Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

GTAForums does NOT endorse or allow any kind of GTA Online modding, mod menus, tools or account selling/hacking. Do NOT post them here or advertise them, as per the forum rules.
Sign in to follow this  
CarnageRacing00

Rockstar, please...

Recommended Posts

SonOfLiberty

Hmmmm I wouldn't necessarily say that. Sure alot of people have vaild reasons, and express themselves properly, but that's not always the case..

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=363163

 

I've seen many people bag the sh*t out of IV for very stupid reasons. I know you find the game boring, and overrated, but please see that people opposed to IV are just as bad as people opposed to SA.

Edited by Miamivicecity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flesh-n-Bone

 

Hmmmm I wouldn't necessaily say that. Sure alot of people have vaild reasons, and express themselves properly, but that's not always the case..

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=363163

 

I've seen many people bag the sh*t out of IV for very stupid reasons. I know you find the game boring, and overrated, but please see that people opposed to IV are just as bad as people opposed to SA.

At least this topic has more things to say, rather than "doesn't that black guy in SA piss you off? He's annoying..."

 

But the topic GTAaddictforever did about why he thinks GTA4 is sh*t was very valid and he backed up his reason very well. But I think making topics about hating the game is kinda stupid, but as far as it has valid points such as GTAaddict's thread then it's OK.

I have not seen one creative thread bashing SA.

 

And yeah people obsessed with one thing *cough* fanboys *cough* are very bad but I haven't seen "San Andreas fanboys", sure the one's bashing IV have SA as their favorite GTA but that doesn't necessarily has to mean they are fanboys.

 

And yes, I myself think GTA4 is pretty average and overrated but I keep it for myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SonOfLiberty

 

And yeah people obsessed with one thing *cough* fanboys *cough* are very bad but I haven't seen "San Andreas fanboys", sure the one's bashing IV have SA as their favorite GTA but that doesn't necessarily has to mean they are fanboys.

 

 

So lets just say if someone has IV as their favourite GTA in their profile, but they bash SA. Does that mean they're not a fanboy too? There are fanboys in the SA camp aswell mate. Don't kid yourself.

 

You may not have seen them, but they are around. Look what happened to GTAaddict. He got banned, because the mods were sick of him pissing everyone off.

 

You are right in saying it's rare to find a creative SA thread, but that's because most of the SA bashing threads are quite old. I mean the one you posted up was from 2005. In my entire time here I've never seen a "SA sucks" thread, or something to that extent. Certainly not since IV has come out.

 

I think it's fair to say alot of IV fans still like SA, but for those that don't, who cares? We don't all have to worship it.

Edited by Miamivicecity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flesh-n-Bone

Everybody has their opinions and nothing needs to be worshiped by every single person on this forum, yeah right. But I only brought that topic because it was a racist one and an example of how a lot of other threads about 'SA being bad' look. As I said the one's having SA as their favorite bashing IV actually like the previous engine, specifically. And dislike the new system R* headed for, I am an example.

If these who bash IV were actually SA fanboys they would actually appear in the SA forums as well.

 

My post is not complete, but I just ran out of ideas. lol.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CarnageRacing00

I've loved every GTA game so far, San Andreas is no different. I enjoyed it immensely.

 

Hopping into the more realistic, gritty world of GTA 4, I took it as a NEW GTA experience, not a prettied up version of an older game (which seems to be precisely what most of you are asking for), and GTA 4 is by far my favorite GTA thus far.

 

When I want to fly planes and cruise the country side... SA is on my hard drive and nothing more than a mouse click away. But i haven't reached the point where I'm bored with GTA 4. I got bored with 3, I got bored with Vice City... the last time I played VC was the day SA came out, I gave it one last run before going to the store to stand in line for SA).. and I got bored with San Andreas. I haven't become bored with IV yet, I'm sure the day will come but that day comes for EVERY game.

 

The only game I have not gotten bored with is Counter Strike: Source. I've been playing that for 4 years and i don't know why, but it just doesn't get old to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sergi

 

I've loved every GTA game so far, San Andreas is no different. I enjoyed it immensely.

 

Hopping into the more realistic, gritty world of GTA 4, I took it as a NEW GTA experience, not a prettied up version of an older game (which seems to be precisely what most of you are asking for), and GTA 4 is by far my favorite GTA thus far.

 

When I want to fly planes and cruise the country side... SA is on my hard drive and nothing more than a mouse click away. But i haven't reached the point where I'm bored with GTA 4. I got bored with 3, I got bored with Vice City... the last time I played VC was the day SA came out, I gave it one last run before going to the store to stand in line for SA).. and I got bored with San Andreas. I haven't become bored with IV yet, I'm sure the day will come but that day comes for EVERY game.

 

The only game I have not gotten bored with is Counter Strike: Source. I've been playing that for 4 years and i don't know why, but it just doesn't get old to me.

To be honest though IV was not gritty. R* did a very horrible job of capturing the "grittiness" of NY in LC. Having been living in New York my whole life and my parents being Russian immigrants I've lived all over NY and the only places R* got semi right was Hove Beach and Brighton Beach is 10 times more interesting and grittier in real life.

 

R* failed with the "realism" facotr alot in IV especially when they hyped it up so much as to being a "realsitc crime sim" and in all actuality it's not. GTA IV is just the same old GTA with shiner, relaistic graphics and most of the past features of older GTAs being taken out and that's it.

 

Everyone can appreciate what R* did with IV on a certain extent but what most people don't like is the lack of fun features and R* chinging GTA up so much for what they thoought was a great story. As I said before and I'll say it again the storyline in IV is bad. The past GTA storylines were good because they didn't take them selves so serious but R* took them selvs way to serious for IV but the storyline and charcters just don't add up. Very few characters are actually interesting and the plot was boring and cliched especially when it's been done 10 times better in other media. If R* wanted to focus on the story they should have hired actual good storytellers to tell the story and they just worked on maiing the game wolrd great. R* is not great storytellers period. If IV were a movie it would be frowned on but because it's a video game most people thought it was decent because let's be honest most video game stories are horrible.

 

Also one of my complaints in R* touted this relaistic grittiness and they failed on it. As I said I've lived in NY for ever and I've been tot atleast every neighboorhood once and R* captured the look of certain areas but they didn't capture the feel of those neighborhoods. The only difference between Star Junction and the Westminster Towers projects in Holland is they look differnet and have different peds. R* could have really capitalized on the dangerous areas in IV such as the projects but they didn't. What happened to you were supposed to see crazy people at night or it was going to be more dangerous at nights in certain areas? Didn't R* say Middle Park would be an interesting place especially at night? Middlepark just seemed like a huge wastless park and nothing like hoe Central Park really is.

