The Only Goold GTA Was the Old GTA

[a7knight]

Rockstar must remember its past and revert back to old traditions. They need to remember how revolutionary GTA III was ... and why. You see, that old game for the PS2 (though, I doubt many of you youngsters have played it) was not only (at the time) technologically superior, but socially as well.

 

The sheer wit and humor interlaced throughout the game, in every nook and cranny, was amazing. The atmosphere the game provided (through visuals, music, and characters) was bleak, haunting, and stunning. The arcade-style game play was thoroughly enjoyable and utterly addictive.

 

The plot, as in any GTA game, was repetitive ... but who really cared? That was not the point of the game. Rockstar (a very small company at the time) was concerned only with deeply immersing the player into the amazing world they created for us.

 

GTA III was unique, a diamond in the rough. Unfortunately, as the GTA series progressed, Rockstar seemed to have lost its way ... The only conclusion I can reach is that they are now more interested in money than in innovation.

 

Take a look at GTA IV, if you need proof. GTA IV was shallow ... aesthetically pleasing, yet utterly void of any groundbreaking aspect. It was technologically advanced, yet still inept. Indeed, the latest GTA felt more like a money-grabber, a hollow game, a polished version of the ever-so-sh*tty Saints Row. GTA IV had nowhere near the artistic quality, the fun factor, or the innovation of its predecessors.

 

Rockstar needs to remember its roots. And only when they regain their original approach to video games -- the original approach that led to their initial success -- will we ever again be blessed with that rare diamond in the rough ... the traditional GTA game.

 

This is my only hope for GTA V. If Rockstar followed these recommendations, we as fans, and the gaming world in general, would be far better off.

Edited February 26, 2010 by a7knight

[gtasearcher]

Good point there

 

For me, III looks more classy than any other GTA game, and that's why I once loved it. I really think R* should take their time, but making something BIG.

[BrownBear]

i enjoyed gta 4 but i see what you mean.

 

For me sa did this because that was the first one i played, aside from watching my brother on gta3

[a7knight]

 

I really think R* should take their time, but making something BIG.

Something BIG as in innovative or something BIG as in size? I've yet to be convinced that a large world equals a great game ... After all, I played San Andreas for SO MANY HOURS and I still don't know my way around the place!

 

One thing I love about GTA III (and Vice City, for that matter) is that I know my way around the world perfectly. I am simply never lost. And, for me personally, that makes the game more enjoyable.

 

But, really ... I don't care how large or small the world is. In the end, I am mostly concerned with the restoration of that dark humor and great atmosphere that Rockstar has lost along the way.

[LCstuntman]

IV was the biggest innovation in the series expect for III (obviously, top down to 3D is a huge step), so I have no idea what you're smoking. Just look at the physics system, or the damage system for f*ck's sake. "Utterly void of any groundbreaking aspect"? *facepalm*. This comment seriously makes me wonder if you actually played IV.

 

 

One thing I love about GTA III (and Vice City, for that matter) is that I know my way around the world perfectly. I am simply never lost. And, for me personally, that makes the game more enjoyable.

Well, if you actually played IV, you would learn it too. Jesus, would kind of argument is this? All I'm seeing in this thread is an incredible about of bias. Sure, III was an amazing breakthrough for the GTA series, but so is IV, which is like a re-birth of the series. You seem to openly ignore the new physics engine that basically redesigned the gameplay in the best way you could think of. Not to mention the other advancements like the improved combat, driving, and other misc improvements like the ability to take a taxi. And don't even get me started on multiplayer.

 

Rockstar will never revert back to the now outdated and outdone "traditions", because they actually have common sense, and aren't going to take a huge step jump back like that.

[HeadShotElite]

I say the same thing, San Andreas was the best for me, You could do anything you wanted to do from sea diving, flying a jet pack to mountain biking....The massvie world was really diverse, Also the bad storms was better implemented.

