Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Is GTA IV considered as a fail?

48 replies to this topic
CR7_LM10_RVP20_SH1
  • CR7_LM10_RVP20_SH1

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2013
  • None

#1

Posted 22 February 2014 - 08:26 PM Edited by CR7_LM10_RVP20_SH1, 22 February 2014 - 08:27 PM.

i know some might find this question offensive but i'm serious. i really love this game; i can go as far and say that it's my favourite gta game. it's story and graphics are fantastic and niko bellic is my favourite videogame protagonist ever. i think it took a nice different direction from san andreas. and while i think vice city and san andreas were fantastic games, i just couldn't take their characters seriously (tommy vercetty was really cool, all bad*ss and everything, but he didn't had enough personality for me and carl johnson had just too crazy supporting cast to be taken serious. and his missions were also unrealistic - jumping from one plane to another and opening the doors from outside or overtaking the whole military base to steal a jetpack. i think it was over the top), but niko bellic just had that personality and his background story and struggles made me feel even more connected to him (and that doesn't happen often with fictional characters at all!).

but when i go online and search for some opinions and reviews i see mostly negative opinions about the games' darkness, boring gameplay, repetitive missions and story. i see some legit points out there, but please! why so much hate? some people really went that far and stated that gta iv isn't a real gta and is a fail. many of them are like "meh", but they think san andreas and vice city are superior. there are also that kinds of people that think liberty city was better implemented in gta iii. others say it's a game that "you'll either love it or hate it".

 

http://www.metacriti...d-theft-auto-iv

this is an example of what i had in mind. check the user reviews. i don't think the game deserver "mixed or average" reviews, with more negative than positive reviews.

 

i know it had great critic reviews and sold lots of copies, but many people weren't really impressed so i ask you, is gta iv considered as a slight fail (or a step in wrong direction) amongst gta fanbase? did it really dissappoint? i'm not trying to offend or troll - i like the game and am puzzled on why other people find the game bad?


GameHacker666
  • GameHacker666

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jul 2013
  • Slovenia

#2

Posted 22 February 2014 - 08:36 PM Edited by GameHacker666, 22 February 2014 - 08:39 PM.

I wouldn't say that it is considered as a fail, just a step in different (and for many fans wrong) direction. I think the only reason that it didn't quite lived up to the expectations is, because people were so hyped over the release and they wanted an improvement over GTA San Andreas or another fun cruising around Vice City, but ended with a serious, gritty, darker and slower-paced game. I don't think this is bad at all, because Liberty City really has its' own charm. And the Metacritic link you gave us is not really credible, because most of the negative reviews were pointed towards poor PC port and glitches, not the gameplay itself. If you check Xbox 360 version for an example, the rating quickly raises. For me, the game is excellent and I won't care what anybody else thinks.

Just my 2 cents.

  • xXGst0395Xx, Drunken Cowboy, CR7_LM10_RVP20_SH1 and 2 others like this

Mr_Goldcard
  • Mr_Goldcard

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2013

#3

Posted 23 February 2014 - 12:08 AM

Most are complaining about the bugs it had not the game itself.


hornedturtle
  • hornedturtle

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2013
  • None

#4

Posted 23 February 2014 - 12:11 AM

Most are complaining about the bugs it had not the game itself.


I don't complain about the bugs. I complain about the poor pacing.

Staten
  • Staten

    Big Homie

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2011
  • None
  • Poetic Prowess [General Chat]

#5

Posted 23 February 2014 - 12:42 AM

No, it's not a fail.  Also, you might want to avoid using Metacritic as a source for info on what a fanbase thinks of a game or a movie or whatever. 

 

At the end of the day, if you enjoy it, you enjoy it.