 

On a side note here's some links for you to read about what people really think about the story in GTA IV and in games altogether.

http://kotaku.com/5037916/the-narrative-st...oing-that-badly

http://www.infoaddict.com/post/title/10-th...-theft-auto-iv/

Edited by Sergi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Mozzarelli 80

That's true. A lot of the neighbourhoods are exactly the same. I would really have liked for the city to feel dangerous, and have things a bit darker and grittier. I've never actually been to NYC, but i don't think the reality of the city is especially important anyway. I just want the city to be dark and dangerous. full of gangs and sectarian violence, riots, flotsam and jetsam, pimps, hookers, spank dealers, murderous thugs, and marauding gangs of cut-throat c*nts, all out for my blood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SonOfLiberty

 

The past GTA storylines were good because they didn't take them selves so serious but R* took them selvs way to serious but the storyline and charcters just don't add up.

 

So what about GTA III? I admit it's a pretty good story, but it takes itself alot more seriously than what IV does. There were many times I laughed during IV. Can't be said about GTA III.

 

Anyway personally I would've liked more, but oh well. IMHO it is an improvement over the old GTAs. More features to me doesn't necessarily mean an improvement. I think they done a great job at overhauling the basic gameplay. Sure it's not flawless, but to me playing GTA IV feels alot better then the clunky, old GTAs. Even VCS despite being still pretty young feels about 5 years old compared to IV.

 

 

I've been playing GTA since GTA 1, and believe me in 10 years GTA has come ALONG way. GTA IV is a big asset to the GTA series, and I reckon in a few years most people will probably take it for granted.

Edited by Miamivicecity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CarnageRacing00
To be honest though IV was not gritty. R* did a very horrible job of capturing the "grittiness" of NY in LC. Having been living in New York my whole life and my parents being Russian immigrants I've lived all over NY and the only places R* got semi right was Hove Beach and Brighton Beach is 10 times more interesting and grittier in real life.

 

R* failed with the "realism" facotr alot in IV especially when they hyped it up so much as to being a "realsitc crime sim" and in all actuality it's not. GTA IV is just the same old GTA with shiner, relaistic graphics and most of the past features of older GTAs being taken out and that's it.

 

Everyone can appreciate what R* did with IV on a certain extent but what most people don't like is the lack of fun features and R* chinging GTA up so much for what they thoought was a great story. As I said before and I'll say it again the storyline in IV is bad. The past GTA storylines were good because they didn't take them selves so serious but R* took them selvs way to serious for IV but the storyline and charcters just don't add up. Very few characters are actually interesting and the plot was boring and cliched especially when it's been done 10 times better in other media. If R* wanted to focus on the story they should have hired actual good storytellers to tell the story and they just worked on maiing the game wolrd great. R* is not great storytellers period. If IV were a movie it would be frowned on but because it's a video game most people thought it was decent because let's be honest most video game stories are horrible.

 

Also one of my complaints in R* touted this relaistic grittiness and they failed on it. As I said I've lived in NY for ever and I've been tot atleast every neighboorhood once and R* captured the look of certain areas but they didn't capture the feel of those neighborhoods. The only difference between Star Junction and the Westminster Towers projects in Holland is they look differnet and have different peds. R* could have really capitalized on the dangerous areas in IV such as the projects but they didn't. What happened to you were supposed to see crazy people at night or it was going to be more dangerous at nights in certain areas? Didn't R* say Middle Park would be an interesting place especially at night? Middlepark just seemed like a huge wastless park and nothing like hoe Central Park really is.

 

On a side note here's some links for you to read about what people really think about the story in GTA IV and in games altogether.

http://kotaku.com/5037916/the-narrative-st...oing-that-badly

http://www.infoaddict.com/post/title/10-th...-theft-auto-iv/

I have to COMPLETELY disagree with you on every point you just raised.

 

Rockstar spent unprecedented amounts of time studying the sub cultures of New York and it's districts. You can see it in the architecture, the people, the traffic and the upkeep of the streets and buildings. To actually make Liberty City EXACTLY like New York would be to completely erase the line between GTA's fictional satirical universe and real life - and you guys are already complaining that the game isn't silly enough, so what if they HAD made it even more realistic?

 

You're complaining that it's NOT realistic - yet I don't think anyone has actually said it's a realistic game, but rather that it's more realistic than previous GTA games - which it is. Can you argue that it's not?

 

Comparing GTA IV to a game like Manhunt, it's easy to see that Manhunt is gritty, grim, and disturbing... GTA IV's mood is light. But comparing 4's mood to San Andreas... San Andreas is practically a South Park episode. Not saying there's anything wrong with San Andreas' mood, just saying that IV is definitely grittier than it, hell, even grittier than any previous GTA so far.

 

As far as realism goes, no it's not a realistic game. Thank God for that. Realistic would mean that you get injured in every car crash (like Driver 3). Realistic would mean that cops would pull you over for speeding or running red lights or breaking any other traffic law (also like Driver)... and look how good the Driver series is doing. Driver made a mistake the day they decided to be a GTA clone instead of just focusing on car chases like the original game did. THAT was why Driver was a good game - since they created on-foot missions, the whole fun of the game went away.

 

You really WANT 4 to be more realistic than it is? Are you stupid or something?

 

You've been to every neighborhood in the whole of New York City, hmm? I believe that. No, I really do. OK OK I'm lying, I don't.

 

GTA IV is based on the Bronks, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and many other provinces - all with a GTA twist and mixed together. The new Liberty City is not a clone of New York in anything other than looks and population demographics. It's still very much a unique world - anybody who has read an interview with the creators of GTA IV would know this.

 

One last thing, you say stories in most games suck?

-God of War

-Metal Gear Solid (the original - new ones are way too convoluted)

-Half-Life series

-Portal

-Hitman

-Call of Duty 4

-etc etc etc.

 

Those are just a few examples of games with stellar story lines.

