Why I feel that GTA IV does not have great gameplay at all...

[Lethal Vaccine]

Speaking of Gangs, tomorrow, since I am re-doing TLaD to 100% with a bigger and better vehicle collection, I'll be doing those Gang Wars. These are really special and unique as they change frequently, surely get harder and harder as they go, and the vehicles in them are usually unique vehicles and/or exclusive colored vehicles.

 

I hope to obtain the White/Blue or Orange/Black Slamvan, Orange/Black Gang Burrito, and Black Comet. All three vehicles are unique and don't spawn on the streets (Only Comet, but you have to be driving one yourself for it to spawn). All three vehicles are exclusively colored, too. No pay and spray will spawn these colors I will be going for and none of these colors are found on the street, either, like the black paintjob on the Comet!

 

I had a tough time in March when I did TLaD the first time to 100%. The Gang Wars always killed me and I got so sick and tired of them when I did 25 of them. This time, however, I might go for 50. These are probably, along with Drug Wars in TBoGT, the hardest things out of everything in HD GTA Games (IV, TLaD, TBoGT, V).

Edited October 5, 2014 by Militia

[Algonquin Assassin]

Whether SA and VC *were* fun or not, it really comes down to one's preference and taste. That's not the point.

Its about the *gameplay* building around some obvious factors, with respect to the single player content, and sandbox freedom.

No pointless comparisons by attacking the weakest elements, which is *technically* the fault of the time and age, rather than the game.

The whole point is, how *consistently* good these old games were, in offering the *gameplay* suitable for the open world genre, which is what the series was meant to be, up and until IV, which broke that consistency.

Also, you could easily skip all those Ambulance, Pizza delivery, etc. --just like bowling, pool, and picking annoying calls, or dating are optional in IV.

So, what's the problem?

The problem occurs, when you skip many things in IV, while SA and VC still allowed good number of things to do, due to the variety seen in the game, irrespectve one liked it or not!

It's something, which objectively to me, the sandbox *gameplay* of SA and VC, hands down, offered a good mix to appeal to me as a gamer!!!

I don't really give two craps for story, since it's just a part of the game, and not the game itself, esp. if we're talking about a sandbox game.

No denying that GTA IV is, and will remain technically amazing. But, putting aside the technical shortcomings of the old games, there is no lack of fun things to do in SA and VC, otherwise it'd have easily led me to feel let down, and a lot others on release, too.

SA and VC didn't require any sort of DLC episodes for playing through them because the core game was absolute blast, unlike the boring base game of IV, without the EFLC!

Apart from the driving physics ( which I really enjoyed in IV ), vigilante, and story missions, I really don't get the urge to return to the detailed, yet a big empty city with no solid *gameplay* on offer, unless I switch to TLAD, or TBOGT for the change, or something that I'd experienced before, if not similar, but nothing unique either, except playing with the physics, the cops, NPC's, etc., which is cool and all, but frankly, that doesn't alone make the *gameplay* great! Its a common thing every GTA has always offered.

Also, one can't easily ignore how heavily scripted IV is, to the point, that I've to take note of several things, on my first run, to get the proper understanding about what exactly made the game to restart ( as explained in my initial response ) despite performimg the simple tasks, except that I loved to be creative, and screw around with the missions in SA and VC!

They hardly punished me to play the missions differently, as they were quite simple, yet certainly fun, and not so tightly scripted resulting into mission failure, except for some missions here and there.

 

 

I guess we have to learn to agree to disagree. You and I are obviously two very different players. I've never really been a big fan of SA, but I've always loved VC yet I started a new save of VC a few weeks ago and haven't touched it since. GTA IV to me anyway offers plenty of incentive to return to it as it's not just the story and city that I love, but I love its simplistic yet addictive gameplay. Even though I enjoyed the new additions introduced via EFLC I've always preferred the vanilla game.

 

 

 

Some of the most fun I've ever had in GTA IV is throwing Niko off buildings, into traffic etc why? Because the physics allow for a different result everytime. Now try doing the same with any 3D era GTA and their repetitive animations. It's boring.