  • Deadly Target, Loxley and theGTAking101 like this

lol232
  • lol232

    The Harwood Butcher

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2010
  • Serbia

#6

Posted 23 February 2014 - 12:59 AM

It's a win, most of the negative comments are just SA fanboys with their LA 1992 nostalgia.
  • Agni, theGTAking101, Jeansowaty and 2 others like this

SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Goodfella

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member in an Official Group 2012

#7

Posted 23 February 2014 - 01:59 AM

Well everyone has their opinion after all. Before I got Mafia II I was kind of turned off by it due to all the negative press surrounding it by people on various sites, but when I bought it I ended up loving the game and now it's one of my favourites.

 

Sure there are things about GTA IV I don't like, but pretty much everything people consider to be bad about it is what I love. I love the dark, gritty, claustrophobic feeling of Liberty City. I think Niko isn't just the best GTA protagonist, but one of the best video game protagonists ever. Yet some people call him depressing and boring. I don't feel like that at all. The so called "annoying'" friends/girlfriends is actually one of the things I love about GTA IV as it makes the game feel more connected and alive.

 

It's rough around the edges (no game is perfect), but overall it's a fantastic game I'll always have great admiration for. In my eyes it's anything, but a fail. Whether it is to others is up to their interpretation.


Niko Vercetti 112
  • Niko Vercetti 112

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#8

Posted 23 February 2014 - 03:02 AM

I've noticed one thing about those who seem to hate IV, and that is that the majority of them started with San Andreas (and to an extent Vice City). The majority of people who like it seem to have started with III or before, and know that GTA isn't all about being a gangbanger with a purple afro who interacts with no one other than overly exagerated characters in a happy and sunny envrionment. That said I've got nothing wrong with those who don't like IV, other than those who expected it to be Grand Theft Auto IV: San Andreas 2.0.
  • SonOfLiberty, ObsydianRaven, lol232 and 8 others like this

Loxley
  • Loxley

    This member is no longer active.

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2012
  • United-States

#9

Posted 23 February 2014 - 03:22 AM

The only bad thing I have to say about IV was its horrible optimization when it finally released on PC.

  • JRC99 likes this

SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Goodfella

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member in an Official Group 2012

#10

Posted 23 February 2014 - 03:29 AM

I've noticed one thing about those who seem to hate IV, and that is that the majority of them started with San Andreas (and to an extent Vice City). The majority of people who like it seem to have started with III or before, and know that GTA isn't all about being a gangbanger with a purple afro who interacts with no one other than overly exagerated characters in a happy and sunny envrionment. That said I've got nothing wrong with those who don't like IV, other than those who expected it to be Grand Theft Auto IV: San Andreas 2.0.

 

I think this is mostly true. I like to consider myself a veteran of the series (since I started with GTA 1 back in the late 90s) and to be honest I didn't like most of what SA introduced. I was hoping the series would get back to its "roots" so to speak opting for much less features, but more focused gameplay like the original three and VC to an extent.

 

That's why I fell head over heels for IV the first time I played it. It was a weird sensation as while in many ways it went in a new direction it brought back some of those old school feelings I had with GTA 1, 2 and 3 where most of the fun came from being more creative with what you had rather than being over-stimulated by features.

  • Andreas likes this

thatGuyyy
  • thatGuyyy

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2014

#11

Posted 23 February 2014 - 04:49 AM Edited by thatGuyyy, 23 February 2014 - 04:53 AM.

There is no other city in any videogame that is as detailed and beautiful as Liberty City, not even HD Los Santos. I love IV, its the most treasured game in my collection.

 

I never thought I would like another game more than SA.

 

IV proved me wrong

  • theGTAking101 likes this

Niko Vercetti 112
  • Niko Vercetti 112

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#12

Posted 23 February 2014 - 05:18 AM


I've noticed one thing about those who seem to hate IV, and that is that the majority of them started with San Andreas (and to an extent Vice City). The majority of people who like it seem to have started with III or before, and know that GTA isn't all about being a gangbanger with a purple afro who interacts with no one other than overly exagerated characters in a happy and sunny envrionment. That said I've got nothing wrong with those who don't like IV, other than those who expected it to be Grand Theft Auto IV: San Andreas 2.0.

