R* You f*cked Up

May 3, 2008

The game is great, but could have been better. The facts is, GTA pwnszzz most every game. Still...

May 3, 2008

You already see enough abs with Brucie I'm pretty sure niko doesnt need to be jacked too.

THIS IS GTA NOT NEED FOR SPEED YOU f*ckING DOUCHE

Sorry that you aren't a millionaire and cant own a damn mansion. You have an apartment is that not good enough for you?

May 3, 2008

Of course, some things were removed... but if you think about it, they did add some new things and replacements for the features they left out.

Lets start with car modifications. Honestly I miss this feature a bit, but the nice pre-modified vehicles you can find being driven on the Liberty City streets make up for that. The Gym... like someone said earlier, this would affect the near perfect physics in the game as your character gets buffer. On another point of view, the gym wasn't such a vital feature for most people. As far as safe houses... Rockstar introduced the option to save your game via the menu, so technically there isn't a need for all the extra houses. Plus you do get more safe houses as you progress through the story-line so there's no need to miss all of those buy-able houses anyway.

And as for the turfs, well, I believe that was a one time thing for San Andreas. San Andreas was a ghetto/gang themed game so turfs and gang wars were needed to add that finishing touch... Turf wars wouldn't fit in much with GTA IV as it doesn't really go with the theme.

I was pretty happy with all the new features. As you may have noticed, the other games in the series were based in the early 90s or mid 80s, which means GTA IV offers a modern 21st century theme. This includes internet, camera phone, GPS, modern luxury vehicles, police databases. Ability to check the weather and news in the internet cafe, a social networking system where you can hook up with new girl friends... and much more.

May 3, 2008

you say they "f*cked up" and yet you say the game is a 9 out of 10?

looks like someone here is a little confused

May 3, 2008

R* You f*cked Up.....my life because this game is amazing.

May 3, 2008

you can't compare the GTAIII series to GTAIV, they're completely different styles of games. As many people have already said, it's not a rags to riches story, it's based on realism, very few immigrants come to new york and within a few months live in mansions, hell very few people in general can buy mansions after going on a crime wave for a few months.

The GYM in SA was a pointless waste of time, after a few days i just let my CJ get fat and played that way, i didn't care and the gym was boring. Different fighting styles didn't mean anything, either way i was gonna use a gun or sword or something.

Customising your car, seriously, your going to customize it, park it in your garage, never touch it, and tear a strip out of your friends when they play your game and blow up your prized rice rocket and then save the game.

As for buyable property, it was nice in a way, but once again, how many people have 1 mansion, let alone 3 mansions, a few houses, a dozen apartments, and a shack or 2. I could see owning businesses, but even then, that just turns your play-time into "run around to all your businesses and collect your money". In GTAIV, money isn't worth as much as street cred and relationships, so why bust ass to make a ton, you only really spend it on weapons and hospitals and the money you make doing missions should hold you over for a long time, especially after the Bank Heist.

May 3, 2008

Regarding those talking about Gym's and modification, well, to be honest you don't really need it after a few tries.

After I finished SA I hardly visited the two, what R* needs to do, or maybe they did as I haven't finished IV yet is put more missions.

And lets start accepting what we have, IV is IMO a 10/10 worthy game, you guys should remember the time when Sonny Forelli had solid bricks for hands & fingers.

May 3, 2008

well IMO i think 9/10 WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE not 10/10 im not hateing but i honestly think it doesnt deserve a perfect score....cuz the game aint perfect

I'm with you. I am starting to wondering if the fact this game would gross so much cash in the first week had anything to do with the (IMO) inflated ratings and hype. It is certainly a 9/10 or maybe 9.5/10 at best. There are some disappointments here. Not necessarily the gym or SA features but overall gameplay for starters. It just doesn't live up to the 'hype'.

May 3, 2008

Many of the players are spoiled bitches who only played SA, which was the only game so far which has customizable cars, and simlike customizable character. I think that was a cool feature, but definately not necessary for the game. And the gym and eating part was just a hassle. imo

QFT. All these kids that complain about not having some trivial SA features in IV are the ones that never played GTA until SA and don't understand how far the series has come.

May 3, 2008

There's plenty of new and useful stuff. Hell you can have plenty of fun in the game. A lot of you are complaining about whats been removed though it;s been said it wasn't there months before the game was released. Some SA stuff that was removed was a good thing, the gym was useless and as for the car customisation why bother? A GTA car tends to last 5 minutes at max when taken out of your garage so all that money for a burnt out car chasis? So I'm glad with what they've given us and as for a step backwards no it's a step to words reality I guess.

Just because it's been said those elements weren't there people can't complain what's been removed? I don't think so. People are complaining the decision making, the way the game is designed and how traditional good things are left out, not that R* has not given what its promised. So please leave them to their opinions.