Yes IV's physics were awesome. But you couldn't go doing stunts. Doing stunts in IV is boring and there are barely any stunting locations at all. You won't see random crazy stuff happen in IV nor will you see the variety of the 3D Era games in IV.

 

Things like pizza boy, paramedic, firefighter, valet, car salesman etc were all stupid to me. The thing I like about GTA IV's is they fitted the context of what it was trying to portray. No they weren't the most creative, but fitted Niko's character to a tee.

So what if it doesn't fit Niko's character? The gameplay is non-canon to the story isn't it? This isn't Mafia, this is GTA. You don't go around cutting down stuff simply because it doesn't fit the protag's character.

 

My main disappointment with IV though is that it lacked variety, customization and randomness. The gameplay itself was below par in my opinion.

 

I couldn't imagine him riding around on a scooter delivering pizzas or fighting fires so unlike most people I didn't care for their exclusion. In fact I'm glad R* wised up and focussed their attention on making them have more relevance to the character.

See my point above.

 

Honestly VC and SA were fun games in their day, but the key word here is "were". Even when GTA IV was new it was just as fun to me and I definitely wasn't playing VC and SA on a regular basis at the same age GTA IV currently is in 2008 and 2010 respectively.

Maybe VC and SA aren't as epic as they were before but they are still fun. Apart from a few outdated mechanics I feel they are generally playable.

 

I love myth hunting, messing around with cheats, exploring the world, stunting, seeing random crazy sh*t happen, customize my character, some good action mechanics etc. IV didn't tick all boxes for me. It's a great game but for me on the gameplay department it falls short of the mark.

 

We all have different styles of play. I guess. But I can finally see why so many people found IV's gameplay disappointing. But I still like the game even with it's faults.

 

 

-Isn't this a contradiction? You can't go doing stunts (making it seem like it's impossible), but doing stunts is boring? wtf? and I don't understand what you mean by it has barely any stunting locations. It's got more than VC, but not quite as much as SA. It's basically the middle ground. Fair enough if you think they're boring, but please be more clear with what you're trying to say.

 

-This is true, but I still like GTA IV's side missions more. Osho says things like pizza boy, paramedic, firefighting etc can be ignored from the 3D era, but I don't want to have to ignore side missions. That's what puts GTA IV head and shoulders every GTA before it to me. There's not a single side mission I dislike in GTA IV. Niko even has a legitimate reason to be driving taxis since he does it to help out Roman.

 

I have my own gripes with GTA IV, but this 180 turn seems a little strange to me considering you've never shown any indication before that you've found the gameplay this disappointing. I hope it's not because you're allowing yourself to be susceptible to influence by other people who aren't the biggest fans of GTA IV.

[Vercetti42]

I find the stunting boring in IV yeah.

 

And SOL you've noticed my posts before. I've never really praised IV in the gameplay department. Most of my criticisms are from the gameplay department. So I feel I could just be completely honest and state my opinion. And remember SOL after V released you considered it to be one of the best games ever made but not you wouldn't put it even close. It's the same thing. I myself only started noticing these things only after hundreds of hours of play.

 

I am not a SA fanboy. Heck I've actually tried to give a reason for why I prefer SA's gameplay to IV's instead of the usual "HURR DURR IV HAZ NO CONTENT". And I still like IV. I had my fun playing it and I still feel it's a great game.

[Algonquin Assassin]

I don't see how it's the same thing. I was affected by new game hype when GTA V was new and it only took me a month or so to realise it wasn't as great as I initially thought it was. My views have been fairly consistent since October last year.

 

Even if most of your gripes with GTA IV are gameplay related I was looking some of your posts from a few months ago (yes I'm a stalker) and it didn't seem to bother you that much as what you're saying now.

 

It just seems odd to me that it seems like you've done a complete backflip out of thin air. Everyone's entitled to their opinion obviously, but when I opened this thread I was actually expecting it to be rhetorical in the sense that people have always complained about the gameplay.

