I can't...

[WellsMcK]

never played Mass Effect, sorry

 

and yeah, GTA's never had that style. Except now. And they failed while doing it.

They can't really fail if they didn't try. You had several choices to make. Didn't make a difference but still gave you a choice. The only thing that makes a difference is the ending. Choosing if Kate will die or if Roman will was pretty much it.

[GTAaddictforever]

what?

 

they gave you choices. the consequences to the choices are all small until the end of the game, in which 1 character or another character will die. who cares? i didnt give a sh*t about either of them. or anyone in the game for that matter, except MAYBE Little Jacob who was straight.

 

they failed because they gave us a half-assed attempt at player decisions affecting gameplay. they didn't revolutionize anything, they didn't even do it as good as games in the past, they didn't even do it GOOD AT ALL.

 

 

 

[Baltimorean]

GTA isn't an RPG. You want your decisions to effect the story? Go play Oblivion or Morrowind.

[GTAaddictforever]

yeah, you should tell Rockstar that.

 

since they decided to add RPG stuff into GTA

[Baltimorean]

yeah, you should tell Rockstar that.

 

since they decided to add RPG stuff into GTA

Oh, you mean skills? They took that out. Thats the most RPG-ish thing I've ever seen in GTA

[GTAaddictforever]

once again, you should tell rockstar that.

 

GTA 4's rpg like elements were the worst of any gta.

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

I have to agree that the missions in which you had to make a choice were pretty weak.

There didn't seem to be much point to them except for the revenge or deal one. But for

example the one were you had to choose between Derek or Francis

was just weak, there was no point to it. I certainly didn't care. And if they are going to

implement a choice system, they may as well do it properly where the decisions actually

affect something, or else why bother? It just ends up looking half arsed and poorly thought

through, which was exactly what happened in this case. With the whole story really. Which

ordinarily wouldn't be a problem, because GTA games have never been about the story.

But in this case, they have stripped back much of the gameplay in order to give us this

story which they deemed to be oscar worthy, and it doesn't have that effect. So they ended

up with a story which wasn't very well implemented, and apparently for that we had to

sacrifice all the fun elements

[tarquin biscuitbarrel]

i don't like any of the RPG elements. the decision making missions are kinda poo.

 

but this doesn't change the fact that the gameplay; combined driving, shooting, cover system and combat physics are better than any game i can think of. gears of war is a good game, but it's labelled the 'king of cover shooters', but the cover system in that is crap compared to GTAIV.

 

the high standard of gameplay makes the game more fun to play than other games. you'll eventually get bored with it... it's easy to get bored with any game unless you get dragged into the multiplayer world.

 

i'm playing diablo 2 multiplayer atm, but i still maintain that GTAIV is the best game i've seen in the last 6 years.

Edited July 21, 2008 by tarquin biscuitbarrel

[NinjaJones]

 

I can't hate this game even if i try.

 

I've tried to approach GTAIV in the mindset that the game sucks, hoping to understand these 'haters' by playing from their point of view.  Within 5 minutes of playing I get totally blown away.  That's right, the game is still blowing me away after 3 full play-through's of the story mode, over 200 hours played.

 

It's the most 'complete' game i've ever played, with incredibly high quality and it totally raised the standard of computer games, which is great for the industry. 

 

Most of the brown stuff seems to be associated with the lack of sandbox features present.  In my opinion these accusations are null and void because the gameplay is immense already.

 

 

Even if I didn't enjoy this game, I would still have enough common sense to acknowledge the fact that GTAIV is an incredible game.

 

 

Random example:  I was getting chased by cops and decided to steal a Faggio from some guy.  After forcibly mounting the scooter the angry owner grabbed onto Niko's jacket as I accelerated away.  It's hard to put into words the amazing feeling you get as you're getting chased by the cops, and your getaway vehicle consists of a scooter straining under the weight of dragging a large man along the road.

I agree 110%!! Everybody else here seems to need a list of stupid San Andreas features to have fun in a game that started out as a game where you make your own fun.

 

Is for you...this one too.

 

 

Tony Mozzarelli 80: What is so bad about the gameplay? And if you're just going to include all the RPG stuff from San Andreas then don't bother...because that's not gameplay! Gameplay is in the controls, the driving, how things and people react to the environment! Anybody who thinks that all that RPG stuff is what makes the gameplay good then think about this; if the character from Driv3r had a full wardrobe and could tune his car completely would the game be any better?