 

GTA IV does not have a horrible story. It may not be the BEST, but it's by no means horrible. Maybe I'm on a different wave length than you are, but I understood the story line well, I felt the emotions they were trying to convey and I enjoyed the moral dillemmas you face in the game. Maybe you didn't like it because it had nothing to do with Gangstas? In which case, you're biased and your opinion is jaded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sergi

 

To be honest though IV was not gritty. R* did a very horrible job of capturing the "grittiness" of NY in LC. Having been living in New York my whole life and my parents being Russian immigrants I've lived all over NY and the only places R* got semi right was Hove Beach and Brighton Beach is 10 times more interesting and grittier in real life.

 

R* failed with the "realism" facotr alot in IV especially when they hyped it up so much as to being a "realsitc crime sim" and in all actuality it's not. GTA IV is just the same old GTA with shiner, relaistic graphics and most of the past features of older GTAs being taken out and that's it.

 

Everyone can appreciate what R* did with IV on a certain extent but what most people don't like is the lack of fun features and R* chinging GTA up so much for what they thoought was a great story. As I said before and I'll say it again the storyline in IV is bad. The past GTA storylines were good because they didn't take them selves so serious but R* took them selvs way to serious for IV but the storyline and charcters just don't add up. Very few characters are actually interesting and the plot was boring and cliched especially when it's been done 10 times better in other media. If R* wanted to focus on the story they should have hired actual good storytellers to tell the story and they just worked on maiing the game wolrd great. R* is not great storytellers period. If IV were a movie it would be frowned on but because it's a video game most people thought it was decent because let's be honest most video game stories are horrible.

 

Also one of my complaints in R* touted this relaistic grittiness and they failed on it. As I said I've lived in NY for ever and I've been tot atleast every neighboorhood once and R* captured the look of certain areas but they didn't capture the feel of those neighborhoods. The only difference between Star Junction and the Westminster Towers projects in Holland is they look differnet and have different peds. R* could have really capitalized on the dangerous areas in IV such as the projects but they didn't. What happened to you were supposed to see crazy people at night or it was going to be more dangerous at nights in certain areas? Didn't R* say Middle Park would be an interesting place especially at night? Middlepark just seemed like a huge wastless park and nothing like hoe Central Park really is.

 

On a side note here's some links for you to read about what people really think about the story in GTA IV and in games altogether.

http://kotaku.com/5037916/the-narrative-st...oing-that-badly

http://www.infoaddict.com/post/title/10-th...-theft-auto-iv/

I have to COMPLETELY disagree with you on every point you just raised.

 

Rockstar spent unprecedented amounts of time studying the sub cultures of New York and it's districts. You can see it in the architecture, the people, the traffic and the upkeep of the streets and buildings. To actually make Liberty City EXACTLY like New York would be to completely erase the line between GTA's fictional satirical universe and real life - and you guys are already complaining that the game isn't silly enough, so what if they HAD made it even more realistic?

 

You're complaining that it's NOT realistic - yet I don't think anyone has actually said it's a realistic game, but rather that it's more realistic than previous GTA games - which it is. Can you argue that it's not?

 

Comparing GTA IV to a game like Manhunt, it's easy to see that Manhunt is gritty, grim, and disturbing... GTA IV's mood is light. But comparing 4's mood to San Andreas... San Andreas is practically a South Park episode. Not saying there's anything wrong with San Andreas' mood, just saying that IV is definitely grittier than it, hell, even grittier than any previous GTA so far.

 

As far as realism goes, no it's not a realistic game. Thank God for that. Realistic would mean that you get injured in every car crash (like Driver 3). Realistic would mean that cops would pull you over for speeding or running red lights or breaking any other traffic law (also like Driver)... and look how good the Driver series is doing. Driver made a mistake the day they decided to be a GTA clone instead of just focusing on car chases like the original game did. THAT was why Driver was a good game - since they created on-foot missions, the whole fun of the game went away.

 

You really WANT 4 to be more realistic than it is? Are you stupid or something?

 

You've been to every neighborhood in the whole of New York City, hmm? I believe that. No, I really do. OK OK I'm lying, I don't.

 

GTA IV is based on the Bronks, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and many other provinces - all with a GTA twist and mixed together. The new Liberty City is not a clone of New York in anything other than looks and population demographics. It's still very much a unique world - anybody who has read an interview with the creators of GTA IV would know this.

 

One last thing, you say stories in most games suck?

-God of War

-Metal Gear Solid (the original - new ones are way too convoluted)

-Half-Life series

-Portal

-Hitman

-Call of Duty 4

-etc etc etc.

 

Those are just a few examples of games with stellar story lines.

 

GTA IV does not have a horrible story. It may not be the BEST, but it's by no means horrible. Maybe I'm on a different wave length than you are, but I understood the story line well, I felt the emotions they were trying to convey and I enjoyed the moral dillemmas you face in the game. Maybe you didn't like it because it had nothing to do with Gangstas? In which case, you're biased and your opinion is jaded.

Umm maybe you should learn how to read. I'm one of the main people in this thread that said the game is far from realsitic and yes numerous people have said it was realistic. What I said was about R* caliming that this game would be a "realistic gritty crime sim" when it's far from it. R* were the ones talking about realism somuch and I said they failed on realism horribly.

 

Also you've proven numerous times you're a giant R* discksucker and IV worshiper and none of your other points were very valid because they were nothing more then rehashes of what other people have said. And when I say I've been to every neighboorhood at least once is more of a figure of speech the same as somebody says they've been all around the world. Having lived in NY for 23 years I've seen more then enough of New York and I've been to evry borough and also have been to New Jersey twice. Are you just plain f*cking retarded though? I said R* captured the look of NY some what but not the feel. Just because evey other place has a differnt building and different peds doesn't mean it fuly captures the feelling.

Edited by Sergi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CarnageRacing00
Umm maybe you should learn how to read. I'm one of the main people in this thread that said the game is far from realsitic and yes numerous people have said it was realistic. What I said was about R* caliming that this game would be a "realistic gritty crime sim" when it's far from it. R* were the ones talking about realism somuch and I said they failed on realism horribly.

 

Also you've proven numerous times you're a giant R* discksucker and IV worshiper and none of your other points were very valid because they were nothing more then rehashes of what other people have said. And when I say I've been to every neighboorhood at least once is more of a figure of speech the same as somebody says they've been all around the world. Having lived in NY for 23 years I've seen more then enough of New York and I've been to evry borough and also have been to New Jersey twice. Are you just plain f*cking retarded though? I said R* captured the look of NY some what but not the feel. Just because evey other place has a differnt building and different peds doesn't mean it fuly captures the feelling.

