Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Does anyone still go back to GTA IV?

317 replies to this topic
Turan
  • Turan

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 2 weeks ago
  • None

#301

Posted 5 days ago

 

 

 

And then you have example of your idea in V. Was it worth it? Was countryside really that great and did R* really did something great with it? 

 

This exactly  :^:

 

It's all well and good saying, "lets have more countryside in a GTA game, it's cool to have", but it's not so cool when there is not much going on, or when there is not much interesting and fun to see or do. This was the case in V - lovely to look at, nice to drive around, but for most part it was useless and empty. 

 

Afterward, it had me thinking that Rockstar should have concentrated first on making Los Santos a most immersive and engaging environment by creating many interiors, many decent side missions, buying safehouse properties, better gang and ped AI (random shootouts, and violence), make LS feel like a place where something is always going on and always something to do. If LS had been like that, I'd not have been too bothered about the near-useless feel of the countryside and wilderness in V, it would have been just a nice place to get away from city life. Instead, we got a double whammy of disappointment - a city greatly lacking in-depth  immersion and interaction, and a countryside and wilderness that largely empty and useless. 

 

 

 

 

You may not enjoy the countryside in GTAV but I do. There are so many fun things you can do outside of the city. Things that are not possible in LS. Adds a lot to the gameplay. It is far from empty and useless in my opinion. 

 

 

Having a more immersive and engaging city is nice and all but you can't convince me that Liberty City felt livelier or more detailed than Los Santos. I do agree that Rockstar could add all the things you mentioned to make the city better but honestly I would not trade the countryside for that. I hope that Rockstar will do both in the next GTA. You guys happy, I'm happy :D

  • Cakelover21 likes this

Militia
  • Militia

    Unique/Proof/EC Vehicle Collector

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2013
  • United-States

#302

Posted 5 days ago Edited by Militia, 5 days ago.

Liberty City felt livelier or more detailed than Los Santos

 

Liberty City certainly IS more lively than Los Santos.  There is barely any Peds in Los Santos.  Furthermore, Liberty City is a concrete jungle.  In Los Santos to Blaine County, you can take one road and drive straight and you're there.  The map may be big, but it feels way more dead than Liberty City and LC is a lot smaller, too!  To this day, no matter how good of a Gamesave I get in a GTA Game, I am STILL confused driving in IV/TLaD/TBoGT without using GPS.  There is so many details jam packed in Liberty City.  Blaine County?  Nothing but a few trees, a desert that is complete trash compared to SA's, a wasted Alamo Sea, mountain upon mountain with nothing but grass and rocks.  IV's map is filled from corner to corner with details.  The only good details in V are from the city of Los Santos and even that has nothing with Liberty.

  • ryd3r007, android, Zello and 3 others like this

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#303

Posted 5 days ago Edited by Official General, 5 days ago.

 

 

 

 

And then you have example of your idea in V. Was it worth it? Was countryside really that great and did R* really did something great with it? 

 

This exactly  :^:

 

It's all well and good saying, "lets have more countryside in a GTA game, it's cool to have", but it's not so cool when there is not much going on, or when there is not much interesting and fun to see or do. This was the case in V - lovely to look at, nice to drive around, but for most part it was useless and empty. 

 

Afterward, it had me thinking that Rockstar should have concentrated first on making Los Santos a most immersive and engaging environment by creating many interiors, many decent side missions, buying safehouse properties, better gang and ped AI (random shootouts, and violence), make LS feel like a place where something is always going on and always something to do. If LS had been like that, I'd not have been too bothered about the near-useless feel of the countryside and wilderness in V, it would have been just a nice place to get away from city life. Instead, we got a double whammy of disappointment - a city greatly lacking in-depth  immersion and interaction, and a countryside and wilderness that largely empty and useless. 

 

 

 

 

You may not enjoy the countryside in GTAV but I do. There are so many fun things you can do outside of the city. Things that are not possible in LS. Adds a lot to the gameplay. It is far from empty and useless in my opinion. 

