Improvements vs. Set-Backs in GTA IV

[Crindaboy]

This might have been discussed already, but I just recently completed the game and felt that it's a huge step backwards from San Andreas. Hell, it's now even that much better than Liberty City Stories. GTA IV is Grand Theft Auto - So it's one of the greatest games no matter what - and it is one heck of a game! Pure awesomeness! But as stated, it doesn't come close to the greatness of SA. Here's my list of improvements vs. set-backs.

 

Improvements/additions for the better in IV:

 

- Slightly better graphics, particulary on the hands

- Houses being connected to the rest of the world, leaving next to no portals and letting you fire on your enemies on the outside/inside

- Climbing

- Bowling/Darts

- Phone/Internet

I know I'm missing a few improvements

 

Set-backs:

- No more body-building, hair cuts, tattoo's, etc.

- Only a few restaurants/cool places are on the map - unless you are on a date or hanging with friends, can be really annoying if you need instant health

- No diving!!!

- You can no longer pimp your ride

- Horrible shopping options, SA's were 10 times better

- So far I've only been able to rob one store, in SA you could even rob houses

- No use for planes

- No parachutes

- If you might the wrong choice - Killing Dwayne - you'll never get a crew. In SA you could just recruit some homeys

- No gambling

- Less safe houses, the need was gone of course, and what's the point in a tiny ass city like this

- No garages, there were some at Pegorino's house, but what's the need in that. No instant fix on your cars.

- Flying out of the car window - really annoying

- Friends/Girlfriends calling you no matter were you are and losing respect if you don't get to them in time - In SA your girlfriends only called you if you were in the same city as them, which I guess I am, but still, at the very least I could have gotten extended time the further I was away

- If you shoot birds/aka hidden packages, which is what the game wants you to do! the police gets on your ass

I know I'm missing A LOT of set-backs

 

Please feel free to add anything you think I'm missing/disagree on the choices I have up there.

[WhistleBlower]

First of all, fun gameplay is subjective. That's the first and most important thing you need to take into account for any game. GTA IV might have been a step back when compared to the previous title in your eyes, but what you need to realize is that both GTA IV and San Andreas are different for good reason. Moreover by simply comparing the map of a state to that of a city, you're bound to see a decrease in the number of things to do by the size alone.

 

You also need to factor in the setting, time, story, and overall theme -- GTA IV's being redemption -- because all of that affects what goes into the game. The game was obviously geared more towards realism. So while crashing through the windshield of your vehicle is what you consider a step back for the franchise, it's part of something much bigger, something that was inevitable; proof that the technology in games is getting better with each passing generation.

 

That being said, you don't have to like the game. But you should understand where the developers were coming from when they released GTA IV three years ago. You don't want people to think that you're biased, you know what I mean?

Edited June 18, 2011 by WhistleBlower

[SlickSpencer8]

I believe rockstar is heading the right direction. Unlike some people, people don't like change and in most cases that's how I am, but i actually liked the change they made and I think the more realism is a good thing. I like more realistic games and that is why i bought gta. There is lot's of houses that you can go inside but you have to find them, i basically know all the buildings that you can enter.

 

And about the graphics, the graphics are very good. You have to understand that this game was made like 4 years ago and rockstart has really went up with the graphics this year and i am hoping that the next gta game will have the same graphics or better than LA. Noire.

 

And i don't know if you have played the balled of gay tony but they added some parachutes and sticky bombs just like SA.

 

I say it's a great game. and i have 0 dislikes about it.

 

[Algonquin Assassin]

Welcome to the forum and just so you know this has been discussed A LOT. GTA IV is a 3 year old game and there have been many discussions regarding its improvements vs its set backs.

 

Here's are my opinions on what you consider setbacks.

 

-No more body-building, hair cuts, tattoo's, etc.

 

I don't really miss them, but would've had no problem with their inclusion. I just don't care for them that's all.