 

I didn't expect for you to vent out disappointments so vigorously and I'm not saying you're a SA fanboy. Not sure why you assume that.

[Vercetti42]

Probably because a few months ago, I had not finished the story.

 

I don't think VC and SA are mich better than IV. They are on the same level for me. Gameplay wise it is a different.

 

Remember I only said IV does not great gameplay. It is fantastic in every other department.

 

Also Sol back in 2009 you were a different GTA Player. You preferred BoGT to TLaD and SA and VC to IV. It os the same thing really.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Vercetti42

[Algonquin Assassin]

Eh. I joined GTAF as a VC fan since at the time GTA IV wasn't released and have always given it its fair share of praise, but I don't recall ever saying I prefer SA to GTA IV? Besides you're talking about 5 years ago mate.

 

I think most would agree considering how long I've been here for and the amount of posts I've made that I've always been relatively consistent with the opinion that GTA IV (excluding EFLC ) and VC are the two best GTAs.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong if you don't find the gameplay great, but it did catch me off guard coming from you of all people that's all. It was just kind of surprising.

[Osho]

 

Dan Houser on GTA SA personalisation and mission structure -- If we'd both been playing for a while, your game would begin to feel very different from my game. We might be at the same point in the mission structure, but your character might look great, you know, have all these great attributes, have a lot of money coming in, but if I'm just focussed on the missions I might look like a piece of sh*t. It's about giving people that *freedom of choice*. It's still very much an action game, but there's a whole world out there to explore if you want to. At points in the GTA existence we've gone very, very *non-linear*, like GTA2 was very, very non-linear. And we've tried to get the best of that (in GTA:SA) which comes down to giving people the *freedom of choice* at any moment. You also get the advantage of a story which relies on emotion and characters. So the story opens up, it feels very *non-linear*, then it closes for a bit, then it opens up again: it works quite well, I think."

[PhillBellic]

Even though I enjoyed the new additions introduced via EFLC I've always preferred the vanilla game.

 

I prefer the vanilla game more as well. It's Niko that does it for me. Additionally its because it has been extensively modded including my collection of police vehicles.

 

Cheers.

[Wolfhuman]

Compared to San Andreas, IV felt really restrictive. The first time playing it i had the feeling that i didn't had any freedom at all. No underwater swimming, no parachute, no planes, lack of customization. These are things that are vital for a game like gta imo. You need to have freedom, you need to feel free and do what you want. This was a big disappointment with IV. No matter how you look at it.

 

Do i feel that IV is a bad game because of that? No, it did compensate for it to a certain degree. But SA still wins for me, however i do respect the details. IV wins that without a fight. Both in graphics and game play. Small details that go unnoticed. Like switching gear for example. But overall? SA still beats IV. Much more freedom, customization, these things are vital for a gta game imo.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Wolfhuman

[Vercetti42]

I don't think there's anything wrong if you don't find the gameplay great, but it did catch me off guard coming from you of all people that's all. It was just kind of surprising.

 

You could do a better job of possessing me.

 

But seriously though, even if the gameplay isn't that great, IV still has the best story, city and protagonist in any video game. Nothing can change that... for now.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Vercetti42

[B Dawg]

No underwater swimming, no parachute, no planes, lack of customization. These are things that are vital for a game like gta imo.

GTA III and VC say otherwise. The following are vital for a GTA:

-Atmosphere

-Music

-Physics/Game Mechanics

-Overall Freedom

-Story

-Protagonist(s)

-Details

Edited October 6, 2014 by B Dawg

[Wolfhuman]

 

No underwater swimming, no parachute, no planes, lack of customization. These are things that are vital for a game like gta imo.

GTA III and VC say otherwise. The following are vital for a GTA:

-Atmosphere

-Music

-Physics/Game Mechanics

-Overall Freedom

-Story

-Protagonist(s)

-Details

 

 

Ah, i meant to say: ''Things like these are vital''. I disagree with physics, gta 3's physics didn't bother me.

