Does anyone still go back to GTA IV?

[Turan]

I went back to it this year (PC) after I sold my PS3 with the GTAV copy.

 

I gotta say, it made me appreciate V a lot more. And it made the wait for the PS4 version even more difficult. GTA IV is a solid game but it had some big flaws that didn't allow the game to live up to its potential.

 

Things that should've been better:

 

1) Mission design. It was insanely repetitive

 

2) Compared to San Andreas the things you could do in it were more limited (no planes, no customizations, less optional missions)

 

3) Variety. As much as I was impressed by Liberty City it did get boring every now and then to play in this urban jungle all the time. Especially after San Andreas I expected there to be some variety in landscape.

 

 

This game's saving grace is the story and Liberty City. Reviewers were giving this game 9/10's and 10/10's across the board. But in reality GTA IV is more like a solid 8/10.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Turan

[Algonquin Assassin]

But in reality GTA IV is more like a solid 8/10.

 

Well review scores are very subjective. I don't know if it deserved 10/10s across the board, but I've always rated it 9/10. Its positives outweigh its negatives IMO.

[Ducard]

but I've always rated it 9/10.

Seems legit.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

but I've always rated it 9/10.

Seems legit.

 

 

It's legitimately legit.

[Kampret]

I don't run into many people with Backward Compatible PS3's, but imo, it's the best system ever created.

 

I know a handful of people who had the Slim PS3 and it died on them not once, but twice and sometimes three times. My PS3 which I bought in 2008 when GTA IV came out, is my FIRST PS3 and it's working perfectly.

 

All you need is a backward compatible PS3, then you can buy the PS2 discs of III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS like I have, while playing IV/TLaD/TBoGT and V all on PS3, too. All 9 Games owned on one Console. That's the way I like it.

 

f*cking Sony, though....Idiots are trying to make the big bucks, thus removing backward compatibility and making consumers own PS2, 3, and 4. No thanks. One system for ALL. Not 3...

 

Nah man, backward compatibility was removed from PS3 (3rd generation fat and up) due to cost. The first PS3 costs like 600 bucks, and manufactured at a cost of $800. Quite a huge loss.

[Ducard]

I've always rated it 10/10. along with Vice City and Far Cry 3. My personal top 3 games of all time.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Ducard

[Zello]

 

Not only that but those features that require online in SP like the Bawsaq and the assasination missions. How are you going to go back and replay V when some of the features won't be functional anymore very soon online for PS3/360 is going to be shut down and eventually PS4/XB1 will grow old when you go back to play V in a couple years you will be missing out on a few things. You can go back take out the old PS2 or xbox and play III,VC,SA, or whip out your old copy of IV and even though these games are old you will still get the full experience.

 

So pissed that I couldn't make Michael wear a hat in V. I really wanted him to wear one of Franklins hats.

You don't need internet for those missions. The LCN (if I remember correctly) is the stock market that works offline and follows the story. Did you forget that GTA Online launched two weeks after the release of V?

 

 

Most of them are only available on the Bawsaq Betta Pharmaceuticals, Fruit, and Vapid. Debonaire and Gold coast construction are on the LCN so in the future if you attempt these missions again in a few years you will miss out on ingame cash.

 

[Payne Killer]

Always. I've been playing IV/EFLC non stop. I'm addicted to this game like Trevor is with meth.

[Niobium]

 

 

I don't run into many people with Backward Compatible PS3's, but imo, it's the best system ever created.

 

I know a handful of people who had the Slim PS3 and it died on them not once, but twice and sometimes three times. My PS3 which I bought in 2008 when GTA IV came out, is my FIRST PS3 and it's working perfectly.

 

All you need is a backward compatible PS3, then you can buy the PS2 discs of III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS like I have, while playing IV/TLaD/TBoGT and V all on PS3, too. All 9 Games owned on one Console. That's the way I like it.

 

f*cking Sony, though....Idiots are trying to make the big bucks, thus removing backward compatibility and making consumers own PS2, 3, and 4. No thanks. One system for ALL. Not 3...