 

- Only a few restaurants/cool places are on the map - unless you are on a date or hanging with friends, can be really annoying if you need instant health

 

SA was mostly made up of repeated restaurants and other interiors. I don't see how it's anymore annoying to get health in GTA IV than SA. At least in GTA IV you can call an ambulance to come to you, or just visit a hotdog stand/food vendor. It's not that bad.

 

- No diving!!!

 

Swimming under water in SA was mostly useless except for a couple of missions.

 

- You can no longer pimp your ride

 

This is one thing I think should've been added especially when Brucie own his own auto shop.

 

- Horrible shopping options, SA's were 10 times better

 

I didn't think the clothing options were that bad.

 

- So far I've only been able to rob one store, in SA you could even rob houses

 

Not really something I would call a set back. IMO VC was even superior to SA in this area.

 

- No use for planes

 

There's always been a debate on this. I personally think it was for technical reasons and/or that R* saw helicopters were a better mode of air transportation.

 

 

- No parachutes

 

TBOGT has parachutes. You might want to look at getting it.

 

- If you might the wrong choice - Killing Dwayne - you'll never get a crew. In SA you could just recruit some homeys

 

So just do the reverse on a 2nd run through? I mean is missing out on a couple of homeys really going to detract much from the gameplay? I don't really see how this is a set back when it's the player's choice.

 

- No gambling

 

Would've liked to have seen some back alley gambling.

 

- Less safe houses, the need was gone of course, and what's the point in a tiny ass city like this

 

With the introduction of auto save I can see why there are less safe houses. SA only had so much, because of the size of the map. Generally most of the safe houses were the same anyway.

 

Also Liberty City is not "tiny". It's the biggest single city R* have ever created (At that time in 2008. LA Noire is bigger again) and it's only a fraction smaller than the entire state of SA.

 

- No garages, there were some at Pegorino's house, but what's the need in that. No instant fix on your cars.

 

I actually find the parking spots more convenient and they fix your car just like garages do.

 

 

- Flying out of the car window - really annoying

 

How is it anymore annoying than falling off a motor bike? Unless you hit something head on all the time it doesn't happen a lot.

 

- Friends/Girlfriends calling you no matter were you are and losing respect if you don't get to them in time - In SA your girlfriends only called you if you were in the same city as them, which I guess I am, but still, at the very least I could have gotten extended time the further I was away

 

 

I really don't know why people can't grasp the idea of accepting the activity then calling them back to cancel. It only takes a few seconds and you wont lose any like/respect. Yes after some time if you don't hang out with them the like/respect does deteriorate, but the same thing happens in SA as well.

 

 

- If you shoot birds/aka hidden packages, which is what the game wants you to do! the police gets on your ass

 

 

This does get annoying, but it's sort of hit and miss. Sometimes you can get them without gaining police, but other times you can't get away with it.

 

Anyway like WhistleBlower said fun game play is subjective. I bought SA the day it came out and have spent countless hours playing it, but IMHO GTA IV is a better game. Of course it's not perfect, but neither is SA.

 

 

I just simply enjoy its tone more, but I still feel VC reigns supreme as the best GTA ever with GTA IV in a tight 2nd.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Miamivicecity

[Crindaboy]

First of all, fun gameplay is subjective. That's the first and most important thing you need to take into account for any game. GTA IV might have been a step back when compared to the previous title in your eyes, but what you need to realize is that both GTA IV and San Andreas are different for good reason. Moreover by simply comparing the map of a state to that of a city, you're bound to see a decrease in the number of things to do by the size alone.

 

You also need to factor in the setting, time, story, and overall theme -- GTA IV's being redemption -- because all of that affects what goes into the game. The game was obviously geared more towards realism. So while crashing through the windshield of your vehicle is what you consider a step back for the franchise, it's part of something much bigger, something that was inevitable; proof that the technology in games is getting better with each passing generation.

