or CJ and Sweet.

Ph3L1z14n0
  • Ph3L1z14n0

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2007

#71

Posted 26 June 2008 - 08:41 AM

QUOTE
Definitely not. The GTA IV story is not the biggest leap in GTA series. Not by a long shot.

You know you can't convince me just like that man tounge.gif , care to explain yourself?

QUOTE
your words give the GTA IV story more layered structure then it really has

Maybe it sounded like that, but in reality it is a simple story with tons of interesting details, like the ones i mentioned before, in my opinion they're very clear and obvious, no need from any sugar coating of mine.

QUOTE
Why didn't they evolve more on that connection?

Jesus man, if we start thinking about all of the "could've been" and "why didn't" we'll really get nowhere, maybe that kind of story wouldn't have worked out, maybe it would've been the bomb, who knows?, it really doesn't matter, the story we got now is the one we need to focus.

mkey82
  • mkey82

    Keep riding hard, son

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008

#72

Posted 26 June 2008 - 09:52 AM

QUOTE (Ph3L1z14n0 @ Jun 26 2008, 10:41)
You know you can't convince me just like that man tounge.gif , care to explain yourself?

OK, had you said that the graphics and/or physics is that big next-gen leap I wouldn't agree, but I would let it slide biggrin.gif . IMHO GTA was never about graphics and thusly (only) the technical aspects of the game can not represent the development of the franchise. The story may be technically better (definitely better animations, on par voice acting and nice conversation variations) but the story line is not. At least for me. A lost people say SA was sh*t because of the gangsta theme. Well, I personally despise gangstas and I do think that they were depicted in a satirical fashion in SA. SA isn't glorifying gangstas, it's mocking them.

GTA IV story just lacks that vibe GTA always had. I personally never play some story related (railroad) game more then once. Usually I like open ended games, but I went through GTA 3 installment numerous times. GTA IV just isn't appealing to me (it's not about the story only , it's the IV as whole) and the story is not that exciting. I don't feel drawn in, there is no character relations evolving going on. In SA I enjoyed killing that Ryder looser, in VC Sonny just begged for it. They had it coming and I was pleased to give them hat they wanted smile.gif .

And I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just making my point. The last big leap in GTA franchise was from GTA 2 to GTA 3 - the 2D to 3D transition. GTA IV story just can not compete with that.

QUOTE (Ph3L1z14n0 @ Jun 26 2008, 10:41)
Maybe it sounded like that, but in reality it is a simple story with tons of interesting details, like the ones i mentioned before, in my opinion they're very clear and obvious, no need from any sugar coating of mine.

I'm not saying you tried to polish it, it's just that (it has happened a few times before) when some GTAF members take some GTA IV details, spice them up and make them their own it all sounds a lot better...

QUOTE (Ph3L1z14n0 @ Jun 26 2008, 10:41)
Jesus man, if we start thinking about all of the "could've been" and "why didn't" we'll really get nowhere, maybe that kind of story wouldn't have worked out, maybe it would've been the bomb, who knows?, it really doesn't matter, the story we got now is the one we need to focus.

... and like you said, we should stick whit what we have, disregarding our imagination. GTA should entice not require that from our part. It should be a good game, instead it needs us to imagine how good it could be.

I offered that rambling of mine only to show what kind of plot would I expect in GTA. Maybe it's corny, but in these cases corny does it. Some of the most legendary movie stories have been corny as hell.

Tatertotts
  • Tatertotts

    This is me using science for good.

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 May 2008

#73

Posted 26 June 2008 - 04:06 PM Edited by Tatertotts, 26 June 2008 - 04:29 PM.

[QUOTE=Ph3L1z14n0,Jun 26 2008, 06:05] [QUOTE]You might try listening to what other people are saying instead of assuming you know better than them.[/QUOTE]
Chill out man, i told you to relax, like i said, it's a theory, it doesn't mean it's the absolute truth, i already told you it was something i noticed as a cause for dissapointment in some fans of the series, that's it, please, don't take it badly.