[Typhus]

What really annoyed me about IV was how they didn't use real terms. Instead of the FBI we got the FIB, I mean, what is that about? And a fictional President? I'm actually a fan of them poking fun at the real administration of the US. Just like they did to Reagan.

I think that if satire is such a big part of the game then they should make it reflect real life.

God, FIB, I was so pissed when I heard that. It felt like GTA had taken a real step backwards.

[LCstuntman]

What really annoyed me about IV was how they didn't use real terms. Instead of the FBI we got the FIB, I mean, what is that about? And a fictional President? I'm actually a fan of them poking fun at the real administration of the US. Just like they did to Reagan.

I think that if satire is such a big part of the game then they should make it reflect real life.

God, FIB, I was so pissed when I heard that. It felt like GTA had taken a real step backwards.

Wow. Next thing I'm going to hear is that people think GTA took a step backwards because the city is called "Liberty City" instead of "New York City"

[Typhus]

What really annoyed me about IV was how they didn't use real terms. Instead of the FBI we got the FIB, I mean, what is that about? And a fictional President? I'm actually a fan of them poking fun at the real administration of the US. Just like they did to Reagan.

I think that if satire is such a big part of the game then they should make it reflect real life.

God, FIB, I was so pissed when I heard that. It felt like GTA had taken a real step backwards.

Wow. Next thing I'm going to hear is that people think GTA took a step backwards because the city is called "Liberty City" instead of "New York City"

Don't get cute.

[Duxfever]

What really annoyed me about IV was how they didn't use real terms. Instead of the FBI we got the FIB, I mean, what is that about? And a fictional President? I'm actually a fan of them poking fun at the real administration of the US. Just like they did to Reagan.

I think that if satire is such a big part of the game then they should make it reflect real life.

God, FIB, I was so pissed when I heard that. It felt like GTA had taken a real step backwards.

Wow. Next thing I'm going to hear is that people think GTA took a step backwards because the city is called "Liberty City" instead of "New York City"

sh*t, LCsm, I'm on your side with this.

 

This topic has pretty much been said tons of times before. The only reason why GTAIV felt not like previous games because it was, like you said, the start of a new era. You don't expect the first game of the era to be as good as the previous game of the previous era, because it's the start.

[a7knight]

 

IV was the biggest innovation in the series expect for III (obviously, top down to 3D is a huge step), so I have no idea what you're smoking. Just look at the physics system, or the damage system for f*ck's sake. "Utterly void of any groundbreaking aspect"? *facepalm*. This comment seriously makes me wonder if you actually played IV.

This comment seriously makes me wonder if you actually read my comment.

 

As I stated in my original post, IV obviously had great aesthetics ... the physics, etc were superb. What it gained in visuals and realism, however, it lost in uniqueness. There was nothing to set the game apart from its competitors ... like I said, it seemed more like "a polished version of the ever-so-sh*tty Saints Row" than earlier GTA installments.

 

I am not claiming that Rockstar should technologically revert -- it would be insane to suggest such a thing. Rockstar does need to remember the formula that made their video games so unique and enjoyable, however. The atmospheric and artistic elements present in previous GTA games were simply not there in IV.

 

...

 

And, by the way, if you are claiming that you know your way around every nook and cranny in GTA IV, I would say you are either full of sh*t or have way too much time on your hands.

Edited February 26, 2010 by a7knight

[a7knight]

 

This topic has pretty much been said tons of times before. The only reason why GTAIV felt not like previous games because it was, like you said, the start of a new era. You don't expect the first game of the era to be as good as the previous game of the previous era, because it's the start.

What a crazy excuse for poor performance ... Let me ask you, which game was better: GTA 2 or GTA 3? Which game was better: GTA 3, Vice City, or San Andreas?

 

While the answer is subjective, it was GTA 3 that sparked a revolution in the gaming industry (not simply technologically, either, but in style as well), and, if I remember correctly, it was the first game of its era.

Edited February 26, 2010 by a7knight

[LCstuntman]

 

And, by the way, if you are claiming that you know your way around every nook and cranny in GTA IV, I would say you are either full of sh*t or have way too much time on your hands.

