GTA IV: A step backwards?

[Signor Vercetti]

I haven't yet got the game (waiting for PC version), but surely going from a whole state (including motorways and countryside towns) to only one city is a bit of a step backwards? After having all that area to explore (and cause trouble in), surely going back to a single city, even if it is huge, is a bit of a letdown? When I heard that it wasn't going to be set in London, but in the USA (again), I was disappointed, but I was expecting it to provide us with a nice big slice of country to cause mayhem in, not just one city.

[QwertyAAA]

Ahhh, yes. The humble opinion of the guy who has not played the game but spends all his time on internet forums saying it sucks. A classic.

 

Get a console and play the damn game.

[wayninja]

It is a step backwards. There is no real sense of any kind of accomplishment when you unlock a new island and the city really isn't all that big. Each area is distinct, but it's on a very subtle level... the areas are very similar.

 

 

Ahhh, yes. The humble opinion of the guy who has not played the game but spends all his time on internet forums saying it sucks. A classic.

 

Get a console and play the damn game.

 

Did I miss somewhere where he used the word 'suck'?

Edited May 17, 2008 by wayninja

[QwertyAAA]

Not in so many words, no.

 

 

You know what? Somebody should put a forum header: "If you don't like GTA IV, go play with yourself. We don't give a damn.

[wayninja]

 

Not in so many words, no.

 

 

You know what? Somebody should put a forum header: "If you don't like GTA IV, go play with yourself. We don't give a damn.

But I give a damn. Who is this 'we' you speak of? Fanboys?

 

You could say "Only wayninja gives a damn!", but I'm not sure how well that would be recieved.

[Owen1993]

You need to think of how much this costed Rockstar. This game costed them around 100 Million to make, because of the huge graphical improvement. Now think of the graphics in San Andreas. Nothing compared to IV. San Andreas might've costed around the same or even less, even if all that space was included, just because of the grapihcs.

[Mr. Someguy]

San Andreas was hardly a county, let alone a state. Liberty City is almost as big in space covered, bug much bigger in terms of space used.

[Magic_Al]

It doesn't replace San Andreas but it isn't a step backwards either. Each GTA has added some things and removed some things controversially. San Andreas was a "step backwards" from Vice City because you could no longer rob shops or ride taxis to restart missions and interiors didn't look as good but it added things no other GTA has.

 

Liberty City is as big as all San Andreas cities put together with much denser content and less repetition (one airport instead of four and neighborhoods that have unique character). GTA IV may be "back to basics" in scope but that's because doing everything San Andreas did at the detail level of GTA IV isn't possible yet.

[meathead316]

It doesn't replace San Andreas but it isn't a step backwards either. Each GTA has added some things and removed some things controversially. San Andreas was a "step backwards" from Vice City because you could no longer rob shops or ride taxis to restart missions and interiors didn't look as good but it added things no other GTA has.

 

Liberty City is as big as all San Andreas cities put together with much denser content and less repetition (one airport instead of four and neighborhoods that have unique character). GTA IV may be "back to basics" in scope but that's because doing everything San Andreas did at the detail level of GTA IV isn't possible yet.

thats pretty much spot on i think.

 

i think its safe to say that san andreas with gta iv graphics and physics wud be the ultimate

[tomasse]

Totally a step backwards.Nothing compared to SA.

[wayninja]

San Andreas was hardly a county, let alone a state. Liberty City is almost as big in space covered, bug much bigger in terms of space used.

Sorry, not even close.

[Anonymous Guy]

Because vast empty spaces of forest and desert land was necessary.

[wayninja]

Because vast empty spaces of forest and desert land was necessary.

Well, there were small towns littering the 'empty spaces' and it was a great place to use offroad style vehicles.

 

No, not necessary, but not useless either.

[Undecided]

Because vast empty spaces of forest and desert land was necessary.

I loved them

[FlyBoyP]

A step backwards?

[BlOoDStReAm101]

I honestly don't see this game as a step backwards at all. The story missions are truly amazing, and I hate it when people say it's just "drive here" or "chase this guy". Wasn't every GTA game like this? Why are we complaining now? I think I've come to realize how people are just picky with the features that San Andreas had. Now that I look back at San Andreas, it looks like crap. The controls were really stupid, as well as the driving. Alll you had to do is move the left stick and your car is automatically on the left side. It was stupid.