[QUOTE]How is the second part above an example of complaining for the sake of doing it, or of complaining at all? Pointing out that the story is incomplete and that the protagonist isn't as fully developed in IV as in SA isn't a complaint; it's an observation. [/QUOTE]
It's an opinion, not an observation, at least you should acknowledge that, first, because like you said, your opinion isn't better than the other peoples'.

[QUOTE]Those themes are evidence that the stories in IV and SA are equally mature. I don't see this story as that much of a leap, but if you have some evidence to the contrary, then please present it. [/QUOTE]
Let's get the facts straight, both stories from both games were awesome, but they're not equally mature, SA was a very simple and derivative story of african american gangs, nothing really new, and which made effort to be similar to the stories it was based off, such as Boyz N' The Hood and Menace 2 Society, in the end the story wasn't really about revenge, nor justice, it was about rising to the top, about the struggle of a young man to reach high.


e's really no more episodic content, this story will continue in the dlc. The story still has a number of loose ends -- nope, that's not an opinion, either -- look at the story arcs concerning Bulgarin and Gerry for just two examples of narrative begging for resolution.

So you're saying Boyz in tha Hood and Menace II Society are not mature stories? Ok, sure. Who cares if SA was derived from those? That doesn't make the story less mature, or less good.

Niko doesn't despise everything CJ stood for. Niko is intensely loyal to family; so is CJ eventually -- learning this is actually a big part of that transformative struggle for CJ I mentioned. Yes, CJ wants to rise to the top, but Sweet is always there to make sure he remembers where he came from.

The entire story of SA was driven by CJ's desire to find his mother's (and brother's) killers. In the end he does this, and gets his revenge. Without revenge and this intense loyalty to family, the story in SA would have stopped just after the funeral scene. If CJ didn't care about Sweet, then neither Tenpenny nor Toreno would have been able to use him, and most of the story then disappears.

edit: above, you said, "It's an opinion, not an observation, at least you should acknowledge that, first, because like you said, your opinion isn't better than the other peoples'."

I wasn't telling you that you're opinion isn't better than other peoples'. What I was saying is that you should not make assumptions about what I and others know, what we're thinking, and what we're feeling. You said I didn't know what I wanted. You said that people were disappointed because they were young when they played SA. These aren't opinions -- they are statements about things you can't possibly know. You can have an opinion about the value of a story, for example, but you can't tell me what I'm thinking and call that an opinion. You can have an opinion about the "maturity" of a story (though I'll ask you to back up that opinion with evidence), but you can't have an opinion about what I expected of the game. If you say "I like this game," that's an opinion -- but if you say, "you don't know what you really want," you are making a baseless (and incorrect) statement of fact.

Tatertotts
  • Tatertotts

    This is me using science for good.

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 May 2008

#74

Posted 26 June 2008 - 04:19 PM

QUOTE (Ph3L1z14n0 @ Jun 26 2008, 06:05)
I'm not talking to myself here, that's what i made this topic for, those questions were for you, anyways, have it your way:

When i asked about Gambetti, i meant Gravelli, i always confuse the names, but Gravelli is supposed to be the old kind of cosa nostra man, the classic old REAL gangster, the character itself, apart from being more than 80 years old, is a tribute to what we all know as "The Italian Mafia" and the decay it's been having over the years, because of RICO laws, the FBI. Pegorino for example is the leftover that came from the decay of the cosa nostra, goons with nothing more than ambition and greed and no brains or honor, if you could say it that way.

When i asked about the most important difference between Roman and Niko, i was talking about the time both set their minds on, Niko's greatest weakness is himself, he has planted roots so incredibly deep in the past that it is practically impossible for him to find what he really is after, which is clearness and peace. While Roman on the contrary is always living in the future, very deep inside he wasn't lying to Niko when he told him that he had mansions and cars because in Roman's mind he was already living in them, Roman was so down and into the future that he saw the present only as a mere obstacle that needed to be tackled.

When i asked about the foreign character's, well, the very simple fact that everyone who lives or has been to New York knows that it is the capital of the world, seriously, what CAN'T you find in a city like that?

Talking straight man, don't you think those things were great? it was improvement, i can only wait and hope just how better will be the story for the next GTA, just try to get more into it, sure it doesn't suck you in like other games, but it's got some great stuff in there.