Yes I do, and that makes you a hypocrite. You say that you knowing your way around III just makes the game better, but if I know my way all around IV, I just have too much time on my hands? Give me a break.

 

And I don't think that's what Duxfever was saying. I think he's saying that the IV Era still has a long way to go and improve, and this is just the beginning, similar to how III was just the beginning of the III Era. In other words, GTA V will probably be better than IV, just like how VC was better than III. They've pretty much mastered the old game engine, so that can add any useless crap they wanted, but with a new engine, you don't expect that, since it's a brand new start. At least that's how I read it

 

He's still saying that IV is better than all of the "old games" (And in my opinion, it is).

Edited February 26, 2010 by LCstuntman

[SammiiDoogles]

I'm with LCstuntman on this.

 

Also "And, by the way, if you are claiming that you know your way around every nook and cranny in GTA IV, I would say you are either full of sh*t or have way too much time on your hands." wasn't really neccessary - you don't need to insult someone for having a differing opinion to yours.

 

Your "IV is a polished version of Saints Row" is so far off the mark its rediculous, Saints Row is a polished version of the old GTA's. Sure, the old GTA's are much better than SR and I'm not disagreeing that they were fantastic games, but SR is essentially a polished GTAIII era game.

 

IV was deffinately a huge step forward - just because it lacked some pointless features that SA had, It is by no means less of an improvement.

 

You said in your original post that the story was repetitive in III but that doesn't matter? That seems like a flimsy excuse to saying "the story was sh*t, but that hinders my arguement - so i'll say it didn't matter"

 

IV had a great story and far more immersive gameplay than III so I don't see how that counts as a negative? everything neccessary had a huge positive overhaul, and all the pointless stuff was left out untill later. (BoGT, TLAD)

 

GTAIV was packed with humour, far more wit than other games - some of the jokes were actually intelligent rather than cock gags - sure it had those too, but it was actually well written.

[a7knight]

 

Yes I do, and that makes you a hypocrite. You say that you knowing your way around III just makes the game better, but if I know my way all around IV, I just have too much time on my hands? Give me a break.

 

My point is that your experience cannot be considered average. I've beaten GTA IV three times and still find navigation difficult ... Since I have no learning disability to speak of, I place this lack of familiarity on the game itself.

 

 

You said in your original post that the story was repetitive in III but that doesn't matter? That seems like a flimsy excuse to saying "the story was sh*t, but that hinders my arguement - so i'll say it didn't matter"

 

If I remember correctly, I said that all GTA stories were repetitive (and, yes, that includes IV) ... and, thus, I concluded that plot is not the primary factor behind the enjoyment of this franchise. Immersion through atmosphere and wit, I believe, are key. I will continue to argue that the worlds in previous GTAs, specifically in III, (though they obviously lack the density of "everyday stuff" that IV displayed) were more immersive through their unique style. And, yes, I do find it ironic that IV seemed like a copy of the copy that Saints Row most definitely is. It almost seems as if Rockstar was focused more on corporate competition than producing a quality game ...

 

.........

 

Let me sum up my thoughts: GTA IV was a beautiful game -- that simply cannot be denied. As LCstuntman said, the game had very impressive physics and gameplay systems. Yet, still, I thoroughly believe the game lacked the artistic qualities, that special something that I cannot rightly define, that III (an indisputable legend) had showcased in 2001.

 

IV simply seems more hollow; more shallow, if you will ... despite its obvious bells and whistles. I am sure Rockstar can continue making games on par with IV and find great monetary profits; however, I am certain that only by looking in the past at games like III will Rockstar ever again have the ability to create a truly amazing GTA.

Edited February 26, 2010 by a7knight

[LCstuntman]

IV simply seems more hollow; more shallow, if you will ... despite its obvious bells and whistles. I am sure Rockstar can continue making games on par with IV and find great monetary profits; however, I am certain that only by looking in the past at games like III will Rockstar ever again have the ability to create a truly amazing GTA.