 

You want to say that SA didn't have those things? I still felt that 3 was not that good even back in the day. SA kicks this game, all day, everyday, on all of those things that you mentioned.

only protagonist not. Claude owns CJ imo. A fine mute, a fine psycho.

 

But the thing was, SA showed us that we can have freedom. And i really missed it in IV. Maybe because i was used to it, but SA showed that these things are also important.

[Algonquin Assassin]

Compared to San Andreas, IV felt really restrictive. The first time playing it i had the feeling that i didn't had any freedom at all. No underwater swimming, no parachute, no planes, lack of customization. These are things that are vital for a game like gta imo. You need to have freedom, you need to feel free and do what you want. This was a big disappointment with IV. No matter how you look at it.

 

Do i feel that IV is a bad game because of that? No, it did compensate for it to a certain degree. But SA still wins for me, however i do respect the details. IV wins that without a fight. Both in graphics and game play. Small details that go unnoticed. Like switching gear for example. But overall? SA still beats IV. Much more freedom, customization, these things are vital for a gta game imo.

The only thing I missed from SA was some of the customising options. I really couldn't care less about diving underwater, planes, parachutes etc. That's just me though.

 

Diving underwater, parachuting and planes were brought back in GTA V yet I didn't notice myself wanting them desperately in GTA IV whenever I went back to playing it.

 

I'm probably not as hard on SA as I used to be, but I still can't ignore the things I hated about it that I thought was a breath of fresh air not being present in GTA IV.

 

GTA IV didn't force players to feed Niko to prevent him from starving to death and he didn't need to work out. I still have no idea why people want the gym to be brought back in GTA V really. I thought it was a tedious as f*ck chore.

 

SA definitely had things going for it like the tri city state, soundtrack, customising etc and even though CJ was a douchcebag one can't deny it was a revolutionary game for its time. It just wasn't my type of game. There's a reason I still play GTA IV regularly and haven't had a serious play through of SA in almost 9 years.

[Wolfhuman]

 

Compared to San Andreas, IV felt really restrictive. The first time playing it i had the feeling that i didn't had any freedom at all. No underwater swimming, no parachute, no planes, lack of customization. These are things that are vital for a game like gta imo. You need to have freedom, you need to feel free and do what you want. This was a big disappointment with IV. No matter how you look at it.

 

Do i feel that IV is a bad game because of that? No, it did compensate for it to a certain degree. But SA still wins for me, however i do respect the details. IV wins that without a fight. Both in graphics and game play. Small details that go unnoticed. Like switching gear for example. But overall? SA still beats IV. Much more freedom, customization, these things are vital for a gta game imo.

The only thing I missed from SA was some of the customising options. I really couldn't care less about diving underwater, planes, parachutes etc. That's just me though.

 

Diving underwater, parachuting and planes were brought back in GTA V yet I didn't notice myself wanting them desperately in GTA IV whenever I went back to playing it. I'm probably not as hard on SA as I used to be, but I still can't ignore the things I hated about it that I thought was a breath of fresh air not being present in GTA IV.

 

GTA IV didn't force players to feed Niko to prevent him from starving to death and he didn't need to work out. I still have no idea why people want the gym to be brought back in GTA V really. I thought it was a tedious as f*ck chore.

 

 

Going underwater is maybe small but it gives you the feeling or maybe the illusion that you can go wherever you want. To the skies, to the bottom of the ocean. Parachutes are handy if you just want to jump out of the plane to land wherever you want. Again, it gives you the illusion or the feeling that you have complete freedom. Freedom is why i liked Gta 3 too, when i played it i was absolutely amazed that you can do what you want. From Driver on the PS1 to Gta 3, it was amazing. But San Andreas raised the barrier, and IV lowered the barrier on that subject.

 

I agree. The force feeding was a bit annoying. But the gym was pretty cool. It actually gave the gamer a new perspective on San Andreas. Peds would react to you in a certain way, nice battle cries, and new animations, it gave the game a nice touch. You wasn't always the same person, you would change from time to time. Same as the hair thing in V, it will grow overtime and gives a new fresh look on the protagonist.

