Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

IV Is still the king! Anyone Else Agree?

235 replies to this topic
Agni
  • Agni

    Rex Ignaviae

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2012

#121

Posted 03 October 2013 - 04:43 AM

 

 

I can't stress enough that I think GTA V is a great game, but it does have a glass half full, half empty kind of feeling. Almost like R*  had some ideas in place, but only went half way with some.

 

In the entire time I've played GTA IV it has never given a feeling like that. I don't necessarily feel as if GTA V is unfinished, but in regards to side missions I feel a few things seem to be a bit loose compared to GTA IV.

 

 

 

YES

 

You nailed it. I like V, but it feels...unpolished. Some parts of the game are amazing like the map but a lot of other parts are just baffling. The physics as a whole seem dumbed down from IV while the shooting is increased. There's more high-end cars but they got rid of a ton of cool low-end cars...and so on and so on.

 

Let's not even get into how they cut out a bunch of cool stuff for GTA:O only. There is no goddamn excuse for not being able to buy safehouses in SP. Not a single one.


isselman2000
  • isselman2000

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2005

#122

Posted 03 October 2013 - 04:53 AM

You guys are unbelievable. Not a few months ago, you were ALL complaining about car physics being too heavy. Not a few months ago, you were all complaining about GTA IV's dark, gritty story being too boring. NOT A FEW MONTHS AGO YOU ALL HAD A STICK UP YOUR ASS ABOUT THE FREAKING REALISM IN GTA IV.

 

So a few weeks ago, Rockstar gave you a new game with the kind of car physics you wanted, the lighter story you asked for, and the over-the-top gameplay that everyone and their mother has been yearning for since San Andreas.

 

And what do we do in response? No, we don't thank Rockstar for taking heed of our wishes and making the game we've always wanted. Instead, we complain that this game is different from GTA IV.

  • Tilemaxx and Neonic9 like this

Agni
  • Agni

    Rex Ignaviae

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2012

#123

Posted 03 October 2013 - 05:06 AM

And you apparently appear to be too goddamn stupid to realize that the people who hated IV's realism are completely different people from those who liked V's realism.
  • TonyMontanaCDL likes this

TonyMontanaCDL
  • TonyMontanaCDL

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2013

#124

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:08 AM

San Andreas is still the king.

 

Let's face it, people don't play these games for the storyline.

That's the problem both IV and V have. The games can't make their minds up if they want to be a realistic crime story or a comical video game. IV lost me with it's storyline completely, and V's was much more funny and had it's moments, but it too had the same problem from going to being funny one minute to trying to be emotionally invested in the characters.

What made SA, LCS, VCS, VC, and III what they were was the games didn't take themselves seriously with a bad melo-drama. The characters themselves were meant to be like jokes that you could not take seriously, and that's what made them memorable.

 

The biggest issue I had with IV was it just didn't feel fun. I play these games to have fun. I don't give a flying f*ck about the characters and backing story. There was nothing to do in IV. Nothing fun, outside of a few memorable missions, and even these were tedious. For a game that is all about stealing cars, they made the driving controls absolutely terrible, and a pain in the ass just to drive around. For a game that is meant to make a joke out of crime, it takes itself way too seriously.

 

Thankfully V fixed most things that were wrong with IV. The driving is a hundred times easier again, the shooting mechanics are better, the game has limitless FUN activities to do besides the 'hang out' and dating crap that plagued IV, and most of all this is far more fun than anything that was in IV. Yes the storyline wasn't all that great, but people act like IV had this amazing story when it was nothing but a laughable Scorcese rip off. It was so unbelievable while it tried to take itself seriously. San Andreas to me, had the best storyline. It tried to be serious in times, but it was all in all goofy and not meant to be taken seriously. It also had a great antagonist that felt like an actual threat to the player where the antagonists in IV and V are predictable and feel like card board cut out bad guys.

 

San Andreas was the high point of the series and nothing will ever top it again.


TonyMontanaCDL
  • TonyMontanaCDL

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2013

#125

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:16 AM

IV was borderline depressing to play. The game was muddy, too dark and often times even ugly, the gameplay was sluggish, slow and even getting around was a pain (most people exclusively used taxis to get to missions). Speaking of missions, IV had some absolutely awful, boring and uninspired mission design.

Everything felt unpolished, the walking, the shooting, the driving. New things like social interactions weren't done well and became an incredible annoyance for many. It's the kind of game that gets released to test the waters of next-gen.

The story was a convoluted mess which took itself too seriously, so seriously in fact that it forget that it was a GTA game. All Characters, except Niko, were unlikeable, forgettable or obnoxious, not to mention stereotypical. Eastern-European chauvinists, slimy Italian mobsters, Puertorican cholos, loud and overconfident steroid abusers and a Jamaican guy who dresses in green, smokes pot all day and speaks in a thick Jamaican accent. In some ways, many Characters in IV resemble the ones in GTA III and here is where Rockstar dropped the ball. You can't have a story that is supposed to be serious and mature and throw in all these stereotypical, caricatures of Characters. Even the Cast of III was better than IV's. Salvatore and 8-Ball alone were deeper Characters than anyone in IV.

