Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

What is with the absurd hatebase for this game?

88 replies to this topic
Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#61

Posted 18 June 2014 - 12:12 AM

 

IV's terrible replay value and annoying A.I. for starters. The small map, the concentration on more realistic gameplay after a game like San Andreas, the poor graphics for the PS3/360 gen, and low number of weapons, cheats, clothes, and customablity.

 

I thought the controls were fine.

Terrible replay value? Considering it has such a good story and an amazing atmosphere, It's great to replay.

I don't see how AI could be annoying at all, apart from friend calls. Everyone complains that the AI in GTA V is annoying with peds calling cops on you for nothing.

Compared to III and VC, the map isn't small.

The realism made vehicles so much more fun to drive.

Graphics aren't poor.

And it was the first game on a new console.

 

But they did spend too much time on useless things, the TV commercials, the internet websites full of useless details, look at that nice machete in the commercials that you can't use, or the Red Buffalo billboard yet the only available one is a Black FIB variant!

Besides, GTA V doesn't have many cheats either.

 

The story was terrible. The early missions suck.

 

The AI sucked because it sucked. The peds, police, friend system, gangs, and other drivers.

 

The map is small compared to SA, which is ridiculous because they had a lot more memory and spent all that time developing Rage. It doesn't matter if it was their first for PS3. They delivered a half-baked game. The graphics could've been A LOT better. They were awful in retrospect, especially when compared to GTA V. Like I said: half-baked.

 

...GTA V has more cheats than IV. The invincibility cheat makes up for a lot!


Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Camp Crystal Lake

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

#62

Posted 18 June 2014 - 07:44 AM

GTA IV's map is also much more detailed and realistically scaled too. Personally I value these two things over map size any day.

As for the graphics while I don't think GTA IV has the greatest graphics of any game ever made I can't help, but feel you're being on the narrow minded side things here.

It seems all you're using for a baseline is GTA V which isn't a level ground comparison at all. I doubt you can say when the game was new you weren't at least impressed by the leap from the 3D era to HD era graphically. It's one thing to say it could've been A LOT better graphics wise because all you're doing is comparing it to GTA V.

For its time it was more than reasonable. What were you expecting?

B Dawg
  • B Dawg

    Looks like the diversion worked!

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2008
  • Bosnia-and-Herzegovina

#63

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:34 AM Edited by B Dawg, 18 June 2014 - 09:35 AM.

The story was terrible. The early missions suck.

 

The AI sucked because it sucked. The peds, police, friend system, gangs, and other drivers.

Early missions were terrible? Jesus, does nobody like face-to-face confrontantions with fists anymore? Punching Dardan through glass and making him fall from a building? Is GTA all about guns and explosions throughout the whole game? The beginning of the game is my favorite part.

The AI system is certainly better than in V, friends give you cool rewards, IV has better gangs, the peds don't call the 5-0 on you for standing next to them.

  • josephene123 likes this

Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Camp Crystal Lake

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

#64

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:43 AM

Well GTA IV's cop A.I isn't that bad. They're the only cops in the series who actually arrest peds. GTA V went back to the "bang, bang you're dead" type A.I from the 3D era.

Just as a side note am I the only one who feels like after reading someone try to tear GTA IV apart it actually makes me want to play it? I know it's strange, but after reading someone's rant bashing it gives me a sudden urge to play it to remind myself it's better than it gets given credit for.

Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#65

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:57 AM

GTA IV's map is also much more detailed and realistically scaled too. Personally I value these two things over map size any day.

As for the graphics while I don't think GTA IV has the greatest graphics of any game ever made I can't help, but feel you're being on the narrow minded side things here.

It seems all you're using for a baseline is GTA V which isn't a level ground comparison at all. I doubt you can say when the game was new you weren't at least impressed by the leap from the 3D era to HD era graphically. It's one thing to say it could've been A LOT better graphics wise because all you're doing is comparing it to GTA V.

For its time it was more than reasonable. What were you expecting?

 

I use GTA V as a comparison because it shows what Rockstar was capable of with the PS3 and 360. They put more effort into V.