 

 

Having a more immersive and engaging city is nice and all but you can't convince me that Liberty City felt livelier or more detailed than Los Santos. I do agree that Rockstar could add all the things you mentioned to make the city better but honestly I would not trade the countryside for that. I hope that Rockstar will do both in the next GTA. You guys happy, I'm happy :D

 

 

Maybe you should read my earlier posts to understand me better on this subject. I do like having the countryside and wilderness in V, it looks beautifully detailed, and it is always nice to have a drastic change of scenery in an open world, free roam game like GTA. I respect you happen to find fun things to do in V's countryside and wilderness, but I'm still gonna say I fail to see what you can do there that's so much fun and interesting. I'm not talking about the silly, mundane stuff that involves casual messing around. I'm talking about things to do that have substance and meaningfulness. You may be right on one thing - there is not much to do in LS anyway, so if you claim that there is a lot of stuff to do outside of LS not possible to do in LS, then I can believe that. 

 

To me, I just think the countryside and wilderness was largely empty and useless where fun and interesting things to see and do are concerned, Aside from seeing animals (which of there is still not enough), I cannot see much what else is there. A few random events dotted here and there, that's pretty much it. Not enough decent side activities to do with crime that could be integrated into it, to make it more fun and interesting - like some cross-border stuff, drug trafficking, human and contraband smuggling etc, not that lame drop the box from a plane stuff that Trevor did for arms trafficking. Doing some vigilante missions where you go into remote places and deal with crazed killers, psychos, and modern bandits in unlimited random events. Maybe even buy safehouse properties out in the countryside, buy and manage a farm estate and defend it from modern-day rustlers, ride horses, just more decent stuff. Sorry, I just think Rockstar made very little good use of the countryside and wilderness, and for most part it was a huge waste. 

 

Relax, no one is trying to convince you or force you to agree with them, it's just a discussion, the essence of what a forum is for. Both LC and LS are more or less on an equal level when it comes to detail and liveliness on the streets, except that LS looks more polished simply because V is much newer than IV. However, LC just felt much more 'alive' because of the deeper levels of interaction and immersion provided by a decent number of interiors, something important which LS lacked. Combined with EFLC, LC wipes LS with the floor for feeling more alive and vibrant. 

  • Zello likes this

thekillerdonuts
  • thekillerdonuts

    Jelly Phil

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013
  • United-States

#304

Posted 5 days ago Edited by thekillerdonuts, 5 days ago.

The countryside in GTA V was pretty cool in my book, but it was also small in the grand scheme. Too much dry mountains, not enough small towns and grassland. Mount Chiliad and Gordo are the only good mountains, and even then, Chiliad is way too wide and takes up too much space. Josiah and the Tataviams didn't have to be so wide either and San Chanski was utterly useless. If they removed Chanski, narrowed Chiliad and the Tataviams and made Josiah generally smaller, there could have been another small town or two, with more forest and farm area. This is off-topic now lol.

 

Edit - completely forgot about the Palomino Highlands. They're useless, too.

  • Official General likes this

ryd3r007
  • ryd3r007

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2011

#305

Posted 4 days ago

For me:

 

City -> GTA IV

Countryside -> RDR


Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

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

#306

Posted 4 days ago

 

 

Relax, no one is trying to convince you or force you to agree with them, it's just a discussion, the essence of what a forum is for. Both LC and LS are more or less on an equal level when it comes to detail and liveliness on the streets, except that LS looks more polished simply because V is much newer than IV. However, LC just felt much more 'alive' because of the deeper levels of interaction and immersion provided by a decent number of interiors, something important which LS lacked. Combined with EFLC, LC wipes LS with the floor for feeling more alive and vibrant. 

 

 

Agreed. LS looks nice, but that's all it has going for it IMO. There's just something about walking around the streets of LC I enjoy a lot more than LS. The peds in GTA V are so dull to me. In GTA IV they use the food vendors, sweep paths, clean windows etc.

 

Most of the time with GTA V you have to go out of your way to see peds do unique actions whereas with GTA IV it doesn't take much effort as you're likely to see these things above relatively quickly. LS had potential to be much better than it is. People can blame it on console limitations, but the truth still stands.

 

As far as I'm concerned GTA IV's LC is still the more most realistic, immersive city R* have ever created.

  • Official General, Zello, fefenc and 4 others like this

Ducard
  • Ducard

    Viva la Vida!

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2014
  • India

#307

Posted 4 days ago

Have you played the NG versions MVC? The city has been improved there I hear.

Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

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

#308

Posted 4 days ago

Have you played the NG versions MVC? The city has been improved there I hear.


