Being strong about what's missing ...

[xoovermindox]

It's hard to avoid mentioning...

 

If R* never included the businesses/real estate/modding (plus other options) that were so beloved in previous games, no one would be missing them now. The game would receive high praise throughout--except maybe for the camera angling during turns, or other gameplay weirdnesses.

 

It was via programmer creativity that we had all those little nuances.

 

HOWEVER, THAT SAID--

 

There wasn't much missing in GTA:SA to piss off people that loved GTA3 and VC. If people notice something missing now, there's a problem. You don't dangle the carrot and then starve the horse.

 

This IS a totally new game. But they did set the bar from previous games; they didn't just pull GTAIV content out of the sky. The truth is:

 

Most homes in GTA:SA just pasted carbon copy interiors together, crappy and nice (sometimes on the same property), to create your purchased domicile. If they had followed such a simple model with a slighty greater interior range in GTAIV, and placed the necessary economic model, you could purchase homes.

 

Second, Many acquirable assets were not enterable (delivery, particularly) in SA, they just generated a daily dollar value. That doesn't seem hard to do. If they were enterable, they were generic food joints anyway. So what's the deal with not sticking a graphical dollar sign in front?

 

Third, people are talking about modding cars: This is 2008. This is Niko. We're not thinking of flash rims and spoilers. How about actual engine and chassis modifications that offer rewrites to (what is probably still) a handling/vehicle config text file. Not hard.

 

Finally planes and so on: Why? I don't recall needing a boeing 747-400 to make my hefty commute from Bronx to Times Square. But I agree the option would have been nice. They just didn't get the mechanics out on time.

 

To sum: I don't think there's anything wrong with a compliment or criticism, but it seems people get more offended at the tone. So I say, say whatever you want, keep it polite but strong, and maybe any downloadable upgrades will be free out of sheer developer embarrassment. They created a great game here, and in previous incarnations, for profit and for fun. But sometimes it's up to the community to add a few lines of request for padding.

Edited May 4, 2008 by xoovermindox

[DaddyGraybeard]

This Isnt Battlefield Bad Company Here, it isnt like we need to start griping to get our way, it isnt like they are saying we took this stuff out but you will pay for it later.....

 

The Game they gave us is great , give it time to see what DLC they offer as I am sure it will be good. People are just impatient and vain. Not EVERYONE wants to have to go to the gym in a game, Not everyone thinks the camera view is bad from the car ( I think its Great, I also LOVE the Hood View ) , not everyone thinks the same.

[KieranMurphy]

There is a lot of stuff missing from this game that was in San Andreas, some of which were fun and interesting but I'm not actually missing any of them. I've never stopped and thought that being able to purchase a business or tune the cars or change how the character looks or whatever would really improve the game. Actually, some of it would detract because so far the game has a plot and central character that car tuning and owning businesses and having silly haircuts wouldn't fit in with at all. In San Andreas, all those things got kind of boring after a while and it still would have been an top quality game without any of the fluff.

 

The only thing I'm disappointed in is no planes because zooming around San Andreas in a plane was always fun.

[Copilot]

Just because you find stupid little extra's fun doesn't mean everyone does. If you want to go change your hairstyle and lift weights go play the sims because its a lot for customizable than gta4. If you want to customize your cars go play grand turismo or need for speed.

 

I find the stock supercars look amazing and there is no need to customize them, the only reason you did in SA was because the cars looked like sh*t.

[Cracked Neon]

 

Most homes in GTA:SA just pasted carbon copy interiors together, crappy and nice (sometimes on the same property), to create your purchased domicile. If they had followed such a simple model with a slighty greater interior range in GTAIV, and placed the necessary economic model, you could purchase homes.

 

 

Why do you need to buy property? Whats the point? You get property throughout the game, and there's enough so you don't have to trapse miles to reach a house to save in. It'd be nice, but ultimately empty. You'd spend your $250,000 on the biggest mansion in Liberty City, then come on the forums and bitch about how you couldn't do anything with it, and you'd wasted all that money.