 

That being said, you don't have to like the game. But you should understand where the developers were coming from when they released GTA IV three years ago. You don't want people to think that you're biased, you know what I mean?

You appear to be way off base, man. First of all I love this game, second I said nothing about fun game play. I agree that crashing through the windshield is realistic, it's annoying, but still - but that's one little thing you got stuck on. Why did you base your entire post on that. I barelt even mentioned how LC is a tiny, monotone city, but it was not one of my main complaints either.

 

But why on earth would the theme of redemtion stop you from swiming under the water or getting a hair cut? And are you so damn nihilistic that you only want a few known places to fill your health. What's this bigger thing you are talking about? Beeing dark and gloomy is ok, but is that it? Not even sure what you're trying to say here.

[Crindaboy]

I believe rockstar is heading the right direction. Unlike some people, people don't like change and in most cases that's how I am, but i actually liked the change they made and I think the more realism is a good thing. I like more realistic games and that is why i bought gta. There is lot's of houses that you can go inside but you have to find them, i basically know all the buildings that you can enter.

 

And about the graphics, the graphics are very good. You have to understand that this game was made like 4 years ago and rockstart has really went up with the graphics this year and i am hoping that the next gta game will have the same graphics or better than LA. Noire.

 

And i don't know if you have played the balled of gay tony but they added some parachutes and sticky bombs just like SA.

 

I say it's a great game. and i have 0 dislikes about it.

I really don't think GTA IV is more realistic than the other games. The story a bit darker and serious, but the gameplay is essentially the same. I never said anything about few houses you could enter. I said safe houses. As in houses you own/buy.

 

I really liked the graphics more that good enough, that was one of the pros remember

 

And yeah, L.A. Noire was great(not as good as GTA IV, but still great) particulary the graphics.

 

 

[Crindaboy]

Miamivicecity - Yeah, most of these are not too big a deal, just thinks I thought worked well and added something to the game. Love the feeling of owning the city. All the GTA games are fantastic, so I'm not complaining!

 

Is LC really that big??? Damn. Had no clue. It feels so small. At least that's my opinion. Perhaps it's because there's so little variation. All the cities is SA, particulary Los Santos feels bigger when looking back, but I suppose it's pretty plausible.

 

As for my ranking:

 

San Andreas

Vice City Stories

GTA IV

Vice City (was my favorite game for a long time but I haven't played it for ages)

Liberty City Stories

GTA 3

 

All utterly genius of course!

 

Edit: Oh, and thanks for the cancel thing. Are you sure it works though? I recall getting thumbs down whenever I've done it.

[Algonquin Assassin]

I'm not sure exactly how big LC is, but it's bigger than all of the cities in SA and dwarfs GTA III's LC and VC. Obviously not as big as SA as a state. For a single city it's quite big.

 

I think the problem is when the friends/girlfriends call you and you get a thumbs down is you say no to them straight up. If you accept the activity they want to go on you can call back using the "Cancel" option and you wont lose any like/respect.

[Crindaboy]

I'm not sure exactly how big LC is, but it's bigger than all of the cities in SA and dwarfs GTA III's LC and VC. Obviously not as big as SA as a state. For a single city it's quite big.

 

I think the problem is when the friends/girlfriends call you and you get a thumbs down is you say no to them straight up. If you accept the activity they want to go on you can call back using the "Cancel" option and you wont lose any like/respect.

Been years since I played GTA 3/LCS, thought it was essentially the same city. How much bigger is it and what's the changes?

[Magic_Al]

 

I'm not sure exactly how big LC is, but it's bigger than all of the cities in SA and dwarfs GTA III's LC and VC. Obviously not as big as SA as a state. For a single city it's quite big.

 

I think the problem is when the friends/girlfriends call you and you get a thumbs down is you say no to them straight up. If you accept the activity they want to go on you can call back using the "Cancel" option and you wont lose any like/respect.

