Open Spaces/Wasted Space

[Engioc]

I just wanted to talk a little about this idea of wasted space that many said was a problem in GTA:SA.

 

To a point I agree, but I did love the countryside and just loved driving off road and all over the place in SA. I have tried doing the same in GTA4 but so far I feel restricted in what I can do. One of the big talking points on GTA4 was that many of the buildings would be enterable, and sure they did do that, no argument. The problem I do see though is that there is no real point to them.

 

You enter some of them for story/mission, but once that's done you can't really go in to that building again, eg the hotel south of middle park, once the mission is over the lift/elevator no longer works and I see no way of going to upper levels, you can enter the lobby but that's as far as you ever get. So what is the point to that? what can I do once I get inside all these buildings?? Yesterday I wanted to try doing something I had done in some buildings in SA, take a motorbike to the roof and drive off it, just for the hell of it. I tried the hotel, couldn't get anywhere, I got the bike through the main door but no further. So I went to the building you snipe the construction site from, tried getting the bike on to the lift that goes up the side of the building, after a struggle I got it on, and went to the top, but once there I found Nico could get on the bike any more, like it was somehow stuck on the lift and he couldn't get to a position to get on it. So again I got nowhere, I tried several more times to try and get the bike in a better position but it never worked.

 

In SA I did that many times from the tallest building in LS, it has a heli pad on top and sure most of you know the building I speak of, did some base jumps off it too. Basically so far I feel there is a lot of wasted space/useless space in LC, there is no country, but there certainly are a lot of useless buildings. At least with the country I could drive something through it. There were official races through it, and ones I made up for myself.

 

My point is I dont feel countryside or buildings make any difference to how well used the space is, is LC really any better? so far I dont think it is cause there is no real point to all those buildings I cant do anything in. Sure I can go in many small buildings and work my way up stairs, but such small buildings it defeats the purpose of what I wanted to do. The only real benefit I see in enterable buildings is it will help in multiplayer for hiding/sniping, but in singleplayer they are just wasted, nothing to really do in any of them. If you think sniping from most of these would be good, I disagree, there is no real cover and once you killed a few people and stars you'd be forced to leave, specially once the heli arrives, cause there is nowhere to hide on the roof, you get better cover down an alleyway.

 

**Edit - I feel restricted by GTA4 and once the story is over I had plenty of things I could do in SA, nothing official but there was so much space I could just do what ever crazy sh*t popped in to my head, I dont see that in GTA4 and apart from multiplay I see nothing to keep this game going once the story and side missions are over.

 

Any how I am sure many will disagree but I just dont see much difference between wasted buildings or country. Only way to fix it is to put more in to these areas, be in a building or an open desert. mountain, back of beyond or anywhere else.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Engioc

[SHARKEM]

your post brings back fond memoirs of the checkpoint trials where you would jump a motorbike from roof to roof and the dirtbike races and chopper trials.

gta seems to be getting a lot less AUTO .

the future looks bleak

[Aureus1]

your post brings back fond memoirs of the checkpoint trials where you would jump a motorbike from roof to roof and the dirtbike races and chopper trials.

gta seems to be getting a lot less AUTO .

the future looks bleak

Given the games current trend the last installment of the series will be placed in a mall and shoplifting will be the only activity.

 

[Engioc]

I dont know about that, I think it will get better in the next installment, GTA4 is the first in a line of GTA4s, just like they did with GTA3.

 

You can of course go in to many shops and stuff, but again there is nothing to do once you get inside, they're just boring old shops. Not sure why they didn't keep using the idea from VC and allow you to pull out a weapon and holdup the shop for some cash. With so many more shops it would of made visiting some of them more worth while, robbing banks would net you more money than a small corner store, basically the bigger the shop the more you can get from robbing them, but the more heat you'll get from doing it.

 

I know in GTA4 and in SA you did rob banks on a mission, but after that you couldn't do it again. VC had a few shops you could rob, hope in the next GTA they bring this idea back and expand on it. Maybe also use the idea from VCS and let you own businesses around town, take them over from rival groups and get more cash that way, then you business could also be the target of robbery from other gangs.