 
I think this is mostly true. I like to consider myself a veteran of the series (since I started with GTA 1 back in the late 90s) and to be honest I didn't like most of what SA introduced. I was hoping the series would get back to its "roots" so to speak opting for much less features, but more focused gameplay like the original three and VC to an extent.
 
That's why I fell head over heels for IV the first time I played it. It was a weird sensation as while in many ways it went in a new direction it brought back some of those old school feelings I had with GTA 1, 2 and 3 where most of the fun came from being more creative with what you had rather than being over-stimulated by features.
Yes, those over stimulated features are really the reason everyone puts down IV. I mean things like casinos, haircuts, flyable jumbo jets, etc are all pretty good, but to say that it doesn't feel like GTA without them is far from right. The only thing that I, personally, feel that San Andreas added which should be a necessity in GTA is car customisation.

In the end however I think Rockstar should be alternating between whacky and serious with every game. IV was serious, V was whacky. So VI should be serious, then the next should be whacky, etc. Keep both sides of this coin happy (the only thing being that fans of serious gameplay can accept over the top, whereas hardcore over the top fans can't accept anything else)

Gta_V_Fan_101
  • Gta_V_Fan_101

    My posts are brought to you by Chuckola Cola Drinks.

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2013
  • Bahrain

#13

Posted 23 February 2014 - 08:50 AM

No it isn't.

 

As Niko Vercetti said, majority of these reviewers started with SA. All I can say is that don't care about other people's opinions. All that matters at the end of the day is that you enjoy the game. 

 

I also wouldn't take Metacritic's reviews seriously. I always listen to this awesome album by an awesome band, and guess what they gave the album. They gave it 65/100. Don't take 'em too seriously.

  • DutchGangsta likes this

Jimbatron
  • Jimbatron

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2009
  • United-Kingdom

#14

Posted 23 February 2014 - 09:06 AM

Well it's 13th in the all time sales list. Unlucky for some maybe, but I don't see how that can be considered a fail.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ing_video_games

 

Also, if you look at the list, a lot of the ones above are Nintendo titles that were often given away with the consoles. If you excluded them, it would comfortably be in the top 10. It's behind SA, however, that was at the end of the console life cycle, when lots of people had a PS2. I'm taking a guess here, but I would reckon there were more PS2s when SA came out than PS3's when IV arrived on the shelves.

 

Some people might not have liked it, but that's the same for any game. At a macro level, there's really no way to say the word fail and sound even vaguely credible. The only PS3 / Xbox 360 games to have sold more are COD MW3 (and not by much there, I would easily account for that by extra consoles being owned), GTA V, and Minecraft. On a personal level maybe you can.

 

As for my view, my shameless multi-player fanboy-ism comes racing to the surface here. If all the game consisted of was the city and Cops 'n Crooks All for One, it would still be the best game I've ever played by a country mile. I have never seen a multi-player mode that is so intense, and creates a reason to really co-operate and play as a team. It might seem pretty average if you're with players who are new to the mode, but once you get into it, it is simple awesome. It hands down thrashes anything in GTA Online for me personally - although I still wouldn't call that a fail, even with a bold a statement such as this.

  • Ermac. likes this

Gta_V_Fan_101
  • Gta_V_Fan_101

    My posts are brought to you by Chuckola Cola Drinks.

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2013
  • Bahrain

#15

Posted 23 February 2014 - 09:11 AM

Well it's 13th in the all time sales list. Unlucky for some maybe, but I don't see how that can be considered a fail.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ing_video_games

Well, since Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door isn't there, I'm saying that this is false.

 

Just joking. But, I can't believe that the worst CoD game, which is MW3, got more sales than GTA IV.