Ladies and gentlemen, when you break down a persons weak argument, they resort to insults.

 

This last post by Sergi is a perfect example of that.

 

biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SonOfLiberty

Yeah, but if R* captured NYC's exact "feel" people would complain they're not original, and needed to carbon copy. That's what makes R* so unique. They can take actual places, and imagine them from their own point of view.

 

I mean people are always saying "If I wanted realism, I would go outside", but you're complaining that GTA IV doesn't represent every essence of NYC? You do realise if it did, it would be more realistic than it is now?

 

There needs to be a fine line drawn between fiction, and real life. While GTA IV is pretty realistic to other GTAs, it's not a very realistic game over all. I actually don't ever remember R* saying they wanted to capture every square inch of NYC's "feel".

 

Atleast NYC was done better justice in GTA IV, than it was in GTA III though.

Edited by Miamivicecity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sergi

 

Umm maybe you should learn how to read. I'm one of the main people in this thread that said the game is far from realsitic and yes numerous people have said it was realistic. What I said was about R* caliming that this game would be a "realistic gritty crime sim" when it's far from it. R* were the ones talking about realism somuch and I said they failed on realism horribly.

 

Also you've proven numerous times you're a giant R* discksucker and IV worshiper and none of your other points were very valid because they were nothing more then rehashes of what other people have said. And when I say I've been to every neighboorhood at least once is more of a figure of speech the same as somebody says they've been all around the world. Having lived in NY for 23 years I've seen more then enough of New York and I've been to evry borough and also have been to New Jersey twice. Are you just plain f*cking retarded though? I said R* captured the look of NY some what but not the feel. Just because evey other place has a differnt building and different peds doesn't mean it fuly captures the feelling.

Ladies and gentlemen, when you break down a persons weak argument, they resort to insults.

 

This last post by Sergi is a perfect example of that.

 

biggrin.gif

I'm pretty sure anyone would argue I out up way better arguments then you and have more valid points. And where did I use an insult? By asking if you were f*cking retarded? That isn't a insult but how you re acted proved my point that you are.

 

Also if what I said was an insult you started it by saying "You really WANT 4 to be more realistic than it is? Are you stupid or something?"

 

Also telling a known fact about your R* and GTA worshiping is not an inslut if it's fact.

And to MiamiVice have you not read the majority of my post in this thread? I've said numerous times R* claimed so much about this realsim sh*t and went half way with it. I'm one of the people who always says I favor past GTAs over IV and says that IV is over rated etc.. I said with R* always totuiing realsim for IV then they should have came through on some realsitic approcahces. None of the realism I have talked about would make the game any worse but 110 times better then what it was.

Edited by Sergi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SonOfLiberty

So if they should've went all the way with realism that would mean buying groceries, paying tax/mortages, getting married, having a legit job, raising a family etc?

 

People bitch enough as it is about the "realism", despite the fact the realism only covers certain animations (Peds grabbing umbrellas when it rains etc), and some of the physics, like the cars.

 

Some people don't know what the f**k they want. R* tried making a more realistic GTA, and it's either not enough, or too much.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sergi
So if they should've went all the way with realism that would mean buying groceries, paying tax/mortages, getting married, having a legit job, raising a family etc?

 

People bitch enough as it is about the "realism", despite the fact the realism only covers certain animations (Peds grabbing umbrellas when it rains etc), and some of the physics, like the cars.

 

Some people don't know what the f**k they want. R* tried making a more realistic GTA, and it's either not enough, or too much.

You're hopeless. Where in any of my comments about the realsim R* could have used did I incorporate stupid sh*t like that? As I said the realsim aspects that I mentioned that any idiot could read unless they're illiterate only advances the gameplay options. Having various areas feel more dangerous at night would add to the suspense. Having certain areas have the sense of lawlessness such as the projects would be ideal places to kill and not get a wanted star.

 

I said for the last f*cking time since R* touted so much about realsim they could have at least came through on some of their comments about realsim such as seeing crazy people at night or Middlepark feeling mysterious at night or the sense of hightend danger at night. That affects gameplay and would have made it an overall better game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamalG

i really have never understood why people dont like realism in GTA IV... if u want to costumize cars n sh*t, than buy a car game...

 

i definetly hope that the next games of GTA IV era will keep the realism...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Mozzarelli 80
i really have never understood why people dont like realism in GTA IV... if u want to costumize cars n sh*t, than buy a car game...

 

i definetly hope that the next games of GTA IV era will keep the realism...

Ok firstly, Grand Theft Auto, as codified in law, is the act of unlawfully taking an automobile, so it being a game where you steal cars, and take them to chop shops and pay n sprays, GTA would be an appropriate game to be able to modify cars.

 

Secondly, would you care to explain to me how modifying cars is in any way unrealistic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flesh-n-Bone

The realism was annoying, I want to pop heads and become fireproof in some way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fnorg
The realism was annoying, I want to pop heads and become fireproof in some way.

I don't, but I want to have the ability to do so. Just like I want to be able to have NOS, getting fat, getting me a Fat Al haircut, and so on. I don't necessarily want to use them, I want to be able to do so if I wish. The more options, the better a sandbox game it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CarnageRacing00
You're hopeless. Where in any of my comments about the realsim R* could have used did I incorporate stupid sh*t like that? As I said the realsim aspects that I mentioned that any idiot could read unless they're illiterate only advances the gameplay options. Having various areas feel more dangerous at night would add to the suspense. Having certain areas have the sense of lawlessness such as the projects would be ideal places to kill and not get a wanted star.

 

I said for the last f*cking time since R* touted so much about realsim they could have at least came through on some of their comments about realsim such as seeing crazy people at night or Middlepark feeling mysterious at night or the sense of hightend danger at night. That affects gameplay and would have made it an overall better game.

No I think you're the one that's hopeless.

 

1. Certain areas aren't really more dangerous at night, but more dangerous in general. You must not have been paying attention, but try wandering the back alleys. You'll find some interesting people from time to time.

 

2. Certain areas DO have a sense of lawlessness. This ties in directly with #1... you just gave an example of how the projects should be a dangerous place... um, they are. Have you spent any time walking around and getting in people's faces? They're quick to cut you up or shoot you down. In fact, somewhere in Alderney I bumped into a mexican walking on the sidewalk... he pulled out a knife and proceeded to carve my face up. No cops anywhere in sight.