Nah man, backward compatibility was removed from PS3 (3rd generation fat and up) due to cost. The first PS3 costs like 600 bucks, and manufactured at a cost of $800. Quite a huge loss.

uhh... no it shouldn't cost anything to have backwards compatability. they can easily use ps2 emulators (they used them for the fat PS3s if i'm not mistaken).

 

the only reason they don't want you to play your ps2 game on the ps3 is because they want you to buy the same ps2 game at the PSN store. greedy turds...

[golf wang]

 

but IV was missing all the crazy stuff like parachutes, the minigun, and other things that would make my personal GTA experience complete.

 

Parachuting can be found in TBoGT, which is part of GTA IV...

 

Miniguns aren't really that special. I prefer the "Street Sweeper" Shotgun in TLaD and the Explosive Rounds Shotgun in TBoGT over any Minigun in GTA V.

 

If you're looking for a Tank, TBoGT kinda had that, too, in the form of sort NOOSE Tank/APC. Rhino Tank still decimates the NOOSE Tank/APC, though.

 

Yeah, that's true. Still IV was missing planes, bicycles, diving underwater, and haircuts among other things. The tank in V was a lot more fun than the APC in IV IMO.

Edited November 22, 2014 by golf wang

[Kampret]

 

 

I don't run into many people with Backward Compatible PS3's, but imo, it's the best system ever created.

 

I know a handful of people who had the Slim PS3 and it died on them not once, but twice and sometimes three times. My PS3 which I bought in 2008 when GTA IV came out, is my FIRST PS3 and it's working perfectly.

 

All you need is a backward compatible PS3, then you can buy the PS2 discs of III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS like I have, while playing IV/TLaD/TBoGT and V all on PS3, too. All 9 Games owned on one Console. That's the way I like it.

 

f*cking Sony, though....Idiots are trying to make the big bucks, thus removing backward compatibility and making consumers own PS2, 3, and 4. No thanks. One system for ALL. Not 3...

Nah man, backward compatibility was removed from PS3 (3rd generation fat and up) due to cost. The first PS3 costs like 600 bucks, and manufactured at a cost of $800. Quite a huge loss.

uhh... no it shouldn't cost anything to have backwards compatability. they can easily use ps2 emulators (they used them for the fat PS3s if i'm not mistaken).

 

the only reason they don't want you to play your ps2 game on the ps3 is because they want you to buy the same ps2 game at the PSN store. greedy turds...

 

 

Nah, first generation PS3 (earliest fats) uses a built in PS2 (full PS2 hardware) inside the PS3. Second generation removes PS2 GPU, but still uses the EE PS2 CPU.

 

Third generation (40 and 80 GB) no longer uses PS2 hardware, at all.

[Lethal Vaccine]

But......I can afford it. Can Sony make me a PS4 with backward compatibility? I'll pay $800. How about that?

 

That's the main reason I could careless about buying a PS4 and GTA V Remaster. It's all about making money now and Sony wanting you to own a PS2, 3, and 4 and as nobum62 said, they also want you to buy digital copies from the PSN Store. So I got the original PS2 discs for III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS. You expect me to throw them out and buy digital? Then when my PS4 blows up, buy digital AGAIN? It's like a CD and downloading music. If you have tons of music on your Computer and it dies on you (before you made a backup), then you lost everything. Now if you have the actual CD physical disc, then you didn't lose a damn thing but your Computer.

 

It's the same thing here with Consoles and Games. I got all the PHYSICAL copies if III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS all on PS2 and I got the PHYSICAL copies of IV, TLaD, TBoGT and V all on PS3. They ALL play on my PS3. How convenient! My friend's PS3 Slim just broke on him and he is gonna be getting a PS4 for Christmas. But what happened to his digital copies of III, SA, and LCS on his Slim PS3? They are GONE. And it looks like his PS3 disc of IV Complete Edition and GTA V are frisbees now and 100% useless trash because where is he gonna play them now? PS4 won't do sh*t for him. The only way he can play now is buying yet a THIRD PS3...

 

My PS3 is my FIRST one still and working perfectly. I take care of my things, though, and don't game LONG hours. He's younger than me, and games all day, thus causes wear and tear on the console. All I know is this: PS3 with 9 GTA Games > PS2, 3, and 4 with all games on seperate consoles, which is a pain in the ass. I pick the most convenient route.