 

Hopefully R* will start taking a look at some of the good ideas they had in previous GTAs even including the smaller versions like LCS and VCS. Combine all the best features in to the next GTA. Anyway I still got my fingers crossed that GTA4 will be expanded on so its LC +?? + ??. I'm betting on VC since it gets mentioned a few times in GTA4 and Roman also suggests going there.

[affley]

gta 4 is the same as VC, its too flat, i know its set in NY and NY dosent really have any hills or mountains

 

SA had alot of variation

[Jvcxpc-30]

The hotel south of middle park, once the mission is over the lift/elevator no longer works and I see no way of going to upper levels, you can enter the lobby but that's as far as you ever get.

You can use a helecopter to get to the penthouse.

[IJM]

gta 4 is the same as VC, its too flat, i know its set in NY and NY dosent really have any hills or mountains

 

SA had alot of variation

In SA, the landscape and roads are very cleverly designed to make the playing area seem much larger than it actually is. They also made the vehicles slower than they would be in "real life" so you couldn't travel across the map too quickly.

 

GTA:IV is better in this respect. They don't need to employ any landscape "tricks" and vehicle performance is more "normal".

 

If Rockstar wanted a challenge, it would be to actually make a playing area that is much larger. Imagine the state of San Andreas being over 250 times larger area than GTA:SA with the three principle cities each covering an area the size of the new Liberty City. You'd have big intense cities and still have a vast countryside and desert to explore without the need for any tricks to make the place seem larger than it is. Of course, achieving that would be a huge technical feat, especially on the consoles.

[Engioc]

 

The hotel south of middle park, once the mission is over the lift/elevator no longer works and I see no way of going to upper levels, you can enter the lobby but that's as far as you ever get.

You can use a helecopter to get to the penthouse.

yeah but I cant get a NRG 900 in a heli now can I. There were a few places in SA where I could get a vehicle on a roof top. I dont see anyway to do this in GTA4.

 

I think VC and VCS show what I mean....In VC the beach area was wasted space, I don't recall there being a single mission to go there (Ocean Beach) particularly the northern section behind all the buildings. In VCS they changed that and there were side missions involving the beach.

 

Basically its not the space itself that's useless, it just comes down to the developers putting something there that makes you want to go there, gives you a reason to keep going there, keeps being fun. It wouldn't really matter if its a load of empty buildings, a beach, desert, mountain, or anything else you care to name. A beach is boring with nothing to do and so are all the GTA4 buildings with nothing to do inside them. Where is there a difference? Its all space with nothing in it.

 

Might as well be the boring buildings of the Driver series, I couldn't go inside them but who cares when there is nothing to do inside them anyway.

 

**EDIT

Start from the tallest building in SA LS, you'd be surprised how far you can go just traveling by roof top. I did this a lot, traveling all over the city leaping from one roof top to another (sometimes running, sometimes on motorbike). Other thing I liked doing was getting to a roof top with no fencing or anything to prevent you going over the edge, then speed around on the roof braking and sliding just before its about to go over the edge, see how long I can last before making a fatal mistake, unless you've got a parachute and get it out quick enough.

Edited January 10, 2009 by Engioc

[The Quench]

I enjoyed San Andreas' open space. Always kept me wondering and discovering. As for IV, I also feel as restricted and wish it had the same "exploration" as SA.

[huxBlunt]

 

your post brings back fond memoirs of the checkpoint trials where you would jump a motorbike from roof to roof and the dirtbike races and chopper trials.

gta seems to be getting a lot less AUTO .

the future looks bleak

 

aint that the truth..

 

Driving around in the country side waqs one of my favourite parts of san andreas. I spent most of my time out there. The police chases were just more interesting, and it was nice to just cruise about in the open.

Edited January 10, 2009 by huxBlunt

[NinjaWJ]

I didn't think the desert or the countryside was really wasted space. sure there wasn't much to do but the feeling of driving to another city through the landscape was an amazing feeling. It feels like your actually traveling a good distance to get to another place. I loved driving through the desert during the night and eventually seeing the glitz and glamor of las venturas

[Slamman]

I've mentioned the on-going problem since I joined up, with Vice City out, and even GTA3, there are areas so detailed and nicely rendered yet rather unusable, where you hardly venture. Either Sam Houser or Aaron Garbut made statements in the press that they would address this, but so far, the maps get bigger, or taller as Sam has said with GTA4 in mind, and sure, it's takes more effort to also pull that off, but the promise of all these open buildings and spaces on the map that could be utilized more still remains an issue.