[ZaZ9291]

To give, you must take, Rockstar sacrificed some things to add the ultimate experience to other things such as the storyline.

[fjpremo]

Ahhh, yes. The humble opinion of the guy who has not played the game but spends all his time on internet forums saying it sucks. A classic.

 

Get a console and play the damn game.

Wow, first reply ownage. Props.

[Sockeh]

Because vast empty spaces of forest and desert land was necessary.

Well, there were small towns littering the 'empty spaces' and it was a great place to use offroad style vehicles.

 

No, not necessary, but not useless either.

I absolutely loved the country, i'd get a dirt bike and just ride around for ages. You could turn many of the rocks into jumps, and launching off the cliffs was awesome. Getting the cops to chase you in all the bush was pretty cool too!

 

As someone else said, San Andreas with GTA IV graphics would be absolutely amazing.

 

I'm not dissing GTA IV by the way. I really do like the game. If there is another GTA coming out when the new next gen consoles are around i think it will be one of the best games.

[wayninja]

To give, you must take, Rockstar sacrificed some things to add the ultimate experience to other things such as the storyline.

To give you must take? What restaurant did that fortune cookie come from?

 

The story was mediocre. GTA SHOULD NOT be about a story anyway.

[Darkgamr]

To give, you must take, Rockstar sacrificed some things to add the ultimate experience to other things such as the storyline.

 

The story was mediocre.

I really hope you're kidding. It's the best story I've seen in a videogame. The only game where I can actually care about the characters, where I make a gameplay choice because of how a character acts instead of what results from it.

[gxc999]

To give, you must take, Rockstar sacrificed some things to add the ultimate experience to other things such as the storyline.

To give you must take? What restaurant did that fortune cookie come from?

 

The story was mediocre. GTA SHOULD NOT be about a story anyway.

 

Whether you liked it or not, once SA came out with its own amazingly in depth story, every future GTA had to

atleast do something. Again, I like IV, but it didn't blow me away. If you add in some features and meld SA with

IV, you might have it done to the hilt.

[wayninja]

It's the best story I've seen in a videogame.

 

I sincerely hope YOU are kidding... You need to play more video games...

[VinnieLeone]

GTA Iv is the best out the rest, f*ck the pc version, we may nerver know when it comes out anyway. go to a friends house and play it... Why the f*ck would the shoot it in london?

Also I'm wondering if the did Liberty,Imagine what Vice may look like or Andreas

[mac915]

To give, you must take, Rockstar sacrificed some things to add the ultimate experience to other things such as the storyline.

To give you must take? What restaurant did that fortune cookie come from?

 

The story was mediocre. GTA SHOULD NOT be about a story anyway.

So you want GTA to turn into Saints Row? That open space was pretty much useless in SA. Yeah it was fun for a while, but there's only so much exploration to do in an empty forest. And no amount of fake bigfoot sightings would change that.

 

Anyway, this is in no way, shape, or form, a step backwards. Considering, the enormous scale, coupled with impressive physics, and graphics, while running at an incredibly consistent framerate, while also providing an interesting story with likable(and unlikable in a good way) characters, I'd see this as a leap forward to what more open world games should strive for.

[VinnieLeone]

Somthing told me when i met Jimmy Pegorino,he was gonna die or you kill him.

 

Jimmy was my fav.

[wayninja]

 

So you want GTA to turn into Saints Row? That open space was pretty much useless in SA. Yeah it was fun for a while, but there's only so much exploration to do in an empty forest. And no amount of fake bigfoot sightings would change that.

 

Anyway, this is in no way, shape, or form, a step backwards. Considering, the enormous scale, coupled with impressive physics, and graphics, while running at an incredibly consistent framerate, while also providing an interesting story with likable(and unlikable in a good way) characters, I'd see this as a leap forward to what more open world games should strive for.

What people seem to miss is that in SA, City folks can stay in cities and coutry folk can explore the country and launch themselves off ridiculous cliffs. It's the choice that made it better and gave more to do once the story was done.

 

GTAIV definitely is a step back in many ways. The scope of the game is scaled back despite reviewers mindlessly echoing one another to the contrary. The map is smaller and there seems to me to be fewer interiors. There's a ton of scaleback.