I think it speaks volumes for the original GTA IV when the expansions are actually better than the main game itself. Most people I know remember GTA IV more for its multiplayer than anything else.

I see absolutely no redeeming qualities about IV. People defending it in this thread were probably teenagers when the game was released and now hold some nostalgic feelings for it.

I'll take V or any title in the classic trilogy over IV any day. Hell, I'd even take the "stories" games or Chinatown wars over IV.

 

 

I could not agree with you more. I would take the "Stories" games and Chinatown Wars in a heartbeat over IV. It was the most disappointing one ever made.

 

All the praise about the driving when it was a bitch just to get used to. And the storyline LOL I can watch a movie if I want a good storyline that don't feel like a rip off of something i seen years ago.


Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#126

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:33 AM Edited by Tycek, 03 October 2013 - 08:11 AM.

It's a bit ironic and tragic at the same time how some people can be biased towards one game. Bashing IV for not being original and praising at the same time SA, which story was nothing more that a cliche mess up made from Boyz in the Hood, Ocean's Eleven and or bits of James Bond movies.

 

IV story wasn't the best scenario in the world, being based on well-known revenge plot, but Yugoslavian wars sauce, rather fresh russian bratva setting and believable characters turned it into the best GTA story so far. 


SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Give me Liberty

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia

#127

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:52 AM

San Andreas is still the king.

 

Let's face it, people don't play these games for the storyline.

That's the problem both IV and V have. The games can't make their minds up if they want to be a realistic crime story or a comical video game. IV lost me with it's storyline completely, and V's was much more funny and had it's moments, but it too had the same problem from going to being funny one minute to trying to be emotionally invested in the characters.

What made SA, LCS, VCS, VC, and III what they were was the games didn't take themselves seriously with a bad melo-drama. The characters themselves were meant to be like jokes that you could not take seriously, and that's what made them memorable.

 

The biggest issue I had with IV was it just didn't feel fun. I play these games to have fun. I don't give a flying f*ck about the characters and backing story. There was nothing to do in IV. Nothing fun, outside of a few memorable missions, and even these were tedious. For a game that is all about stealing cars, they made the driving controls absolutely terrible, and a pain in the ass just to drive around. For a game that is meant to make a joke out of crime, it takes itself way too seriously.

 

Thankfully V fixed most things that were wrong with IV. The driving is a hundred times easier again, the shooting mechanics are better, the game has limitless FUN activities to do besides the 'hang out' and dating crap that plagued IV, and most of all this is far more fun than anything that was in IV. Yes the storyline wasn't all that great, but people act like IV had this amazing story when it was nothing but a laughable Scorcese rip off. It was so unbelievable while it tried to take itself seriously. San Andreas to me, had the best storyline. It tried to be serious in times, but it was all in all goofy and not meant to be taken seriously. It also had a great antagonist that felt like an actual threat to the player where the antagonists in IV and V are predictable and feel like card board cut out bad guys.

 

San Andreas was the high point of the series and nothing will ever top it again.

 

SA's serious moments were terrible and the entire story overall was inconsistent. It tried to be a jack of all trades and failed IMO.

 

It's like watching Boyz In The Hood and a 1/4 of the way through they get recruited by some government agency to steal some military weapons before going to Las Vegas to mess with the mob and in the end returning to life in the hood. In a nutshell that was pretty much SA's story. It was forced and all over the place. I simply couldn't get into it and found CJ to be more annoying than anything like most of the characters.

 

GTA IV's story took itself more seriously, but it flowed along nicely. Also I'm curious, but which one of Scorcese's films is it a rip off of?

 

GTA IV didn't have much influence from Hollywood at all so in a lot of ways it can't be considered a "rip off".


DoubleOGJohnson
  • DoubleOGJohnson

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2007

#128

Posted 03 October 2013 - 10:21 AM Edited by DoubleOGJohnson, 03 October 2013 - 10:33 AM.

It's a bit ironic and tragic at the same time how some people can be biased towards one game. Bashing IV for not being original and praising at the same time SA, which story was nothing more that a cliche mess up made from Boyz in the Hood, Ocean's Eleven and or bits of James Bond movies.

 

IV story wasn't the best scenario in the world, being based on well-known revenge plot, but Yugoslavian wars sauce, rather fresh russian bratva setting and believable characters turned it into the best GTA story so far. 