 

Hope they can really change that aspect of GTA, to be quite honest.

[Engioc]

Yeah its been a problem in all GTAs in my opinion. I remember before GTA4, when people were talking about what they would like or dislike to see in GTA4 and I remember there was a lot of discussion about getting rid of the country areas we had in SA, people pointing out these were a wasted space and a hassle for some to venture through getting to another city. I liked the countryside and to be honest I know which kind of wasted space I prefer, not buildings with nothing, but there really is nothing I can do with most of these. I'd rather not see any wasted space but if there is some I prefer what I had in SA, there might not of been any official story/mission or anything else to do out there at times, certainly past 100% but there were still races you could do again, and there was plenty of stuff to make up by yourself, I went on exploring SA long after 100%. I have doubts I will do that with GTA4 simply because there isn't anywhere to go. The few things I've tried so far in GTA4 have been unsuccessful such as trying to get a bike to the roof of a larger building, trying to get a bike on to the track of the screamer for a spin.

 

Multiplay will keep GTA4 going, but SA kept me coming back for more without multiplay.

 

I'm not bagging GTA4, I loved it, city is great, cars/bikes etc are great, there is a lot to like, but there are also still many reasons to continue playing SA. I look forward to the next GTA or DLC that might address the wasted space issue.

Edited January 10, 2009 by Engioc

[SaintJimmy]

Just thought i'd bring a bit of wisdom to this forum.

 

 

Let's think back to III. GTAIII, the start of a new series of GTA's.

Stripped down to it's bare minimum.

In the future years to come, released were Vice City and San Andreas.

They weren't specific 'sequels' as such, but more or less 'expansions'.

 

If you take a look at GTAIV, you will see it bears much of a resemblance to where the 3D GTA's started.

 

The name, the fact that it is a new canon; it is the start of a new SERIES of gta's.

 

Therefore it has PURPOSELY been stripped down to it's bare minimum. Otherwise, it would be sh*t marketing to give you everything you've already got.

 

GTA IV will definitely have expansions so to speak, and you will be given more features with the future titles.

 

Doesn't anyone understand? If you do then hopefully your outlook will change and you will understand why IV is 'missing' features.

[affley]

best parts of gta: san andreas

 

by A

 

 

[kbelkus]

 

Just thought i'd bring a bit of wisdom to this forum.

 

 

Let's think back to III. GTAIII, the start of a new series of GTA's.

Stripped down to it's bare minimum.

In the future years to come, released were Vice City and San Andreas.

They weren't specific 'sequels' as such, but more or less 'expansions'.

 

If you take a look at GTAIV, you will see it bears much of a resemblance to where the 3D GTA's started.

 

The name, the fact that it is a new canon; it is the start of a new SERIES of gta's.

 

Therefore it has PURPOSELY been stripped down to it's bare minimum. Otherwise, it would be sh*t marketing to give you everything you've already got.

 

GTA IV will definitely have expansions so to speak, and you will be given more features with the future titles.

 

Doesn't anyone understand? If you do then hopefully your outlook will change and you will understand why IV is 'missing' features.

 

 

You're exactly right, I can't count the number of people I've explained this too. Business is about repeat business. To get customers to keep coming back you have to offer them more. IV has offered a lot of things SA didn't. We'll see in future installments of the IV franchise more 'features'.

 

Then, assuming Rockstar get to a stage where they can make a fifth series, everyone will be complaining that: that first game is crap compared to the last one in the IV series. It's just marketing guys.

[Straubinger82]

Ok, even I think that´s clear.

But some things are really hard to understand... just to name some..

 

Why I cannot get a coffee in these Star Cafes? It is way annoying just being there... to produce N.

Why I cannot drink something at the Strip Clubs´ Bars? Erm... anyway I cannot have a drink somewhere expect softdrinks!