Edited July 21, 2008 by fishing4monkeys

[WellsMcK]

i don't like any of the RPG elements. the decision making missions are kinda poo.

 

but this doesn't change the fact that the gameplay; combined driving, shooting, cover system and combat physics are better than any game i can think of. gears of war is a good game, but it's labelled the 'king of cover shooters', but the cover system in that is crap compared to GTAIV.

 

the high standard of gameplay makes the game more fun to play than other games. you'll eventually get bored with it... it's easy to get bored with any game unless you get dragged into the multiplayer world.

 

i'm playing diablo 2 multiplayer atm, but i still maintain that GTAIV is the best game i've seen in the last 6 years.

I'm not sure that it has a better cover system that Gears of War. In the game I ended up not using the cover system unless I planned to stay somewhere for a long time. Sometimes crouching behind something worked out a lot better.

My best campaign experience was probably Gears of War. I just don't like it online. But GTA IV is in a mix of 1st and 2nd in my overall favorite games list with Call of Duty 4.

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

@ Tarquin i'll have to disagree that the cover system is better than GOW, it's not as good as the one in GOW

in my opinion, and the climbing and jumping mechanics are awful. But yes the driving, shooting, combat physics

etc, are all much better.

 

@Fishing 4 monkeys, I'm not talking about the RPG elements, i'm talking about things to do in general. That's

what i mean by gameplay, as in more things to do in the game. I don't particularly care about any of the SA

features per se. Just the fact that there used to be lots, now there's very few. Having said that, i don't see

why they didn't implement the stadium missions. Bike races, stealth kills, burglary that sort of thing. None of

which would compromise the realism. But the fact that there is less gameplay is what i take issue with, not the

actual nature of the gameplay. The driving physics and stuff i love in this one, but there are less places that i

would wanna drive

[NinjaJones]

@Fishing 4 monkeys, I'm not talking about the RPG elements, i'm talking about things to do in general. That's

what i mean by gameplay, as in more things to do in the game. I don't particularly care about any of the SA

features per se. Just the fact that there used to be lots, now there's very few. Having said that, i don't see

why they didn't implement the stadium missions. Bike races, stealth kills, burglary that sort of thing. None of

which would compromise the realism. But the fact that there is less gameplay is what i take issue with, not the

actual nature of the gameplay. The driving physics and stuff i love in this one, but there are less places that i

would wanna drive

Good to know you're not just another idiot mad because he misses his pink hair haha

 

You're right there could be side missions but, and I guess this is just a matter of opinion, I just think that the gameplay that Is in the game has had such an improvement that I don't really miss the side missions! I never do the assassin mission and got very bored with the stadium missions in San Andreas. I think the reason that R* went the way they did with IV was because so many people were complaining [after San Andreas] that GTA had become to much of an RPG...so when they started to move away from that for IV they kind of grouped all those little side missions in with the generally disliked part of the game even though alot of people indeed DO like them. Seeing as the end of the story differs so much depending on your choice/s I don't thik it'd be to far out of the question to say that "10 hours of gameplay" in the DLC might just be some pretty in-depth side missions! I mean to extend on the existing story without causing inconsistancies between choices would be pretty hard! Several main characters in the game could either be alive or dead so they would have to just be cut out with no mention. Maybe with IV side missions will indeed be more like actual 'missions'.

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

@Fishing 4 monkeys, I'm not talking about the RPG elements, i'm talking about things to do in general. That's

what i mean by gameplay, as in more things to do in the game. I don't particularly care about any of the SA

features per se. Just the fact that there used to be lots, now there's very few. Having said that, i don't see

why they didn't implement the stadium missions. Bike races, stealth kills, burglary that sort of thing. None of

which would compromise the realism. But the fact that there is less gameplay is what i take issue with, not the

actual nature of the gameplay. The driving physics and stuff i love in this one, but there are less places that i

would wanna drive

Good to know you're not just another idiot mad because he misses his pink hair haha

 

You're right there could be side missions but, and I guess this is just a matter of opinion, I just think that the gameplay that Is in the game has had such an improvement that I don't really miss the side missions! I never do the assassin mission and got very bored with the stadium missions in San Andreas. I think the reason that R* went the way they did with IV was because so many people were complaining [after San Andreas] that GTA had become to much of an RPG...so when they started to move away from that for IV they kind of grouped all those little side missions in with the generally disliked part of the game even though alot of people indeed DO like them. Seeing as the end of the story differs so much depending on your choice/s I don't thik it'd be to far out of the question to say that "10 hours of gameplay" in the DLC might just be some pretty in-depth side missions! I mean to extend on the existing story without causing inconsistancies between choices would be pretty hard! Several main characters in the game could either be alive or dead so they would have to just be cut out with no mention. Maybe with IV side missions will indeed be more like actual 'missions'.