May 3, 2008

For the most part I've seen that those who complain about GTA IV lacking things from past GTA's have a fundamentally flawed view of what GTA is.

May 3, 2008

Many of the players are spoiled bitches who only played SA, which was the only game so far which has customizable cars, and simlike customizable character. I think that was a cool feature, but definately not necessary for the game. And the gym and eating part was just a hassle. imo

QFT. All these kids that complain about not having some trivial SA features in IV are the ones that never played GTA until SA and don't understand how far the series has come.

That just cannot be true. What about Vice City, where you can buy property and build them up by doing missions? That has been taken out of IV as well. People who're complaining are definitely not just KIDS who've not played any gta until SA. Also, I'm sure that many of these people are not hating the game, in fact they enjoy it too and they definitely understand how far the series has come from gta 1, it's just that there're something they'd have wanted to be kept in IV too. There's really no need to become radical against these people.

May 3, 2008

For the most part I've seen that those who complain about GTA IV lacking things from past GTA's have a fundamentally flawed view of what GTA is.

What is GTA, 'fundamentally', then? I guess we all have our own views. And why can't people expect something MORE than fundamental? When R* made VC and SA, they went beyond the 'fundamentals' too, does that make them not GTA? Come on...I expected the tolerance of people contributing to this board to be higher than this.

May 3, 2008

Honestly to me i like the game , i could love it but no....why did they leave out so many good things form other GTA's seriously graphic wise this game owns but come on really no gym no car customs no buyable houseing...

IGN 10/10 ......to some of us GTA's were half spent messing around and i feel like u cant in this one .....

9/10 for me...

anyone else think this game needs its fun back?

Hate to tell the fanboys but the OP is right. Here's what I posted at the PS forums:

Okay, so the game is much more detailed and intricate than anything you've ever seen before. People talking on their cell phones and apologizing when they crash their car.

But the game world, as improved and refined as it is from the previous games, has devolved backwards from Vice City and San Andreas and almost ignored some of its great features.

Liberty City feels like a cold, concrete jungle. Jam-packed in every street-corner with no obsolete space. In some aspects this is good, but in some aspects it's devolved back to GTA 3 which suffered the same aspect until Vice City brought some color into the area.

GTA IV doesn't necessarily give off the same desire to explore as San Andreas did...with every district and area feeling almost the same, a tight-wad jam-packed city, it's as if there's no diverse environment or difference in area for people to discover. In some aspects, people might enjoy this, people might enjoy just traversing around a skyscraper district. For some, however, it's a step back from San Andreas.

One of the marvelous things about San Andreas was its ability to present you with something new every time you play. It had some empty space, yes, but that added to the balance of the over-crowded cities. It truly felt like a state of varied environments, instead of a cliche' and cloned area. It was incredible to drive from Los Santos, and listen to the radio as you skimmed through the highways passing the small towns and beautiful scenery before emerging back into San Fierro, a bustling city. If you left from there you could travel north into a dusty canyon pooled with deserts and various important locales, until finally hitting the lit-up gamble-topia of Las Venturas. The game had atmosphere. The game had diversity. From deserts, to cities, to towns, to mountains. The three cities felt different from eachother, as the different areas did. It gave a new reason to explore. Los Santos felt like a not-so-quaint suburb. San Fierro felt like the natural-hustle-and-bustle of California's main cities, and Las Venturas felt like a party. Liberty City has its intricacies, but feels drab and dull in comparison in terms of variety. It all just feels like a city, which is understandable, considering it's "Liberty City", but for a map almost as large as San Andreas, some variety couldn't hurt. Some suburbs, to forest scenery and mountains would have made an incredible impact in variety. Perhaps it was too much to fit, but even then, it feels like a step back in environmental variety.

GTA IV also lacks many distinct things that were pulled together from Vice City and San Andreas. San Andreas was filled to the rim with as much content as they could fit. While the story was somewhat forgettable, the weapons, vehicles, missions, extras, and things to do were unrivaled. Each game added something that made the experience feel more complete and finished.

It's become apparent that Rockstar was trying to deliver a compelling story with GTA IV, and they certainly delivered. However, is it possible they focused too much on concentrating, limiting, and restricting the experience for sake of "realism" and connecting with the story that they forgot what the past games essentially added to the experience in the first place? Let's look.

Planes. They were a fun and interesting mechanic in GTA that led to some interesting missions. They were taken out of GTA IV. Why? Because it isn't "realistic". While I understand their reasoning, I feel they sacrificed a fun, important component of the formula to compensate for "realism". Especially considering that for a map nearly the size of San Andreas, and certainly larger than Vice City, which were both games that had them, it's confusing as to why this component wouldn't make sense in Liberty City sometimes.