Odd, that's exactly what I thought of San Andreas. In my opinion IV is the "truly amazing GTA" that I have been waiting for since III, but it all comes down to opinion. I think IV is the most full and complete (the least ''hollow'), something the older GTA's lacked (except for maybe Vice City, that felt complete), but like I said, it all comes down to personal tastes, which is why there will never be a "perfect" GTA - no matter what they put into it, someone's not going to like it.

[Little William]

I agree somewhat with the OP. For example, I like the soundtrack of III more than IV's. I found the songs in IV a bit commercial, not enough underground stuff. And the atmosphere in IV don't feel as gritty as III's, imo.

[rubix99]

Lets look at some real reasons as to why GTA IV failed to match the fun factor of the past PS2 GTA games, and I include both the 'Stories' games that were ported to PS2 among them aswell.

 

Total lack of incentives. For instance in past GTA games you had 100 hidden packages (or 99 red balloons) to find. Each 10 you collected earned you a good reward delivered to your hideouts such as weapons, armour or cool vehicles/helicopters. GTA3, Vice City, San Andreas, Liberty City Stories and Vice City Stories all did this. GTA4 however had 200 pigeons to locate and kill and you get nothing for it other than that rubbish Annhilator chopper that has 2 rubbish guns that are virtually impossible to hit anything with and it has no rockets unlike the Hunter chopper of previous choppers. Basically the Annhilator is crap and pointless.

 

So basically in GTA4 you had to do twice the work for absolutely no reward. I would like to know what logic Rockstar were operating under when thinking of this new idea.

 

Past GTAs also had you do Taxi missions that could get you a super fast Taxi or the Taxi hydrolic jump ability when you did 100 fares, GTA4 briefly had Taxi missions that gave you no reward at all. Past GTAs also had fire truck missions that you could earn the ability to become fire proof of have a flame thrower delivered to your hideout.....GTA4 (and the 2 DLCs) had no fire truck missions at all and neither a flame thrower for that matter.

 

Remember doing Ambulance missions that had health packs delivered to your hideout? Or Pizza delivery missoins that permanently increased your health by 50%. All of this was gotten rid of in GTA4.

 

How about the Vigilante missions where you could earn those wanted star icons that remove wanted levels delivered to your hideouts or permanent 50% extra body armour? Well vigilante missions are in GTA4 but they give you nothing at all.

 

Another thing GTA4 was lacking was side challenges like Libert City Stories where you win a super powerful Sanchez motorbike when you complete the dirt track challenge on the basic Sanchez.......or Vice City where you could win a Rally car to take out on the streets by completing the race challenges at that stadium. GTA4 had none of this. But you can play a really boring darts game instead.

 

And now lets look at GTA4s missions. Go to point A to do a deal, deal goes wrong, person escapes and you must chase him down to point B and kill him......and the game wont actually let you kill him during the chase until you reach a certain point......no matter how many direct shots you unload on him.

 

What about the amazing new "friends" feature? The feature where your friends constantly call you and ask you to hang out with them....and if you dont you lose respect/likeness percentages with them which jeopardizes you being able to buy discount weapons with them or whatever.....so basically this new friends system becomes nothing more than a very annoying burden very quickly.

 

Can't buy any properties.....even though its not meant to be a rags to riches story in the main game, they could have at least let you buy not so good apartments or run down estates that look rubbish. At least that would have created extra save points, parking spaces and something to spend money on. But Rockstar clearly thought the idea of taking out property buying altogether was a masterstroke......along with many other things that made past GTAs so great and enjoyable.

 

No Tanks to go on city rampages with (beside that novelty vehicle you get when beating The Ballad Of Gay Tony), no actual rampage side missions of previous games.....most of the melee weapons are gone and the fact that you are so easily killed makes shootouts with cops annoyingly not fun at all.

 

The amount of vehicles and weapon variation is less than past GTA games and the hand to hand combat is awful.....which also totally ruined any fun to be had out of the fight club activity in Ballad Of Gay Tony.