 

None of that borrowed storyline stuff matters, the only thing that matters when comparing GTA's is fun factor. This concept is something that is completely lost on the fans who prefer games like GTA 4 and 5 over San Andreas/Vice City. These dudes always want to talk about "storyline", "graphics", "engines", and all this other technological irrelevant sh*t. The new obsession now is "draw distance". The only thing that matters in gaming is which game is more FUN than the other. And "fun factor" is something that people who like GTA 4 and GTA 5 over a game like San Andreas never want to discuss. That's the one issue they always run away from when arguing over GTA's. They try to make things more technical than it should be.

 

That tech argument is used by people trying to weasel out of the debate because they know that comparing the technological functions and mechanics of two games made 10+ years apart on completely different systems makes the debate unrealistic and slanted enough that they can escape easy out the backdoor. When dudes wanna talk "fun factor", we can do that but half of em too scared to take it there. Until then, we're only be able to have stupid discussions about how GTA 5 is the GOAT GTA because it has "better draw distance than all the others" or some other irrelevant issue.

  • TonyMontanaCDL likes this

AceKingston
  • AceKingston

    Winner, Winner Chicken Dinner.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India

#129

Posted 03 October 2013 - 11:26 AM

The number of content doesn't matter at all. I had more hours into Vice City than SA even though SA had more content. To be honest I found myself getting bored of SA sometimes, same can't be said for Vice.

 

SA is a good game, although I wouldn't hold it in my top 5 personal favorite games list because of some problems here and there, however it's image is getting destroyed by San Andreas fanboys who can't stand or admire a better game than SA, you think you are defending your favorite GTA, but you are only making it's image worse. 

  • Ermac. likes this

gtamad8
  • gtamad8

    The Miracle

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#130

Posted 03 October 2013 - 05:40 PM

Now I think of it it seems like the next game in the series was GTA Online and GTA V was a side novelty, but that went flying out the window with all the problems recently.


Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#131

Posted 03 October 2013 - 05:47 PM

FUN? What is FUN? Circling around in front of the door of the changing room? Aiming in the sky during battle? Losing gang war, because of Ballas running away? Losing your precious car, because somebody decided to ram you out of the road? 

 

I had fun with SA, f*cking nine years ago. Time moved on, world moved on. It would be rather stupid to leave behind. SA and in fact many things in life are working in the same way. I had a girlfriend 9 years ago, we were having hell of a time, spending all free time together, but something broke. I've found another one, which I find better than the previous one, but that doesn't mean we're enemies to death now. Sure, we can talk for some time, ask how everything goes and go our ways. See the resemblance? 

 

Also you're better than Aristotle. How the hell 10+ years passed from 2004. Time must flow faster in smaller worlds. 

  • isselman2000 and Neonic9 like this

Mcquiz
  • Mcquiz

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2009

#132

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:29 PM

After now finally playing some GTA Online I have begun to appreciate GTA 4 multiplayer even more. IV is looking more appealing every day.

  • dro0001 likes this

dro0001
  • dro0001

    Fo Shizzle

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2006

#133

Posted 04 October 2013 - 03:35 AM

I like GTA IV more, it does everything better, I like the driving more, the shooting more, the story more, the protagonist more. They got rid of one of my more favorite cars the uranus, wtf they made it one of the junk cars.


TonyMontanaCDL
  • TonyMontanaCDL

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2013

#134

Posted 04 October 2013 - 04:03 AM

 

San Andreas is still the king.

 

Let's face it, people don't play these games for the storyline.

That's the problem both IV and V have. The games can't make their minds up if they want to be a realistic crime story or a comical video game. IV lost me with it's storyline completely, and V's was much more funny and had it's moments, but it too had the same problem from going to being funny one minute to trying to be emotionally invested in the characters.

What made SA, LCS, VCS, VC, and III what they were was the games didn't take themselves seriously with a bad melo-drama. The characters themselves were meant to be like jokes that you could not take seriously, and that's what made them memorable.

 

The biggest issue I had with IV was it just didn't feel fun. I play these games to have fun. I don't give a flying f*ck about the characters and backing story. There was nothing to do in IV. Nothing fun, outside of a few memorable missions, and even these were tedious. For a game that is all about stealing cars, they made the driving controls absolutely terrible, and a pain in the ass just to drive around. For a game that is meant to make a joke out of crime, it takes itself way too seriously.

 

Thankfully V fixed most things that were wrong with IV. The driving is a hundred times easier again, the shooting mechanics are better, the game has limitless FUN activities to do besides the 'hang out' and dating crap that plagued IV, and most of all this is far more fun than anything that was in IV. Yes the storyline wasn't all that great, but people act like IV had this amazing story when it was nothing but a laughable Scorcese rip off. It was so unbelievable while it tried to take itself seriously. San Andreas to me, had the best storyline. It tried to be serious in times, but it was all in all goofy and not meant to be taken seriously. It also had a great antagonist that felt like an actual threat to the player where the antagonists in IV and V are predictable and feel like card board cut out bad guys.