CantThinkOfOne2013
  • CantThinkOfOne2013

    You're all a bunch of ungrateful children

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2013
  • Australia

#16

Posted 23 February 2014 - 09:24 AM

Definitely not a fail it got 10/10's everywhere and sold extremely well, but considered to be disappointing and sub-par as a GTA (I personally consider it to be great in it's own right but very disapointing and stripped down as a GTA game) for some, while some of the disappointment was unjustified (things such as the game being too dark or the lack of a gang focus were stupid complains) but there were many fair complains from myself and others (examples include the lack of vehicle variety, the lack of weapon variety, the lack of mission variety, poor vehicle spawning and annoying phone calls).
 
 

Well everyone has their opinion after all. Before I got Mafia II I was kind of turned off by it due to all the negative press surrounding it by people on various sites, but when I bought it I ended up loving the game and now it's one of my favourites.

 

That is why I try to completely avoid game reviews, well that and they don't judge an entire game, they only judge the story.


Jimbatron
  • Jimbatron

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2009
  • United-Kingdom

#17

Posted 23 February 2014 - 10:17 AM

 

Well it's 13th in the all time sales list. Unlucky for some maybe, but I don't see how that can be considered a fail.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ing_video_games

Well, since Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door isn't there, I'm saying that this is false.

 

Just joking. But, I can't believe that the worst CoD game, which is MW3, got more sales than GTA IV.

 

 

As I say, my hunch is that this is due to it being a 2011 release, and a lot more people had PS3s and 360s then compared to when IV came out in 2008. I don't have the figures, it is a guess, but there isn't much difference between the sales figures in percentage terms.


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#18

Posted 23 February 2014 - 03:33 PM Edited by Official General, 25 February 2014 - 10:38 PM.

GTA IV was initially a fail for many in the critical sense, and it was understandable as to see why. While many GTA fans were very happy, intrigued and excited by IV's brand-new features, a good number of the previous features that were really fun and popular from previous GTAs of the III-era had been removed at the same time. This was something that really annoyed many fans. On top of that, the mission structure of IV was quite a bit repetitive in various sections of the game's story, there was a bit too much hitman-based stuff going on, the story missions could have done with a bit more variety. IV was greatly hyped and anticipated by the fans, and as a game, it came quite close to being probably the best or one of the best GTAs ever, and because it fell short of it for many people, that was where the criticism and anger came from. 

 

However, GTA IV was greatly redeemed with arrival of the episodic pack dlc or EFLC. The Lost And Damned and The Ballad Of Gay Tony really added much more fun and interesting things to the original IV game, they both contained a nice variety of mission structure, more very funny moments, and very fun and interesting features like Gang and Drug Wars, Club Management etc. On top of that, many people began to discover that the original IV game had a lot more good stuff to it, more good things were discovered on second playthroughs and thereafter. IV was always known for it's great, epic storyline, but this became even more greatly appreciated and coveted after many people played and finished EFLC to complete the story whole, and after they realized how very poor and mediocre GTA V's storyline was compared to IV's. 

 

In the end, GTA IV+EFLC became much more appreciated over the years and it began to cement it's status as one of the best, most memorable GTA titles in the series. So no, for most part, it is no longer a critical failure anymore, it has finally been able to gain the great critical acclaim that initially eluded it. It's finally seen as a success in most ways, at this current time. 


Sting4S
  • Sting4S

    ♢ Corverra ♢

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#19

Posted 23 February 2014 - 09:28 PM

It was a step in a new direction and quite a few fans did not like that. It wasn't a fail, it made changes that to me needed to be made. A more detailed world, more in depth characters, improved car detail and physics, and a serious story for a change.