 

I thought IV was a great game when I first played it, but after I finished the game, the small map became apparent, and when I went back to play it again, it was not a fun experience. I got a PS3 in 2010, and GTA IV was my first game for the system, so of course I thought it was awesome. Then I played Red Dead Redemption, the Saints Row series, Heavy Rain, and other games. It's like drinking Budweiser as your first beer, but then you try Guinness. Bud isn't so good anymore.

 

I expected a game with replay value akin to the other GTA games.

 

 

Early missions were terrible? Jesus, does nobody like face-to-face confrontantions with fists anymore? Punching Dardan through glass and making him fall from a building? Is GTA all about guns and explosions throughout the whole game? The beginning of the game is my favorite part.

The AI system is certainly better than in V, friends give you cool rewards, IV has better gangs, the peds don't call the 5-0 on you for standing next to them.

Oh, I love how you assume what I didn't like.

 

I didn't like the long introduction and buildup. When you finally use a gun for a mission, it's unsatisfying.

 

But yet, GTA is a game all about guns, explosions, CARS, money, and moving up. That's why people play it.

 

You can have your opinion on AI. You're in the minority about it, though.


Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Camp Crystal Lake

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

#66

Posted 18 June 2014 - 10:21 AM

Graphics naturally get better with time. IMO it's not a fair comparison as GTA V had more groundwork made for it. You're not taking into consideration its time of release.

Anyway pretty much everything you've said is the opposite of how I feel.

GTA IV is that fine aged Guinness to me that still tastes great after all these years. If you want analogies GTA IV makes every other beer taste average.

Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#67

Posted 18 June 2014 - 10:30 AM

Graphics naturally get better with time. IMO it's not a fair comparison as GTA V had more groundwork made for it. You're not taking into consideration its time of release.

Anyway pretty much everything you've said is the opposite of how I feel.

GTA IV is that fine aged Guinness to me that still tastes great after all these years. If you want analogies GTA IV makes every other beer taste average.

 

Aged Guinness? I'll take a fresh one, thanks.

 

I am considering it for it's time, but even for it's time, it paled in comparison to the acheivements Rockstar had with the 3D era. Again, I compared IV and V because they are the same console generation. It's not rocketscience. If you like IV, good for you. I don't.


Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Camp Crystal Lake

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

#68

Posted 18 June 2014 - 10:55 AM

I probably should've said aged wine. Not much of a beer drinker... I guess GTA IV is like a fine wine and gets better with age? Sounds right.

PhillBellic
  • PhillBellic

    Lt Phill Bellic. Law Enforcement Enthusiast.

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2012
  • Australia

#69

Posted 18 June 2014 - 11:16 AM

I probably should've said aged wine. Not much of a beer drinker... I guess GTA IV is like a fine wine and gets better with age? Sounds right.

Trust me beer doesn't age very well from personal experience. I also share your feeling that when others try to rip apart IV I only want to play it more. You aren't alone there son.

 

Cheers.

  • Miamivicecity, adictoGTA and Kampret like this

Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#70

Posted 18 June 2014 - 12:05 PM

Then play it. Maybe people will embrace it in the next decade, but right now there's not much to embrace.


PhillBellic
  • PhillBellic

    Lt Phill Bellic. Law Enforcement Enthusiast.

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2012
  • Australia

#71

Posted 18 June 2014 - 12:09 PM

Then play it. Maybe people will embrace it in the next decade, but right now there's not much to embrace.

I do play it. In fact It is the only HD era GTA I am continuing to play. I put down GTA V in mid October and have not picked it back up. GTA IV is just so much fun still. I do play it on PC though so my opinion might be a litthe biased (modding). Even then I recently played console IV and it is still the better product then V in my opinion. Thoughts?

 

Cheers.


Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#72

Posted 18 June 2014 - 01:01 PM

 

Then play it. Maybe people will embrace it in the next decade, but right now there's not much to embrace.

I do play it. In fact It is the only HD era GTA I am continuing to play. I put down GTA V in mid October and have not picked it back up. GTA IV is just so much fun still. I do play it on PC though so my opinion might be a litthe biased (modding). Even then I recently played console IV and it is still the better product then V in my opinion. Thoughts?

