Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Pros and Cons of Grand Theft Auto IV

3 replies to this topic
godforgivesthelostdont
  • godforgivesthelostdont

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2013

#1

Posted 30 June 2013 - 11:45 PM

I'm assessing Grand Theft Auto IV alone, and not the episodes. Basically, the reaction has been mixed. Many GTA fans who loved San Andreas really didn't like GTAIV, whereas almost all the mainstream critics gave it perfect 10's, making it the highest rated game of this gen so far.

Personally, I like the realism and expect the fact that games in a series are supposed to be timeless and have their own individual personality, rather than just being an incrementally better clone than the previous game.

Personally, I love GTA4 and it's one of my favorite GTA games, but I do have to admit there are noticeable flaws in it.

Glitches in the game vary between minor annoyances and the occasion that you fail a mission because you or your dumb AI just won't get inside the car.

Half-way into the game, having $400,000 but still killing people for $1000 a head because you really need the money. Also, very few stores to the spend the money on (especially clothing; very limited wardrobe). Gambling is a big theme in the game, yet not one casino.

Compared to the lots of side quests and activities in San Andreas, there are very few in GTA IV. Hanging out with friends only gets you so far. While the city looks beautiful and the AI of the characters in them are very detailed, there still isn't that much other to do than to just look at it.

Aside from a handful of memorable missions, most of the missions (About 80% of them) follow the same formula and are very repetitive. Drive to point A. Shoot people. Drive to point B. Or, it's a chasedown. The hilarity, chaos, variety, suprise or "oh my god, that did not just happen!" moments don't exist here very often. Most of the missions didn't contribute to the plot, but were just random favors to random people.

All the good outweighs the bad, and I'm not writing it here because most of the good qualities are obvious, and I'm pressed for time.

Just my opinions. Don't hurt me. smile.gif


Nem Wan
  • Nem Wan

    The Artist Formerly Known As Magic_Al

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2006
  • United-States

#2

Posted 01 July 2013 - 12:49 AM

Considering IV was delayed six months and some people still think it's "missing" features, I think Rockstar got a bit overwhelmed, not just with new technology and doing HD detail at this scale for the first time, but also the straitjacket terms of the $50 million deal they made with Microsoft, which required a specific release date to be announced way too early and forced Rockstar to think about these very large DLC stories while they were trying to finish the main game (there's evidence they tried to do some of TLAD at the same time as IV, or at least thought stuff from TLAD needed to be in IV to be consistent; early versions of most of TLAD's bikes are unused in IV's files).

Since Rockstar learned so much with IV, Red Dead Redemption more closely resembles picking up where San Andreas left off, having a greater quantity and depth to off-mission activities, particularly the return of gambling and a greater variety and depth of stores and safehouses and other interactive locations. However, RDR's clothing system was simplified compared to IV, which actually had a better clothing system than SA as long as your name was Niko Bellic (the stores contained only things Niko would wear, so Johnny and Luis had very limited clothes).

PulpFiction
  • PulpFiction

    The Libertonian grandmaster

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#3

Posted 01 July 2013 - 12:53 AM Edited by Miamivicecity, 01 July 2013 - 12:56 AM.

QUOTE (godforgivesthelostdont @ Monday, Jul 1 2013, 10:45)
Aside from a handful of memorable missions, most of the missions (About 80% of them) follow the same formula and are very repetitive.  Drive to point A.  Shoot people.  Drive to point B.  Or, it's a chasedown.  The hilarity, chaos, variety, suprise or "oh my god, that did not just happen!" moments don't exist here very often.  Most of the missions didn't contribute to the plot, but were just random favors to random people.

I agree GTA IV had a bit too much filler, but I've never felt the missions are that repetitive.

Niko is a hired gun so it makes sense for him to be doing the "dirty work" so to speak for his employers. While some missions follow a similar formula there's usually a twist that makes them different.

Take "Lure" and "Call & Collect" for example. Both missions require a target to be killed, but are hardly the same. In "Lure" you have to kill the target from an apartment across the street using a sniper rifle either dialling his phone to put him in sight or shooting out his window to get his attention.

In "Call & Collect" you meet the black mailer in the park and ring him to spot him in the crowd and then have to kill him to get want Francis wants.

Then of course there are missions like "Tunnel Of Death", "I'll Take Her", "Have A Heart" etc where the objective isn't even to kill someone. Overall I think GTA IV 's missions suit the tone of the story without being too out of place. I guess I just prefer its style of mission play.

Anyway good post OP. It's nice to see someone critique GTA IV without dragging it through the mud.

godforgivesthelostdont
  • godforgivesthelostdont

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2013

#4

Posted 01 July 2013 - 01:06 AM

Yeah, basically, I would give GTAIV (in context of the time it was released) a 9/10 - not a 10.

Missions like the bank robbery and the kidnapping were awesome, but unique missions only made up 10-20% of the total missions.

I agree Niko's profession is a hitman, and I understand him killing random people. But I would have wanted more suprises, twists and turns, and different way to kill them.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users