 

In IV, you was basically the same guy time and time again. But in San Andreas you could make the guy how you want it. I am aware that it should be realistic and not too fantasy like. Like going to the gym and then workout for 3 days to be buff, that is way too fake lol. If they can bring it back in a realistic fashion then i don't have a problem.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Wolfhuman

[Lethal Vaccine]

No, no, no! The realism is the REASON as to why freedom and fun are disappearing! Maybe it could be nice, but it never will be because Rockstar just never thinks logically to add in realism while maintaining the game being fun.

 

As for IV, it was the perfect mix between realism and fun....But I still liked when I could jump off the tallest roof in VC and only lose a spec of my health or armor. Jump off a tall building in IV, not even the tallest, you're dead. However, this doesn't bother me as much as flying out of the windshield. In IV it wasn't so much a problem, but in V....Somebody kill me now...

 

Osho has listed in numerous topics about fun and realism, but nobody seems to get it...

 

HD Era as a whole restricts you to do certain things, and that's the bottom line.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Militia

[Osho]

Nothing can be bad enough than moving through LC, and suddenly you run out of ideas for things to do, when not on missions, isn't just aimlessly wandering around the city, a chore?

Food isn't chore, I liked such features. You only need to feed CJ, once every 48 game hours to keep him from losing weight.

Are you so lazy that you can't visit easily accessible restaurants, and other optiions to have some food, at all! Just stupid excuses.

I don't see the game forcing you, rather such little touched as features, keep you more active, and concious about yourself!

[Lethal Vaccine]

I liked to make CJ fat.....I couldn't be bothered to eat..............While I was in the middle of pushing an AP Savanna in the mission "Photo Opportunity" from Angel Pine back to San Fierro Dogherty Garage....

 

That was the plan....For hour long vehicles to obtain, the plan was to always fatten him up as he'd lose weight in the process everytime...

 

I never made him TOO fat, though. Currently, he's quite skinny, too, and when I load up my game, within 30 minutes (real life time) he's hungry again and his fat bar in the pause menu isn't fat at all anymore...

[Wolfhuman]

No, no, no! The realism is the REASON as to why freedom and fun are disappearing! Maybe it could be nice, but it never will be because Rockstar just never thinks logically to add in realism while maintaining the game being fun.

 

As for IV, it was the perfect mix between realism and fun....But I still liked when I could jump off the tallest roof in VC and only lose a spec of my health or armor. Jump off a tall building in IV, not even the tallest, you're dead. However, this doesn't bother me as much as flying out of the windshield. In IV it wasn't so much a problem, but in V....Somebody kill me now...

 

Osho has listed in numerous topics about fun and realism, but nobody seems to get it...

 

HD Era as a whole restricts you to do certain things, and that's the bottom line.

 

 

I don't see any reason to withheld some of the freedom stuff just for realism. What type of freedom stuff can't be implemented just because of realism? I believe that we still can have tons of fun even if Gta would be ultra realistic. And if you don't want the windshield thing to happen, then you should drive in a better way. You need to adjust the game.

 

Having an ultra realistic gta doesn't mean that you can't have fun. It is maybe a transition that people need to get used to, but again, i don't see a reason to not have San Andreas type of fun in an ultra realistic gta.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Wolfhuman

[Lethal Vaccine]

Neither do I....But you, nor I are creating the games. Rockstar is. And their logic isn't that great. The more realism they add, the less freedom we have and more scripted mess we have....Like V. I doubt they will digress anytime soon. They are just gonna build on what they did in V, yet V, is the worst one to date with being scripted and showing less freedom. Driving around a big map isn't freedom, either. Tons of games offer that now a days...

 

The windshield thing isn't a problem in IV, like I said. You bearly fly out of the windshield, period. The only time is when your car is completely dented and f*cked up. When the car is in a weak condition, flying out the windshield is more prone to happen. Now in V, even if your car is 100% health, you can bump something NOT going fast and fly out and die. Or be going ultra fast and run into something, and nothing will happen. Point is, V is where the problem with the windshield is more so than IV and it's inconsistent as to why you fly out of the windshield, too. It's hit or miss and nobody knows why.