Why I cannot buy some cigarettes in these small wooden huts where you can buy drinks on the street? Cmon I want Cigarettes in GTA!

 

Would like to get my clothes clean (Hell befor that they have to get real dirty!) in the dry-cleaner-shops, submit my cash onto my bank account by using the ATMs and want to have a meal at the diners or fastfood restaurants by sitting on a chair! *

Imagine you get a full tablet of a f*ckin HappyMeal just right from the counter.. you´re turning, looking for a free table to have your meal at. BAMM. Some fool runs into you.. and all for nothing. (Euphoria)

 

When I don´t have so much options to spend my money for, hm... lets getting me payd for my safehouses.

IMO it would be nice to pay my bills for every ingame month... and when I do not have enough money I am forced to live in an old and messed-up hotel or motel.

THAN I would have a reason for a bank account, and one more reasen for all that ATMs. I know I can robb the clients after withdrawing money.. and that would be also more cool if I have to pay for my f*cked-up appartment in that already issued hotel or motel in that I have to pay daywise.

 

Just some ideas without bilding up the whole game from point zero....

 

And the very most ever uber missing feature is the need of GAS!!!

Wouldn´t it be cool to need to have a look at your gas-O-meter?

These nice Gas-Stations would make way more sense... and you get another moneyhole again.

Edited January 11, 2009 by Straubinger82

[Magic_Al]

GTA will always be frustrating because the enterable buildings and interactive features tease you into wishing the entire map was interactive, with no fake windows or doors anywhere. If they really tried build it like that the game would never come out!

 

San Andreas is a brilliant map. They were genius about line of sight. Totally different landscapes are side by side but hidden from each other so the area you're in looks like it continues in all directions, and there are convincing transitions when you go from one area to another. You can be in a country town and feel far from a city that's really past the next hill. In a way the planes spoil it because they make it like hopping across a miniature golf course.

[SaintJimmy]

Ok, even I think that´s clear.

But some things are really hard to understand... just to name some..

 

Why I cannot get a coffee in these Star Cafes? It is way annoying just being there... to produce N.

Why I cannot drink something at the Strip Clubs´ Bars? Erm... anyway I cannot have a drink somewhere expect softdrinks!

Why I cannot buy some cigarettes in these small wooden huts where you can buy drinks on the street? Cmon I want Cigarettes in GTA!

 

Would like to get my clothes clean (Hell befor that they have to get real dirty!) in the dry-cleaner-shops, submit my cash onto my bank account by using the ATMs and want to have a meal at the diners or fastfood restaurants by sitting on a chair! *

Imagine you get a full tablet of a f*ckin HappyMeal just right from the counter.. you´re turning, looking for a free table to have your meal at. BAMM. Some fool runs into you.. and all for nothing. (Euphoria)

 

When I don´t have so much options to spend my money for, hm... lets getting me payd for my safehouses.

IMO it would be nice to pay my bills for every ingame month... and when I do not have enough money I am forced to live in an old and messed-up hotel or motel.

THAN I would have a reason for a bank account, and one more reasen for all that ATMs. I know I can robb the clients after withdrawing money.. and that would be also more cool if I have to pay for my f*cked-up appartment in that already issued hotel or motel in that I have to pay daywise.

 

Just some ideas without bilding up the whole game from point zero....

 

And the very most ever uber missing feature is the need of GAS!!!

Wouldn´t it be cool to need to have a look at your gas-O-meter?

These nice Gas-Stations would make way more sense... and you get another moneyhole again.

Because it's GTA.

It's not The Sims. Those features would be neat but then there'd just be more things to complain about.

People will argue over anything.

Ever hear of the guy that asked one guy,

'Did you have sex with my wife?'

and the man replied 'no'.

So the guy says 'What, isn't she god enough for you?'

 

So that's the same thing for features such as those. In a GTA they will be useless, but they will most definitely be complained about.

[Engioc]

I dont recall doing any complaining and I do remember saying I enjoyed GTA4 and I understand its the first in a line of games using this 4 engine. I also believe my original post is valid point on all GTAs, including 4. There has always been too much wasted space, many people DID complain about it on this very board when discussing SA and what should be in GTA4 and what shouldn't. I read countless posts on here talking about the fact country areas should be left out because they are wasted space. I am simply trying to point out that it has NOTHING at all to do with it being country and everything to do with developers not adding enough content to these areas. Entering a building with nothing to do is no different than a load of countryside with nothing to do.