[Official General]

I don't run into many people with Backward Compatible PS3's, but imo, it's the best system ever created.

 

I know a handful of people who had the Slim PS3 and it died on them not once, but twice and sometimes three times. My PS3 which I bought in 2008 when GTA IV came out, is my FIRST PS3 and it's working perfectly.

 

All you need is a backward compatible PS3, then you can buy the PS2 discs of III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS like I have, while playing IV/TLaD/TBoGT and V all on PS3, too. All 9 Games owned on one Console. That's the way I like it.

 

f*cking Sony, though....Idiots are trying to make the big bucks, thus removing backward compatibility and making consumers own PS2, 3, and 4. No thanks. One system for ALL. Not 3...

 

I own a 60gb PS3 with BC, the black ,shiny bulky model. I bought back in October 2007, just as soon as Sony announced that they would soon stop producing it because of costs. It's my first on and only PS3, it's still in real good condition, and it works perfectly fine too, it's never had any technical issues or faults. Like you I take real good care of my consoles and I never game for hours on end. I'm getting a PS4 soon, but I don't think I'll ever sell or get rid of my PS3, it's probably the best console I've ever owned, I've played so many great games on it, and I still wanna keep it to play games like GTA IV and RDR over again.

 

@ golf wang

 

Glad we can see the validity in each other points without any kind of fierce opposition to each other, despite the fact we don't quite have the exact same tastes in GTA. Not often you see this on here.

 

Just to point out though, it didn't make sense for IV to have a huge map with countryside, wilderness, and wildlife, because the map was based on the New York-New Jersey metro area. There is not really much in the way of extensive countryside and wilderness in that region, Rockstar even gave the same reason for making IV mostly city-based themselves. Have you ever been to the immediate surrounding regions outside the NYC-NJ metro area ? It's nothing but a mass sprawl of suburbs, small towns, industrial areas, and patches of woodland dotted around. There very few farms or areas that can be classed as truly remote and wild around there. To give IV a huge map to explore and do all kinds of crazy sh*t just wouldn't have made much sense where realism is concerned, and let's face it, Rockstar's approach to location and setting in GTA has always been heavily based on re-creating real life locations. However, many of the critics of IV on here strangely always fail to understand this very valid point.

 

Again, because of IV's map, planes would have been unnecessary, Rockstar said this themselves. Helicopters were good enough. I can't see what good a plane would do over IV's map. There wouldn't have been enough flying range for planes.

 

Diving underwater in IV, seriously ? Why the need ? What's there to see underwater in the dark, deep, murky, and heavily polluted waters around New York City's coastline ? Your're not gonna see much decent wildlife at all, especially not the spectacular sea life you will see off the California coastline.

 

However, though not essential, I do feel that IV's map could have done with just enough moderately-sized wilderness and countryside to give a bit of contrast to city, and outside of the city feel. Just a few small suburban towns, a bit of countryside/forest/woodland, a river or two, some marshes, and a lake. Also LC in IV could have been a bit bigger than it is now. Broker and Dukes could have been bigger, and I wished that there were much more larger expanses of suburban districts.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Official General

[Lethal Vaccine]

@OG, that's the one I got, too. 60 GB black, phat, shiny, bulky, heavy one. It's absolutely stunning and I also think it's the best console ever made. Backward compatibility gives you the NEWEST console, without having to own multiple consoles and allows you to play ALL your past AND new games. Win Win if you ask me. I don't care if it costs a couple hundred more dollars. If a buy something for 800 Dollars that I can use EVERYDAY for 5-10 years, if not longer, It IS worth the money. My PS3 was 600 Dollars and I got it in 2008 and it's still alive and kicking. No problems at all. Money well spent, if you ask me.

[Official General]

@OG, that's the one I got, too. 60 GB black, phat, shiny, bulky, heavy one. It's absolutely stunning and I also think it's the best console ever made. Backward compatibility gives you the NEWEST console, without having to own multiple consoles and allows you to play ALL your past AND new games. Win Win if you ask me. I don't care if it costs a couple hundred more dollars. If a buy something for 800 Dollars that I can use EVERYDAY for 5-10 years, if not longer, It IS worth the money. My PS3 was 600 Dollars and I got it in 2008 and it's still alive and kicking. No problems at all. Money well spent, if you ask me.