 

3. I think I already explained this to you: Rockstar never touted how the game was REALISTIC, they just said it would be realistic in comparison to previous games in the series - which it is. Also, as far as feeling vulnerable at night - Niko is a SOLDIER, he'd be a pretty pathetic, pussy ass soldier if he was scared to walk Middle Park at night, now wouldn't he? I guarantee you that if R* included people attempting to mug Niko at night time people would bitch that Niko doesn't look tough enough or is a pussy because he looks like a target for muggers. Remember in GTA2 how people would car jack you from time to time? Remember how AGGRAVATING that was when you had a mission specific car that you had to keep in pristine condition, so you stopped at a traffic light, only to have it jacked from you and crashed during his escape? Yeah, Rockstar has reasons for not including certain elements of gameplay - those reasons being, they look good on paper and sound like good ideas, but when you apply them to the randomness of NPC behavior in these open world games, sometimes they're either too frequent or too infrequent. Maybe that's something they're still working on fine tuning, hmm? Maybe that didn't have it perfected, therefore didn't want to include it in their game and have it be considered a half-assed attempt?

 

Have you EVER thought about the amount of work in design, coding, planning, and programing that goes into these games?

 

It's easy for you to sit there with your cheesy poof stained fingers and mash away on your special ergonomic keyboard and whine and complain about how GTA IV was not tailored to suit your particular individual desires, but I bet if you saw things from the eyes of the people who designed the game, you might understand a bit about the pressures of releasing a game within a certain time period vs. spending extra time to get broken features fixed. Maybe some of these things they said would be in the game were removed because they simply did NOT work, and their contract deadline for release was nearing.

 

Ever think about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sergi
You're hopeless. Where in any of my comments about the realsim R* could have used did I incorporate stupid sh*t like that? As I said the realsim aspects that I mentioned that any idiot could read unless they're illiterate only advances the gameplay options. Having various areas feel more dangerous at night would add to the suspense. Having certain areas have the sense of lawlessness such as the projects would be ideal places to kill and not get a wanted star.

 

I said for the last f*cking time since R* touted so much about realsim they could have at least came through on some of their comments about realsim such as seeing crazy people at night or Middlepark feeling mysterious at night or the sense of hightend danger at night. That affects gameplay and would have made it an overall better game.

No I think you're the one that's hopeless.

 

1. Certain areas aren't really more dangerous at night, but more dangerous in general. You must not have been paying attention, but try wandering the back alleys. You'll find some interesting people from time to time.

 

2. Certain areas DO have a sense of lawlessness. This ties in directly with #1... you just gave an example of how the projects should be a dangerous place... um, they are. Have you spent any time walking around and getting in people's faces? They're quick to cut you up or shoot you down. In fact, somewhere in Alderney I bumped into a mexican walking on the sidewalk... he pulled out a knife and proceeded to carve my face up. No cops anywhere in sight.

 

3. I think I already explained this to you: Rockstar never touted how the game was REALISTIC, they just said it would be realistic in comparison to previous games in the series - which it is. Also, as far as feeling vulnerable at night - Niko is a SOLDIER, he'd be a pretty pathetic, pussy ass soldier if he was scared to walk Middle Park at night, now wouldn't he? I guarantee you that if R* included people attempting to mug Niko at night time people would bitch that Niko doesn't look tough enough or is a pussy because he looks like a target for muggers. Remember in GTA2 how people would car jack you from time to time? Remember how AGGRAVATING that was when you had a mission specific car that you had to keep in pristine condition, so you stopped at a traffic light, only to have it jacked from you and crashed during his escape? Yeah, Rockstar has reasons for not including certain elements of gameplay - those reasons being, they look good on paper and sound like good ideas, but when you apply them to the randomness of NPC behavior in these open world games, sometimes they're either too frequent or too infrequent. Maybe that's something they're still working on fine tuning, hmm? Maybe that didn't have it perfected, therefore didn't want to include it in their game and have it be considered a half-assed attempt?

 

Have you EVER thought about the amount of work in design, coding, planning, and programing that goes into these games?

 

It's easy for you to sit there with your cheesy poof stained fingers and mash away on your special ergonomic keyboard and whine and complain about how GTA IV was not tailored to suit your particular individual desires, but I bet if you saw things from the eyes of the people who designed the game, you might understand a bit about the pressures of releasing a game within a certain time period vs. spending extra time to get broken features fixed. Maybe some of these things they said would be in the game were removed because they simply did NOT work, and their contract deadline for release was nearing.

 

Ever think about that?

I've come to the reasoning that you are illiterate and after this post I'm going to leave it alone because it's obvious you must not read any of my post besides the ones you comment because then you would see where I come from when I say certain things.

 

Anyways for you 1st reason it's just bullsh*t. No areas in the game feel dangerous at all. Not at night, day, morning nothing. They just look differently and that's it. Also the only interesting things I've found in alleys is hobos sitting around burning trash cans, some money here and there, and a couple of people surrounding each other.

 

2 No areas have a sense of lawlessness to them at all. Just because random fights and attacks happen doesn't have anything to do with what I said about lawlessness. I've bumped into people all the time and all they ever do unless I hit them or point a gun is say things like" have you lost you f*cking mind" or "watch out money".

 

3 yes R* did tout the game as a "realistic crime sim" in early previews and interviews. R* said alot of things that either didn't show up in IV or were very half assed. I'll add that alot of things were just rumors that soon got spread around to alot of people thinking they were well known fact but that's another story. What does Niko being a soldier have to do with anything? You obviously have never been to NY because here the robbery rate is extrmely high in certain places so it's not out the ordinary for ANYONE to be robbed. Just because someone could have came up and put a gun to Niko doesn't mean he would have to be robbed. It could have been like the police breakway. Maybe Niko could have had a disarm attack for the robberer. Not to mention If Niko would have ran the best the robber could do is shoot him and it's not like Niko would have died from some gunshot wounds.

 

Another note is you obviously haven't read a huge majority of my post period outside this thread. Because numerous times with cetain ideas I mention on how much time ot would have taken for certain ideas to actually be in game and maybe this gen isn't powerful enough at least not yet. Not to mention I've given R* kudos many times on how GTA IV is in terms of the way the city looks and things like that.