 

GTA IV is a good game and DLC might even make it a great game. But the only thing really upgraded from SA is physics and graphics. IMHO, the driving physics while more realistic are simply less fun.

 

And I'm so sick of everyone telling me how great the story is. What is so great about it? It's completely contrived and predictable. I mean, R* may has well had a menu option pop up saying which character do you like so we can kill them off. Niko keeps claiming he is assassinating people because he is poor and to make it in America and to pay Roman's gambling debts. He keeps saying this despite the fact that he never pays Roman anything and has over half a million dollars in his wallet and a bunch of nice cars scattered across his many houses.

 

It's the same old crap rehashed except with less gameplay substance.

 

As for Saints Row 2, I will judge the game on how much fun it is and not condemn it just because it isn't made by R*.

Edited May 18, 2008 by wayninja

[jimm]

A step backwards?

Definately a step backward......as said before SA with GTA IV graphics would have been just awesome! Reducing the total size of GTA IV compared to SA was not exactly a good idea. And the only thing responsible for this is the XBOX 360 !! I am not trying to start a console war here.

 

XBOX 360 fanboys are probably furious at me now, so dont take my word for it, take ROCKSTAR's!

 

>>>> http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=163233

>>>> http://www.joystiq.com/2007/05/02/xbox-360...-all-of-gta-iv/

[mac915]

 

So you want GTA to turn into Saints Row? That open space was pretty much useless in SA. Yeah it was fun for a while, but there's only so much exploration to do in an empty forest. And no amount of fake bigfoot sightings would change that.

 

Anyway, this is in no way, shape, or form, a step backwards. Considering, the enormous scale, coupled with impressive physics, and graphics, while running at an incredibly consistent framerate, while also providing an interesting story with likable(and unlikable in a good way) characters, I'd see this as a leap forward to what more open world games should strive for.

What people seem to miss is that in SA, City folks can stay in cities and coutry folk can explore the country and launch themselves off ridiculous cliffs. It's the choice that made it better and gave more to do once the story was done.

 

GTAIV definitely is a step back in many ways. The scope of the game is scaled back despite reviewers mindlessly echoing one another to the contrary. The map is smaller and there seems to me to be fewer interiors. There's a ton of scaleback.

 

GTA IV is a good game and DLC might even make it a great game. But the only thing really upgraded from SA is physics and graphics. IMHO, the driving physics while more realistic are simply less fun.

 

And I'm so sick of everyone telling me how great the story is. What is so great about it? It's completely contrived and predictable. I mean, R* may has well had a menu option pop up saying which character do you like so we can kill them off. Niko keeps claiming he is assassinating people because he is poor and to make it in America and to pay Roman's gambling debts. He keeps saying this despite the fact that he never pays Roman anything and has over half a million dollars in his wallet and a bunch of nice cars scattered across his many houses.

 

It's the same old crap rehashed except with less gameplay substance.

 

As for Saints Row 2, I will judge the game on how much fun it is and not condemn it just because it isn't made by R*.

It seems to you there are fewer interiors, but I think R* has stated there are more. And I agree that with Niko always claiming to need money, yet having a half mil in his pocket. I thought they should have had it where every in game week, you have to give up a percentage of your money to some loan sharks or something. They didn't, oh well.

 

What makes the story compelling is the characters. You said it yourself in your blacked out section.You liked those characters and it effected you when they died. That's what a compelling story does, it brings you into it and makes you want these people to succeed. Also, its a great example of how crime doesn't pay. All these characters who are so involved and controlled by their vices(Elizabetta, Manny, Dmitri, meet their ends because of them, but you also have innocents who get caught in the path of violent people(Roman, Mallorie, Michelle(hope some answers come out of this) and to an extent Niko.

 

Also, I wasn't referencing SR 2, I was talking about SR 1, which had the most cliched story ever. You said GTA shouldn't be about the story and I think that's what makes it stand out from the other open world games.

Edited May 18, 2008 by mac915

[wayninja]

Well, without getting into a river of spoiler tags, I didn't mean to imply that I liked the characters, just that R* was trying to get you to feel something for them by the contrived plot device.

 

And most of these characters simply had no continuation or closure to them, they were simply just forgotten...

 

I'm not saying it's a bad story, just that if the best thing GTA had to offer was this story, I would never play another one in my life.