Gravelli: that's not symbolism. He doesn't represent the old gangsters; he is one. You're right that Gravelli was old school Italian Mafia, but that's directly stated in the story -- not symbolically represented. That's like saying "old gangsters are symbolically represented by old gangsters."

Differences between Roman and Niko: yes, these are the primary differences between their characters. But this isn't symbolism either. These are just character traits. Interesting side note: Niko and Roman's relationship is the inverse of CJ and Sweet's relationship. Roman/CJ = always looking ahead, starting anew; Niko/Sweet = rooted in the past, driven by family and neighborhood/village loyalty.

Foreign characters: ok, they're in there, but this isn't symbolism either.

So far, I'm sticking with my original assessment: the story in IV is ok, but no better than SA.

Tony Mozzarelli 80
  • Tony Mozzarelli 80

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2008

#75

Posted 26 June 2008 - 04:44 PM

QUOTE (Tatertotts @ Jun 26 2008, 16:19)
QUOTE (Ph3L1z14n0 @ Jun 26 2008, 06:05)
I'm not talking to myself here, that's what i made this topic for, those questions were for you, anyways, have it your way:

When i asked about Gambetti, i meant Gravelli, i always confuse the names, but Gravelli is supposed to be the old kind of cosa nostra man, the classic old REAL gangster, the character itself, apart from being more than 80 years old, is a tribute to what we all know as "The Italian Mafia" and the decay it's been having over the years, because of RICO laws, the FBI. Pegorino for example is the leftover that came from the decay of the cosa nostra, goons with nothing more than ambition and greed and no brains or honor, if you could say it that way.

When i asked about the most important difference between Roman and Niko, i was talking about the time both set their minds on, Niko's greatest weakness is himself, he has planted roots so incredibly deep in the past that it is practically impossible for him to find what he really is after, which is clearness and peace. While Roman on the contrary is always living in the future, very deep inside he wasn't lying to Niko when he told him that he had mansions and cars because in Roman's mind he was already living in them, Roman was so down and into the future that he saw the present only as a mere obstacle that needed to be tackled.

When i asked about the foreign character's, well, the very simple fact that everyone who lives or has been to New York knows that it is the capital of the world, seriously, what CAN'T you find in a city like that?

Talking straight man, don't you think those things were great? it was improvement, i can only wait and hope just how better will be the story for the next GTA, just try to get more into it, sure it doesn't suck you in like other games, but it's got some great stuff in there.

Gravelli: that's not symbolism. He doesn't represent the old gangsters; he is one. You're right that Gravelli was old school Italian Mafia, but that's directly stated in the story -- not symbolically represented. That's like saying "old gangsters are symbolically represented by old gangsters."

Differences between Roman and Niko: yes, these are the primary differences between their characters. But this isn't symbolism either. These are just character traits. Interesting side note: Niko and Roman's relationship is the inverse of CJ and Sweet's relationship. Roman/CJ = always looking ahead, starting anew; Niko/Sweet = rooted in the past, driven by family and neighborhood/village loyalty.

Foreign characters: ok, they're in there, but this isn't symbolism either.

So far, I'm sticking with my original assessment: the story in IV is ok, but no better than SA.

Agreed. I could easily go through the story for SA and find a whole lot of
symbolism, it isn't hard, you can find it anywhere if you care to look for it.
doesn't mean it's actually there intentionally. This story is Ok but it's not like
Sergio Leone directed it

Tatertotts
  • Tatertotts

    This is me using science for good.

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 May 2008

#76

Posted 26 June 2008 - 05:30 PM

QUOTE (Tony Mozzarelli 80 @ Jun 26 2008, 16:44)
Agreed. I could easily go through the story for SA and find a whole lot of
symbolism, it isn't hard, you can find it anywhere if you care to look for it.
doesn't mean it's actually there intentionally. This story is Ok but it's not like
Sergio Leone directed it

Right, there is plenty of symbolism in both SA and IV. The question then becomes whether the symbolism of IV is somehow more "mature" or "better" than the symbolism in SA -- or whether that symbolism makes the story better or more mature than the story in SA. Right now, I'd say it doesn't, but if someone provided some evidence to the contrary, I'd listen.

