The next GTA

[Braindawg]

I'd like it to be diffirent, The graphics dont matter.

Interesting and long. Like GTA: SA, that was the best PC GTA game of all times

[Bates_GTA]

Although we need good graphics because expectations gonna be majorly high. It's all about the Adiction & Fun, i still dont class IV in the same catagory as III & SA. They were just awesome in everyway. I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but i miss the good old III days

[JWO]

"Graphics don't make the game, addictive gameplay does"

 

~Me

[TECHN9CiAN]

I agree, graphics should be the last "priority" for R*.

GTA: SA was very addictive, having all those activities, and I loved the diversity in the missions. As much as I love the whole "gangsta" thing, a game with nothing but gang related missions would end up going flat (like GTA IV).

The next GTA better focus more on diverse gameplay...

[SuckSess]

I thought the Graphics on IV we're actually decent.

SA storyline just demolishes the IV story though, I'd like to see the gang wars come back into the next story and for it to play a huge part, With semi-missions where you have to boost your gang members attributes in gang wars and stuff on story mode.

I'd also like the story to be longer then IV, I can't say with more action-packed missions because IV gave more then a fair share of exciting missions but I'd enjoy playing a GTA with those features.

[BallinLikeJordan]

I agree to the graphics doesn't make the game addictive gameplay does.

[Girish]

Graphics are an important aspect of any game, but they're certainly not the ones that give the game a replay value. Gameplay features are more important; something that would make me want to play the game all over again rather than finishing it once and putting it back on the shelf or just fooling around after 100% because the storyline is too boring to do the missions over again.

 

Even though I suck at flying and can never do some missions without help in San Andreas, it still made me want to play the game over and over again. I can't say the same about IV though. The only replay value IV has is because of the multiple directions that the story can go in based on your in-game decisions. Then too, I have made saves at those certain points in the game not wanting to start the story over again. Now, the gameplay value of SA and graphics of IV would make for an awesome game. The graphics in IV certainly enthral me and keeps me entertained for some time, but without much to do gameplay wise, it does start to get boring after a while.

[mkey82]

Incredible, I agree with everything stated in this thread.

 

Let's just hope they were to involved with the engine this time around and that for the sequel they'll find proper story writers and voice actors and create a truly involving experience.

 

Up to now, GTA IV is the least played 3D GTA for me.

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

Yeah i think the gameplay is the most important aspect of any game. I do appreciate the graphics in IV though, and it is nice to have a pretty game to look at. They are no substitute for a good game though. I would also like to see gameplay somewhat diversified, and to see countryside brought back

[Rhoda]

Of course it's going to be gameplay over graphics, but graphics are always going to be as good as they can deliver; Rockstar are hardly going to make money with a game based on the Tetris engine. The content of the game is parallel with the graphics, and there are consoles/PCs that can now deliver amazing visuals. As previously said, graphics are very important, but it's the gameplay, feel and content that are going to keep bringing customers in, giving gamers more of an incentive to play.

[Bla_Bla_Bla]

Id rather crappier graphics but more gameplay

 

like GTA SA... Perfect

[Omnia sunt Communia]

 

1. Gameplay

Storyline

Graphics

In that order.

[flicko]

I was initially going to vote for Grammar, grammar, grammar, before the poll options let me down!

 

I don't really think more can be said on the subject. I for one love games with great graphics, I also love games with pretty dire graphics. The gameplay factor definitely overrules, by a substantial margin. Quite often I boot up the old GTA titles, simply because I enjoy them so much. The graphics matter not.

[Ultraussie]

 

don't care, if I can run it, it's fine

 

 

 

And the only good GTA game I can run besides SA on my comp (GTAIV doesnt exist for PC, its xbox360 emulated) is VC.

SA is too much to download. 3GB? Im outta here!

[Braindawg]

3BG?! Actually i think it's somethingl ike 4.6GB... and if your PC can't hold an extra 4.6GB for this game go play Half-Life, it's awesome.

[Gezim]

I just started playing through GTA IV again and actually realized how amazing it is for them to have made the graphics so damn good for a game like GTA. Along with superb gameplay and an interesting storyline to go with it, you've got a winner. I also went slow on it, driving and walking through some alleyways only to see how much detail they put in the game.

 

As long as the next title manages to pull this off or better, I'm happy.

[ldee]

Graphics ruined the potential of GTA IV.

 

Of course the skylines and the lighting effects during the day and night, reflections, textures, water effects, explosions, all that was fantastic.