Not yet, but this doesn't excuse the PS3/360 version.

PhillBellic
  • PhillBellic

    Lt Phill Bellic. Law Enforcement Enthusiast.

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2012
  • Australia

#309

Posted 4 days ago

 

Have you played the NG versions MVC? The city has been improved there I hear.


Not yet, but this doesn't excuse the PS3/360 version.

 

Exactly. As the saying goes "You can't polish a turd". ;)

 

Cheers.

  • Miamivicecity, Sting4S, Cakelover21 and 1 other like this

Militia
  • Militia

    Unique/Proof/EC Vehicle Collector

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2013
  • United-States

#310

Posted 4 days ago

The countryside in GTA V was pretty cool in my book, but it was also small in the grand scheme. Too much dry mountains, not enough small towns and grassland. Mount Chiliad and Gordo are the only good mountains, and even then, Chiliad is way too wide and takes up too much space. Josiah and the Tataviams didn't have to be so wide either and San Chanski was utterly useless. If they removed Chanski, narrowed Chiliad and the Tataviams and made Josiah generally smaller, there could have been another small town or two, with more forest and farm area. This is off-topic now lol.

 

Edit - completely forgot about the Palomino Highlands. They're useless, too.

 

Don't forget how big the Ocean is as well.  For me, having Water like San Andreas is good enough.  Having an Ocean in V that is THAT detailed is kinda using a lot of resources and has wasted potential.  V has too much open, "dead space" for it to take the cake for ALL GTA Games.  Not to mention (since I like it) there is not many good Special Vehicles in V, either.  I was bored in a way when I was doing the Special Vehicle collection for V.  Only a handful of them were pleasing, like the Skylift, Snow Asea, and the 3 UP (Unique Plate) Super Cars.  I am trying very hard to like Unique Plates in V, but it's not very "Unique" to me, but this is one major aspect of V dealing with Special Vehicles...

  • thekillerdonuts likes this

Turan
  • Turan

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 2 weeks ago
  • None

#311

Posted 3 days ago Edited by Turan, 3 days ago.

 

 

 

 

 

And then you have example of your idea in V. Was it worth it? Was countryside really that great and did R* really did something great with it? 

 

This exactly  :^:

 

It's all well and good saying, "lets have more countryside in a GTA game, it's cool to have", but it's not so cool when there is not much going on, or when there is not much interesting and fun to see or do. This was the case in V - lovely to look at, nice to drive around, but for most part it was useless and empty. 

 

Afterward, it had me thinking that Rockstar should have concentrated first on making Los Santos a most immersive and engaging environment by creating many interiors, many decent side missions, buying safehouse properties, better gang and ped AI (random shootouts, and violence), make LS feel like a place where something is always going on and always something to do. If LS had been like that, I'd not have been too bothered about the near-useless feel of the countryside and wilderness in V, it would have been just a nice place to get away from city life. Instead, we got a double whammy of disappointment - a city greatly lacking in-depth  immersion and interaction, and a countryside and wilderness that largely empty and useless. 

 

 

 

 

You may not enjoy the countryside in GTAV but I do. There are so many fun things you can do outside of the city. Things that are not possible in LS. Adds a lot to the gameplay. It is far from empty and useless in my opinion. 

 

 

Having a more immersive and engaging city is nice and all but you can't convince me that Liberty City felt livelier or more detailed than Los Santos. I do agree that Rockstar could add all the things you mentioned to make the city better but honestly I would not trade the countryside for that. I hope that Rockstar will do both in the next GTA. You guys happy, I'm happy :D

 

 

Maybe you should read my earlier posts to understand me better on this subject. I do like having the countryside and wilderness in V, it looks beautifully detailed, and it is always nice to have a drastic change of scenery in an open world, free roam game like GTA. I respect you happen to find fun things to do in V's countryside and wilderness, but I'm still gonna say I fail to see what you can do there that's so much fun and interesting. I'm not talking about the silly, mundane stuff that involves casual messing around. I'm talking about things to do that have substance and meaningfulness. You may be right on one thing - there is not much to do in LS anyway, so if you claim that there is a lot of stuff to do outside of LS not possible to do in LS, then I can believe that. 