Jet Skiis. They were a welcome addition to Vice City Stories. They are not in GTA IV. Why? No one knows. But the likely answer is that they simply weren't reasonable for the "Liberty City feel". They weren't "realistic" as no one jet skiis in New York City as far as I know.

Homing RPG, Grafitti, and other weapons from previous games are not in GTA IV. Why? Possibly because they are not common or realistic weapons that would be used to kill people in New York City nowadays.

Vigilante, ambulance, and fire missions. Are they out? I heard they were, if so, why? They added something fun to do that diverted from the cliche' crime aspect. You gave back to the community for once.

Diving. A welcome mechanic in San Andreas. It added interesting mission and gameplay features, such as the diving mission with Woozy in San Fierro where you infiltrate a ship at sea from underwater. Why was this mechanic taken out? No idea, perhaps no one goes diving in New York and it disagrees with "realism".

The mission diversity simply is not as crazy or interesting as Vice City and San Andreas were. Kidnapping people and driving them off a pier, burying someone in concrete, infiltrating a ship from underwater, robbing a gas station for a tanker, stealing a van from a party on the beach, having a lowrider contest, don't seem to make too much of a distinct appearance in GTA IV. The missions almost all consist of racing, assassinating a target, having a gunfight at a warehouse, or escape the cops. The variety in missions feels lacking, and one can't help but feel it might have to do with the general leash Rockstar had on Liberty City in the first place to help keep "realistic".

Once again, I can understand why they did so. Constricting the city allows them to narrow and condense the experience in something easier to relate to and dive into.

However, striving so hard to stem realism into a video game can be a bad thing.

Real life sucks. Real life is boring. Real life is nothing special. No one wants to play a video game that is 100% like real life.

Striving for realism in some aspects is okay, but when you crop out fundamental aspects of your game to achieve it, I don't believe it's worth it. Especially when you're got to make sex and prostitution so realistic that it has critics up in flames, but that's simply my opinion.

The previous Grand Theft Autos had a remarkable spark of magic that dwelled in the sense that alot wasn't realistic. It was very unlikely that you would go parachuting out of a jet into the woods, or even get away with kidnapping a celebrity. It was unrealistic that cars could fly, the army would come to stop you, or in fact own a strip club. It was this sense of "omg I can't believe I can do this in a game" that gave the game some spark. The spark is still there, but it's been whipped with a bloody, spiked belt. Many things were taken out because it's not "realistic" enough for this game, when it seems Rockstar might have forgotten that unrealism is what made their game so popular in the first place. That you CAN'T go out and flamethrow a city and not expect to be caught by the police. That you CAN fly a plane around a city, regardless of its size.

GTA IV has its flaws, and if you don't see that, then pull your head out of the greasy back end of your underpants and talk to people outside of the PSN forum. The game holds its head high among the best games ever made, but it also can't hold a torch to some of the things Vice City and San Andreas introduced to us.

Hopefully, in the next expansion, Rockstar realizes that there are some things that should be left unchanged.

For those of you who are just going to outright bash those who agree with the OP,

"Ignorance silences imperfection, therefore silencing the ability to perfect"

Pointing out a couple of things in GTA IV isn't the end of the world. It's a good thing, it's better the developers learn of these problems from the loud voice of the internet as soon as possible so they can be sure to work on it in the next development of the game.

It devolved back to GTA 3 in a sense, and I think it's important that it's noted, despite how awesome the game is.

May 3, 2008

Give Rockstar some time, I bet they add more features later on as DLC.

May 3, 2008

You're probably a kid and don't understand what "Grand Theft Auto" means.
This isn't Mario Party, and Rockstar aren't Nintendo.

So GTFO.

ok so i get flamed for my opinion....AND IM A KID?

you get called a kid because your acting like one...

explain how im acting like one?

by acting like that lol

Um in my honest opinon, you're the one being immature xer0er.

Wrongfully assuming he likes Nintendo and telling him to GTFO because of his opinion. It's a shame how some people refuse to grow up.

May 3, 2008

R* went for a more realistic game, now....

Where does: the army chasing you, jet packs, tanks, air planes and sky diving in the city come in under "realistic"?

Gta 4 is supposed to be the ultimate crime simulator, thats why they left out alot from Sa, because it made no sense and it has no place in gta4. If you miss it so much, go back to playing Sa, fly with your jet pack, crash planes, sky dive and get chased by the army.

Now, if you don't pay any attention to details....gta4 feels like gta3 with nice graphics. But, if you do pay attention to the details, you will see that gta4 is truly a step up and a very great game.

Sadly, i think alot of people here never cares about details, its just *Highjack a car / plane and go omfg nutz ghetto blastah foools*

May 3, 2008