Speaking of Leone, he's a counter-example to my point about flat/round characters -- he made some great movies with relatively flat (i.e., static, unchanging) protagonists. A handful of directors and storytellers can pull this off (Tarantino is another), but most have to stick with the more commonly accepted round protagonists.


Tony Mozzarelli 80
  • Tony Mozzarelli 80

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2008

#77

Posted 26 June 2008 - 05:43 PM

QUOTE (Tatertotts @ Jun 26 2008, 17:30)
QUOTE (Tony Mozzarelli 80 @ Jun 26 2008, 16:44)
Agreed. I could easily go through the story for SA and find a whole lot of
symbolism, it isn't hard, you can find it anywhere if you care to look for it.
doesn't mean it's actually there intentionally. This story is Ok but it's not like
Sergio Leone directed it

Right, there is plenty of symbolism in both SA and IV. The question then becomes whether the symbolism of IV is somehow more "mature" or "better" than the symbolism in SA -- or whether that symbolism makes the story better or more mature than the story in SA. Right now, I'd say it doesn't, but if someone provided some evidence to the contrary, I'd listen.

Speaking of Leone, he's a counter-example to my point about flat/round characters -- he made some great movies with relatively flat (i.e., static, unchanging) protagonists. A handful of directors and storytellers can pull this off (Tarantino is another), but most have to stick with the more commonly accepted round protagonists.

Ah but Leone also could very much do rounded characters. Ever seen
Once upon a time in America?
I was actually refering to his films being rife with symbolism though.
Like the little things, that are just visual but represent the story.
GTAIV had nothing of the sort

Ph3L1z14n0
  • Ph3L1z14n0

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2007

#78

Posted 26 June 2008 - 06:36 PM

QUOTE (Tatertotts @ Jun 26 2008, 16:19)
Gravelli: that's not symbolism. He doesn't represent the old gangsters; he is one. You're right that Gravelli was old school Italian Mafia, but that's directly stated in the story -- not symbolically represented. That's like saying "old gangsters are symbolically represented by old gangsters."

Differences between Roman and Niko: yes, these are the primary differences between their characters. But this isn't symbolism either. These are just character traits. Interesting side note: Niko and Roman's relationship is the inverse of CJ and Sweet's relationship. Roman/CJ = always looking ahead, starting anew; Niko/Sweet = rooted in the past, driven by family and neighborhood/village loyalty.

Foreign characters: ok, they're in there, but this isn't symbolism either.

Maybe it's not symbolism in the most formal and traditional concept of symbolism, but the message DOES get across, that's my real point, in the end, these elements make IV stand out in terms of story and that's why (for example) Saints Row will never be as good as GTA, because Saints Row places itself in an unexistant and inmaturely absurd atmosphere.

QUOTE
What I was saying is that you should not make assumptions about what I and others know, you are making a baseless (and incorrect) statement of fact
I'm not telling you to relax only to piss you off, i told you many times it's a theory of mine, a possibility, if you choose to think i'm making up facts about anyone then that's your own issue, so please relax, i never said my theory is the absolute truth, can you please understand that? it's the third time i tell you the same thing.

QUOTE
Like the little things, that are just visual but represent the story.
GTAIV had nothing of the sort
Ok man, this is the moment where i actually say how GTAforums members are gonna give me a heart attack.

What the hell do you think the Dilettante? Terroroil? Bohan? is, as many other ads and elements in the game? that is clear symbolism you'll notice in the game, there, for example, is another tiny sucess of IV, it improves on the satire about America.

I am really tired of you man, i've seen you in every single complain topic about IV moaning about the lack of features, and now you come here and complain about the story? something which i never saw you bring in another topic, i ask forgiveness from the other user, correction, this is complaining for the sake of complaining.

Tony Mozzarelli 80
  • Tony Mozzarelli 80

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2008

#79

Posted 26 June 2008 - 06:42 PM

QUOTE (Ph3L1z14n0 @ Jun 26 2008, 18:36)
QUOTE (Tatertotts @ Jun 26 2008, 16:19)
Gravelli:  that's not symbolism.  He doesn't represent the old gangsters; he is one.  You're right that Gravelli was old school Italian Mafia, but that's directly stated in the story -- not symbolically represented.  That's like saying "old gangsters are symbolically represented by old gangsters." 