I made this to show SA, GTA IV, and L.A. Noire to scale. The exact size of SA and LAN have been stated by Rockstar (and LAN is partially 1:1 with the real map of L.A.) and the size of GTA IV was calculated here.

 

 

GTA Wiki has an image of SA, VC, and III to scale here.

 

Years ago I attempted to measure only the urban area of SA got 5.4 square miles, but the exact "city limits" are debatable. Liberty City's land area is calculated to be about 3 square miles, as the map is almost exactly half water. So San Andreas apparently has more total city area as well as more total area overall. Liberty City is still arguably "better" in detail and especially in ped variety and behavior to give it personality.

[AceRay]

Crindaboy: try not to triple post, there is an edit button, or put it all in one post.

[flotwig]

Parachutes are available in TBoGT. I dunno why they were not in vanilla IV, but still.

There are few resturants when not with a friend, but if you need to refill your health there are plenty of hot dog stands and Sprunk machines. Also, if you are with a friend, you can access quite a few resturants around LC.

Garages are no longer available, but there are outdoor parking spaces at every safehouse with the same function. As for instant car fixes, use on of the pay and sprays on your map.

The thing where friends annoy you can be avoided using sleep mode on the phone, but that can be an issue if you have not yet finished the storyline.

While I loved San Andreas as much as IV, you missed quite a few improvements. Take the multiplayer, for example. It added hundreds of hours of gameplay to an already amazing game.

While IV certainly had some slight setbacks, it is not nearly as bad as you are making it seem.

[Crindaboy]

 

Crindaboy: try not to triple post, there is an edit button, or put it all in one post.

Oh ok. Didn't know this was one of those forums. I've always found collected posts really annoying, both making and recieving them, but I'll follow the set-up

 

Edit: That might have sounded a bit rude, sorry mate

 

Just never got why double/triple posting is anything but a possitive? Some people seem to think of it as spamming, but I find it to be easier to get a clear overview of who's replying to who, etc. Suppose I'm just too used to the nested format.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Crindaboy

[spaceeinstein]

 

I made this to show SA, GTA IV, and L.A. Noire to scale. The exact size of SA and LAN have been stated by Rockstar (and LAN is partially 1:1 with the real map of L.A.) and the size of GTA IV was calculated here.

 

The "calculations" are terribly underestimated. That person made LC much too small (purposefully?) and was mainly guessing and assuming. I doubt that person traveled much in the city at all to get a number that small. LC is HUGE. Here are the data I got from in-game.

 

The state of San Andreas is 6 km x 6 km (36 sq km). The city of Liberty is 5.18 km x 3.29 km (17 sq km), both including water.

 

SA is too overrated. Every other GTA game has aspects that not even SA had, but many people consider SA to be the pinnacle of GTA? It doesn't even have stuff like certain weapons (M60 VC, oil slick GTA2), store robbery (VC), car crusher (GTA 2, III, LCS), kill frenzies (GTA2, III, VC), RC missions (III, VC), assassination missions (VC), [i could go on and on...], but SA includes stuff that GTA shouldn't even have at all (bodybuilding and character upgrades in GTA? wtf?). Why should GTA IV be compared to SA ONLY? Why not also include every other GTA game out there? Why don't just as much people rant that SA is missing all the stuff I just listed?

Edited June 18, 2011 by spaceeinstein

[WF the Hobgoblin]

Slightly better graphics? Slightly?

 

I really have to disagree. Astronomically better is how I'd describe them.

[Crindaboy]

 

I made this to show SA, GTA IV, and L.A. Noire to scale. The exact size of SA and LAN have been stated by Rockstar (and LAN is partially 1:1 with the real map of L.A.) and the size of GTA IV was calculated here.

 

The "calculations" are terribly underestimated. That person made LC much too small (purposefully?) and was mainly guessing and assuming. I doubt that person traveled much in the city at all to get a number that small. LC is HUGE. Here are the data I got from in-game.