Unfortunately to me, it feels like Rockstar thought IV was not good enough due to some hate and stepped a little backwards with V.

lol232
  • lol232

    The Harwood Butcher

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2010
  • Serbia

#20

Posted 23 February 2014 - 09:35 PM

^GTA IV is better than SA, period.
It's just that every time a new GTA game is released the complainers are louder than fans;
when Vice City was released (which is the best 3D-era GTA) everyone started saying how there were only two gangs and how storyline was short, then when San Andreas was released everyone stared complaining how there were too many mini-missions and how storyline sucked, when IV was released everyone started complaining how the driving sucks and how there were to little mini-missions, now when GTA V is released everyone is complaining how the driving sucks and how the storyline sucks...
...IMO IV is the best GTA, but I gotta say V is great, but seriously it is annoying how Rockstar always does what they are told and everyone starts complaining.
  • Sting4S likes this

thatGuyyy
  • thatGuyyy

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2014

#21

Posted 23 February 2014 - 11:03 PM Edited by thatGuyyy, 23 February 2014 - 11:03 PM.

^GTA IV is better than SA, period.
It's just that every time a new GTA game is released the complainers are louder than fans;
when Vice City was released (which is the best 3D-era GTA) everyone started saying how there were only two gangs and how storyline was short, then when San Andreas was released everyone stared complaining how there were too many mini-missions and how storyline sucked, when IV was released everyone started complaining how the driving sucks and how there were to little mini-missions, now when GTA V is released everyone is complaining how the driving sucks and how the storyline sucks...
...IMO IV is the best GTA, but I gotta say V is great, but seriously it is annoying how Rockstar always does what they are told and everyone starts complaining.

 

Majority of gamers love gta, this is reflected by the extreme success of the franchise. The minority complainers will still buy the game regardless so it doesn't matter how much they "hate" the game. Though complainers are necessary, its important that fans remain critical so R* works harder to impress us, which results in better games. If no one complained and were easily satisfied, than R* would have no incentive to create amazing games and the quality would decrease


Ibrahim-al baghdadi
  • Ibrahim-al baghdadi

    “Proud Founder of The 'Vercetti' Crime Family''

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2010
  • None

#22

Posted 23 February 2014 - 11:06 PM

In my book It's one of the best in the franchise however, a lot of people disliked this game hell one of my friends never even bothered to play it again he put it don't after the first couple of missions.

 

I could never get my head around that, but hey that's people for you.


PoeticWhisper
  • PoeticWhisper

    Nobs4Lyf

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2013
  • United-States

#23

Posted 23 February 2014 - 11:22 PM

I just didn't like Niko, at all. Could not even like him even though I tried. It's weird to me how when I read all over this site about how Niko was such a loved fleshed out character with a background. It's almost puzzling. I played through the whole game, banged it out in about 3-4 days, tried going back and going it again and couldn't. Only memorable things for me were the bank heist and the final mission. Sure, maybe I was expecting some exciting, sometimes hilarious missions like San Andreas had(Yes, I've been playing since GTA III too..), but the game was not a failure. Judging by the reviews it was far from it. However, even though it kept me for the most part interested for the 5 years I was waiting for the next GTA. It didn't give me the full enjoyment and fun I get out of GTA V right now. Just my opinion though.


Sting4S
  • Sting4S

    ♢ Corverra ♢

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#24

Posted 24 February 2014 - 01:29 AM

I am just more laid back and have a soft spot for gritty atmospheric cities, maybe even moreso than brighter places such as Los Santos, such as IV's depiction of Liberty City. Over-the-top missions can excite me but after a while it gets dull. IV needed a tiny bit more "exciting" missions but it was good enough for me.

drr26
  • drr26

    "he don't talk too much"

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2011
  • England

#25

Posted 24 February 2014 - 03:56 PM

I would say IV is not a fail at all. I've always enjoyed it. Completed Niko's story about 6 times and never got bored of it.


SentinelXSVCS22
  • SentinelXSVCS22

    Liberty City Resident

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#26

Posted 24 February 2014 - 05:43 PM Edited by SentinelXSVCS22, 24 February 2014 - 05:46 PM.