 

Definitely. I got mine in October 2007, like a week after Sony announced they would stop producing 60gb PS3s with BC, because of cost-cutting measures. It's money well-spent indeed, I don't even think Sony should have released a PS4 so soon, but I understand they have too.

[Algonquin Assassin]

I personally thought LC was fine without countryside. IMO it would've made it feel like filler for the sake of being there. If anything I would've preferred more areas relevent to the city itself like Madison Square Garden.

 

Maybe if R* visit LC again they might do Liberty State this time around due to their experience with RDR and GTA V, but I don't feel GTA IV's LC needed wilderness since they wanted to give NYC a better representation as it was never done well in GTA III.

[Lethal Vaccine]

I agree. Also to the guy who wanted planes in IV...I think Helicopters are good enough. I mean, Helicopters in IV travel wickedly fast compared to Helicopters in V. The IV map is smaller so any Helicopter can zip around the map quite easily. If there was planes, you'd expect them to ever go FASTER than the Helicopters. You'd take off at the Airport and be on the other side of the map in what? 5 seconds? They just are not needed in IV at all...

 

I think IV's map and what's in the map and game is perfect. I couldn't ask for anything else, tbh.

[Official General]

I personally thought LC was fine without countryside. IMO it would've made it feel like filler for the sake of being there. If anything I would've preferred more areas relevent to the city itself like Madison Square Garden.

 

Maybe if R* visit LC again they might do Liberty State this time around due to their experience with RDR and GTA V, but I don't feel GTA IV's LC needed wilderness since they wanted to give NYC a better representation as it was never done well in GTA III.

 

Exactly.

 

What LC in IV would have needed more would have been more stuff in it that was based on other real life physical aspects of New York City. Stuff like you said, Madison Square Garden. A sports stadium like the Yankee stadium. A stock exchange like the one in New York. Being able to enter bodegas, convenience stores, small banks (and rob them too). Just fine details like that to fully polish the LC experience.

[Ducard]

I'd like diving underwater in IV just to see Vlad's corpse.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Ducard

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

I personally thought LC was fine without countryside. IMO it would've made it feel like filler for the sake of being there. If anything I would've preferred more areas relevent to the city itself like Madison Square Garden.

Maybe if R* visit LC again they might do Liberty State this time around due to their experience with RDR and GTA V, but I don't feel GTA IV's LC needed wilderness since they wanted to give NYC a better representation as it was never done well in GTA III.

 

Exactly.

 

What LC in IV would have needed more would have been more stuff in it that was based on other real life physical aspects of New York City. Stuff like you said, Madison Square Garden. A sports stadium like the Yankee stadium. A stock exchange like the one in New York. Being able to enter bodegas, convenience stores, small banks (and rob them too). Just fine details like that to fully polish the LC experience.

Even though LC was done extremely well all of this stuff would've have made it even better.

[Official General]

I'd like diving underwater in IV just to see Vlad's corpse.

 

Yeah just like in VC, where you can see what's alleged to be Diaz's corpse in submerged beneath the waters around Vice City's downtown area. It would have been cool if Rockstar did the same thing with Vlad in IV, that was some crazy sh*t to see when I first saw that in VC !

Edited November 22, 2014 by Official General

[donnits]

Atlantic City, with a casinos and a boardwalk, south of Acter Industrial, more land north of Bohan with a lake town surrounded by woods (like where i live) and if Dukes could be expanded into Long Island (East Island in-game) with North and South Carraway, that would be tight. As is now, though, i love Liberty City.

Edited November 22, 2014 by thekillerdonuts

[Niko Montana]

I still play IV. In fact I was on it this morning

[Ducard]

IIRC, GTA IV was supposed to be Liberty State with LC, Alderney, a countryside and Carcer City. Would have been freaking amazing but they would never have been able to do it in Last-gen consoles.

 

I find Carcer city to be an interesting city. It's the city in manhunt but only a few people know that it's in the GTA universe. The events of Manhunt occur before GTA 3 and some of it is referenced in the game radio. There are various other references in other GTA's too. It's supposed to be close to LC and it is also very dark and gritty.