 

The state of San Andreas is 6 km x 6 km (36 sq km). The city of Liberty is 5.18 km x 3.29 km (17 sq km), both including water.

 

SA is too overrated. Every other GTA game has aspects that not even SA had, but many people consider SA to be the pinnacle of GTA? It doesn't even have stuff like certain weapons (M60 VC, oil slick GTA2), store robbery (VC), car crusher (GTA 2, III, LCS), kill frenzies (GTA2, III, VC), RC missions (III, VC), assassination missions (VC), [i could go on and on...], but SA includes stuff that GTA shouldn't even have at all (bodybuilding and character upgrades in GTA? wtf?). Why should GTA IV be compared to SA ONLY? Why not also include every other GTA game out there? Why don't just as much people rant that SA is missing all the stuff I just listed?

I agree that those aspects would have made San Andreas even better, but due to how much you could actually do in that game it wasn't missed. And IMO it's still the best game I've ever played.

 

My shock here was how bit L.A. Noire was, that city felt about that size of Liberty City, probably bgecause there was extremely little you could do outside the story mode. It also needs to be said that the LC map includes far more water than SA.

 

Slightly better graphics? Slightly?

 

I really have to disagree. Astronomically better is how I'd describe them.

 

Hmmm. Ok. I didn't see the huge differences. Just a slight overall clean up IMO. It's most visible with the facial features+hands which was much appreciated!

Edited June 18, 2011 by Crindaboy

[Magic_Al]

 

I made this to show SA, GTA IV, and L.A. Noire to scale. The exact size of SA and LAN have been stated by Rockstar (and LAN is partially 1:1 with the real map of L.A.) and the size of GTA IV was calculated here.

 

The "calculations" are terribly underestimated. That person made LC much too small (purposefully?) and was mainly guessing and assuming. I doubt that person traveled much in the city at all to get a number that small. LC is HUGE. Here are the data I got from in-game.

 

The state of San Andreas is 6 km x 6 km (36 sq km). The city of Liberty is 5.18 km x 3.29 km (17 sq km), both including water.

Commodore_G on the GameSpot forums came up with 6 square miles (including water) for Liberty City back in 2008 and showed his work. I based the map scale on that. Actually I based it on the map pixel resolution he derived from his measurements. If you have a better measurement I'm interested in the details of how you got it. We're only talking about a difference of 0.6 square miles anyway.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Magic_Al

[spaceeinstein]

Oh, I kept reading the numbers in sq km. Then his numbers are pretty close without direct measurements. I got the numbers in LC by getting the coordinates of distances of the edges of the map (north Bohan, west Alderney, east FIA, south Happiness Is).

 

 

Just a slight overall clean up IMO.

More polygons, dynamic shadows, increased textures, multiple light sources, bump mapping, real-time reflection, flexible water, ragdoll and Euphoria... Do you really look down upon those? What's the point of making anything on a 360 or PS3 if game graphics are only look slightly better?

 

 

but due to how much you could actually do in that game it wasn't missed

So SA-centric. Have you played other GTA games that came between SA and IV and CW? Those games lacked the features SA had (they don't even come close), so do you also think all those games are considered a setback, too? Why hadn't R* made a game as chock full of features like SA yet (LCS, VCS, IV, EFLC, CW)? I think R* have come to realize that the quality of a game trumps the quantity of features in a game.

Edited June 18, 2011 by spaceeinstein

[WhistleBlower]

 

I agree that crashing through the windshield is realistic, it's annoying, but still - but that's one little thing you got stuck on. Why did you base your entire post on that.

What? I brought up the windshield thing as an EXAMPLE that Rockstar is going down a more realistic route for the series, and that the introduction of better technology at the time helped to make it a reality.

 

I barelt even mentioned how LC is a tiny, monotone city, but it was not one of my main complaints either.

I brought up the comparison between Liberty City and San Andreas to make it clear that just by by the differences in size alone there are less things to do in the game.