 

To your last pointles paragraph it may be easy for you to sit at the computer all day with cheesy poof and hand lotion stained fingers and be on the computer all day talking about how IV is so great and see very fw things wrong but it isn't like that for everyone. No body will outright just say GTA IV is horribe but numerous people will outright say it was a huge dissapotment. added little to the series and the genre in whole, way to overhyped and didn't live up to expectations of what most thought a next gen GTA would be like and that it didn't live up to it's potential.

 

We all know R* will add on what they have for IV in the next GTAs but if the DLC haves things that should have been in IV from it's launch when it's eviident that R* could have put forth a much bigger effort then what does that say about R*. If the DLC adds more missions and side mission varity, better cheats, better and varied weapons, more replayabiulty things in a whole then why couldn't that stuff have been in GTA IV from the start? The DLC is just R* trying to nickel and dime gamers for more money for things that should have been in GTA IV from the get go.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macorules94

user posted image

 

 

sorry i just had to do that. I stole it from AdamDW lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SonOfLiberty

 

2 No areas have a sense of lawlessness to them at all. Just because random fights and attacks happen doesn't have anything to do with what I said about lawlessness. I've bumped into people all the time and all they ever do unless I hit them or point a gun is say things like" have you lost you f*cking mind" or "watch out money".

 

 

I was in Little Italy yesterday, and I was confronted by two members of the Mafia (I don't know they're actual name) all I done was stand there for about 20 seconds while they were talking sh*t, then they attacked me.

 

Also I accidently bumped into some fat guy in Chinatown, and then he started stabbing me with a knife. No cops in sight either.

 

Also the time I went into the Chinatown gun shop, and some guy followed me in attacking me (Unprovoked too), and when I was followed into the Russian shop, and two Russians attacked me, the time I was pulled out of my car in Hove Beach, and I was getting my ass kicked by some guy, but two others came to my aid, the time I was in Alderney, and of must've hit a gang member's car or something, so some guy jumped out of the back of a taxi carrying a shotgun, and started pumping me with lead.

 

So much for areas not being dangerous. sarcasm.gif

 

I admit the gangs were more deadly in past games, but in GTA IV the cops are no longer dumbsh*ts that let anyone attack you. I reckon that's why gangs, and crime is more subtle in GTA IV, because the cop AI now has fair justice.

 

I mean you said you lived in New York City for 23 years, tell me how many times you've seen a gang open fire on someone in broad daylight, and every cop in that area walks passed like nothing's happening?

Edited by Miamivicecity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CarnageRacing00
I've come to the reasoning that you are illiterate and after this post I'm going to leave it alone because it's obvious you must not read any of my post besides the ones you comment because then you would see where I come from when I say certain things.

 

Anyways for you 1st reason it's just bullsh*t. No areas in the game feel dangerous at all. Not at night, day, morning nothing. They just look differently and that's it. Also the only interesting things I've found in alleys is hobos sitting around burning trash cans, some money here and there, and a couple of people surrounding each other.

 

2 No areas have a sense of lawlessness to them at all. Just because random fights and attacks happen doesn't have anything to do with what I said about lawlessness. I've bumped into people all the time and all they ever do unless I hit them or point a gun is say things like" have you lost you f*cking mind" or "watch out money".

 

3 yes R* did tout the game as a "realistic crime sim" in early previews and interviews. R* said alot of things that either didn't show up in IV or were very half assed. I'll add that alot of things were just rumors that soon got spread around to alot of people thinking they were well known fact but that's another story. What does Niko being a soldier have to do with anything? You obviously have never been to NY because here the robbery rate is extrmely high in certain places so it's not out the ordinary for ANYONE to be robbed. Just because someone could have came up and put a gun to Niko doesn't mean he would have to be robbed. It could have been like the police breakway. Maybe Niko could have had a disarm attack for the robberer. Not to mention If Niko would have ran the best the robber could do is shoot him and it's not like Niko would have died from some gunshot wounds.

 

Another note is you obviously haven't read a huge majority of my post period outside this thread. Because numerous times with cetain ideas I mention on how much time ot would have taken for certain ideas to actually be in game and maybe this gen isn't powerful enough at least not yet. Not to mention I've given R* kudos many times on how GTA IV is in terms of the way the city looks and things like that.

 

To your last pointles paragraph it may be easy for you to sit at the computer all day with cheesy poof and hand lotion stained fingers and be on the computer all day talking about how IV is so great and see very fw things wrong but it isn't like that for everyone. No body will outright just say GTA IV is horribe but numerous people will outright say it was a huge dissapotment. added little to the series and the genre in whole, way to overhyped and didn't live up to expectations of what most thought a next gen GTA would be like and that it didn't live up to it's potential.

 

We all know R* will add on what they have for IV in the next GTAs but if the DLC haves things that should have been in IV from it's launch when it's eviident that R* could have put forth a much bigger effort then what does that say about R*. If the DLC adds more missions and side mission varity, better cheats, better and varied weapons, more replayabiulty things in a whole then why couldn't that stuff have been in GTA IV from the start? The DLC is just R* trying to nickel and dime gamers for more money for things that should have been in GTA IV from the get go.

Step Two, when your argument fails you:

-Claim that the person is not reading your posts.

 

Step Three:

-Recycle an insult they lobbed at you.

 

 

 

Face it - we don't KNOW anything about Rockstar's plan for the future of GTA. They could pull the plug right now for all we know - why? Because of ungrateful bastards like you who don't appreciate something called "Artistic Integrity". Artistic Integrity is the reason Valve scrapped their original build of Half-Life 2 and started over when some hacker exposed an early build of the game. They could've continued on and made the game how it was, but they wanted to surprise their fans, they wanted this most anticipated game to REALLY be different than what anyone was expecting.

 

Artistic Integrity is when bands release songs that are far and away unlike anything they've ever done before. Fans may claim that the band has sold out or gone soft, but maybe that band is feeling creative in a different way, and will create what their imaginations are conjuring up regardless of what ANYONE has to say.

 

Rockstar (by the way, it's easy to call me a Rockstar nice personsocker for defending them, but just because my opinion happens to be that you're wrong doesn't have anything to do with Rockstar - my opinion just happens to be in their favor this time around), and the creators of GTA had a vision of Liberty City. Said in many interviews, they FINALLY made Liberty City the way they originally envisioned it - the way PS2 and XBox hardware was not capable of allowing. Maybe the Liberty City they envisioned was a more realistic, living, breathing city. That's what they created. Lack of features? Can't argue with you there, but here's one thing you're forgetting:

 

YOU'RE THE DUMBASS THAT BOUGHT THE GAME BEFORE YOU PLAYED IT. So if you feel in any way ripped off, you only have yourself to blame. Maybe next time you should rent a game before immediately signing up for it, hmm?