 

San Andreas was the high point of the series and nothing will ever top it again.

 

SA's serious moments were terrible and the entire story overall was inconsistent. It tried to be a jack of all trades and failed IMO.

 

It's like watching Boyz In The Hood and a 1/4 of the way through they get recruited by some government agency to steal some military weapons before going to Las Vegas to mess with the mob and in the end returning to life in the hood. In a nutshell that was pretty much SA's story. It was forced and all over the place. I simply couldn't get into it and found CJ to be more annoying than anything like most of the characters.

 

GTA IV's story took itself more seriously, but it flowed along nicely. Also I'm curious, but which one of Scorcese's films is it a rip off of?

 

GTA IV didn't have much influence from Hollywood at all so in a lot of ways it can't be considered a "rip off".

 

 

 

That's the thing with SA. It's a video game, not real life. It's called "Grand Theft Auto" I don't want it to be like watching an actual episode of the Sopranos or The Godfather. The game had it's influence from Boys In The Hood but I don't see where the game made me feel like the film whatsoever. That's what made SA so fun, it was not meant to be taken seriously. The way the old games didn't take themselves seriously is what made it fun to play through the storyline. When you put it all down on the table, absolutely none of them have believable storylines whatsoever, and that's fine because it is a video game afterall. The old ones were fun because the storyline was not the center piece of it. In IV they took everything that was fun out of the game and sacrificed so much for a boring drama that put people to sleep who weren't buying all the mega hype surronding the game.

 

GTA IV's story was laughable and extremely boring. How can you not see the influence from Hollywood? An immigrant arrives in the city with nothing and begins working for the mob. It's been told a hundred times before, especially in the old days of classic Hollywood. Several stereotypical characters displaying American greed and consumerism pop up constantly. It's as if they couldn't make their mind up if they wanted to make fun of Americans or try to imitate how they are in today's age. The problem though is the game took itself incredibly too seriously and it was laughable, if not boring the entire time. Stereotypical characters run rampant far worse than they ever did in the old games. Errant Signal said it best when he described the storyline as watching Scarface with Space Balls characters bouncing around in the background. GTA IV isn't the only one to suffer from this, Red Dead Redemption had the same problem. Couldn't make it's mind up if it wanted to be serious or a parody of the old West and strangely enough, GTA V has the exact same problem, though it still goes back to it's roots of reminding you it's a video game and not real life.

 

The whole 'I used to be a bad guy, but now I want to be a good guy' type protagonist has never worked for a game series that is named after a felony charge. The series should be about stealing cars and commiting crime, not some drama about a psychopath character they want you to sympathize for as they try their best to humanize him and make him appear as some hero. That was the problem I had with Niko, that's the problem I've had with almost every protagonist since the series tried to be more serious. They started humanizing the characters with San Andreas when they victimized CJ. It wasn't as bad though, then with IV they really went overboard trying to make you feel sympathetic to Niko.

 

 

 

No one plays these games for the storylines except kids who don't read books and think the most amazing stories come in these half assed game storylines. If you read a book or watch a movie and you will forget these storylines in a heart beat.

 

If GTA IV was released by any other company with a different name, there is no way on earth it would have received so much positive reception. All the praise it got for it's story was laughable, but then again Red Dead Redemption received a lot of praise for it's storyline too when it was basically a cut/paste of the same formula and still didn't work.


TonyMontanaCDL
  • TonyMontanaCDL

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2013

#135

Posted 04 October 2013 - 04:16 AM

 

It's a bit ironic and tragic at the same time how some people can be biased towards one game. Bashing IV for not being original and praising at the same time SA, which story was nothing more that a cliche mess up made from Boyz in the Hood, Ocean's Eleven and or bits of James Bond movies.

 

IV story wasn't the best scenario in the world, being based on well-known revenge plot, but Yugoslavian wars sauce, rather fresh russian bratva setting and believable characters turned it into the best GTA story so far. 

 

None of that borrowed storyline stuff matters, the only thing that matters when comparing GTA's is fun factor. This concept is something that is completely lost on the fans who prefer games like GTA 4 and 5 over San Andreas/Vice City. These dudes always want to talk about "storyline", "graphics", "engines", and all this other technological irrelevant sh*t. The new obsession now is "draw distance". The only thing that matters in gaming is which game is more FUN than the other. And "fun factor" is something that people who like GTA 4 and GTA 5 over a game like San Andreas never want to discuss. That's the one issue they always run away from when arguing over GTA's. They try to make things more technical than it should be.

 

 

 

This is exactly what I am saying. Vice City didn't have the best graphics in the world but the game was fun.

 

When LCS came out all the kids bitched about the graphics not being good enough without even thinking the game was incredibly fun and worth playing based solely on the factor of it being fun.