Yeah i see what you're saying there, but then that's still a little disappointing for me, because i'm

gonna have to pay extra, to get the extra gameplay. But yes that is the only problem i have with

IV. What is in there is fine, i enjoy it, but for me there just wasn't enough things to do. It's like we

were just talking about in that other thread with the music. I see the features in the same way. Sure

everyone likes certain features better than others, in the same way as the songs they are subjective.

which is why i always maintain that more is better. I didn't like building CJ up, or dating, or dancing

mini games etc, but i wasn't complaining that they were in there, because they provided everyone

with options. I didn't like it so i didn't do it. Same with IV, i don't play darts, but it's cool that it's in

there, i just think there should be more. As for the driving and shooting mechanics, yes they're really

good in IV, but i am the kind of player who like to have some sort of purpose. I can turn the game on

now and very much enjoy driving around and shooting people. But i won't have as much fun because

i want somewhere to drive and someone to shoot. if ya see what i mean

[tarquin biscuitbarrel]

@Fishing 4 monkeys, I'm not talking about the RPG elements, i'm talking about things to do in general. That's

what i mean by gameplay, as in more things to do in the game. I don't particularly care about any of the SA

features per se. Just the fact that there used to be lots, now there's very few. Having said that, i don't see

why they didn't implement the stadium missions. Bike races, stealth kills, burglary that sort of thing. None of

which would compromise the realism. But the fact that there is less gameplay is what i take issue with, not the

actual nature of the gameplay. The driving physics and stuff i love in this one, but there are less places that i

would wanna drive

those features are unnecessary though.

 

the only reason 'new' features appeared in vice city and san andreas, was because the graphics and engine were almost the same as GTA3. therefore you need to add something fresh or risk turning the GTA series into one of those annoying crap franchise.

 

you can't rate the game on lack of features, especially with DLC around the corner.

 

imagine rockstar pushed the original release date back to when the DLC is ready for release, f*** that. i'd rather play the game now than wait 8 months for stupid features.

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

@Fishing 4 monkeys, I'm not talking about the RPG elements, i'm talking about things to do in general. That's

what i mean by gameplay, as in more things to do in the game. I don't particularly care about any of the SA

features per se. Just the fact that there used to be lots, now there's very few. Having said that, i don't see

why they didn't implement the stadium missions. Bike races, stealth kills, burglary that sort of thing. None of

which would compromise the realism. But the fact that there is less gameplay is what i take issue with, not the

actual nature of the gameplay. The driving physics and stuff i love in this one, but there are less places that i

would wanna drive

those features are unnecessary though.

 

the only reason 'new' features appeared in vice city and san andreas, was because the graphics and engine were almost the same as GTA3. therefore you need to add something fresh or risk turning the GTA series into one of those annoying crap franchise.

 

you can't rate the game on lack of features, especially with DLC around the corner.

 

imagine rockstar pushed the original release date back to when the DLC is ready for release, f*** that. i'd rather play the game now than wait 8 months for stupid features.

In your opinion they are 'Unnecessary' because you didn't like them. All the features in IV

are equally unnecessary, you don't need any of them, they are added for variety. It's like

arguing that you only need 1 type of car, because it's not necessary to have more. They didn't

add much that was fresh, just took out stuff that was old. I can only rate a game on what was

released in the version i have paid for, DLC is extra, it is not a part of the game

[tarquin biscuitbarrel]

In your opinion they are 'Unnecessary' because you didn't like them. All the features in IV

are equally unnecessary, you don't need any of them, they are added for variety. It's like

arguing that you only need 1 type of car, because it's not necessary to have more. They didn't

add much that was fresh, just took out stuff that was old. I can only rate a game on what was

released in the version i have paid for, DLC is extra, it is not a part of the game

i don't not like them. it's just i don't think they'd make a big enough difference in the game to be worth pushing the release date back.