 

I always read movie reviews before I go see the movie rather than waste $12. Maybe you should do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sergi

 

I've come to the reasoning that you are illiterate and after this post I'm going to leave it alone because it's obvious you must not read any of my post besides the ones you comment because then you would see where I come from when I say certain things.

 

Anyways for you 1st reason it's just bullsh*t. No areas in the game feel dangerous at all. Not at night, day, morning nothing. They just look differently and that's it. Also the only interesting things I've found in alleys is hobos sitting around burning trash cans, some money here and there, and a couple of people surrounding each other.

 

2 No areas have a sense of lawlessness to them at all. Just because random fights and attacks happen doesn't have anything to do with what I said about lawlessness. I've bumped into people all the time and all they ever do unless I hit them or point a gun is say things like" have you lost you f*cking mind" or "watch out money".

 

3 yes R* did tout the game as a "realistic crime sim" in early previews and interviews. R* said alot of things that either didn't show up in IV or were very half assed. I'll add that alot of things were just rumors that soon got spread around to alot of people thinking they were well known fact but that's another story. What does Niko being a soldier have to do with anything? You obviously have never been to NY because here the robbery rate is extrmely high in certain places so it's not out the ordinary for ANYONE to be robbed. Just because someone could have came up and put a gun to Niko doesn't mean he would have to be robbed. It could have been like the police breakway. Maybe Niko could have had a disarm attack for the robberer. Not to mention If Niko would have ran the best the robber could do is shoot him and it's not like Niko would have died from some gunshot wounds.

 

Another note is you obviously haven't read a huge majority of my post period outside this thread. Because numerous times with cetain ideas I mention on how much time ot would have taken for certain ideas to actually be in game and maybe this gen isn't powerful enough at least not yet. Not to mention I've given R* kudos many times on how GTA IV is in terms of the way the city looks and things like that.

 

To your last pointles paragraph it may be easy for you to sit at the computer all day with cheesy poof and hand lotion stained fingers and be on the computer all day talking about how IV is so great and see very fw things wrong but it isn't like that for everyone. No body will outright just say GTA IV is horribe but numerous people will outright say it was a huge dissapotment. added little to the series and the genre in whole, way to overhyped and didn't live up to expectations of what most thought a next gen GTA would be like and that it didn't live up to it's potential.

 

We all know R* will add on what they have for IV in the next GTAs but if the DLC haves things that should have been in IV from it's launch when it's eviident that R* could have put forth a much bigger effort then what does that say about R*. If the DLC adds more missions and side mission varity, better cheats, better and varied weapons, more replayabiulty things in a whole then why couldn't that stuff have been in GTA IV from the start? The DLC is just R* trying to nickel and dime gamers for more money for things that should have been in GTA IV from the get go.

Step Two, when your argument fails you:

-Claim that the person is not reading your posts.

 

Step Three:

-Recycle an insult they lobbed at you.

 

 

 

Face it - we don't KNOW anything about Rockstar's plan for the future of GTA. They could pull the plug right now for all we know - why? Because of ungrateful bastards like you who don't appreciate something called "Artistic Integrity". Artistic Integrity is the reason Valve scrapped their original build of Half-Life 2 and started over when some hacker exposed an early build of the game. They could've continued on and made the game how it was, but they wanted to surprise their fans, they wanted this most anticipated game to REALLY be different than what anyone was expecting.

 

Artistic Integrity is when bands release songs that are far and away unlike anything they've ever done before. Fans may claim that the band has sold out or gone soft, but maybe that band is feeling creative in a different way, and will create what their imaginations are conjuring up regardless of what ANYONE has to say.

 

Rockstar (by the way, it's easy to call me a Rockstar nice personsocker for defending them, but just because my opinion happens to be that you're wrong doesn't have anything to do with Rockstar - my opinion just happens to be in their favor this time around), and the creators of GTA had a vision of Liberty City. Said in many interviews, they FINALLY made Liberty City the way they originally envisioned it - the way PS2 and XBox hardware was not capable of allowing. Maybe the Liberty City they envisioned was a more realistic, living, breathing city. That's what they created. Lack of features? Can't argue with you there, but here's one thing you're forgetting:

 

YOU'RE THE DUMBASS THAT BOUGHT THE GAME BEFORE YOU PLAYED IT. So if you feel in any way ripped off, you only have yourself to blame. Maybe next time you should rent a game before immediately signing up for it, hmm?

 

I always read movie reviews before I go see the movie rather than waste $12. Maybe you should do the same.

If that's the case then Step 1 for you should be: Throw insults when you can't make valid points and

step 2: not be able to comeback with a valid comeback because A)youre a dumbass B) can't make vaild points and C) is bad in arguments and in you're case you're all 3 especially a dumbass.

 

Not tomention why'd it take you so long for a weak comeback? I saw it when you read what I wrote because you're name was on the reading this thread colum and then you went and posted a comment in another thread . Oh did you really need time to think of something to say lol?

 

Also you keep proving to be really f*cking stupid. 1st off if anybody went by the reviews then everyone who would have brought the game would have brought it so your movie review remark was as dumb and pointless as every other thing you say.

Edited by Sergi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CarnageRacing00
If that's the case then Step 1 for you should be: Throw insults when you can't make valid points and

step 2: not be able to comeback with a valid comeback because A)youre a dumbass B) can't make vaild points and C) is bad in arguments and in you're case you're all 3 especially a dumbass.

 

Not tomention why'd it take you so long for a weak comeback? I saw it when you read what I wrote because you're name was on the reading this thread colum and then you went and posted a comment in another thread . Oh did you really need time to think of something to say lol?

 

Also you keep proving to be really f*cking stupid. 1st off if anybody went by the reviews then everyone who would have brought the game would have brought it so your movie review remark was as dumb and pointless as every other thing you say.

You're making this WAY too easy for me cool.gif

 

For one thing, I use Tabbed Browing. Meaning, whenever I log onto GTAForums.com, I open up each thread I've participated in - or that interest me in a new tab, and thumb my way through them. This was apparently one of the later few that I opened.