 

No one cared about the stories in the other games, and they really aren't that bad considering it's a video game named after a felony charge. The best part about the games before IV, is they didn't take themselves seriously. It was meant as a joke, the characters themselves were caricatures that could never be taken seriously in the real world.

 

If I am going to play a video game, I want to have fun. Fun is something I didn't find much of at all in IV. The graphics can be as realistic as possible, I don't care but it's a big sacrifice just to have fun. It's basically "look but don't touch".


flyer2359
  • flyer2359

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2008

#136

Posted 04 October 2013 - 04:19 AM

From what I've played from online on V, I like IV's online a lot more.  More options for each match instead of just "weather".  You could pick types of weapons, turn off the cops and all of that.  We have NONE of that in V, it's pretty lame.  Besides driving and online, I like everything else more on V though.


Ermac.
  • Ermac.

    CJ is the Pope

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2012
  • Jamaica

#137

Posted 04 October 2013 - 05:56 AM

IV wasn't/isn't fun? I find that hard to believe seeing as i've had more fun playing vanilla IV than any other GTA to date, even V (thus far).


Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#138

Posted 04 October 2013 - 06:19 AM Edited by Tycek, 04 October 2013 - 06:20 AM.

I'm starting to believe it's only nostalgia that fuels your love for the game. Sure it was nicer to be younger and play games for a first time, but it's time to move on.  It looks like your inner child grown up and this is the problem. It's not the game that isn't fun anymore, it's you that can't find that fun. 

 

Either played that game that gives you nostalgia feel, which are you using to cheat on your inner child or take some break from the video games and come back after some time. If IV and V are so bad, why are you hurting yourself with them?


SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Give me Liberty

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia

#139

Posted 04 October 2013 - 06:22 AM

 

 

San Andreas is still the king.

 

Let's face it, people don't play these games for the storyline.

That's the problem both IV and V have. The games can't make their minds up if they want to be a realistic crime story or a comical video game. IV lost me with it's storyline completely, and V's was much more funny and had it's moments, but it too had the same problem from going to being funny one minute to trying to be emotionally invested in the characters.

What made SA, LCS, VCS, VC, and III what they were was the games didn't take themselves seriously with a bad melo-drama. The characters themselves were meant to be like jokes that you could not take seriously, and that's what made them memorable.

 

The biggest issue I had with IV was it just didn't feel fun. I play these games to have fun. I don't give a flying f*ck about the characters and backing story. There was nothing to do in IV. Nothing fun, outside of a few memorable missions, and even these were tedious. For a game that is all about stealing cars, they made the driving controls absolutely terrible, and a pain in the ass just to drive around. For a game that is meant to make a joke out of crime, it takes itself way too seriously.

 

Thankfully V fixed most things that were wrong with IV. The driving is a hundred times easier again, the shooting mechanics are better, the game has limitless FUN activities to do besides the 'hang out' and dating crap that plagued IV, and most of all this is far more fun than anything that was in IV. Yes the storyline wasn't all that great, but people act like IV had this amazing story when it was nothing but a laughable Scorcese rip off. It was so unbelievable while it tried to take itself seriously. San Andreas to me, had the best storyline. It tried to be serious in times, but it was all in all goofy and not meant to be taken seriously. It also had a great antagonist that felt like an actual threat to the player where the antagonists in IV and V are predictable and feel like card board cut out bad guys.

 

San Andreas was the high point of the series and nothing will ever top it again.

 

SA's serious moments were terrible and the entire story overall was inconsistent. It tried to be a jack of all trades and failed IMO.

 

It's like watching Boyz In The Hood and a 1/4 of the way through they get recruited by some government agency to steal some military weapons before going to Las Vegas to mess with the mob and in the end returning to life in the hood. In a nutshell that was pretty much SA's story. It was forced and all over the place. I simply couldn't get into it and found CJ to be more annoying than anything like most of the characters.

 

GTA IV's story took itself more seriously, but it flowed along nicely. Also I'm curious, but which one of Scorcese's films is it a rip off of?

 

GTA IV didn't have much influence from Hollywood at all so in a lot of ways it can't be considered a "rip off".

 

 

 

That's the thing with SA. It's a video game, not real life. It's called "Grand Theft Auto" I don't want it to be like watching an actual episode of the Sopranos or The Godfather. The game had it's influence from Boys In The Hood but I don't see where the game made me feel like the film whatsoever. That's what made SA so fun, it was not meant to be taken seriously. The way the old games didn't take themselves seriously is what made it fun to play through the storyline. When you put it all down on the table, absolutely none of them have believable storylines whatsoever, and that's fine because it is a video game afterall. The old ones were fun because the storyline was not the center piece of it. In IV they took everything that was fun out of the game and sacrificed so much for a boring drama that put people to sleep who weren't buying all the mega hype surronding the game.