 

Cheers.

 

 

I have no thoughts on that, because it's your opinion. I have no interest in changing it.


VanillaIce
  • VanillaIce

    Cole Phelps FanBoy

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 23 May 2014
  • United-States

#73

Posted 18 June 2014 - 01:24 PM

 

 

IV's terrible replay value and annoying A.I. for starters. The small map, the concentration on more realistic gameplay after a game like San Andreas, the poor graphics for the PS3/360 gen, and low number of weapons, cheats, clothes, and customablity.

 

I thought the controls were fine.

Terrible replay value? Considering it has such a good story and an amazing atmosphere, It's great to replay.

I don't see how AI could be annoying at all, apart from friend calls. Everyone complains that the AI in GTA V is annoying with peds calling cops on you for nothing.

Compared to III and VC, the map isn't small.

The realism made vehicles so much more fun to drive.

Graphics aren't poor.

And it was the first game on a new console.

 

But they did spend too much time on useless things, the TV commercials, the internet websites full of useless details, look at that nice machete in the commercials that you can't use, or the Red Buffalo billboard yet the only available one is a Black FIB variant!

Besides, GTA V doesn't have many cheats either.

 

The story was terrible. The early missions suck.

 

The AI sucked because it sucked. The peds, police, friend system, gangs, and other drivers.

 

The map is small compared to SA, which is ridiculous because they had a lot more memory and spent all that time developing Rage. It doesn't matter if it was their first for PS3. They delivered a half-baked game. The graphics could've been A LOT better. They were awful in retrospect, especially when compared to GTA V. Like I said: half-baked.

 

...GTA V has more cheats than IV. The invincibility cheat makes up for a lot!

 

so you think the Storyline in IV Was Terrible but the Story in San Andreas Was In your Words Amazing  :dontgetit:  i know everyone is Entitled to their opinion but that did make me Lol  :lol:


Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#74

Posted 18 June 2014 - 02:33 PM

 

 

 

IV's terrible replay value and annoying A.I. for starters. The small map, the concentration on more realistic gameplay after a game like San Andreas, the poor graphics for the PS3/360 gen, and low number of weapons, cheats, clothes, and customablity.

 

I thought the controls were fine.

Terrible replay value? Considering it has such a good story and an amazing atmosphere, It's great to replay.

I don't see how AI could be annoying at all, apart from friend calls. Everyone complains that the AI in GTA V is annoying with peds calling cops on you for nothing.

Compared to III and VC, the map isn't small.

The realism made vehicles so much more fun to drive.

Graphics aren't poor.

And it was the first game on a new console.

 

But they did spend too much time on useless things, the TV commercials, the internet websites full of useless details, look at that nice machete in the commercials that you can't use, or the Red Buffalo billboard yet the only available one is a Black FIB variant!

Besides, GTA V doesn't have many cheats either.

 

The story was terrible. The early missions suck.

 

The AI sucked because it sucked. The peds, police, friend system, gangs, and other drivers.

 

The map is small compared to SA, which is ridiculous because they had a lot more memory and spent all that time developing Rage. It doesn't matter if it was their first for PS3. They delivered a half-baked game. The graphics could've been A LOT better. They were awful in retrospect, especially when compared to GTA V. Like I said: half-baked.

 

...GTA V has more cheats than IV. The invincibility cheat makes up for a lot!

 

so you think the Storyline in IV Was Terrible but the Story in San Andreas Was In your Words Amazing  :dontgetit:  i know everyone is Entitled to their opinion but that did make me Lol  :lol:

 

Yeah, I'm sure that'll keep me up at night. Come talk to me when you've been here longer than a few weeks and can use proper grammar.


Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#75

Posted 18 June 2014 - 03:04 PM

SA fans will never cease to amaze.

  • lol232, thekillerdonuts and adictoGTA like this

Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#76

Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:19 PM

SA fans will never cease to amaze.

Yesterday I just posted that it's way overrated. I'm a III fan.


Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#77

Posted 18 June 2014 - 05:24 PM Edited by Tycek, 18 June 2014 - 05:25 PM.