 

 

Second, Many acquirable assets were not enterable (delivery, particularly) in SA, they just generated a daily dollar value. That doesn't seem hard to do. If they were enterable, they were generic food joints anyway. So what's the deal with not sticking a graphical dollar sign in front?

 

 

Hang on, a dollar sign outside a building? That'd be so weird looking and rubbish in IV because it's supposed to be about realism. Niko's not come to Liberty City to run a drug syndicate, or become a pimp, or run a Garage, so why include it? It'd be uncharacteristic and pointless. You'd make money, and then come on the forums and bitch about how you've already bought all the houses and have nothing to spend that 3hrs worth of money on.

 

 

Third, people are talking about modding cars: This is 2008. This is Niko. We're not thinking of flash rims and spoilers. How about actual engine and chassis modifications that offer rewrites to (what is probably still) a handling/vehicle config text file. Not hard.

 

Finally planes and so on: Why? I don't recall needing a boeing 747-400 to make my hefty commute from Bronx to Times Square. But I agree the option would have been nice. They just didn't get the mechanics out on time.

 

 

Niko isn't in Librety City to become a pilot or an underground racer. It'd also be uncharacteristic and weird to see in the game. You'd fly your plane, and then come on the forums and bitch about how buildings keep popping in and you keep crashing into them because the game is rendering too much at too fast a speed. Or you'd mod your car, spend $$$ on it to make it the fastest car with the best handling in Librety City. Then what? Take it online? Go do some races? Too bad, Rockstar didn't programme the game to cope with this, so it'd ultimately be a waste of all that money Niko made pimping and running his Garage empire, and thus you'd come on the forum and bitch about how it was yet another pointless waste of time, effort and money Rockstar had put into IV.

 

So, in short, go and add all of your suggestions in if you want, but ultimately it won't do anything. IV is what IV is, it's not San Andreas, it's not Perfect, but it is, in my opinion, the best GTA yet.

Edited May 4, 2008 by Cracked Neon

[xoovermindox]

This Isnt Battlefield Bad Company Here, it isnt like we need to start griping to get our way, it isnt like they are saying we took this stuff out but you will pay for it later.....

 

The Game they gave us is great , give it time to see what DLC they offer as I am sure it will be good. People are just impatient and vain. Not EVERYONE wants to have to go to the gym in a game, Not everyone thinks the camera view is bad from the car ( I think its Great, I also LOVE the Hood View ) , not everyone thinks the same.

The game IS great, and the developers may presume it perfect if the only response they have is magazine reviewers. Public opinion is critical, and believe me they are aware.

 

Nothing wrong with collective voice.

 

I agree the gym wasn't that great though -- a bit unrealistic to expect one's body to change daily.

[DaddyGraybeard]

*Starts Slow Clap For Cracked Neon*

[thor1to3for5]

 

Just because you find stupid little extra's fun doesn't mean everyone does. If you want to go change your hairstyle and lift weights go play the sims because its a lot for customizable than gta4. If you want to customize your cars go play grand turismo or need for speed.

 

I find the stock supercars look amazing and there is no need to customize them, the only reason you did in SA was because the cars looked like sh*t.

Just because you don't find mini games fun doesn't mean you can't STFU.

 

Was that a triple negative?

[DaddyGraybeard]

Just because you find stupid little extra's fun doesn't mean everyone does. If you want to go change your hairstyle and lift weights go play the sims because its a lot for customizable than gta4. If you want to customize your cars go play grand turismo or need for speed.

 

I find the stock supercars look amazing and there is no need to customize them, the only reason you did in SA was because the cars looked like sh*t.

Just because you don't find mini games fun doesn't mean you can't STFU.

 

Was that a triple negative?

That makes NO SENSE man. What becuase you cant handle OTHER people's thoughts you tell him to STFU?!?! Pathetic.

[Cracked Neon]

Just because you find stupid little extra's fun doesn't mean everyone does. If you want to go change your hairstyle and lift weights go play the sims because its a lot for customizable than gta4. If you want to customize your cars go play grand turismo or need for speed.

 

I find the stock supercars look amazing and there is no need to customize them, the only reason you did in SA was because the cars looked like sh*t.