 

GTA IV's story was laughable and extremely boring. How can you not see the influence from Hollywood? An immigrant arrives in the city with nothing and begins working for the mob. It's been told a hundred times before, especially in the old days of classic Hollywood. Several stereotypical characters displaying American greed and consumerism pop up constantly. It's as if they couldn't make their mind up if they wanted to make fun of Americans or try to imitate how they are in today's age. The problem though is the game took itself incredibly too seriously and it was laughable, if not boring the entire time. Stereotypical characters run rampant far worse than they ever did in the old games. Errant Signal said it best when he described the storyline as watching Scarface with Space Balls characters bouncing around in the background. GTA IV isn't the only one to suffer from this, Red Dead Redemption had the same problem. Couldn't make it's mind up if it wanted to be serious or a parody of the old West and strangely enough, GTA V has the exact same problem, though it still goes back to it's roots of reminding you it's a video game and not real life.

 

The whole 'I used to be a bad guy, but now I want to be a good guy' type protagonist has never worked for a game series that is named after a felony charge. The series should be about stealing cars and commiting crime, not some drama about a psychopath character they want you to sympathize for as they try their best to humanize him and make him appear as some hero. That was the problem I had with Niko, that's the problem I've had with almost every protagonist since the series tried to be more serious. They started humanizing the characters with San Andreas when they victimized CJ. It wasn't as bad though, then with IV they really went overboard trying to make you feel sympathetic to Niko.

 

 

 

No one plays these games for the storylines except kids who don't read books and think the most amazing stories come in these half assed game storylines. If you read a book or watch a movie and you will forget these storylines in a heart beat.

 

If GTA IV was released by any other company with a different name, there is no way on earth it would have received so much positive reception. All the praise it got for it's story was laughable, but then again Red Dead Redemption received a lot of praise for it's storyline too when it was basically a cut/paste of the same formula and still didn't work.

 

 

I respect peoples' opinions, but I don't like it when people try to force their own views as the correct ones. That's something I have never done. You're doing it here twisting subjective matter into fact.

 

You found GTA IV's story extremely boring? Well that's unfortunate. Just as I didn't find SA's story all that fun. I wanted to off myself everytime one of the annoying characters was on screen. I didn't give two flying f*cks about CJ's mom or anything concerning GSF. Athough the story tried to make me feel like I should've. That's why its serious moments are weak as piss IMO.

 

I gave SA a chance and it didn't do much for me. I enjoy GTA IV's darker tone and find Niko much more relatable. That's all there is to it and I've played GTA IV far, far more than I have of SA because it's more fun to be immersed in a more believable world than a half assed hood cartoon with dildos and trying to make the player feel a sense of vengeance for a character they've never seen before.

 

Also what's up with your second last paragraph? One of the primary reasons I play these games are the storylines so are you calling me a child even though I'm 4 years younger than you?

  • Ermac. likes this

Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#140

Posted 04 October 2013 - 06:38 AM

 


 

 

 

 

 

If GTA IV was released by any other company with a different name, there is no way on earth it would have received so much positive reception. All the praise it got for it's story was laughable, but then again Red Dead Redemption received a lot of praise for it's storyline too when it was basically a cut/paste of the same formula and still didn't work.

 

Of course, because only honest reception was for SA, rest is totally biased. Truth is R* name on the box works in case of every game, but that doesn't mean that bad game will get 10 out of 10. 

 

If SA would be released by other company it would end up the same way as IV in your example. Many bugs and annoying features were clearly forgiven due do to the company making and releasing the game. 

 

 


Katve
  • Katve

    Lost in Liberty City

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#141

Posted 04 October 2013 - 06:55 AM

In my opinion V is better than IV. I still like IV though. V story was too short. V: 69 IV: 90 missions


GtaIvFanboy
  • GtaIvFanboy

    I Have a Foot Fetish

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2013

#142

Posted 04 October 2013 - 08:26 AM

 

 

San Andreas is still the king.

 

Let's face it, people don't play these games for the storyline.

That's the problem both IV and V have. The games can't make their minds up if they want to be a realistic crime story or a comical video game. IV lost me with it's storyline completely, and V's was much more funny and had it's moments, but it too had the same problem from going to being funny one minute to trying to be emotionally invested in the characters.

What made SA, LCS, VCS, VC, and III what they were was the games didn't take themselves seriously with a bad melo-drama. The characters themselves were meant to be like jokes that you could not take seriously, and that's what made them memorable.

 

The biggest issue I had with IV was it just didn't feel fun. I play these games to have fun. I don't give a flying f*ck about the characters and backing story. There was nothing to do in IV. Nothing fun, outside of a few memorable missions, and even these were tedious. For a game that is all about stealing cars, they made the driving controls absolutely terrible, and a pain in the ass just to drive around. For a game that is meant to make a joke out of crime, it takes itself way too seriously.