 

Would make a good location for VI.

[Turan]

I personally thought LC was fine without countryside. IMO it would've made it feel like filler for the sake of being there. If anything I would've preferred more areas relevent to the city itself like Madison Square Garden.

 

Maybe if R* visit LC again they might do Liberty State this time around due to their experience with RDR and GTA V, but I don't feel GTA IV's LC needed wilderness since they wanted to give NYC a better representation as it was never done well in GTA III.

 

 

No, it wouldn't feel like a filler because knowing Rockstar they would've done something great with it.

 

 

Atlantic City, with a casinos and a boardwalk, south of Acter Industrial, more land north of Bohan with a lake town surrounded by woods (like where i live) and if Dukes could be expanded into Long Island (East Island in-game) with North and South Carraway, that would be tight. As is now, though, i love Liberty City.

 

 

This is what I'm talking about. Liberty City as it is feels too monotonous. Adding things like lakes and woods and maybe another city next to it would have made the game so much better for me. And to the guy saying planes would have been useless in LC, well in the type of setting I described above they would've been perfect.

 

 

If GTA IV came after GTA Vice City I wouldn't have minded Liberty City. But after San Andreas I can't help but feel I'm missing something big.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Turan

[Tycek]

And then you have example of your idea in V. Was it worth it? Was countryside really that great and did R* really did something great with it?

[Official General]

 

I personally thought LC was fine without countryside. IMO it would've made it feel like filler for the sake of being there. If anything I would've preferred more areas relevent to the city itself like Madison Square Garden.

 

Maybe if R* visit LC again they might do Liberty State this time around due to their experience with RDR and GTA V, but I don't feel GTA IV's LC needed wilderness since they wanted to give NYC a better representation as it was never done well in GTA III.

 

 

No, it wouldn't feel like a filler because knowing Rockstar they would've done something great with it.

 

 

Atlantic City, with a casinos and a boardwalk, south of Acter Industrial, more land north of Bohan with a lake town surrounded by woods (like where i live) and if Dukes could be expanded into Long Island (East Island in-game) with North and South Carraway, that would be tight. As is now, though, i love Liberty City.

 

 

This is what I'm talking about. Liberty City as it is feels too monotonous. Adding things like lakes and woods and maybe another city next to it would have made the game so much better for me. And to the guy saying planes would have been useless in LC, well in the type of setting I described above they would've been perfect.

 

 

If GTA IV came after GTA Vice City I wouldn't have minded Liberty City. But after San Andreas I can't help but feel I'm missing something big.

 

 

@ Turan

 

Yeah I do agree with you about Liberty City/Alderney being much better if was a bit bigger with a bit of variety added to a mostly city-based map like just a small bit of countryside and wilderness. But since IV is centered around the New York/New Jersey metro area, it don't bother me that all that stuff is not there, I'm quite happy with map design as it is, I just wished that Broker and Dukes were a bit bigger and the whole map overall had more suburban areas.

 

SA's map needed to be huge simply because the game was based on an entire state with THREE main cities that are miles far apart from each other. It was necessary for SA to have such a huge map. IV is just largely based on one city (NYC) and a small portion of a nearby urban area in another state (NJ area immediately next to NYC), the map didn't need to be massive. Seriously, there is not much interesting countryside or wilderness outside of the NYC/NJ metro area, just mostly suburban towns and patches of woodlands.

 

Yeah planes in IV would be fine IF the map was much bigger than it is now, yes. But it is not, so it goes back to my original point - planes were not necessary in IV because the map was not big enough to accommodate a decently-sized flying range to fly the planes.

 

 

And then you have example of your idea in V. Was it worth it? Was countryside really that great and did R* really did something great with it?

 

This exactly

 

It's all well and good saying, "lets have more countryside in a GTA game, it's cool to have", but it's not so cool when there is not much going on, or when there is not much interesting and fun to see or do. This was the case in V - lovely to look at, nice to drive around, but for most part it was useless and empty.