 

the 'fresh' bit of GTAIV is the new engine, amazing graphics and physics meaning the game is now capable of being one of the best looking games on the market. the world is so much more detailed than previous games aswell, there's no 'bland' area in the whole city.

 

the IV features are added for variety and immersion. sorry, but i never recall getting immersed in san andreas just because you could perform the monotonous robbery missions or stealth kill.

 

if you squint your eyes untill you see a blur, GTAIV could almost be mistaken for real life. it's quite frightening and fascinating at the same time.

 

 

p.s. i know the sound/music is still up for debate, but i prefer the sound in IV. vice and san andreas had some classic tunes, but the scale of the IV soundtrack is huge and i give rockstar a lot of credit for picking underground/under-appreciated music. vice city was just generic 80's hits, san andreas was just generic 90's hits, IV is a lot bigger and better imo.

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

In your opinion they are 'Unnecessary' because you didn't like them. All the features in IV

are equally unnecessary, you don't need any of them, they are added for variety. It's like

arguing that you only need 1 type of car, because it's not necessary to have more. They didn't

add much that was fresh, just took out stuff that was old. I can only rate a game on what was

released in the version i have paid for, DLC is extra, it is not a part of the game

i don't not like them. it's just i don't think they'd make a big enough difference in the game to be worth pushing the release date back.

 

the 'fresh' bit of GTAIV is the new engine, amazing graphics and physics meaning the game is now capable of being one of the best looking games on the market. the world is so much more detailed than previous games aswell, there's no 'bland' area in the whole city.

 

the IV features are added for variety and immersion. sorry, but i never recall getting immersed in san andreas just because you could perform the monotonous robbery missions or stealth kill.

 

if you squint your eyes untill you see a blur, GTAIV could almost be mistaken for real life. it's quite frightening and fascinating at the same time.

 

 

p.s. i know the sound/music is still up for debate, but i prefer the sound in IV. vice and san andreas had some classic tunes, but the scale of the IV soundtrack is huge and i give rockstar a lot of credit for picking underground/under-appreciated music. vice city was just generic 80's hits, san andreas was just generic 90's hits, IV is a lot bigger and better imo.

You're correct that the graphics and stuff are amazing in my opinion, don't get me wrong

that is a welcome change. and i also enjoy the little details, to a point. But i must disagree

that there are no bland areas of the city. In my opinion there's many bland areas. Sure

they're incredibly detailed, which is all very well, but there is nothing to make want to go

there, if there's nothing to do. Details and stuff is great, but i can only admire the city for

so long before i start to want something to do

 

IV features are not all added for the immersion factor. Is QUB3D really 'necessary' to add

to the whole gangster theme? No it's just added for something to do, same with pigeon

hunting, cabaret and comedy, there's no story value here, they don't add to the immersion.

in fact i'd say robbery missions and stealth kills would be far more inn keeping with the feel

of IV than QUB3D is.

 

And in my opinion the music is the same deal, it's subjective, it doesn't really matter which

songs i prefer, i can't argue that the IV sountrack is not better, because it gives us more variety

more stations and more songs therefore i can say, that even though i liked the generic hits of

VC sountrack, the IV soundtrack is better. it can cater to more people's tastes and offers more

so it's better in my opinion

[NinjaJones]

 

<snip>

<snip>

Yeah i see what you're saying there, but then that's still a little disappointing for me, because i'm

gonna have to pay extra, to get the extra gameplay. But yes that is the only problem i have with

IV. What is in there is fine, i enjoy it, but for me there just wasn't enough things to do. It's like we

were just talking about in that other thread with the music. I see the features in the same way. Sure

everyone likes certain features better than others, in the same way as the songs they are subjective.

which is why i always maintain that more is better. I didn't like building CJ up, or dating, or dancing

mini games etc, but i wasn't complaining that they were in there, because they provided everyone

with options. I didn't like it so i didn't do it. Same with IV, i don't play darts, but it's cool that it's in

there, i just think there should be more. As for the driving and shooting mechanics, yes they're really

good in IV, but i am the kind of player who like to have some sort of purpose. I can turn the game on

now and very much enjoy driving around and shooting people. But i won't have as much fun because