And you say IV got terrible story and early missions sucked. III got not much better story (simple revenge plot) and almost the same early missions (drive to safe house and club, drive Misty, kill a Pimp with a baseball bat, drive Misty again and so on). You don't like IV, okay, nobody is forcing you to like it, but at least try to be consistent with your opinions, because such contradiction doesn't make you look good. 


Aaron030792
  • Aaron030792

    I love curry. :D

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#78

Posted 18 June 2014 - 05:33 PM

So you think that SA and IV are crap, and III and V are fantastic?

Please seek professional help. Quickly.

B Dawg
  • B Dawg

    Looks like the diversion worked!

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2008
  • Bosnia-and-Herzegovina

#79

Posted 18 June 2014 - 06:09 PM

IV > III

SA > V

FACT!

 

Spoiler

  • Miamivicecity likes this

TheKillerDonuts
  • TheKillerDonuts

    How could she do it with my best friend

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

#80

Posted 18 June 2014 - 06:26 PM

IV's terrible replay value and annoying A.I. for starters. The small map, the concentration on more realistic gameplay after a game like San Andreas, the poor graphics for the PS3/360 gen, and low number of weapons, cheats, clothes, and customablity.

 

I thought the controls were fine.

Considering IV's story was great, i replayed the game over 10 times from when i first got it, to a month ago. So many different approaches to take in the game's story too. Annoying AI? If anything, the AI were too easy and brainless, GTA V's AI are all terminators and it gets pretty annoying. Considering the 'small map' has more to do in it than V's or SA's maps, i wouldn't really call it small. Poor graphics? Seriously? The game came out in 2008, and at that time - the graphics are amazing. Weapon count doesn't really matter to me, but i get how that can be a problem for some. Cheats don't matter to me either. I do wish there was more clothes and customization for Niko, so i will agree there.

  • josephene123 likes this

Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#81

Posted 18 June 2014 - 07:59 PM

And you say IV got terrible story and early missions sucked. III got not much better story (simple revenge plot) and almost the same early missions (drive to safe house and club, drive Misty, kill a Pimp with a baseball bat, drive Misty again and so on). You don't like IV, okay, nobody is forcing you to like it, but at least try to be consistent with your opinions, because such contradiction doesn't make you look good. 

 

LOL, contradiction? You're basically stating that III's early missions are bad and doesn't have a better story line as fact. I'm just stating my opinion. If you don't like it, don't read my posts, babycakes.

 

BTW, III broke a lot more ground and is highly regarded even today. That's fact.

 

 

So you think that SA and IV are crap, and III and V are fantastic?

Please seek professional help. Quickly.

 

You need help reading. I'm guessing that you're in Junior High School and have been held back for your lack of reading comprehension, huh? I never said SA and IV were crap. I think SA is an awesome game. I said I enjoyed IV the first time, and played it for three years before I tired of it. I didn't come by that opinion just by accident.


Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#82

Posted 18 June 2014 - 08:41 PM

Oh, look another one stating that his opinions are opinions and thus are good, but everyone else's are facts, thus are bad. Where are you coming from?

And the best thing, you just yourself said that III story and missions are crap, because I never stated something like that. 

 

It seems like you just hating and coming with some random accusations, why the game is bad and should be hated. You said that IV has bad early missions and story (and you can't deny that), you also said that you like III. Problem is IV is like modern rendition of III. Idea of the same game, but bigger and better. Story is based on the same plot (revenge on someone who tried to kill the protagonist in the past/quite recently with main objective to get him) - that's a fact. So which of this stories is bad? For me neither of them, although III were much simpler (there were less twists for example). That's my opinion. Same goes for early missions. These are training ones to show you the city and teach you how to operate a game. They should be and are similar in both games, because that's the way how it works. Player dropped by the developer into deep water, may simply drown, so they need to be simple and straightforward - that's a fact. I liked early missions in both GTA's and I don't think they sucked - that's an opinion. 

 

And your posts are stating two things at once. It's like saying LC from IV was dull and gray, but I love III LC. Sure you can spot the differences, but it won't change the fact that both cities are rather dark and sad. 