 

But it got old in a week. I got bored of San Andreas' content in 2 months, that had the longest lasting appeal of any game ever. San Andreas > IV. It was more entertaining looking around the countryside and desert of SA than looking at the "details of GTA IV" which was what, trash coming out of dumpsters when I knock them over, water reflections, empty interiors? Really boring stuff, R*.

 

Expand from San Andreas, not GTA III, and you get a truly epic game.

 

Don't get involved in a graphic and graphic effects (physics and euphoria, though they were great) battle.

[Omnia sunt Communia]

 

But it got old in a week.

 

Really? Because I bought GTA IV on release date and I still haven't grown tired of it. The city is so fun to explore, every day I'm finding new parts of the city I hadn't found up until then. I think it has massive replayability, it's just a different kind of replayability to San Andreas.

 

But if that's what you're into, then no problem. Different strokes.

 

 

San Andreas > IV. It was more entertaining looking around the countryside and desert of SA than looking at the "details of GTA IV" which was what, trash coming out of dumpsters when I knock them over, water reflections, empty interiors? Really boring stuff, R*.

 

Rockstar have gone on record as saying that they wanted the activities in GTA IV to be more befitting of an illegal immigrant. This may have meant less features, sure, but you've also got to take into consideration the fact that this is a brand new game on a new console and new engine.

 

GTA IV is, essentially, the GTA III of this generation. Rockstar are still working out the tweaks, coding the gameplay and whatnot. Just look at all the additional features TLAD are giving us! That alone should be a sign of what they can do in a short space of time.

 

[GTAblaster]

You must have a good balance of addiction and graphics, addiction alone doesn't work for me neither does graphics (alone).

[Omnia sunt Communia]

The gameplay does it for me as well, you know. I spend most of my time cruising in a bike or taking advantage of the physics. Police shoot outs are fun too.

[93Sean93]

Yeah, i also have yet to grow tired of IV. And i'm surprised at how many people "got bored" of IV because it was "Too realistic" and what-not.

 

Anyways, i don't really have an answer. III, Vice City, SA we're all great and they didn't have the best graphics. I had great memories with em' too.

[ldee]

But it got old in a week.

 

Really? Because I bought GTA IV on release date and I still haven't grown tired of it. The city is so fun to explore, every day I'm finding new parts of the city I hadn't found up until then. I think it has massive replayability, it's just a different kind of replayability to San Andreas.

 

But if that's what you're into, then no problem. Different strokes.

 

 

San Andreas > IV. It was more entertaining looking around the countryside and desert of SA than looking at the "details of GTA IV" which was what, trash coming out of dumpsters when I knock them over, water reflections, empty interiors? Really boring stuff, R*.

 

Rockstar have gone on record as saying that they wanted the activities in GTA IV to be more befitting of an illegal immigrant. This may have meant less features, sure, but you've also got to take into consideration the fact that this is a brand new game on a new console and new engine.

 

GTA IV is, essentially, the GTA III of this generation. Rockstar are still working out the tweaks, coding the gameplay and whatnot. Just look at all the additional features TLAD are giving us! That alone should be a sign of what they can do in a short space of time.

Yes it makes sense and R* have done excellent work based on their goals and intentions. By choosing to develop a city based on New York they're really limited from the freedom features we would have in say, a GTA game based on an entire state.

 

While the better the graphics, the better, I think the general population of GTA fans, judging by their many posts here, find that diverse gameplay is much more appealling than graphical details. So if R* are to please most GTA players they really have to think like them.

 

But of course, there is never a real need for them to do that. They decided to try something different, and it worked out pretty well, though not perfectly, but I have no resentments or anything.

 

On the last note, I'm not exactly sure why I didn't have much fun with the many sights of the city, perhaps it's because I play it the game on a pretty low-end PC. Though one of my mates will be getting it on his 360 someday (the idiot's been procrastinating) and I'll check out the difference on his widescreen TV.

[KevinR1990]

Solid gameplay, a good story, and lots of replay value are more important than graphics in my book. GTA IV had beautiful graphics, yes, but what made it spectacular was its enthralling storyline and especially its well-polished gameplay mechanics. The only problem it had was its lack of replay value in single-player, and even that's forgivable, seeing as how this was Rockstar's first entry in the series on this generation of consoles, and how GTA IV had a sweet multiplayer mode that still brings me back.

[Gezim]

The more realistic the game is, the more you can have fun with it.

 

Seriously, SA was by far one of the most unrealistic in the series. You stole a f*cking jet pack from AREA 51 and an ACTUAL jet from the ARMY only by yourself.