 

Enterable buildings has made little to no difference to the GTA experience, what did we gain by this? how are all these buildings useful? why are they more useful than the desert, mountain, or other country locations from SA? For those who say get rid of the country I say you've gained nothing by having a city only, there is STILL plenty of wasted space where there is NOTHING for you to do.

 

As for GTA4 being a good game I thought I'd already made it clear I loved a lot of things about it but I'm not going to say its the best GTA ever, its just another good game from R*. Oh and personally I couldn't care less what R* T2 do for marketing of anything of that stuff, I look at it as a gamer, nothing else.

[RATEDR307]

Speaking of wasted space, did anyone here bring up the airport? Seriously, what the hell is the point of the airport in GTA IV? There is not one mission that involves the airport, (except maybe if you count the mission where you steal the helicopter for U.L Paper). And even if I wanted to go there I would get a 4 star wanted level rating . If Rockstar wasn't going to put airplanes in the game but still put an airport, they should have still made something to do at the airport, such as add an interior, a side mission, or put really cool stunt jumps.

[spaceeinstein]

There had been no other GTAs other than SA that has a countryside. In my opinion, SA was a bad direction to take for a GTA game. All other GTAs had been centered around a city theme and should be kept that way. I prefer cityscape over landscape.

 

GTA4 has so much already for a game that was not built on top of an established foundation. The DLCs will come and should be making use of the spaces you might not be using right now.

Edited January 11, 2009 by spaceeinstein

[Jeff Nyman]

You're exactly right, I can't count the number of people I've explained this too. Business is about repeat business. To get customers to keep coming back you have to offer them more.

 

Except that, by your logic, that means GTA4 should be offering more -- to keep those customers coming back. But most here seem to agree that GTA4 offers less, at least when compared to GTA:SA. In fact, business sense is not just about offering more -- it's about the perception of not offering less. That's the problem people are having with GTA4 from what I can see: they feel that it's offering less of what they have come to expect based on what they enjoy about the "GTA experience." So when you say:

 

 

IV has offered a lot of things SA didn't.

 

That may be. However, that may also be totally irrelevant to people who

 

(1) Don't like the things being offered.

(2) Don't feel the things offered add all that much to the experience.

(3) Don't equate "offering different things" with "offering more things".

 

I agree with people that GTA4 probably is, in some ways, starting down a different technological path and, as such, it offered less in the way of features from previous games to focus on providing a good experience with a different (perhaps limited) set of features. That being said, I'm not convinced this was necessarily a future-directed business strategy so much as it was that Rockstar was looking at a variety of comments from a variety of players regarding what they did and did not like about past games and trying to incorporate player feedback with their own vision of where they wanted the game series to go.

 

 

[ThatsCool]

It would be much better if GTA IV has the San Andreas map instead liberty city

A new San Andreas with new graphics etc. would be much better

Vice City doesnt interest me

[QwertyAAA]

You're exactly right, I can't count the number of people I've explained this too. Business is about repeat business. To get customers to keep coming back you have to offer them more.

 

Except that, by your logic, that means GTA4 should be offering more -- to keep those customers coming back. But most here seem to agree that GTA4 offers less, at least when compared to GTA:SA. In fact, business sense is not just about offering more -- it's about the perception of not offering less. That's the problem people are having with GTA4 from what I can see: they feel that it's offering less of what they have come to expect based on what they enjoy about the "GTA experience." So when you say:

 

 

IV has offered a lot of things SA didn't.

 

That may be. However, that may also be totally irrelevant to people who

 

(1) Don't like the things being offered.

(2) Don't feel the things offered add all that much to the experience.

(3) Don't equate "offering different things" with "offering more things".

 

I agree with people that GTA4 probably is, in some ways, starting down a different technological path and, as such, it offered less in the way of features from previous games to focus on providing a good experience with a different (perhaps limited) set of features. That being said, I'm not convinced this was necessarily a future-directed business strategy so much as it was that Rockstar was looking at a variety of comments from a variety of players regarding what they did and did not like about past games and trying to incorporate player feedback with their own vision of where they wanted the game series to go.