 

Thankfully V fixed most things that were wrong with IV. The driving is a hundred times easier again, the shooting mechanics are better, the game has limitless FUN activities to do besides the 'hang out' and dating crap that plagued IV, and most of all this is far more fun than anything that was in IV. Yes the storyline wasn't all that great, but people act like IV had this amazing story when it was nothing but a laughable Scorcese rip off. It was so unbelievable while it tried to take itself seriously. San Andreas to me, had the best storyline. It tried to be serious in times, but it was all in all goofy and not meant to be taken seriously. It also had a great antagonist that felt like an actual threat to the player where the antagonists in IV and V are predictable and feel like card board cut out bad guys.

 

San Andreas was the high point of the series and nothing will ever top it again.

 

SA's serious moments were terrible and the entire story overall was inconsistent. It tried to be a jack of all trades and failed IMO.

 

It's like watching Boyz In The Hood and a 1/4 of the way through they get recruited by some government agency to steal some military weapons before going to Las Vegas to mess with the mob and in the end returning to life in the hood. In a nutshell that was pretty much SA's story. It was forced and all over the place. I simply couldn't get into it and found CJ to be more annoying than anything like most of the characters.

 

GTA IV's story took itself more seriously, but it flowed along nicely. Also I'm curious, but which one of Scorcese's films is it a rip off of?

 

GTA IV didn't have much influence from Hollywood at all so in a lot of ways it can't be considered a "rip off".

 

 

 

That's the thing with SA. It's a video game, not real life. It's called "Grand Theft Auto" I don't want it to be like watching an actual episode of the Sopranos or The Godfather. The game had it's influence from Boys In The Hood but I don't see where the game made me feel like the film whatsoever. That's what made SA so fun, it was not meant to be taken seriously. The way the old games didn't take themselves seriously is what made it fun to play through the storyline. When you put it all down on the table, absolutely none of them have believable storylines whatsoever, and that's fine because it is a video game afterall. The old ones were fun because the storyline was not the center piece of it. In IV they took everything that was fun out of the game and sacrificed so much for a boring drama that put people to sleep who weren't buying all the mega hype surronding the game.

 

GTA IV's story was laughable and extremely boring. How can you not see the influence from Hollywood? An immigrant arrives in the city with nothing and begins working for the mob. It's been told a hundred times before, especially in the old days of classic Hollywood. Several stereotypical characters displaying American greed and consumerism pop up constantly. It's as if they couldn't make their mind up if they wanted to make fun of Americans or try to imitate how they are in today's age. The problem though is the game took itself incredibly too seriously and it was laughable, if not boring the entire time. Stereotypical characters run rampant far worse than they ever did in the old games. Errant Signal said it best when he described the storyline as watching Scarface with Space Balls characters bouncing around in the background. GTA IV isn't the only one to suffer from this, Red Dead Redemption had the same problem. Couldn't make it's mind up if it wanted to be serious or a parody of the old West and strangely enough, GTA V has the exact same problem, though it still goes back to it's roots of reminding you it's a video game and not real life.

 

The whole 'I used to be a bad guy, but now I want to be a good guy' type protagonist has never worked for a game series that is named after a felony charge. The series should be about stealing cars and commiting crime, not some drama about a psychopath character they want you to sympathize for as they try their best to humanize him and make him appear as some hero. That was the problem I had with Niko, that's the problem I've had with almost every protagonist since the series tried to be more serious. They started humanizing the characters with San Andreas when they victimized CJ. It wasn't as bad though, then with IV they really went overboard trying to make you feel sympathetic to Niko.

 

 

 

No one plays these games for the storylines except kids who don't read books and think the most amazing stories come in these half assed game storylines. If you read a book or watch a movie and you will forget these storylines in a heart beat.

 

If GTA IV was released by any other company with a different name, there is no way on earth it would have received so much positive reception. All the praise it got for it's story was laughable, but then again Red Dead Redemption received a lot of praise for it's storyline too when it was basically a cut/paste of the same formula and still didn't work.

 

well that's Bullsh*t i have seen lot of movies and i still think The Storyline In IV is great and very Well Written unlike San Andreas which is a complete a f*cking mess.  and i find it funny how your Criticizing The Storyline when your a fan Of Scarface which is hands down the Most Overrated gangster film in the History of American Cinema with a mediocre Storyline To boot   i think you need to watch more films in the genre then you will see in your words  how Half Assed Scarface is bro.  ;)


ShopToCustomer
  • ShopToCustomer

    Ven rápido

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2013

#143

Posted 04 October 2013 - 01:29 PM

I think V is good but the driving is inferior. All of a sudden that "fast and responsive" bullsh*t seems great to everyone but I prefer skill and sophistication. V's driving is okay and adaptable but not near the level of IV at all!

GTA IV driving doesnt require skill at all and isnt sophisticated, do you drive irl? i dont mean that in a sarcastic way im being serious.