 

What I mean by the more realistic the more fun is, in SA lets say, you blew up five cars all at once. It wasn't that exciting because you were used to all the action and explosions. In GTA IV, doing something like that gives you chills.

 

Though I must agree. New York wasn't what I had in mind, only because there really isn't more to it besides buildings and buildings and buildings. But it still was an incredible accomplishment done by Rockstar. They managed to make it very like the real New York. Better than any other game company out there that tried. But it's just been done so many times from so many games. SA had undoubtedly the best overall map and amazing landscapes.

 

 

[Flesh-n-Bone]

Personally I think realism makes the games boring. You can't go on a rampage without cops being alerted. Then if you jump from a roof then your neck or face gets injured too and will add extra damage. Plus SA is more in the realistic side for a GTA game. Sure there was some unrealistic but fun missions. But cops shoot at you when having one star and showing up a gun. Then if civilians crash into cop cars they get busted and so on.

[93Sean93]

Personally I think realism makes the games boring. You can't go on a rampage without cops being alerted. Then if you jump from a roof then your neck or face gets injured too and will add extra damage. Plus SA is more in the realistic side for a GTA game. Sure there was some unrealistic but fun missions. But cops shoot at you when having one star and showing up a gun. Then if civilians crash into cop cars they get busted and so on.

SA was kick ass but the most unrealistic GTA of the III trilogy and pretty much the entire series. Nothing wrong with that, just sayin'.

[Rachinator]

I thought the Graphics on IV we're actually decent.

SA storyline just demolishes the IV story though, I'd like to see the gang wars come back into the next story and for it to play a huge part, With semi-missions where you have to boost your gang members attributes in gang wars and stuff on story mode.

I'd also like the story to be longer then IV, I can't say with more action-packed missions because IV gave more then a fair share of exciting missions but I'd enjoy playing a GTA with those features.

Your crazy man. Niko's story had heart, a purpose and a troubled soul who needed to deal with his lifes issues and move on but never could. And in the end its not a happy ending. CJ's story wasnt even a story just some random stuff that happened. And people better not call me rascist but no more gang style stuff. Its just so crap and bland, working the ranks up the system works way better than being in a gang.

 

[Omnia sunt Communia]

I wish people would stop comparing San Andreas to IV. They're completely different games, on different consoles, using completely different game engines! People think that making a game is a simple process which they can do in their bedroom; they can't!

 

Grand Theft Auto IV is not an extension of San Andreas; a sequel; or even a remake, it's an entirely new game! Rockstar had to build the game from the ground up. Not a single thing is recyled from the GTA III-era. This means everything you see, everything you do, was made in the run up to IV.

 

With San Andreas they already had most of the coding, graphics, gameplay and everything there ready and waiting for them. IV was like a blank canvas, which they had to paint several layers onto in order for the game to work. San Andreas was an already finished painting which Rockstar came back to and added on to.

 

If you're going to compare IV to any game; do it to III. Because that's the only game it can be honestly compared to. Both of them are the first games on their respective consoles. Now tell me, do you think IV is better than III?

[the nameless]

Graphics Schmaphics! It's all about the gameplay. Look at GTA1, the ps1 had the capability to make Driver1 which was visually stunning for a ps1 game, but it didn't need excellent graphics because of how truely dynamic the gameplay was.

 

San an was better for me because of the gameplay - the much weaker graphics and physics did not matter as the depth in gameplay and choice and customization were so diverse. I feel this so much so, and love san an so much, that I'm going out to buy a pre owned ps2 tomorrow for £35 just for san an(I will probably play VC and NFS underground2 also). I know some people will say they liked the story better in IV - that is fine, but most of them will probably still say it's not about the graphics.

 

It's not even about the gangs for me, I can take it or leave it (I detest gang culture and the violence associated with it - I've also never seen Boyz in the hood) I just love taking over the place either with Tommy Vercetti, pretty much on his own, or CJ with his GS famillies. Another thing was the actors - both vc and san an had major big name actors like Ray Liota(VC), Danny Dyer (Well he's big in England) Chris Penn(SA), Sam Jackson(SA). Music was better inIII, (all the Scarface stuff and Rise FM), VC and San too.

 

@Jacky Fiend - story wise, I prefer III. And people are comparing it because they have the same people (OK not 100% the same) making the games, and storywise ALOT of people simply like San An's better. As it is 2 games in the same genre, for the same audience, and by the same people, I'd say it is a fair comparison.

[Algonquin Assassin]

...........

Edited January 27, 2009 by Miamivicecity