Why do people think R* was aiming for realism?

[HOW'S ANNIE?]

The biggest annoyance when it comes to the complaints about GTA IV was people complaining that R* aimed too hard for realism. Evidently they were not, everything that was realistic in the game was simply an advancement in the series, and all the stuff from previous installments that was left out was left out for a reason:

 

Car physics- a step foward in the series, as with many open world games this generation

Lack of planes- there was only one airport, what would be the point in flying & landing in the same place?

No [stupid] haircuts- they were going more character/story focused. Could you imagine Niko with a pink afro?

Cell phone- trying to make a staple of the series more interactive.

No tanks- Where the hell do you find a tank in NYC?

 

The list goes on and on... People need to realise that IV is no more realistic than III and VC. You still have a character running around killing hundred of people on their own, blowing up cars and flying aircraft. Anyone else feel this way? If anyone disagrees with this, I would happily listen.

 

[Algonquin Assassin]

I've always considered GTA IV to be more believable than realistic as at its core it's reallly not "realistic" as such. It's just more streamlined than the GTA III era in its context.

 

Instead of having Niko run around in his underwear with an afro alot of the stuff he does is more natural to his character which IMO makes the game more immersive.

 

Although off topic The Last Of Us is by no means a realistic game, but it's believable in the sense Joel and Ellie don't partake in things which are completely out of place. I think this can be said for alot of games. Very few are actually realistic, but they bridge immersion and the player with concepts and ideas relevent to its respective theme.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Miamivicecity