 

As for IV, you fly out of the windshield and what? Lose a spec of health, or a bit more when Niko bounces off the ground like a basketball a few times (which was fixed in Episodes from Liberty City)...I can drive just fine in all GTA games. It's not the problem. However, it is a problem when something fun to do was ram into cars and watch them go flying and flip over......But now with more realism, if you do that, you have a possibility of dying.

 

Even in AP vehicles in IV (Bulletproof, Damageproof, Explosionproof, Fireproof) you can still fly out of the windshield. The vehicles still show dents and get banged up, however, the car will never smoke and catch fire, thus it's "damageproof." Although, in a DP vehicle in 3D Era, the car wouldn't even get a scratch, thus it made obtaining such vehicles more fun and interesting.

 

HD Era Realism has made the series worse, basically.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Militia

[Osho]

....For hour long vehicles to obtain, the plan was to always fatten him up as he'd lose weight in the process everytime...

Absolutely! I mean, one needs to play the game smartly, rather blaming the features outright, unless they severely break the immersion.

One can't expect the game to downgrade a specific feature, to the point, that you can't even be bothered to make the best use if these features, the way you care, and want.

Afterall, the gane provided a good room of flexibility to make use of it for different situations. That's the best thing about GTA SA.

Gym is only necessary to lose the weight soon, otherwise you could easily spend 12 real time hours without even visiting once, IF YOU PLAY SMARTLY!

[Algonquin Assassin]

Nothing can be bad enough than moving through LC, and suddenly you run out of ideas for things to do, when not on missions, isn't just aimlessly wandering around the city, a chore?

Food isn't chore, I liked such features. You only need to feed CJ, once every 48 game hours to keep him from losing weight.

Are you so lazy that you can't visit easily accessible restaurants, and other optiions to have some food, at all! Just stupid excuses.

I don't see the game forcing you, rather such little touched as features, keep you more active, and concious about yourself!

Sugarcoat all you like, but it was still an annoying chore. I'm surprised with all the complaining you do about realism and what not in the HD GTAs how you can be so casual about one of the most pointless features ever introduced to the series.

 

If it was put in GTA IV first would you be defending it?

[Wolfhuman]

Neither do I....But you, nor I are creating the games. Rockstar is. And their logic isn't that great. The more realism they add, the less freedom we have and more scripted mess we have....Like V. I doubt they will digress anytime soon. They are just gonna build on what they did in V, yet V, is the worst one to date with being scripted and showing less freedom. Driving around a big map isn't freedom, either. Tons of games offer that now a days...

 

The windshield thing isn't a problem in IV, like I said. You bearly fly out of the windshield, period. The only time is when your car is completely dented and f*cked up. When the car is in a weak condition, flying out the windshield is more prone to happen. Now in V, even if your car is 100% health, you can bump something NOT going fast and fly out and die. Or be going ultra fast and run into something, and nothing will happen. Point is, V is where the problem with the windshield is more so than IV and it's inconsistent as to why you fly out of the windshield, too. It's hit or miss and nobody knows why.

 

As for IV, you fly out of the windshield and what? Lose a spec of health, or a bit more when Niko bounces off the ground like a basketball a few times (which was fixed in Episodes from Liberty City)...I can drive just fine in all GTA games. It's not the problem. However, it is a problem when something fun to do was ram into cars and watch them go flying and flip over......But now with more realism, if you do that, you have a possibility of dying.

 

Even in AP vehicles in IV (Bulletproof, Damageproof, Explosionproof, Fireproof) you can still fly out of the windshield. The vehicles still show dents and get banged up, however, the car will never smoke and catch fire, thus it's "damageproof." Although, in a DP vehicle in 3D Era, the car wouldn't even get a scratch, thus it made obtaining such vehicles more fun and interesting.

 

HD Era Realism has made the series worse, basically.