i want somewhere to drive and someone to shoot. if ya see what i mean

Yeah I understand what you're saying. But the problem is that no matter what happens everybody will be divided because what one person wants conflicts with what another person wants. The thing with IV is that the features are alot more subtle (ramps that don't look like obvious stunt jumps, interiors that are hard to find, weapons/cars/etc) compared to how blatent they were in San Andreas. Iv still has alot of features, they are just more subtle and alot harder to find and (opinion only) are not as fun. Personally I never really go looking for stuff like side missions or hidden cars but they are nice to find. I think R* [while developing the game] thought of things alot more on the subtle side...you know the whole "living, breathing city" thing? So they didn't go as in depth with side stuff...they took a chance. So far it's turned out to be a bad choice but they've set themselves up for so much more good. You know what I mean? They focused on perfecting the big changes that GTA went through with IV versus just upgrading what it already had...this means that now they [presumably] have more to work with in the next big GTA! I could be wrong but that's just my two cents..

 

 

Also I agree with what you said to tarquin biscuitbarrel...Qubed, clubs, etc aren't really necessary. I would like to see them in the next GTa but I don't really want them to be focused on. They should add stuff like robbery mission like you said while simply copying the clubs and stuff in a sence. They should still be there but they don't NEED to be improved. Other things should be focused on.

 

 

 

the only reason 'new' features appeared in vice city and san andreas, was because the graphics and engine were almost the same as GTA3. therefore you need to add something fresh or risk turning the GTA series into one of those annoying crap franchise.

There ya go! GTAIV is a completely new game tech-wise and now that it looks good it can be expanded on feature-wise. That's why GTA stays on top in the sandbox genre. They set themselves up to be better. I mean imagine if GTAIII had just been shoreside vale with worse graphics than it has but with San Andreas-type features. Not so good, eh?

Edited July 21, 2008 by fishing4monkeys

[RONIN1191]

 

if you're not convinced that GTAIV is at the pinnacle of single player video games, then would you kindly show me any other 3d game with a balance of detail and graphics which comes close?

Star Wars : Knights of the Old Republic (original XBOX)

 

 

 

and that's just one game that I listed........

 

 

btw. if you never played that game, go buy it now. You will see how player decisions REALLY affect your character and storyline.

KOTOR? Are you f*ckin KIDDING ME???? Wow...your gamer credibility just went into the freakin underworld. KOTOR...what an ass clown.

 

How does that even compare? My first mission had me fighting my way off a frigate- how come no matter how tightly I aimed he couldn't hit the target? Oh, thats right, because ability was based on numerical value, not actual skill. So...what did that mean to me?

 

That this game, KOTOR, SUCKED. No discussion necessary. Now had you said 'The Force Unleashed' I MIGHT have been able to acquiesce that you could have a point, but KOTOR? LMAO @ you

 

 

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

@ Fishing 4 monkeys.

 

yeah i can appreciate what your saying and that people are always going to be divided as to

what's good and what isn't, but it's precisely for that reason why i think there should be more.

Ok one could argue that the features in IV were only subtle, but to be honest i can't remember

any particularly jarring features in the old games, if you didn't like any of the features you were

able just to ignore them, and pretend they're not there. The only one i can think of was in SA

where you had to eat, which we can all agree was just annoying, but that's the only argument

i'm making really. It included so much, that there was something for everybody. Whereas IV

falls slightly short in that respect.

 

You are right about it being a great basis for them to implement extras in the future titles, and

i am looking forward to them. But the reason that so many are disappointed is that they waited

a hell of a long time for this one, and simply were expecting more things to do. Sure what we got

was awesome, but it is also notable for what we didn't get. As i said, i can't stress enough, that i

don't particularly care about any specific feature in SA, in fact i like a bit more realism in my

gaming experience. But my only issue is with the volume of things to do

 

 

 

@ Ronin

 

KOTOR was an awesome game, Totally unrelated in genre to GTAIV so i'm not sure where the

comparison came from, but awesome nonetheless. And i don't even wanna know what an ass

clown is, but i don't like normal clowns so i think i'll steer clear

[GTAaddictforever]

boy, you have to be a real ugly kind of ARROGANT to say stadium with dirt bike races, monster truck madness, destruction derby, parachutes, etc are unnecessary

 

how about I think YOU are unnecessary? yeah, maybe you think sniper rifles, assault rifles are all unnecessary too. i mean, technically we only need 1 handgun to kill things. why give us extra weapons that have different features to them? they are all unnecessary.

 

i cant figure out if tarquinn is a troll or not. he seems like one. how ANYONE could come up with parachutes, stadium events, etc.. as 'unnecessary' is BAFFLING.