However, everybody has their tastes. You have to bear with it - the people who say that SA is the perfect GTA are a minority of fans.

[Jeff Nyman]

However, everybody has their tastes. You have to bear with it - the people who say that SA is the perfect GTA are a minority of fans.

Certainly everyone has their own tastes. I definitely agree and that was my point in that Rockstar has to average out those tastes, find out what parts of the GTA experiences were the most liked, most disliked, etc. and then include those they felt were warranted, exclude those they felt were not, and decide where and when to "tweak" the experience, either with updating old features or introducing new features. So if "ambulance missions" were disliked by enough of the vocal majority (and that's a key qualifier there!), then those would probably be gone. If enough people felt that the expansiveness of the world in GTA:SA was a detriment, that expansiveness probably would have been curtailed a bit.

 

As far as whether GTA:SA is considered "the perfect GTA" by a "minority" is not something I can really speak to. I don't have data one way or the other. It would also depend on whether or not "the perfect GTA" could be defined. I could see arguments being made for which was the most liked (something that could be determined by poll), or which was felt to have the most features, or best story or whatever else. A determinant of "perfect" would be hard to factor for. "Perfection" is often something that is decided well after the fact anyway, when there are later entries in a series to compare to. At best, "perfect" is a moving target and a wholly subjective one and thus not something I'd hang too much of my hat on.

[QwertyAAA]

If they will listen only to the vocal majority, the GTA fans are screwed. Vocal majority basically equals a million of screaming /b/tards.

[Jeff Nyman]

 

If they will listen only to the vocal majority, the GTA fans are screwed. Vocal majority basically equals a million of screaming /b/tards.

Yeah, it can be a problem -- if the vocal majority is non-representative of the majority of overall game players. Which can certainly be the case.

 

What also becomes a factor is the percentage of that majority that are capable of avoiding vitriolic when they voice their opinion. When you factor that little wrinkle in (particularly if these forums are anything to go by), the signal-to-noise ratio gets a little problematic.

 

My personal opinion is that "San Andreas" represented the culmination of findings based on numerous user experiences with "GTA3" and "Vice City." So, for that reason alone, I can see why "San Andreas" may be considered to have achieved a great deal, even though it perhaps had elements some people didn't like. That's where I agree that GTA4 could sort of be the equivalent of GTA3 in terms of starting on a new technological footing and expanding upon that.

 

So perhaps two more GTA's from now, we'll have the equivalent of what some consider the "San Andreas experience."

 

I'm not sure if my way of looking at it is really any help to those who are dissatisfied with GTA4, though.

[Engioc]

 

You're exactly right, I can't count the number of people I've explained this too. Business is about repeat business. To get customers to keep coming back you have to offer them more.

 

Except that, by your logic, that means GTA4 should be offering more -- to keep those customers coming back. But most here seem to agree that GTA4 offers less, at least when compared to GTA:SA. In fact, business sense is not just about offering more -- it's about the perception of not offering less. That's the problem people are having with GTA4 from what I can see: they feel that it's offering less of what they have come to expect based on what they enjoy about the "GTA experience." So when you say:

 

 

IV has offered a lot of things SA didn't.

 

That may be. However, that may also be totally irrelevant to people who

 

(1) Don't like the things being offered.

(2) Don't feel the things offered add all that much to the experience.

(3) Don't equate "offering different things" with "offering more things".

 

I agree with people that GTA4 probably is, in some ways, starting down a different technological path and, as such, it offered less in the way of features from previous games to focus on providing a good experience with a different (perhaps limited) set of features. That being said, I'm not convinced this was necessarily a future-directed business strategy so much as it was that Rockstar was looking at a variety of comments from a variety of players regarding what they did and did not like about past games and trying to incorporate player feedback with their own vision of where they wanted the game series to go.

However, everybody has their tastes. You have to bear with it - the people who say that SA is the perfect GTA are a minority of fans.