 

To me, I just think the countryside and wilderness was largely empty and useless where fun and interesting things to see and do are concerned, Aside from seeing animals (which of there is still not enough), I cannot see much what else is there. A few random events dotted here and there, that's pretty much it. Not enough decent side activities to do with crime that could be integrated into it, to make it more fun and interesting - like some cross-border stuff, drug trafficking, human and contraband smuggling etc, not that lame drop the box from a plane stuff that Trevor did for arms trafficking. Doing some vigilante missions where you go into remote places and deal with crazed killers, psychos, and modern bandits in unlimited random events. Maybe even buy safehouse properties out in the countryside, buy and manage a farm estate and defend it from modern-day rustlers, ride horses, just more decent stuff. Sorry, I just think Rockstar made very little good use of the countryside and wilderness, and for most part it was a huge waste. 

 

Relax, no one is trying to convince you or force you to agree with them, it's just a discussion, the essence of what a forum is for. Both LC and LS are more or less on an equal level when it comes to detail and liveliness on the streets, except that LS looks more polished simply because V is much newer than IV. However, LC just felt much more 'alive' because of the deeper levels of interaction and immersion provided by a decent number of interiors, something important which LS lacked. Combined with EFLC, LC wipes LS with the floor for feeling more alive and vibrant. 

 

 

 

 

What makes you think I'm upset? I'm just saying that I don't believe LC is more alive than LS. Maybe some small differences here and there but overall they feel the same in terms of being a living city.

 

Also, there are plenty of missions that revolve around or take place in the wilderness. And most of them star the lovely Trevor. Could Rockstar have done even more with it? Of course. They could always do better in anything you see in their games. But in my opinion they've done just enough with the wilderness/countryside to not make it useless or a waste. 

 

I agree about the interiors though. Should've been more of those in GTAV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relax, no one is trying to convince you or force you to agree with them, it's just a discussion, the essence of what a forum is for. Both LC and LS are more or less on an equal level when it comes to detail and liveliness on the streets, except that LS looks more polished simply because V is much newer than IV. However, LC just felt much more 'alive' because of the deeper levels of interaction and immersion provided by a decent number of interiors, something important which LS lacked. Combined with EFLC, LC wipes LS with the floor for feeling more alive and vibrant. 

 

 

Agreed. LS looks nice, but that's all it has going for it IMO. There's just something about walking around the streets of LC I enjoy a lot more than LS. The peds in GTA V are so dull to me. In GTA IV they use the food vendors, sweep paths, clean windows etc.

 

Most of the time with GTA V you have to go out of your way to see peds do unique actions whereas with GTA IV it doesn't take much effort as you're likely to see these things above relatively quickly. LS had potential to be much better than it is. People can blame it on console limitations, but the truth still stands.

 

As far as I'm concerned GTA IV's LC is still the more most realistic, immersive city R* have ever created.

 

 

 

True, I haven't seen a lot of peds in GTAV doing things like sweeping paths or buying stuff. But I did see them ride bicycles, cruise on the beaches, take out their dogs. Peds that you see hiking in the wilderness where no one else is around. They even take pictures of your ride if it is looking cool. Of course Rockstar could've added more unique stuff to do for peds like you mentioned, but for all the things they've taken out they've added a lot of new things. It evens itself out. That is why you will never hear me say LS is more alive than LC. They're roughly the same. 

 

 

 

The countryside in GTA V was pretty cool in my book, but it was also small in the grand scheme. Too much dry mountains, not enough small towns and grassland. Mount Chiliad and Gordo are the only good mountains, and even then, Chiliad is way too wide and takes up too much space. Josiah and the Tataviams didn't have to be so wide either and San Chanski was utterly useless. If they removed Chanski, narrowed Chiliad and the Tataviams and made Josiah generally smaller, there could have been another small town or two, with more forest and farm area. This is off-topic now lol.

 

Edit - completely forgot about the Palomino Highlands. They're useless, too.

 

Don't forget how big the Ocean is as well.  For me, having Water like San Andreas is good enough.  Having an Ocean in V that is THAT detailed is kinda using a lot of resources and has wasted potential.  V has too much open, "dead space" for it to take the cake for ALL GTA Games.  Not to mention (since I like it) there is not many good Special Vehicles in V, either.  I was bored in a way when I was doing the Special Vehicle collection for V.  Only a handful of them were pleasing, like the Skylift, Snow Asea, and the 3 UP (Unique Plate) Super Cars.  I am trying very hard to like Unique Plates in V, but it's not very "Unique" to me, but this is one major aspect of V dealing with Special Vehicles...