 

I would give GTA4 (with both DLCs) a 7/10 at the very most. Its a reasonably good go-through once game, by just getting on with the missions and not expecting anything too great. But there is no replay value once you have done it.

[dice]

Because it just isn't fun as other GTAs were. Bought it 6 months ago for the PC and just reached 24% percent yesterday and played multiplayer for maybe the fourth time. The game just, in other words, suck! It's so monotone, building here, building there, slow car here, slow car there, etc ... Since everything looks almost exactly the same, It feels I have been around the whole town ten times, even though I just ventured by mistake in a new unlocked part of town. I played III quite a lot, VC a little less and SA straight five years from Its release and up to now and am still playing it, since it brings a lot more fun then IV.

 

The only good thing I find about IV is the collision system. This is a kind of refreshment, but other aspects simply fail. The characters all have that bad ass attitude a 12 year old kid would want. Go there and cold bloodily shot that guy in the face, go somewhere else and snipe the other guy away, etc. Niko was an even bigger hypocrite then Tommy, he never cared for anyone, or when he did, it looked like he's being obstructed by something. The accent, one of the main reasons I waited for IV so badly, sucks, cheat codes ... I have no words for them, the so hyped multiplayer is boring, can't wait for the custom iv-mp to release, video editor is useless, etc ...

 

Sorry, but this release just lost It's fun factor. The only GTA I still have hopes is Ballad of Gay Tony, but since I'm seriously not prepared to give another 50€ just to see something I was expecting in the initial release, I'll just download a warez copy. I have a 2 year old game, for which I paid (with 4 others) 15€ and am still getting support in the term of free updates and free mini dlc's which change the game style completely, I can't see why I would pay another 50€ to get a sh*tty port again, which will loose patch support in the next year, like the original IV did, so I can suffer from fps sudden losses

Edited February 26, 2010 by ^- Dice ->

[rubix99]

Classic miss of the b button there. I saw that!

[mrpain]

Sigh...another one of these damn topics.

 

III was revoulutionary because no one has played a game like III at that time when it was realeased. IV was outstanding because of its supreme technoology.

 

Yes III was fun but so was IV. I had more fun in IV than SA. Although VC was probably the best GTA in history, IV was just amazing. IV doesnt capture your gameplay experience, it captures your emotional experience. I wish gamers would just stop looking at gameplay and graphics and just look at their in-game world. Sure there was no flame thrower or jetpacks but do they really matter? Blowing sh*t up was more fun in IV and I cant seem why people tend to complain of 'lack of fun'.

[dice]

Maybe you could actually read the other replies and base your arguments on them and not just assume that everyone are so easily entertained like you to watch exploding cars all day long

[mrpain]

Are you f*cking serious?

 

Basically what I've said about blowing sh*t up was about having fun. The 'sh*t' could mean alot of things.

[lowridincrew]

I just want the Rampage missions back

[dice]

It's seriously impossible maintaining a topic with constructive posts in the IV or NeXt section

And please do not reply to this post

[mrpain]

It's seriously impossible maintaining a topic with constructive posts in the IV or NeXt section

And please do not reply to this post

And I just did.

 

 

I agree with lowridincrew on rampages but since GTA has 'grown up', I feel like we should use the Gang Wars of TLaD as rampages.

 

I had more fun with Gang Wars in TLaD than the rampages in III-era

[dragmetolibertycity]

To me, GTA IV is the best sandbox game out there. It was immersive, has a great story, the gameplay is ace.

[Interrobangin]

 

It's seriously impossible maintaining a topic with constructive posts in the IV or NeXt section

And please do not reply to this post

You owe me a new monitor. =p

[D- Ice]

 

Rockstar must remember its past and revert back to old traditions. They need to remember how revolutionary GTA III was ... and why. You see, that old game for the PS2 (though, I doubt many of you youngsters have played it) was not only (at the time) technologically superior, but socially as well.