I never said GTA SA was perfect, far from it, I believe there has never been a game I could say was perfect, every game has room for improvements. Partly my point is I don't believe GTA4 is any better than GTASA, I seen a few posts on here saying its the greatest GTA ever, I disagree (not expecting everyone to agree with my point of view either). GTA4 does have a lot to offer, but I dont feel it offers enough for me to consider it to be a truly great game, its just one more good game from R*. I do believe GTA SA comes the closest I have seen to being really great, why, well let me explain:

 

 

As far as whether GTA:SA is considered "the perfect GTA" by a "minority"

 

I'd like to see you backup that statement with some proof we are the minority. All your doing here is trying to say your argument has more weight than mine because you believe everyone else agrees with you, I see nothing that proves this and I've see enough posts on here and other boards which would suggest I am not a small minority. Seems to me there are just as many people who miss the country from SA as much as you are glad its gone.

 

For quite a while now we've seen many of these style of games, not all exactly the same but close to it.

 

 

There had been no other GTAs other than SA that has a countryside. In my opinion, SA was a bad direction to take for a GTA game. All other GTAs had been centered around a city theme and should be kept that way. I prefer cityscape over landscape.

 

Your right, no other GTA ever offered it but why does that mean after doing it just once it should be dropped??

 

Driver 1, 2, 3, etc offered A city

 

Mafia offers A city

 

GTA 1, 1.2, 2, GTA3 LC, GTA3 VC, GTA3 LCS, and GTA3 VCS all offered A city

 

That is exactly where all of them fall short (I enjoyed every one of them, all good games), I believe why its time for someone to do something different. I'm getting sick of this idea of being trapped in a city with nowhere else I can go. Its also why when I got GTASA it was so great, for the first time ever someone had the guts to provide more than just the one city, I no longer felt trapped. To me this world seemed far more realistic and believable than any other game in the genre before because it had all the features of a real world. I think the whole city thing is getting a little overdone now and its time developers offered something new, GTA4 doesn't, it offers the same experience I've had many other times now.

 

Do you go out and buy every single RTS game which comes out??? I dont because not many of them really move the genre forward, they mostly provide the same experience I saw with warcraft 1. They all still use the same ideas from way back then, so why would I bother buying them all. I have a few but only because they offered something a little different. Same with FPS games, I own a couple of them but I didn't bother with most of them cause everyone offered the same thing. Same goes for GTA and this genre, not sure how many of these games I can take before it starts to get kind of boring. How many games do I want where I run around in 1 city, doing very similar things to all the previous ones, where is the thing which makes it a new experience and moves the genre forward in some significant way. Saints Row 2 I am sure will include new graphics, new sound, new physics, but its just one city again. There is nothing really new about the gameplay. Just the stock standard improvements we get in every game.

 

GTA4 might offer new graphics, sound, and realism in terms of driving, but to me that happens in every new game, I would of expected nothing less. What does GTA4 offer that is truly different? We've seen dating before, we had pool before. Ok Darts is new, bowling, but these aren't things that keep you coming back to GTA. Do we have a large world to explore, well not really, we have one city most of which is a load of buildings I can enter and do nothing in, also many I cant enter. I ask you to tell me, what is so great about GTA4 that makes it the best ever?? I just dont see anything to make me feel that way about it, I enjoyed it, its another fun game, but no way is it the best, nor am I saying its the worst. It simply provides the same experience as every other GTA except one, SA.

 

Also this idea that this is just all part of the marketing plan, well who cares for a start. I dont really think it is anyway. If we look at this by going back to GTA3 as suggested then you mean we'll get GTA4 VC or something like that, well thats all well and good but does nothing to fix the lack of things to do in GTA4 LC.