Just because you don't find mini games fun doesn't mean you can't STFU.

 

Was that a triple negative?

That makes NO SENSE man. What becuase you cant handle OTHER people's thoughts you tell him to STFU?!?! Pathetic.

Just so you know, the forums are full of Hypocrites, and it's best not to argue with them, rather let them have their arguments in peace.

[xoovermindox]

Most homes in GTA:SA just pasted carbon copy interiors together, crappy and nice (sometimes on the same property), to create your purchased domicile. If they had followed such a simple model with a slighty greater interior range in GTAIV, and placed the necessary economic model, you could purchase homes.

 

 

Why do you need to buy property? Whats the point? You get property throughout the game, and there's enough so you don't have to trapse miles to reach a house to save in. It'd be nice, but ultimately empty. You'd spend your $250,000 on the biggest mansion in Liberty City, then come on the forums and bitch about how you couldn't do anything with it, and you'd wasted all that money.

 

 

Second, Many acquirable assets were not enterable (delivery, particularly) in SA, they just generated a daily dollar value. That doesn't seem hard to do. If they were enterable, they were generic food joints anyway. So what's the deal with not sticking a graphical dollar sign in front?

 

 

Hang on, a dollar sign outside a building? That'd be so weird looking and rubbish in IV because it's supposed to be about realism. Niko's not come to Liberty City to run a drug syndicate, or become a pimp, or run a Garage, so why include it? It'd be uncharacteristic and pointless. You'd make money, and then come on the forums and bitch about how you've already bought all the houses and have nothing to spend that 3hrs worth of money on.

 

 

Third, people are talking about modding cars: This is 2008. This is Niko. We're not thinking of flash rims and spoilers. How about actual engine and chassis modifications that offer rewrites to (what is probably still) a handling/vehicle config text file. Not hard.

 

Finally planes and so on: Why? I don't recall needing a boeing 747-400 to make my hefty commute from Bronx to Times Square. But I agree the option would have been nice. They just didn't get the mechanics out on time.

 

 

Niko isn't in Librety City to become a pilot or an underground racer. It'd also be uncharacteristic and weird to see in the game. You'd fly your plane, and then come on the forums and bitch about how buildings keep popping in and you keep crashing into them because the game is rendering too much at too fast a speed. Or you'd mod your car, spend $$$ on it to make it the fastest car with the best handling in Librety City. Then what? Take it online? Go do some races? Too bad, Rockstar didn't programme the game to cope with this, so it'd ultimately be a waste of all that money Niko made pimping and running his Garage empire, and thus you'd come on the forum and bitch about how it was yet another pointless waste of time, effort and money Rockstar had put into IV.

 

So, in short, go and add all of your suggestions in if you want, but ultimately it won't do anything. IV is what IV is, it's not San Andreas, it's not Perfect, but it is, in my opinion, the best GTA yet.

Companies produce for consumer response. Clearly if the finished product included an unimproved version of a house for example, there'd be a gripe about it that would fall into line with those we've already seen: Why can't I do anything with my property, etc. But would the gripes be as loud? Property investment is a money sink, easily implementable, would toss in a few interiors, and give a cute sense of ownership and status. People like it. I liked it, feeling it meshed in sickly and ironically with the suspension of disbelief that I was a cold blooded killer.

 

I'll agree that any graphical indication in the environment might be a little odd, there might be some other way to do it.

 

What's to be done with modded cars? (People did not upload theirs from SA, either, unless they designed it in MAX or Nifskope as a new mesh). People store them. Use them for differing mission purposes. Enjoy ownership. That's all that was done before. Why change?

 

There is nada wrong with empire building in my opinion. Anyone can hoist the opinion that it is not the intention of the game. But it is an expansive game, one that did mean for multiple intentions, and we are talking about relatively simple options. Good games facilitate the enjoyments of their players by how they WISH to view their play. As I said before, nothing wrong with making a suggestion.

[KieranMurphy]

The game IS great, and the developers may presume it perfect if the only response they have is magazine reviewers. Public opinion is critical, and believe me they are aware.

4 million copies of the game were sold on the first day. How many of those 4 million do you think are actually critical of the things from San Andreas that aren't in this game?