 

Afterward, it had me thinking that Rockstar should have concentrated first on making Los Santos a most immersive and engaging environment by creating many interiors, many decent side missions, buying safehouse properties, better gang and ped AI (random shootouts, and violence), make LS feel like a place where something is always going on and always something to do. If LS had been like that, I'd not have been too bothered about the near-useless feel of the countryside and wilderness in V, it would have been just a nice place to get away from city life. Instead, we got a double whammy of disappointment - a city greatly lacking in-depth immersion and interaction, and a countryside and wilderness that largely empty and useless.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Official General

[Niobium]

 

 

 

I don't run into many people with Backward Compatible PS3's, but imo, it's the best system ever created.

 

I know a handful of people who had the Slim PS3 and it died on them not once, but twice and sometimes three times. My PS3 which I bought in 2008 when GTA IV came out, is my FIRST PS3 and it's working perfectly.

 

All you need is a backward compatible PS3, then you can buy the PS2 discs of III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS like I have, while playing IV/TLaD/TBoGT and V all on PS3, too. All 9 Games owned on one Console. That's the way I like it.

 

f*cking Sony, though....Idiots are trying to make the big bucks, thus removing backward compatibility and making consumers own PS2, 3, and 4. No thanks. One system for ALL. Not 3...

Nah man, backward compatibility was removed from PS3 (3rd generation fat and up) due to cost. The first PS3 costs like 600 bucks, and manufactured at a cost of $800. Quite a huge loss.

uhh... no it shouldn't cost anything to have backwards compatability. they can easily use ps2 emulators (they used them for the fat PS3s if i'm not mistaken).

 

the only reason they don't want you to play your ps2 game on the ps3 is because they want you to buy the same ps2 game at the PSN store. greedy turds...

 

 

Nah, first generation PS3 (earliest fats) uses a built in PS2 (full PS2 hardware) inside the PS3. Second generation removes PS2 GPU, but still uses the EE PS2 CPU.

 

Third generation (40 and 80 GB) no longer uses PS2 hardware, at all.

 

 

the point is that they can still put a ps2 emulator inside the ps3. no extra hardware is needed

 

But......I can afford it. Can Sony make me a PS4 with backward compatibility? I'll pay $800. How about that?

 

That's the main reason I could careless about buying a PS4 and GTA V Remaster. It's all about making money now and Sony wanting you to own a PS2, 3, and 4 and as nobum62 said, they also want you to buy digital copies from the PSN Store. So I got the original PS2 discs for III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS. You expect me to throw them out and buy digital? Then when my PS4 blows up, buy digital AGAIN? It's like a CD and downloading music. If you have tons of music on your Computer and it dies on you (before you made a backup), then you lost everything. Now if you have the actual CD physical disc, then you didn't lose a damn thing but your Computer.

 

It's the same thing here with Consoles and Games. I got all the PHYSICAL copies if III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS all on PS2 and I got the PHYSICAL copies of IV, TLaD, TBoGT and V all on PS3. They ALL play on my PS3. How convenient! My friend's PS3 Slim just broke on him and he is gonna be getting a PS4 for Christmas. But what happened to his digital copies of III, SA, and LCS on his Slim PS3? They are GONE. And it looks like his PS3 disc of IV Complete Edition and GTA V are frisbees now and 100% useless trash because where is he gonna play them now? PS4 won't do sh*t for him. The only way he can play now is buying yet a THIRD PS3...

 

My PS3 is my FIRST one still and working perfectly. I take care of my things, though, and don't game LONG hours. He's younger than me, and games all day, thus causes wear and tear on the console. All I know is this: PS3 with 9 GTA Games > PS2, 3, and 4 with all games on seperate consoles, which is a pain in the ass. I pick the most convenient route.

 

i wish i still had my fat ps3, but it got the YLOD and so i bought a ps3 slim.

Edited November 23, 2014 by nobum62

[Turan]

And then you have example of your idea in V. Was it worth it? Was countryside really that great and did R* really did something great with it?

 

 

Of course. If you had read my post at the top of this page you would've seen how much I prefer GTA V over GTA IV.

[Lock n' Stock]

I still think GTA IV is a fantastic game, I feel too many people look down on it for the simple reason of lacking much of the content that SA had. For me honestly, it's hard to care about that when there's so much attention to detail.