 

You also don't need to read my answers to your posts if you don't like them, cupcakes. Nobody is forcing you. 


Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#83

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:06 PM

Oh, look another one stating that his opinions are opinions and thus are good, but everyone else's are facts, thus are bad. Where are you coming from?

And the best thing, you just yourself said that III story and missions are crap, because I never stated something like that. 

 

It seems like you just hating and coming with some random accusations, why the game is bad and should be hated. You said that IV has bad early missions and story (and you can't deny that), you also said that you like III. Problem is IV is like modern rendition of III. Idea of the same game, but bigger and better. Story is based on the same plot (revenge on someone who tried to kill the protagonist in the past/quite recently with main objective to get him) - that's a fact. So which of this stories is bad? For me neither of them, although III were much simpler (there were less twists for example). That's my opinion. Same goes for early missions. These are training ones to show you the city and teach you how to operate a game. They should be and are similar in both games, because that's the way how it works. Player dropped by the developer into deep water, may simply drown, so they need to be simple and straightforward - that's a fact. I liked early missions in both GTA's and I don't think they sucked - that's an opinion. 

 

And your posts are stating two things at once. It's like saying LC from IV was dull and gray, but I love III LC. Sure you can spot the differences, but it won't change the fact that both cities are rather dark and sad. 

 

You also don't need to read my answers to your posts if you don't like them, cupcakes. Nobody is forcing you. 

 

No, I didn't. I love GTA III's missions and story. It's an almost perfect game. When you use subjective words, you're stating an opinion. It's all in tone and execution. The way you're going on about GTA IV is not only disrespectful to my opinion, which I've supported and you've failed to read properly, but stated as fact rather than opinion.

 

Don't try to tell me that III and IV share the same plot. So do Vice City, San Andreas, and V. They're all revenge plots.

 

I'm not the one acting butthurt because someone doesn't like my favorite game. You are.


Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#84

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:34 PM

I'll add that there were things I enjoyed about IV.

 

1. The first play through was awesome, and it felt more organic than other GTAs.

 

2. The controls were more than adequate.

 

3. Niko and Johnny were well designed, developed characters. I'd like to see Niko in either a V DLC or future game.

 

4. I didn't feel a III dark vibe, but the ambiance and design was original.

 

5. I liked the challenge of finding places to snipe from, the feeling of being entrapped by buildings, and the general constant paranoia of someone seeing you do something and being caught. There weren't a lot of places for seclusion, so you had to be creative with how you committed crimes.

 

6. The game was good at building tension and didn't feel as smooth and feel good as V or Vice City.


watchclock
  • watchclock

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2014

#85

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:42 PM Edited by watchclock, 18 June 2014 - 09:43 PM.

Gran Turismo 6 and it's producer PD suffers from the exact same sort of a bunch of histrionic morons moaning about everything under the sun especially 'broken promises'. It's amusing if you are sane and / or older than twelve, when it's not annoying

mrshane77
  • mrshane77

    Player Hater

  • New Members
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2014
  • United-States

#86

Posted 19 June 2014 - 02:33 AM Edited by mrshane77, 19 June 2014 - 02:34 AM.

 I like playing Gta IV alot, I like it and hate it at the same time. The PC version allows mods which makes gameplay way more fun then the PS3 version. But the PC version was poorly coded and you have to spend money on upgrades to run the game smoothly. Thats a real dislike, and multi-player is poorly writen so you deal with occasional crashes and errors. It would seem R* rushed porting the PC version and was left with a huge mess that took 7 patch attempts to get working half way decent, and even then its left with bugs.  So my hate is not with the game but with R* for not porting it properly, when it runs good I have alot of fun. But crashes in multiplayer get very annoying.


Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#87

Posted 19 June 2014 - 07:43 AM Edited by Tycek, 19 June 2014 - 07:54 AM.

 

Oh, look another one stating that his opinions are opinions and thus are good, but everyone else's are facts, thus are bad. Where are you coming from?

And the best thing, you just yourself said that III story and missions are crap, because I never stated something like that. 