I don't really think IV is a fail, as I can never stop appreciating the game, nor never stop enjoy playing the game either. IV is unique like all GTA games in the entire series, and all are different with different characters, setting, missions, city, and story. Also another reason why IV wasn't a fail to me, is that it was the first GTA game story that I completed (100% though) as I just was and still emersed in the story etc even after 6 years since release back in good ol' 2008. 

 

The story of IV, I think, is well written, characters that evolve through out the story (like all GTA games) that really show Rockstars great story writing in games, and that Niko's story is something that will be remembered in the gaming industry of something of brillance of how it connects the players of the game with characters and the city which is IV. Rockstar never dissapoints their fans with their games.

 

And talking about IV's story. I think no matter what generation of gamers that might be in the near future, nor what type of games in the next 10 years, IV will always have a place amongst the new gamers and games that might exist in 10 or so years. 


godforgivesthelostdont
  • godforgivesthelostdont

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2013

#27

Posted 25 February 2014 - 10:11 PM Edited by godforgivesthelostdont, 25 February 2014 - 10:48 PM.

GTA IV's metascore of 98/100 will be forever up for discussion.  People will never understand it today, but for it's time (2008), it was an amazing game.  It had it's big share of flaws like repetitive mission design and the lack of breadth that San Andreas had.  Still, for it's time, it was a visual benchmark that portrayed the most life-like depiction of the city possible.  It expanded console online multiplayer to more than just deathmatch, but a dozen different modes all in an open world.  A strong cast of characters with a powerful story also hit hard.  We take these things for granted today, but back then GTA IV raised the bar.

 

But still, despite all of it's technical achievements, people just didn't find it "fun".  People found open-world games like Just Cause 2, Infamous and Saints Row III much more fun, even though they didn't come close to matching the technical achievements on IV.  Other games took from GTA and added flavor of their own, while GTA was still GTA.  That and realistic graphics usually age horribly anyway.

 

I don't know if I would call it a failure, especially for it's time.  If you set the incredible lofty 10/10 one-of-the-best-games-of-all-time standard, GTA IV fails miserably.  Yet, that's not the standard we set to other games.  As great as Soul Calibur IV was (and it was great!), if that was hailed with half the amount of praise of GTA IV, it would fold under pressure.  Basically, it GTA IV got an 84/100 on Metacritic as opposed to a 98/100, I doubt people would criticize it so much.

 

Why did GTA IV get a 98?  I think it got the score it deserved relative to the standard the industry sets.  Critics don't care about things like giving the player a coherent set of mechanics or allowing them to engage in meaningful interaction and things like that.  The graphics were amazing.  The soundtrack was great.  There's lots of content, like TV shows, mini-games and so forth.  There's lots of action too.  In every objective sense, GTA IV gave people everything they assumed they had wanted.

  • Official General likes this

Bat Guano
  • Bat Guano

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2012

#28

Posted 25 February 2014 - 10:19 PM

The thing is: to get GTA IV amazing story you had to play trough the not so amazing missions.

And after all, GTA IV is still a game, not a book or a movie, gameplay should be the biggest part on it.


godforgivesthelostdont
  • godforgivesthelostdont

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2013

#29

Posted 25 February 2014 - 10:46 PM Edited by godforgivesthelostdont, 25 February 2014 - 10:46 PM.

The thing is: to get GTA IV amazing story you had to play trough the not so amazing missions.

And after all, GTA IV is still a game, not a book or a movie, gameplay should be the biggest part on it.

 

At the least flattering way to put it, the entire game is a cutscene delivery service.  You chase a guy and kill him.  Come back, and get rewarded with a cutscene.  Repeat (literally) 100 times.


ssbawesome
  • ssbawesome

    The Eigth Sage

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2013
  • United-States

#30

Posted 25 February 2014 - 11:16 PM

To truly appreciate IV, you have to understand the more dark and mature theme it had. Most people only play GTA to do crazy things, now that V is out there's all sorts of stuff you can do so most just skip over IV as being 'fun'. I liked it, my favorite in the series, but none of my friends understand the importance of the whole story.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users