 

These forums are currently overpopulated with San Andreas fanboys (I'm not saying you're one) who are making it sound like it's some sort of major issue.

 

I really doubt that Rockstar Games give a sh*t about what a bunch of fanboys on some forum think.

[Cracked Neon]

 

Companies produce for consumer response. Clearly if the finished product included an unimproved version of a house for example, there'd be a gripe about it that would fall into line with those we've already seen: Why can't I do anything with my property, etc. But would the gripes be as loud? Property investment is a money sink, easily implementable, would toss in a few interiors, and give a cute sense of ownership and status. People like it. I liked it, feeling it meshed in sickly and ironically with the suspension of disbelief that I was a cold blooded killer.

 

 

I don't think it's a case of trying to meet the majority's demand, because, not to be rude, but you're in the minority (and as always the minority is the most vocal group). So it's better for Rockstar not to waste time/money/rescources on putting it into the game.

 

 

What's to be done with modded cars? (People did not upload theirs from SA, either, unless they designed it in MAX or Nifskope as a new mesh). People store them. Use them for differing mission purposes. Enjoy ownership. That's all that was done before. Why change?

 

 

I can sort of see your point here, but I'm going to stick to my guns and say I personally don't get enjoyment out of 'virtual ownership', but your point is valid, and I can accept it as a plausible option to put into the game.

 

 

There is nada wrong with empire building in my opinion. Anyone can hoist the opinion that it is not the intention of the game. But it is an expansive game, one that did mean for multiple intentions, and we are talking about relatively simple options. Good games facilitate the enjoyments of their players by how they WISH to view their play. As I said before, nothing wrong with making a suggestion.

 

GTA Vice City and San Andreas were surreal, not quite reality, but close. IV is pushing into the realms of the real, and as such, whilst VC and SA could get away with such things, IV can not, in my opinion. Again, I believe you're in the minority here, so my above point is again apt.

 

((It's nice to see members on this board that can have mature discussions, makes a change ))

[xoovermindox]

Re: minority--

 

Then you've taken a better public opinion sampling than I have. Or you belong to more forums.

 

It seems appropriate to admit something here: I don't have many friends who own the game. I don't even have a lot of friends with a 360/PS3. I have been looking forward to enjoying this game with emphatic thoroughness and tilted my forum searches toward what was "missing" from GTA4, so I didn't have to absorb the blows personally.

 

When the bulk of what I read looks like "reviewers are tilting unfair 10's" and "why did they leave out x or y," I tend to echo the questions, if either x or y is relevant to me.

 

With conflict comes progress, so if the minority voices are the loudest, so be it.

 

But I'd like to tip the "maturity" compliment back to you and say it's nice that this didn't turn into flaming.

 

Cheers

[Peter_G]

Just because you find stupid little extra's fun doesn't mean everyone does. If you want to go change your hairstyle and lift weights go play the sims because its a lot for customizable than gta4. If you want to customize your cars go play grand turismo or need for speed.

 

I find the stock supercars look amazing and there is no need to customize them, the only reason you did in SA was because the cars looked like sh*t.

You're a f*cking idiot.

 

If he was playing the sims, he couldn't run around and drive cars like on gta. Also its point and click controls. And on grand turismo and need for speed you cant leave your car or kill people etc. And why would he want to play 2 games when he could just play one game with all this in.

 

 

Niko isn't in Librety City to become a pilot or an underground racer.

 

Is that why there are helicopters and street races?

[wayninja]

It's hard to avoid mentioning...

 

If R* never included the businesses/real estate/modding (plus other options) that were so beloved in previous games, no one would be missing them now. The game would receive high praise throughout--except maybe for the camera angling during turns, or other gameplay weirdnesses.

 

It was via programmer creativity that we had all those little nuances.

 

HOWEVER, THAT SAID--

 

There wasn't much missing in GTA:SA to piss off people that loved GTA3 and VC. If people notice something missing now, there's a problem. You don't dangle the carrot and then starve the horse.