 

 

I wouldn't necessarily blame the realism but R*. I don't see why an ultra realistic gta with a San Andreas type of fun can't be added. There still will be fun but in a different way, while it's still stays fun. I didn't knew about the windshield thing then. That is unrealistic from V's part then.

 

Again, i don't believe that it is he HD era's fault. It is R* fault. We can have an ultra realistic gta game with still tons of fun, this can be done.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Wolfhuman

[Osho]

I'm surprised with all the complaining you do about realism and what not in the HD GTAs how you can be so casual about one of the most pointless features ever introduced to the series. If it was put in GTA IV first would you be defending it?

What's so pointless about food?

I don't see any problems, realistic or not.

How come a simple feature, such as food would bother anyone?

Annoying calls in IV doesn't bother you?

It didn't even bother me. Have you seen me complaining about it?

 

You really can't blame the feature, whether pointless/not, unless it's a game breaker ( flying out windshield ), and importantly, if the game doesn't allow good flexibility, which I already said, IT DOES!

[Algonquin Assassin]

You're completely missing the point. I don't have a problem with food itself. In GTA IV you can buy hotdogs, burgers etc to restore health, but the difference is Niko's health won't deplete if he isn't fed after a certain amount of time.

 

That's all I'm trying to say.

 

I didn't like feeding CJ once every 48 hours game and it wasn't because I was lazy. It was just a stupid and pointless prerequisite that didn't serve anything to the gameplay.

[Osho]

You're completely missing the point. I don't have a problem with food itself. In GTA IV you can buy hotdogs, burgers etc to restore health, but the difference is Niko's health won't deplete if he isn't fed after a certain amount of time. That's all I'm trying to say. I didn't like feeding CJ once every 48 hours game and it wasn't because I was lazy. It was just a stupid and pointless prerequisite that didn't serve anything to the gameplay.

I didn't like paying the toll either, every time and it wasn't because I'm lazy. It was just a stupid and pointless prerequisite that didn't serve anything to the gameplay, too.

The difference you don't see, is the players freedom to feed only once every 48 game hours, which can be done EASILY!

Also, you won't die instantly, rather start losing wait slowly, and gradually depleting CJ's health, giving you enough time to feed him.

No way, I'm going to buy any argument against it. It simply isn't game breaker, nor makes it a chore, unlike paying toll, EACH TIME. There is no easy room to avoid it, unless I change the vehicles, or simply pick the wanted level and lose it.

Tolls were present in GTA SA, but did you pay even once?

No. Simple as that.

[Kampret]

Nothing can be bad enough than moving through LC, and suddenly you run out of ideas for things to do, when not on missions, isn't just aimlessly wandering around the city, a chore?

Food isn't chore, I liked such features. You only need to feed CJ, once every 48 game hours to keep him from losing weight.

Are you so lazy that you can't visit easily accessible restaurants, and other optiions to have some food, at all! Just stupid excuses.

I don't see the game forcing you, rather such little touched as features, keep you more active, and concious about yourself!

 

You do remember that 1 in-game hour is exactly 1 IRL minute, right? 48 minutes while playing SA is worth from the first mission to the countryside missions.

 

It's a nice addition, but in PS2 interior loading times are awful in SA. And there's no hot-dog vendors like in IV.

 

You're completely missing the point. I don't have a problem with food itself. In GTA IV you can buy hotdogs, burgers etc to restore health, but the difference is Niko's health won't deplete if he isn't fed after a certain amount of time. That's all I'm trying to say. I didn't like feeding CJ once every 48 hours game and it wasn't because I was lazy. It was just a stupid and pointless prerequisite that didn't serve anything to the gameplay.

I didn't like paying the toll either, every time and it wasn't because I'm lazy. It was just a stupid and pointless prerequisite that didn't serve anything to the gameplay, too.

The difference you don't see, is the players freedom to feed only once every 48 game hours, which can be done EASILY!

Also, you won't die instantly, rather start losing wait slowly, and gradually depleting CJ's health, giving you enough time to feed him.