 

GTA3 LC lacked much of what we saw later on, one of the reasons we were told we got LC again was because the developers felt they hadn't really captured NYC as well as the later GTAs did with the cities they were modeled on. Isn't that kind of normal though? As technology improves the experience they can offer will always get better, this kind of logic would mean cause they can now do VC better we'll get that served up again too. Better yet when we get to GTA5 lets do another LC cause by then we can do it even better. I dont care how much better they can do ONE city. On top of that GTA3 VC did nothing to fix the lack of features in GTA3 LC, and bringing out GTA4 VC will do nothing to fix the lack of things to do in GTA4 LC. I'm sure your now going to point at DLC, well sorry not all of us are necessarily getting this DLC, I'm a PC gamer and I wont be rushing out to get a PS3 or Xbox any time soon, so as far as I am aware GTA4 LC is not going to change for me. Now I do believe its quite possible PC's will eventually get this DLC but I'm not looking at that yet, I'm simply judging on what GTA4 LC is right now, cause thats all I can judge it on, I cant comment on DLC I haven't seen yet and maybe wont ever see. Plus for those getting this DLC you still have no idea what it will really add, its not going to suddenly open up all those buildings though, its likely it'll just be some more missions which is fine but there will still be plenty of wasted space (Buildings that are wasted space) because once the missions are done it'll be back to how it is right now. You'll go in some different buildings for the mission, but after, those lifts etc wont work any more.

 

LC, VC, and cities used in most other games in this genre are all so flat too. There are some small hills but nothing like the elevation and landscape changes/differences we saw in SA.

 

I just want to state again, I dont really have anything against GTA4, I'm not complaining about it, just doing what I do at the end of every game which is take a good look and talk about the pros and cons of the game cause GTA4 like every other game could of been better. Also just stating that much of what was complained about with GTASA has not really been fixed, useless countryside has been replaced by useless buildings, and for that reason I cannot honestly agree with this idea that GTA4 is the greatest ever. Please explain to me what it is which warrants calling it the greatest? Please dont point to graphics, sound, physics, these are not the only things which make a game great, I can find these things in many games. Content more than anything else is what makes a game great, graphics etc dont count as a reason to state GTA4 is the greatest.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Engioc

[Engioc]

 

Ok, even I think that´s clear.

But some things are really hard to understand...  just to name some..

 

Why I cannot get a coffee in these Star Cafes? It is way annoying just being there... to produce N.

Why I cannot drink something at the Strip Clubs´ Bars? Erm... anyway I cannot have a drink somewhere expect softdrinks!

Why I cannot buy some cigarettes in these small wooden huts where you can buy drinks on the street? Cmon I want Cigarettes in GTA!

 

Would like to get my clothes clean (Hell befor that they have to get real dirty!) in the dry-cleaner-shops, submit my cash onto my bank account by using the ATMs and want to have a meal at the diners or fastfood restaurants by sitting on a chair! *

Imagine you get a full tablet of a f*ckin HappyMeal just right from the counter.. you´re turning, looking for a free table to have your meal at. BAMM. Some fool runs into you.. and all for nothing. (Euphoria)

 

When I don´t have so much options to spend my money for, hm...  lets getting me payd for my safehouses.

IMO it would be nice to pay my bills for every ingame month...  and when I do not have enough money I am forced to live in an old and messed-up hotel or motel.

THAN I would have a reason for a bank account, and one more reasen for all that ATMs. I know I can robb the clients after withdrawing money.. and that would be also more cool if I have to pay for my f*cked-up appartment in that already issued hotel or motel in that I have to pay daywise.

 

Just some ideas without bilding up the whole game from point zero....

 

And the very most ever uber missing feature is the need of GAS!!!

Wouldn´t it be cool to need to have a look at your gas-O-meter?

These nice Gas-Stations would make way more sense... and you get another moneyhole again.

Because it's GTA.

It's not The Sims. Those features would be neat but then there'd just be more things to complain about.

People will argue over anything.

Ever hear of the guy that asked one guy,

'Did you have sex with my wife?'

and the man replied 'no'.

So the guy says 'What, isn't she god enough for you?'

 

So that's the same thing for features such as those. In a GTA they will be useless, but they will most definitely be complained about.

Talking of The Sims I think thats what GTA4 offers, dating, friends, and places to take these dates and friends, once the missions are done this is all that is left, annoying phone calls from people constantly wanting you to take them out. GTA4 is the closest one to the Sims yet. So if you dislike the Sims I cant see why you believe GTA4 is so great.

 

Even worse is unlike GTASA I cant even hurt these people cause the minute I try they magically disappear back to their home before I kill them. Very realistic effect that one.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Engioc