 

 

 

Actually I enjoyed diving in the ocean. With a sub or on foot it is quite fun to explore some shipwrecks and stuff. There were some missions in the ocean as well so it wasn't a bad idea of Rockstar to implement a detailed ocean in the game.


thekillerdonuts
  • thekillerdonuts

    Jelly Phil

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013
  • United-States

#312

Posted 3 days ago Edited by thekillerdonuts, 3 days ago.

I'd rather more mysterious stuff above water than under it

  • Militia likes this

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#313

Posted 3 days ago

For me, having Water like San Andreas is good enough.  Having an Ocean in V that is THAT detailed is kinda using a lot of resources and has wasted potential.  V has too much open, "dead space" for it to take the cake for ALL GTA Games. 

 

I totally agree with this. I really believe that V's ocean should have been similar to San Andreas in size and scope, but a bit more detailed with more sea life. SA's underwater was good enough for a GTA game, it's not too big and extensive, just enough for a player to mess around and have a little bit of fun and exploration. I too felt that Rockstar wasted too much resources and effort on the underwater section was heavily underused. 

 

@ Turan

 

Sorry, I just don't agree. It's great you feel that that way about V's countryside and wilderness, but I just felt it was wasted and heavily under-utilized. 

  • thekillerdonuts and Militia like this

Le zébu suintant
  • Le zébu suintant

    Iceland man

  • Members
  • Joined: 3 weeks ago
  • Iceland

#314

Posted 3 days ago

I didn't played gta iv since 2013.


android
  • android

    Boss

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2013
  • None
  • Best Mobile OS

#315

Posted 3 days ago

Sure, why wouldn't we? IV was one of the greatest games of the last generation. I love playing it on occasion, especially when V is one of those repetitive games..

  • Miamivicecity, ryd3r007, make total destroy and 1 other like this

Midnight Hitman
  • Midnight Hitman

    Liberty City hired gun

  • Members
  • Joined: 3 days ago
  • United-States

#316

Posted 2 days ago

I wish IV had the replay mission feature of V , i would play it all the time.

Militia
  • Militia

    Unique/Proof/EC Vehicle Collector

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2013
  • United-States

#317

Posted 2 days ago

I totally agree with this. I really believe that V's ocean should have been similar to San Andreas in size and scope, but a bit more detailed with more sea life. SA's underwater was good enough for a GTA game, it's not too big and extensive, just enough for a player to mess around and have a little bit of fun and exploration. I too felt that Rockstar wasted too much resources and effort on the underwater section was heavily underused.

 

IV's Ocean is good enough, too.  It looks great and it's not taking up too much space and resources.  Probably cuz you can't dive, but why would I want to dive in polluted water anyways?  It'd be pitch black down there with no animal life....


Cakelover21
  • Cakelover21

    Unique Vehicle Collector

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2013
  • Estonia

#318

Posted 2 days ago

Relax, no one is trying to convince you or force you to agree with them, it's just a discussion, the essence of what a forum is for. Both LC and LS are more or less on an equal level when it comes to detail and liveliness on the streets, except that LS looks more polished simply because V is much newer than IV. However, LC just felt much more 'alive' because of the deeper levels of interaction and immersion provided by a decent number of interiors, something important which LS lacked. Combined with EFLC, LC wipes LS with the floor for feeling more alive and vibrant.

People can blame it on console limitations, but the truth still stands.
CONSOLE LIMITATIONS! Muhhahahahahhaha.

Ot: Hell yes I still go back to GTA IV. It just fells so much more...real. I don't know what it is but in both GTA III and IV R* did a super job with LC. It just has something other games don't have. I always get a special feeling that I can't describe when I play GTA IV. Amazing. Normaly I just defend GTA V because some people are just hating it for the dumbest reasons and for likes. It's just bad to watch a forum about GTA be so f*cking full of sh*t. But I myself can't deny that GTA IV has a better world.

The V defender in me doesn't want to say more alive but it is. I feel the same about GTA III but nobody hated VC after that so I can talk about that all I want. IV? Not untill GTA VI comes out and everyone starts hating that :p.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users