Differences between Roman and Niko:  yes, these are the primary differences between their characters.  But this isn't symbolism either.  These are just character traits.  Interesting side note:  Niko and Roman's relationship is the inverse of CJ and Sweet's relationship.  Roman/CJ = always looking ahead, starting anew; Niko/Sweet = rooted in the past, driven by family and neighborhood/village loyalty.

Foreign characters:  ok, they're in there, but this isn't symbolism either.

Maybe it's not symbolism in the most formal and traditional concept of symbolism, but the message DOES get across, that's my real point, in the end, these elements make IV stand out in terms of story and that's why (for example) Saints Row will never be as good as GTA, because Saints Row places itself in an unexistant and inmaturely absurd atmosphere.

QUOTE
What I was saying is that you should not make assumptions about what I and others know, you are making a baseless (and incorrect) statement of fact
I'm not telling you to relax only to piss you off, i told you many times it's a theory of mine, a possibility, if you choose to think i'm making up facts about anyone then that's your own issue, so please relax, i never said my theory is the absolute truth, can you please understand that? it's the third time i tell you the same thing.

QUOTE
Like the little things, that are just visual but represent the story.
GTAIV had nothing of the sort
Ok man, this is the moment where i actually say how GTAforums members are gonna give me a heart attack.

What the hell do you think the Dilettante? Terroroil? Bohan? is, as many other ads and elements in the game? that is clear symbolism you'll notice in the game, there, for example, is another tiny sucess of IV, it improves on the satire about America.

I am really tired of you man, i've seen you in every single complain topic about IV moaning about the lack of features, and now you come here and complain about the story? something which i never saw you bring in another topic, i ask forgiveness from the other user, correction, this is complaining for the sake of complaining.

Those things aren't symbolism either. they're just a straight parody. And i have spoken
about the story many times before in other topics, so i don't know where you're coming
from. If you're getting tired of me, i would suggest it's because you don't like being
disagreed with, and are unhappy with me making complaints. When you bring up a theory
for discussion, you are essentially inviting people to analyse it and pick it apart, if you
don't like having people disagree with you, you would probably be better of keeping it to
yourself. You say i'm complaining for the sake of it. I say you defend the game for the sake
of it.

Mike0
  • Mike0

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2005

#80

Posted 26 June 2008 - 06:57 PM

Over time you can get fed up of the GTA formula.

So you have to take GTA easy and slow. Not play it 10 hours a day.

Bawjaws
  • Bawjaws

    Fitch it.

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2008

#81

Posted 26 June 2008 - 07:00 PM

QUOTE (Ph3L1z14n0 @ Jun 26 2008, 18:36)
Saints Row places itself in an unexistant and inmaturely absurd atmosphere.

i ask forgiveness

I have to argee with everything tattertotts has said. The 18 rating on GTA games isnt just there to look pretty. Your explaining something very individual to you, where as most GTA games will have already 'grow up' before even touching San Andreas.

Ph3L1z14n0
  • Ph3L1z14n0

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2007

#82

Posted 26 June 2008 - 07:03 PM

QUOTE
If you're getting tired of me, i would suggest it's because you don't like being
disagreed with
Absolutely not, so far Tatertotts and mkey82 have brought more reason in here, and i've thought about what they said, they at least disagreed reasonably, while you are just, like i said, complaining for the sake of it, you somehow come into every topic and manage to turn it into a whining room for IV, perhaps not here because this is also what the topic is about, but certainly were on the verge on doing so with Strutting In Style.

QUOTE
I say you defend the game for the sake of it.
I've always been sort of a fighter, no denying in that, i could, like most of the users in here, just go away and not pay attention to your complaints, but i always find it to be productive to discuss, that doesn't mean i'm defending for the sake of doing so, i said it here and i said it before that the game lacks a lot of replay value, that missions could've been longer, some features are useless, it has progression glitches, but that it is the greatest GTA, what good thing have you said about IV? none, seriously, you really liked nothing about the game wow.gif that's how i assume that you complain for doing so.