 

This IS a totally new game. But they did set the bar from previous games; they didn't just pull GTAIV content out of the sky. The truth is:

 

Most homes in GTA:SA just pasted carbon copy interiors together, crappy and nice (sometimes on the same property), to create your purchased domicile. If they had followed such a simple model with a slighty greater interior range in GTAIV, and placed the necessary economic model, you could purchase homes.

 

Second, Many acquirable assets were not enterable (delivery, particularly) in SA, they just generated a daily dollar value. That doesn't seem hard to do. If they were enterable, they were generic food joints anyway. So what's the deal with not sticking a graphical dollar sign in front?

 

Third, people are talking about modding cars: This is 2008. This is Niko. We're not thinking of flash rims and spoilers. How about actual engine and chassis modifications that offer rewrites to (what is probably still) a handling/vehicle config text file. Not hard.

 

Finally planes and so on: Why? I don't recall needing a boeing 747-400 to make my hefty commute from Bronx to Times Square. But I agree the option would have been nice. They just didn't get the mechanics out on time.

 

To sum: I don't think there's anything wrong with a compliment or criticism, but it seems people get more offended at the tone. So I say, say whatever you want, keep it polite but strong, and maybe any downloadable upgrades will be free out of sheer developer embarrassment. They created a great game here, and in previous incarnations, for profit and for fun. But sometimes it's up to the community to add a few lines of request for padding.

Well said! I am still trying to grasp the argument that leaving a bunch of stuff out (promised or not) makes a game better and promotes progress in the genre...

 

As said, there was definitely stuff in SA that was poorly implemented or cheesy, but rather than remove this stuff, why not improve it?

[mckjuana]

at cracked neons original reply. That's absolutely bang on, sir. kudos.

 

If its not one thing its another. I said it in another thread but my CJ in SA was a fat blimp in underpants because I initially found it amusing to make him into a porker but then I couldn't be bothered to de-flab him afterwards so I just left him. That was my exposure to the gym system.

 

I couldn't agree more about the property. There was no point other than becoming a property tycoon - which again served no point in the game. If it generated income, fine, but then what do you spend the income on? Its not like you could become a virtual landlord and have a load of students renting your flats (only to then try and stiff them for the damage deposit by saying that they had dirtied the carpets...come to think of it, that would have been awesome!

 

What about the stuff they have included people:

 

a fully working, p!ss funny, internet

the integration of the mobile phone (fully customisable)

The friends system actually means something and makes you care about your friends (I've never had that in a game before. The Sims bored me.)

cabs that actually take you to places

on the fly animation generations - this has already proved to be worth its weight in gold. so many unique scenarios

a simply amazing living breathing environment

Oscar worthy story and voice acting

an enormous range of music

heli tours (love them, such a good touch)

15 mode MULTIPLAYER including FREE ROAM!! (how many times have you wanted top explore the GTA environments with your mates causing mayhem)

 

etc etc

 

jesus, you f**kers are hard to please.

stop bitching and moaning. Rockstar have released the game that they wanted us to have. deal with it, because its excellent

Edited May 5, 2008 by mckjuana

[ObscuredHD]

Well geez, is he that hard to agree with?

I mean it was straight to the point, and I think the point was to prop-er-ly discuss whats missing. And of course, as usual, on mostly all things, people will never ever agree.

 

[wayninja]

 

Well geez, is he that hard to agree with?

I mean it was straight to the point, and I think the point was to prop-er-ly discuss whats missing. And of course, as usual, on mostly all things, people will never ever agree.

That's not true!!!

 

mckjuana does make some good points despite the silly "you are too hard to please" at the end. They did put some cool and borderline incredible stuff in this game, I don't think anyone is disputing that fact (other than the statement about the internet, it's just as cheesy as some of the crap in SA that people say 'good riddance' to). However, the thread is about the stuff they DID NOT put in the game.

 

I'm not sure if I speak for the OP, but my problem is the media hype that has basically canonized this game as PERFECT. It is not perfect and I think the one thing that almost everyone can agree with is that we all want GTA to be as perfect as possible. Again, I know that this is an impossibility, just wish more folks would admit that and suggest ways GTA IV could get closer to that goal...