 

Two, are you STALKING me? WTF business is it of yours what threads I'm posting in on this forum? You so desperate to try and insult me that you watch my every move? Hey, try coming up with some original insults next time instead of just throwing my own back at me. You'll seem a lot more clever, trust me.

 

Three, your last point is completely idiotic. If you actually READ the reviews, you learn what the game is about, and what content it includes. If you buy a game just because it has a 10 score - you're an idiot. My movie review analogy does make sense - people LOVE the Lord of the Rings movies, they got great ratings, yet I think they're stupid. I did not enjoy the movies. It's not my type of movie.

 

If you read the GTA IV reviews before buying the game, you might have learned that it's not San Andreas 2, and you might have learned what that 10 rating it received was based on.

 

Instead, you choose to see everything in terms of black and white. That's your problem, stop trying to blame me because you're a dumbass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sergi
If that's the case then Step 1 for you should be: Throw insults when you can't make valid points and

step 2: not be able to comeback with a valid comeback because A)youre a dumbass B) can't make vaild points and C) is bad in arguments and in you're case you're all 3 especially a dumbass.

 

Not tomention why'd it take you so long for a weak comeback? I saw it when you read what I wrote because you're name was on the reading this  thread colum and then you went and posted a comment in another thread . Oh did you really need time to think of something to say lol?

 

Also you keep proving to be really f*cking stupid. 1st off if anybody went by the reviews then everyone who would have brought the game would have brought it so your movie review remark was as dumb and pointless as every other thing you say.

You're making this WAY too easy for me cool.gif

 

For one thing, I use Tabbed Browing. Meaning, whenever I log onto GTAForums.com, I open up each thread I've participated in - or that interest me in a new tab, and thumb my way through them. This was apparently one of the later few that I opened.

 

Two, are you STALKING me? WTF business is it of yours what threads I'm posting in on this forum? You so desperate to try and insult me that you watch my every move? Hey, try coming up with some original insults next time instead of just throwing my own back at me. You'll seem a lot more clever, trust me.

 

Three, your last point is completely idiotic. If you actually READ the reviews, you learn what the game is about, and what content it includes. If you buy a game just because it has a 10 score - you're an idiot. My movie review analogy does make sense - people LOVE the Lord of the Rings movies, they got great ratings, yet I think they're stupid. I did not enjoy the movies. It's not my type of movie.

 

If you read the GTA IV reviews before buying the game, you might have learned that it's not San Andreas 2, and you might have learned what that 10 rating it received was based on.

 

Instead, you choose to see everything in terms of black and white. That's your problem, stop trying to blame me because you're a dumbass.

You're just the biggest f*cking idiot in the world period. 1st off when I was done typing my last response which took you a day to reply to I saw your name at thye bottom of the page. After notciing you were finally going to take your L I left only to notice that you replied in another thread showing that you were as big a pussy as you are an idiot.

 

2nd you f*cking dumb ass are you not the one who said you base what movie you see of reviews? Didn't you say I should do the same? It seems your dumbness is getting the best of you because when I said that I read reviews because they came out 3 days before the game it made IV sound like the best thing ever not to mention I own every GTA so why in the hell wouldn't I get the game? Also in none of the reviews does it ever mention that the game has a large lack of features and is a huge stepback replayabilty wise. All the reviews just rave about the wonky cover system, the wonky driving physics, the wonky physics of Euphoria, the C grade storyline and the B grade multiplayer.

 

So once again you prove nothing except you're just one of the biggest f*cking dumb asses on this forum. Just give up and take a L already. This thread was dead until your dumb ass brought it back up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
08LasVenturas

Like many people said before, GIVE GTA4 A BREAK! Just because Rockstar takes out a few features doesn't mean that the game flat out sucks. Most people don't even complete the game and just assume that it's worthless.

 

First, the cop system in GTA4 is MUCH Better, although for some reason if a cop is 6 blocks away, they still know where you are. The environment is no San Andreas, but SA had almost no detail and 4 had more interiors, interactibility with the environment, and MUCH more detail.

 

And the damage for cars is SO much better. In previous games, if i just merely sideswiped a car going .5 MPH, the whole front and side of the car gets smashed up. In GTA4, all there is is a small scratch. And in previous games, if you'd flip over, it explodes within 10 seconds (Has that ever happened in real life?). And when you did set it on fire, no matter where on the car you set on fire, ONLY the front catches fire. Then 2 seconds later it blows up ans all that is left is a black shell. If a car is parked next to it, all that happens is some smoke coming from the hood. In GTA4, if set on fire, the fire slowly spreads and gets bigger. Eventually, the car is engulfed and explodes. The shape of the car is disfigured and still burns even after the explosion. Nearby cars now get damaged from fire, flying parts, etc.

 

However, I don't like some of the things they removed. Empire sites, although generic and repetitive, were realistic and fun. In GTA4 they could've improved on this feature and made each empire site more unique and creative. And Liberty City did not have as much diversity and explorability as in GTASA.

 

But aliens, jetpacks, etc. are dumb and have nothing to do with the game genre. This is GRAND THEFT AUTO. If I wanted to use laserguns to shoot monsters and aliens in some fantasy land and then ride on a flying saucer, i'd play HALO.

 

And people need to think before they buy. If you're picky and ungrateful, rent the game to try it out. If you like it, then buy it. I bought it solely because I knew, even if some features are removed, the game will still be fun to play.

 

And, as some people said before, don't judge based on a proffesional review from a game site. Those are just one person's opinion. Some of the best movies are panned by critics and professional reviewers. And it seems that almost every stupid or incredibly boring movie gets 5-star ratings and every critic just says generic comments such as "Best film of the year".

 

IMO, I'd like the realisticness and detail of GTA4 combined with the fun factor and replayability of GTA:SA.

 

Now all I have to wonder is how many people are going to quote my reply and bash me based on my OPINION.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ghost glendale fan 4 live

There is only one thing I want to have in an totally new Gta and that is Stallion i don't care if they put many new cars only that there is an Stallion in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Machida

When your talking about features like jet packs, parachuting, car modding ect. Those are all non-traditional GTA featues that aren't a staple of the GTA franchise.

They've only been used in San Andreas and as all GTA games are standalone titles there was no reason to expect them to emerge in IV.

It's inaccurate to say these features were removed because they were never expected in GTA IV anyway.

In the IV cannon we are likely to see even more non-traditional features introduced, I wouldn't expect any of those features to include things such as haircuts though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.