SantiagoDomingo
  • SantiagoDomingo

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2008

#83

Posted 26 June 2008 - 07:08 PM

Anything that is good to say about GTA is already being stated by other people. Us select few, those whose minds are free, have to battle over the moronic complainers and the moronic praisers to try and better the game.

Tony Mozzarelli 80
  • Tony Mozzarelli 80

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2008

#84

Posted 26 June 2008 - 07:12 PM

QUOTE (Ph3L1z14n0 @ Jun 26 2008, 19:03)
QUOTE
If you're getting tired of me, i would suggest it's because you don't like being
disagreed with
Absolutely not, so far Tatertotts and mkey82 have brought more reason in here, and i've thought about what they said, they at least disagreed reasonably, while you are just, like i said, complaining for the sake of it, you somehow come into every topic and manage to turn it into a whining room for IV, perhaps not here because this is also what the topic is about, but certainly were on the verge on doing so with Strutting In Style.

QUOTE
I say you defend the game for the sake of it.
I've always been sort of a fighter, no denying in that, i could, like most of the users in here, just go away and not pay attention to your complaints, but i always find it to be productive to discuss, that doesn't mean i'm defending for the sake of doing so, i said it here and i said it before that the game lacks a lot of replay value, that missions could've been longer, some features are useless, it has progression glitches, but that it is the greatest GTA, what good thing have you said about IV? none, seriously, you really liked nothing about the game wow.gif that's how i assume that you complain for doing so.

If you'd care to point out where i was unreasonable, then i would very much like you to.
In your other topic i was clearly responding to another poster, who found fault with the
logic upon which your assumptions were based. I even tried to direct the topic back on
track, in fact look back in that thread, and you will see one of the many positive things i
have said about the game. If you haven't seen them then i would suggest it's because
you only pay attention to the negative posts, because again you feel the need to defend
the game for some reason. You even tried to argue that there was a reason for the two
perseus stores. If that's not defending for the sake of it then i don't know what is.
Again please point out the posts in this thread which you found to be unreasonable.......
Every time Tatertotts disagreed with you you told him to relax and chill out, why?
because he was disagreeing with you. You seriously come across as though you have a
major problem with people doing that

Tatertotts
  • Tatertotts

    This is me using science for good.

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 May 2008

#85

Posted 26 June 2008 - 07:17 PM Edited by Tatertotts, 26 June 2008 - 07:20 PM.

QUOTE (Ph3L1z14n0 @ Jun 26 2008, 18:36)
QUOTE (Tatertotts @ Jun 26 2008, 16:19)
Gravelli:  that's not symbolism.  He doesn't represent the old gangsters; he is one.  You're right that Gravelli was old school Italian Mafia, but that's directly stated in the story -- not symbolically represented.  That's like saying "old gangsters are symbolically represented by old gangsters." 

Differences between Roman and Niko:  yes, these are the primary differences between their characters.  But this isn't symbolism either.  These are just character traits.  Interesting side note:  Niko and Roman's relationship is the inverse of CJ and Sweet's relationship.  Roman/CJ = always looking ahead, starting anew; Niko/Sweet = rooted in the past, driven by family and neighborhood/village loyalty.

Foreign characters:  ok, they're in there, but this isn't symbolism either.

Maybe it's not symbolism in the most formal and traditional concept of symbolism, but the message DOES get across, that's my real point, in the end, these elements make IV stand out in terms of story and that's why (for example) Saints Row will never be as good as GTA, because Saints Row places itself in an unexistant and inmaturely absurd atmosphere.

QUOTE
What I was saying is that you should not make assumptions about what I and others know, you are making a baseless (and incorrect) statement of fact
I'm not telling you to relax only to piss you off, i told you many times it's a theory of mine, a possibility, if you choose to think i'm making up facts about anyone then that's your own issue, so please relax, i never said my theory is the absolute truth, can you please understand that? it's the third time i tell you the same thing.

QUOTE
Like the little things, that are just visual but represent the story.
GTAIV had nothing of the sort
Ok man, this is the moment where i actually say how GTAforums members are gonna give me a heart attack.