 

It seems like you just hating and coming with some random accusations, why the game is bad and should be hated. You said that IV has bad early missions and story (and you can't deny that), you also said that you like III. Problem is IV is like modern rendition of III. Idea of the same game, but bigger and better. Story is based on the same plot (revenge on someone who tried to kill the protagonist in the past/quite recently with main objective to get him) - that's a fact. So which of this stories is bad? For me neither of them, although III were much simpler (there were less twists for example). That's my opinion. Same goes for early missions. These are training ones to show you the city and teach you how to operate a game. They should be and are similar in both games, because that's the way how it works. Player dropped by the developer into deep water, may simply drown, so they need to be simple and straightforward - that's a fact. I liked early missions in both GTA's and I don't think they sucked - that's an opinion. 

 

And your posts are stating two things at once. It's like saying LC from IV was dull and gray, but I love III LC. Sure you can spot the differences, but it won't change the fact that both cities are rather dark and sad. 

 

You also don't need to read my answers to your posts if you don't like them, cupcakes. Nobody is forcing you. 

 

No, I didn't. I love GTA III's missions and story. It's an almost perfect game. When you use subjective words, you're stating an opinion. It's all in tone and execution. The way you're going on about GTA IV is not only disrespectful to my opinion, which I've supported and you've failed to read properly, but stated as fact rather than opinion.

 

Don't try to tell me that III and IV share the same plot. So do Vice City, San Andreas, and V. They're all revenge plots.

 

I'm not the one acting butthurt because someone doesn't like my favorite game. You are.

 

I wonder how I am acting butthurt, if you're the one feeling attacked all the time. And also you simply don't get it. There is no point in further debating with you, but your posts are the perfect example of what is with the absurd hatebase for this game. Do yourself a favor and stop posting, because it doesn't make you look good. 

  • Miamivicecity likes this

Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#88

Posted 19 June 2014 - 01:16 PM

 

 

Oh, look another one stating that his opinions are opinions and thus are good, but everyone else's are facts, thus are bad. Where are you coming from?

And the best thing, you just yourself said that III story and missions are crap, because I never stated something like that. 

 

It seems like you just hating and coming with some random accusations, why the game is bad and should be hated. You said that IV has bad early missions and story (and you can't deny that), you also said that you like III. Problem is IV is like modern rendition of III. Idea of the same game, but bigger and better. Story is based on the same plot (revenge on someone who tried to kill the protagonist in the past/quite recently with main objective to get him) - that's a fact. So which of this stories is bad? For me neither of them, although III were much simpler (there were less twists for example). That's my opinion. Same goes for early missions. These are training ones to show you the city and teach you how to operate a game. They should be and are similar in both games, because that's the way how it works. Player dropped by the developer into deep water, may simply drown, so they need to be simple and straightforward - that's a fact. I liked early missions in both GTA's and I don't think they sucked - that's an opinion. 

 

And your posts are stating two things at once. It's like saying LC from IV was dull and gray, but I love III LC. Sure you can spot the differences, but it won't change the fact that both cities are rather dark and sad. 

 

You also don't need to read my answers to your posts if you don't like them, cupcakes. Nobody is forcing you. 

 

No, I didn't. I love GTA III's missions and story. It's an almost perfect game. When you use subjective words, you're stating an opinion. It's all in tone and execution. The way you're going on about GTA IV is not only disrespectful to my opinion, which I've supported and you've failed to read properly, but stated as fact rather than opinion.

 

Don't try to tell me that III and IV share the same plot. So do Vice City, San Andreas, and V. They're all revenge plots.

 

I'm not the one acting butthurt because someone doesn't like my favorite game. You are.

 

I wonder how I am acting butthurt, if you're the one feeling attacked all the time. And also you simply don't get it. There is no point in further debating with you, but your posts are the perfect example of what is with the absurd hatebase for this game. Do yourself a favor and stop posting, because it doesn't make you look good. 

 

Prime example of butthurt.


GTAPCKING
  • GTAPCKING

    Whatareyatalkinabeet?

  • New Members
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2014
  • Australia

#89

Posted 19 June 2014 - 02:44 PM

I reckon its an awesome game :D

This and GTA V are both awesome games in there own way :D





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users