No way, I'm going to buy any argument against it. It simply isn't game breaker, nor makes it a chore, unlike paying toll, EACH TIME. There is no easy room to avoid it, unless I change the vehicles, or simply pick the wanted level and lose it.

Tolls were present in GTA SA, but did you pay even once?

No. Simple as that.

 

 

Hmm, with a bike you can slip by the toll booth, and it's VERY easy to lose the cops in IV.

[Vercetti42]

The only thing I missed from SA was some of the customising options. I really couldn't care less about diving underwater, planes, parachutes etc. That's just me though.

To you maybe, but to us GTA montagers (if that's the way of putting it) they were important and contributed to the gameplay. I agree about underwater and planes though. Helicopters were good enough for me in IV.

 

 

 

GTA IV didn't force players to feed Niko to prevent him from starving to death and he didn't need to work out. I still have no idea why people want the gym to be brought back in GTA V really. I thought it was a tedious as f*ck chore.

 

I disagree. I felt that that the gym was a great feature. It was really good for role-playing purposes and wasn't forced in any way at all. As for eating, I NEVER had this problem in SA. For some reason. There are enough fast food outlets scattered around and it doesn't take long to just stop for a bite.

 

 

GTA III and VC say otherwise. The following are vital for a GTA:

-Atmosphere

-Music

-Physics/Game Mechanics

-Overall Freedom

-Story

-Protagonist(s)

-Details

I disagree. Customizing and variety are also very important for the series. III and VC are an exception since they set the base for it. SA expanded really well on it but IV went 2 steps back on it. More than 2 steps in-fact.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Vercetti42

[Wolfhuman]

 

I'm surprised with all the complaining you do about realism and what not in the HD GTAs how you can be so casual about one of the most pointless features ever introduced to the series. If it was put in GTA IV first would you be defending it?

What's so pointless about food?

I don't see any problems, realistic or not.

How come a simple feature, such as food would bother anyone?

Annoying calls in IV doesn't bother you?

It didn't even bother me. Have you seen me complaining about it?

 

You really can't blame the feature, whether pointless/not, unless it's a game breaker ( flying out windshield ), and importantly, if the game doesn't allow good flexibility, which I already said, IT DOES!

 

 

 

You're completely missing the point. I don't have a problem with food itself. In GTA IV you can buy hotdogs, burgers etc to restore health, but the difference is Niko's health won't deplete if he isn't fed after a certain amount of time.

 

That's all I'm trying to say.

 

I didn't like feeding CJ once every 48 hours game and it wasn't because I was lazy. It was just a stupid and pointless prerequisite that didn't serve anything to the gameplay.

 

I got to agree with SOL. The thing was Osho, as much as i loved San Andreas the food thing was kind of forced. You had to do it or else there would be consequences. It has nothing to do with lazynezz it's more about repetitive warnings that wants you do do something or else something happens and that gets annoying at one point Is it realistic? It is, but it kind of takes the fun away. I was glad to be in IV without constantly warnings and you actually felt more free since you don't was forced to do something.

 

In GTA you should do what you want and without any forced warnings on screen. Did ruin San Andreas? Nope, not all. But it was not so nice.

[Osho]

Well, each to his own, then. That's all I can say!

There are far important issues to discuss to make this topic more meaningful.

You don't like food, fine. I have zero problems with it.

You are comfortable paying tolls, cool. I am not. Its definitely not needed.

Lets move on, shall we?

[Wolfhuman]

Well, each to his own, then. That's all I can say!

There are far important issues to discuss to make this topic more meaningful.

You don't like food, fine. I have zero problems with it.

You are comfortable paying tolls, cool. I am not. Its definitely not needed.

Lets move on, shall we?

 

Course dude. But about the toll thing. It was not forced, you wouldn't get it on screen. You didn't have to go to the toll in order to not have your health away for example. You wouldn't get a message saying: "You didn't payed for the toll! Now you must go to us and pay it'' . The toll thing made the game more realistic. My take.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Wolfhuman