What the hell do you think the Dilettante? Terroroil? Bohan? is, as many other ads and elements in the game? that is clear symbolism you'll notice in the game, there, for example, is another tiny sucess of IV, it improves on the satire about America.

I am really tired of you man, i've seen you in every single complain topic about IV moaning about the lack of features, and now you come here and complain about the story? something which i never saw you bring in another topic, i ask forgiveness from the other user, correction, this is complaining for the sake of complaining.

You do realize you're quoting 2 different people here, right? I can't tell if the little diatribe at the end is intended for me or Tony, since you've made no distinction between our quotes. But I think if you look through our past posts, you'll see both of us mention the story in other threads.

About your idea of what counts as theory and opinion:

1. when you say people only liked SA because they were kids then, that is accurate about you, but not about all of us -- you can say it's a theory, but if so it's a bad theory because it's not grounded in fact. If you say it is, then you are making up facts. If not, then it's just a bad theory -- no harm there, because you can revise a bad theory when you find out it's wrong.

2. when you say I was disappointed because I didn't know what I wanted, you are not stating an opinion or a theory -- you are making a claim that you know better than me what I was expecting from the game. You don't, and when you pretend to, you are making up "facts" to suit your argument. To put it simply: "I didn't know what I wanted," is an opinion. "You didn't know what you really wanted," is not an opinion; it is a claim to know a "fact" about reality -- a "fact" you can't know, not least because it's wrong.

Bawjaws
  • Bawjaws

    Fitch it.

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2008

#86

Posted 26 June 2008 - 07:19 PM Edited by Bawjaws, 26 June 2008 - 07:35 PM.

just to add on to what a few people have said already. I was someone who had no expectations of the game before hand. I hadnt even realised a new GTA was out untill a relative turned up with it. As a fan of all the original GTA games i havent been dissapointed with this one in the least.

SantiagoDomingo
  • SantiagoDomingo

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2008

#87

Posted 26 June 2008 - 07:21 PM

I don't like seeing things quoted without the original poster's name included in the quote.

Ph3L1z14n0
  • Ph3L1z14n0

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2007

#88

Posted 27 June 2008 - 02:53 AM Edited by Ph3L1z14n0, 27 June 2008 - 02:57 AM.

QUOTE
You even tried to argue that there was a reason for the two perseus stores. If that's not defending for the sake of it then i don't know what is.
I actually agreed with you when you said it was kinda absurd putting two stores with the same clothes, i just said again that MAYBE they did it for location reasons.

QUOTE
Every time Tatertotts disagreed with you you told him to relax and chill out, why? because he was disagreeing with you.
It's different, he was repeating something i had already replied to him, even you can make new stuff to complain about.

QUOTE
When you say people only liked SA because they were kids then, that is accurate about you, but not about all of us -- you can say it's a theory, but if so it's a bad theory because it's not grounded in fact. If you say it is, then you are making up facts. If not, then it's just a bad theory -- no harm there, because you can revise a bad theory when you find out it's wrong.
Did you flunked methodology? a theory is scientific construct based on a hypothesis, this hypothesis can be either experimental or not, and the theory in practition has to be based on facts that happen regularly, not necessarily in every single case, if it happened for every single case, it would become a scientific law, mine is not experimental, and neither is a law, but it did happened to me, and i don't think i am an illusion. Besides the fact that you're only trying to discredit what i am saying without even quoting my whole opinion, my focus was on the expectation, which was based on our previous experience with the game.

QUOTE
I don't like seeing things quoted without the original poster's name included in the quote.
Sorry, i'm very clumsy with the whole quoting thing, trust me when i say that i would never and will never quote anything false.

mkey82
  • mkey82

    Keep riding hard, son

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008

#89

Posted 27 June 2008 - 06:33 AM

QUOTE (Ph3L1z14n0 @ Jun 27 2008, 04:53)
QUOTE
When you say people only liked SA because they were kids then, that is accurate about you, but not about all of us -- you can say it's a theory, but if so it's a bad theory because it's not grounded in fact. If you say it is, then you are making up facts. If not, then it's just a bad theory -- no harm there, because you can revise a bad theory when you find out it's wrong.
Did you flunked methodology? a theory is scientific construct based on a hypothesis, this hypothesis can be either experimental or not, and the theory in practition has to be based on facts that happen regularly, not necessarily in every single case, if it happened for every single case, it would become a scientific law, mine is not experimental, and neither is a law, but it did happened to me, and i don't think i am an illusion. Besides the fact that you're only trying to discredit what i am saying without even quoting my whole opinion, my focus was on the expectation, which was based on our previous experience with the game.