Mcquiz
  • Mcquiz

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2009

#144

Posted 04 October 2013 - 07:49 PM

 

I think V is good but the driving is inferior. All of a sudden that "fast and responsive" bullsh*t seems great to everyone but I prefer skill and sophistication. V's driving is okay and adaptable but not near the level of IV at all!

GTA IV driving doesnt require skill at all and isnt sophisticated, do you drive irl? i dont mean that in a sarcastic way im being serious.

 

GTA IV driving does require skill and I do drive in real life.


The Gardener
  • The Gardener

    jebeno isti

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • None

#145

Posted 05 October 2013 - 11:37 AM Edited by SomeManForGTA, 05 October 2013 - 11:56 AM.

GTA 4 beats GTA 5 in these aspects:
Storyline
Characters
Driving
Soundtrack
Multiplayer free-roam
Helicopter controls
Humor and comic relief

And to the guys saying people don't play games for the story, speak for yourselves. Millions of people do.

GTA 4 had an awesome story with awesome characters. The logic that if I were to watch a good movie or tv show would make me forget GTA 4s storyline is just stupid. I've watched the Godfathers, Casino, The Sopranos and Breaking Bad. And yet I still think GTA 4 had a great storyline and I certainly havn't forgotten it.

GTA 5s story was simply sh*t. The whole government thing was bland. The only character I even liked was Trevor. Franklin was plain and Michael was annoying. The supporting cast was also poor. Don't get me wrong GTA 5 is great, but the story was sh*t. It tended to much to the people who wanted non-stop action but a sh*t story. It was only slighly better than TBoGT.

I don't only play games for the story, hell I play a lot of FIFA, but it certainly does help if the game does has a good one.
  • Neonic9 likes this

Secura
  • Secura

    Enigmatic Wanderer.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • United-Kingdom

#146

Posted 05 October 2013 - 01:25 PM Edited by Lightning Strike, 06 October 2013 - 01:31 AM.

 

You nailed it. I like V, but it feels...unpolished. Some parts of the game are amazing like the map but a lot of other parts are just baffling. The physics as a whole seem dumbed down from IV while the shooting is increased. There's more high-end cars but they got rid of a ton of cool low-end cars...and so on and so on.

 

In California, particularly in LA you're not too likely to see many low-end cars, the only places you'll notice them would be in the ghetto or countryside, and what do y'know? Rockstar placed tonnes of them there, in fact only about thirty of the over two hundred vehicles in the game could really be considered "high-end" where as the rest fill up the medium to low-range sections.

 

The physics aren't "dumbed downed" as much as they're less sensitive, you're not going to be launched fifteen feet off a bike when traveling at twenty KPH, similarly you'll never reach the speed in some of the vehicles that IV allows you to in order for you to be propelled face-first through the windscreen. V's physics are vastly superior to IV, even the little things it does better, such as being able to automatically leap over any small ledge or surface without pressing a button, or the way a character climbs and maneuvers his way through the environment depending on his skill set. 

 

I see no way in which you could form a legitimate argument with either of those two points.

 

 

Let's not even get into how they cut out a bunch of cool stuff for GTA:O only. There is no goddamn excuse for not being able to buy safehouses in SP. Not a single one.

 

Uh yes there is.

 

Firstly would be the importance of the three characters' whereabouts to the narrative itself, particularly at the points during the story where they go into hiding or what have you, why would they ever need to "hide" in a city where they owned the majority of houses and apartments? They wouldn't. This is without me mentioning that the characters' safehouses change randomly throughout the story depending on where they are and what they're doing, this to me is more than enough of a reason to relegate the safehouse buying feature to Online.

 

Even more so though, the feature in Online doesn't work as you'd expect seeing as you can only truly own one apartment at a time, as a result of this the majority of the story in GTA V would've been rendered pointless by one relatively useless feature, I cannot see how anyone could or would even bother to try weaving an excuse around that point. 

 

In short there's a plethora of reasons why safehouse buying is an Online only thing, and I can only hope that it stays that way.


Niko Vercetti 112
  • Niko Vercetti 112

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#147

Posted 07 October 2013 - 02:11 AM

I just started another playthrough of IV after finishing V. And I would say asside from the character customisation, IV is still a supperior game.

Flashify
  • Flashify

    IV IS STILL KING

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2011

#148

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:02 PM

Didn't realise this thread was out there which is why I've created one saying the same thing, so sorry about that. :)

 

IV is definately better. Maybe next time, things will be different.


NADOLNY
  • NADOLNY

    Homie

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2007

#149

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:07 PM

By the OP's nickname, I stopped reading and now I'm running away from this thread


Flashify
  • Flashify

    IV IS STILL KING

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2011

#150

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:14 PM

By the OP's nickname, I stopped reading and now I'm running away from this thread

 

You remembered to post before running :lol:

  • NADOLNY likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users