 

The sheer wit and humor interlaced throughout the game, in every nook and cranny, was amazing. The atmosphere the game provided (through visuals, music, and characters) was bleak, haunting, and stunning. The arcade-style game play was thoroughly enjoyable and utterly addictive.

 

The plot, as in any GTA game, was repetitive ... but who really cared? That was not the point of the game. Rockstar (a very small company at the time) was concerned only with deeply immersing the player into the amazing world they created for us.

 

GTA III was unique, a diamond in the rough. Unfortunately, as the GTA series progressed, Rockstar seemed to have lost its way ... The only conclusion I can reach is that they are now more interested in money than in innovation.

 

Take a look at GTA IV, if you need proof. GTA IV was shallow ... aesthetically pleasing, yet utterly void of any groundbreaking aspect. It was technologically advanced, yet still inept. Indeed, the latest GTA felt more like a money-grabber, a hollow game, a polished version of the ever-so-sh*tty Saints Row. GTA IV had nowhere near the artistic quality, the fun factor, or the innovation of its predecessors.

 

Rockstar needs to remember its roots. And only when they regain their original approach to video games -- the original approach that led to their initial success -- will we ever again be blessed with that rare diamond in the rough ... the traditional GTA game.

 

This is my only hope for GTA V. If Rockstar followed these recommendations, we as fans, and the gaming world in general, would be far better off.

Quoted For Truth - I can't agree with you anymore, and I am so glad I am not the only one to think like that.

 

However, what i also think made GTA 3 superior was it's originality. I don't think it is in any way repetitive, virtually each and every mission was very unique and ground-breaking. For god's sake, we had missions with bloody suicide bombers, downing, collecting packages before the cops from a light plane and luring death squads to an ambush point!

 

If anything, I believe it is this loss of originality when it came to missions - and the repetitive "go in, kill a ridiculously large number of gangsters for an otherwise pointless reason, mission passed" crap we had way too much of in IV - which is killing the GTA franchise.

 

I mean killing a small number of very well armed Colombian Cartel gansgters (militants/commandoes in the beta version before 9/11) for a mysterious, invaluable package is a lot more captivating and believable than killing upwards of 30-40 gangsters just for $2 million diamonds. It is also just not believable as their guns alone would cost more than that - it is just creating any old excuse to killing sh*tloads of well-armed gangsters who just seem to be hatched from eggs in IV.

 

Also I completely agree with you about how IV was too much aesthetically pleasing, and severly lacked the bleak, haunting and seedy atmosphere of GTA3 which was so immersive and complementary to the whole dystopic outlook of the game. I so wish they will bring that back too.

 

To be perfectly honest, I am so disappointed with this new GTA approach that I think I will stop buying anymore of the franchise if there isn't a dramatic reversion back to the awsome game design of the likes of GTA3.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2010 by D- Ice

[SmC12]

I agree with the OP but also with people like LCStuntman

GTA III was an amazing game in it's time, and i have to agree it had more fun than IV. But GTA IV is still fun but in a different way, like San Andreas is still my favorite game(not going in to reasons why) but the reason that IV lacked some of the things that the old games had is because you don't see people flying around New York City(LC) in a jetpack or see a secret Air Base downtown

 

The GTA III era was fun but it was much less realistic etc. (III was immature compared to IV if you like)

IMO GTA 4 was stunning, even breathtaking with the new physics, combat etc. the GTA series is now more realistic then ever, so realistic that you would think you were there. And if you look at other games for next gen consoles, how many do you see that don't aim at being as real as possible. The III era was amazing but, and i admit that if IV had been set in SA for exsample then i would be dissapointed if it didn't have some of the features return from the III era, but it just simply wouldn't work in a city like LC.

 

In the end every GTA game is different and unique and that's what makes it so great. Maybe you will see a "more fun" GTA in the future with Jetpacks and hydra jets with flying cars etc. but for now if you want an unrealistic GTA game where you can just forget about what's real, go play Saints Row, it isn't GTA, but for now it's the only unrealistic GTA your gonna get

Edited February 26, 2010 by SmC12