This part concerns me a bit. You are making it very complex, but it's rather simple. People don't like it when someone tells them how they fell or what they think. Full stop. I know from my example - I get pissed at anyone (and I do mean anyone) when they tell me that I don't know what I want. It never happened on the forums, only in real life and I made such an issue about it that nobody does it anymore. I had to cause numerous fights for people (basically my family) to start treating me as an adult.

People just hate it when someone says they bought into the hype - it almost seems like they are to blame. It almost seems like we all had some vision of the game on our own, like there wasn't one of the biggest marketing campaigns ever going on supporting the game. There was various stuff seen in the game, on screenshots, stuff reviewers mentioned... THEY caused that hype. THEY needed one of four console owners to buy the game. They actually aimed at one out of three, but had to settle with 25% as its a large number as is. Glorified previews, pumped up reviews, everything made to excel GTA IV and make it seem like it was the best game ever, the perfect GTA.

There have been a lot of games coming out last couple of decades on PC, and yet only one title managed to score 96% on Gamespot. The summary was "Diablo is the best game to come out in the past year, and you should own a copy. Period.". The only game to reach those heights and I don't see anyone disputing it (not here obviously, but in general). GTA IV comes along (WITH some OBVIOUS faults) and it gets a 100%. OK, 100% doesn't stand for a perfect, but I would like to think a game with that rating wouldn't have any VISIBLE flaws. Nothing someone could put their finger on and say "This is wrong". Giving it a 100% because it's GOING to be awesome next time around is just ridiculous. They might have improved on core gameplay, but hey failed to keep things in line with hardware capabilities of their chosen platforms. Besides, if it's meant to be great next time, then it should have been sod for half the price.

I probably digressed some, but I wanted to say this: there was some shady business going on in reviewers actions and they caused a lot of hype. A lot of people may fell for it and the game delivered a lot less they might have expected. So blaming someone that he went for it is just absurd. Just like assuming you know what they are thinking. Theory or not, people don't like that.

Ph3L1z14n0
  • Ph3L1z14n0

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2007

#90

Posted 27 June 2008 - 07:13 AM Edited by Ph3L1z14n0, 27 June 2008 - 07:17 AM.

QUOTE
People don't like it when someone tells them how they fell or what they think.
It still doesn't mean they should get angry, it's the frikkin internet, it's not like i smacked anyone in the face with this topic, maybe i did perhaps wow.gif
QUOTE
THEY caused that hype. THEY needed one of four console owners to buy the game.
Yeah, from sources like Kikizo, IGN and such there was a massive amount of hype, but this game was only hyped just because it was the next GTA. Another user which i can't remember his name said that people shouldn't be angry because it was pretty clear what kind of game IV was gonna be, now i don't agree with that, but from the marketing and previewing it did seem what was gonna be the focus for IV.
QUOTE
GTA IV comes along (WITH some OBVIOUS faults) and it gets a 100%. OK, 100% doesn't stand for a perfect, but I would like to think a game with that rating wouldn't have any VISIBLE flaws. Nothing someone could put their finger on and say "This is wrong".
True, true, specially in websites like IGN, which hadn't given a perfect score in almost 10 years. I do believe there were clear marketing purposes there, although i loved GTA IV and will love MGS 4 if i play it, both of those games would've gotten the 10 score automatically, merely because of business.
QUOTE
it should have been sod for half the price.
Not quiet getting it man bored.gif
QUOTE
So blaming someone that he went for it is just absurd
The first person i "blamed" was myself, because i got absurdly hyped, i guess i should make this clear now, if you got hyped it doesn't mean it's your fault that you can't enjoy the game, the reason for this topic is try to try to mention how did expectations had negative effects on the resulting perception of the game.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users