 

that would mean GTA would only include :

 

1 handgun.

1 vehicle.

1 pair of clothes.

1 melee weapon. (we laugh but GTA 4 actually DOES come with only 2 melee weps.sigh..)

 

 

all the rest are unnecessary.

 

 

not even worth responding to anymore

 

 

TO : tony mozzareli

 

just read the posts if you care to find out why. tarlequinn troll guy was praising gta 4's single player storyline as 'perfection' that has never been equaled before. yeah, i threw up too. this guy must have played only 3 games in his life, gta 4, pokemon and my little pony.

 

anyway, he asked me to name a game that had better storyline single player, and i told him. i also told him how KOTOR is actually GOOD at creating choices and actually changes the storyline DRAMATICALLY based on your choices, as compared to GTA 4's half-assed attempt to incorporate this RPG choice system. it was done poorly.

Edited July 21, 2008 by GTAaddictforever

[TT1987]

boy, you have to be a real ugly kind of ARROGANT to say stadium with dirt bike races, monster truck madness, destruction derby, parachutes, etc are unnecessary

 

 

Believe it or not this game is called Grand Theft Auto for a reason. Those things are not necessary, they are merely extra stuff.

[Darrel]

 

I can't hate this game even if i try.

 

I've tried to approach GTAIV in the mindset that the game sucks, hoping to understand these 'haters' by playing from their point of view.  Within 5 minutes of playing I get totally blown away.  That's right, the game is still blowing me away after 3 full play-through's of the story mode, over 200 hours played.

 

It's the most 'complete' game i've ever played, with incredibly high quality and it totally raised the standard of computer games, which is great for the industry. 

 

Most of the brown stuff seems to be associated with the lack of sandbox features present.  In my opinion these accusations are null and void because the gameplay is immense already.

 

 

Even if I didn't enjoy this game, I would still have enough common sense to acknowledge the fact that GTAIV is an incredible game.

 

 

Random example:  I was getting chased by cops and decided to steal a Faggio from some guy.   After forcibly mounting the scooter the angry owner grabbed onto Niko's jacket as I accelerated away.  It's hard to put into words the amazing feeling you get as you're getting chased by the cops, and your getaway vehicle consists of a scooter straining under the weight of dragging a large man along the road.

Good for you. Why do we need to know this ?

Probably the same reason you bitch and moan about GTA every chance you get.

 

[email protected]

I know Shut the f*ck up. Busted now anyway

 

And Gta Addict forever or whatever your name is when are you ever going to be quiet? Don't call the people who are very impressed with the game like myself simpletons. You definitely have issues my friend.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Darrel

[tarquin biscuitbarrel]

not even worth responding to anymore

 

 

yet you decided to respond anyway.

 

who's the troll?

[serbian warrior]

too true. you are just like me. GTA lives on!

[wayninja]

if you're not convinced that GTAIV is at the pinnacle of single player video games, then would you kindly show me any other 3d game with a balance of detail and graphics which comes close?

Star Wars : Knights of the Old Republic (original XBOX)

 

 

 

and that's just one game that I listed........

 

 

btw. if you never played that game, go buy it now. You will see how player decisions REALLY affect your character and storyline.

KOTOR? Are you f*ckin KIDDING ME???? Wow...your gamer credibility just went into the freakin underworld. KOTOR...what an ass clown.

 

How does that even compare? My first mission had me fighting my way off a frigate- how come no matter how tightly I aimed he couldn't hit the target? Oh, thats right, because ability was based on numerical value, not actual skill. So...what did that mean to me?

 

That this game, KOTOR, SUCKED. No discussion necessary. Now had you said 'The Force Unleashed' I MIGHT have been able to acquiesce that you could have a point, but KOTOR? LMAO @ you

You are an ass clown if you think KOTOR was a good game?

 

Well, cover me in sh*t paint and give me a loafy nose then.

[Zaderej]

This game is super boring after you beat the main story. Sorry, no good cheats. No cool easter eggs to go after. I just didn't like the realism stuff..its a video game its supposed to be crazy

 

 

[poast]

I mean, sh*t, SA was cool. But I hated SA for awhile, then I loved it. With IV I loved it all throughout. All GTA games suck though when you think about it. I mean, I think back to SA, and I'm like it'd be nice to have countryside, or some sh*t in IV, I miss it. They're just games.