 

But why on earth would the theme of redemtion stop you from swiming under the water or getting a hair cut?

Why is it necessary to swim under the dirty waters of Liberty City? And please explain to me what kind of haircut Niko or any of the other GTA IV protagonists can get other than going bald?

 

 

And are you so damn nihilistic that you only want a few known places to fill your health.

Why are you being so damn rude?

 

 

What's this bigger thing you are talking about? Beeing dark and gloomy is ok, but is that it? Not even sure what you're trying to say here.

And I don't quite understand this "more is better" mentality that some San Andreas fans have. Hell, in retrospect, GTA IV is a lot like GTA III. It follows the "less is better" principle of game design. Unfortunately most people don't see this because they don't realize how game development changes with each generation.

[Ash_735]

Ahh it's been a while since a San Andreas fanboy has made a thread, such a nice change to see these again.

[Crindaboy]

 

And are you so damn nihilistic that you only want a few known places to fill your health.

Why are you being so damn rude?

Because I'm a humorous son of a bitch

 

 

 

 

What's this bigger thing you are talking about? Beeing dark and gloomy is ok, but is that it? Not even sure what you're trying to say here.

And I don't quite understand this "more is better" mentality that some San Andreas fans have. Hell, in retrospect, GTA IV is a lot like GTA III. It follows the "less is better" principle of game design. Unfortunately most people don't see this because they don't realize how game development changes with each generation.

 

I think what you don't seem to realize is that a lot of people preferred the "more is better" approach in regard to the GTA series. The fact that they have changes their minds on somethings are onbious but that doesn't mean they can't be criticized for it.

 

 

Ahh it's been a while since a San Andreas fanboy has made a thread, such a nice change to see these again. tounge.gif

Edited June 18, 2011 by Crindaboy

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

SA is too overrated. Every other GTA game has aspects that not even SA had, but many people consider SA to be the pinnacle of GTA? It doesn't even have stuff like certain weapons (M60 VC, oil slick GTA2), store robbery (VC), car crusher (GTA 2, III, LCS), kill frenzies (GTA2, III, VC), RC missions (III, VC), assassination missions (VC), [i could go on and on...], but SA includes stuff that GTA shouldn't even have at all (bodybuilding and character upgrades in GTA? wtf?). Why should GTA IV be compared to SA ONLY? Why not also include every other GTA game out there? Why don't just as much people rant that SA is missing all the stuff I just listed?

 

I do like SA, but I don't consider it to be the pinnacle of the series. When I first played SA all of these things like working out, getting haircuts, tattoos etc just seemed "odd" for a GTA game and still do today.

 

You're also right. SA even removed some classic GTA features, but they get generally un-noticed.

 

GTA IV gets stick, because it's the new kid on the block. It happens in every sort of medium. The new stuff always gets compared to the old. It happens with music, cars, movies etc. Even if GTA IV was made a long similar lines of the old games there would still be a fair portion of fans saying how they liked the old days.

 

Personally I think R* has gone in the right direction with GTA IV and that's coming from someone who grew up with the top down games.

[edgukator]

Gotta say that most of these things didn't really annoy me. I'd say the biggest issue was that money lacks purpose beyond buying guns in the game. Pimping the rides and buying property would have added a bit of interest on that front.

 

Otherwise, stuff like the rpg elements got annoying, to be honest, especially restarting the game and realising your bike was riding at a snails pace as a result.

 

I thought I would be annoyed that swimming was no longer in three dimensions, but I didn't really miss it in the end. There were some cool things you could do in San Andreas while diving in San Andreas, like escaping the police, but otherwise I didn't really miss it.

[Crindaboy]

Gotta say that most of these things didn't really annoy me. I'd say the biggest issue was that money lacks purpose beyond buying guns in the game. Pimping the rides and buying property would have added a bit of interest on that front.

True. Money is pretty useless here.