Apart from III, which GTA is the most innovative?

[Cheatz/Trickz]

When I said "most" of the audience, I didn't say "All" of the audience. The fact is that when you look on reddit, most of the GTA posts aren't about the incredible storytelling, they're gifs of an insane stunt someone did or a hilarious death.

 

Now, I do like having a well written story, but I do not consider that necessary for me to enjoy a game. All I need is something cool to mess around with.

 

I love Saints Row because it didn't forget what it is. It's not a deep or philosophical game, it's goal is to have fun, like it's players. Saints Row IV in particular has an activity that straight up hands me a mech, a damage goal, a timer, and then says "Go man, go!". It knows what I want to do in a game, and gives me various fun tools to do it with.

 

GTA IV had taking your cousin bowling constantly if you wanted to be able to call in taxis at all, and GTA V has therapy sessions because it thinks michael is a deep character. Both games, while GTA V provides more tools, try to drive the player away from the glorious anarchic fun that open world gaming is known for. And sure, GTA IV has a lovely story, but the story is finite, and then after the last mission, there's barely any ways to mess around, and that's not fun. There are a few ways, hitting cars into the air with helicopter blades is raucous fun, but in general GTA IV had a lot less ways to mess around with the world than previous games. Tanks were gone unless you bought the DLC, and even then it's more of an APC pseudo-tank than a tank, and parachutes were also exclusive to the DLC for some reason.

Are you seriously suggesting that just because Reddit isn't full of in-depth posts, those redditors just don't care about story? Give your head a shake. Insane GIFs are easy to talk about without the need to think about anything. The stories are talked about quite a lot here. You're making baseless assumptions.

 

Good for you. I do consider a good story to be necessary to enjoy a game unless it doesn't intend to tell one. I'd find GTA unbearable if it was just freeroam without story.

 

The reason you like Saints Row is the reason I don't. To me it's childish, try-hard and the quality of the games scream "budget" anyway, I can't get into them.

 

You look at it as "taking cousin bowling", I look at it as "immersing myself in these characters' lives within this city" (though I go drinking with Roman, not bowling). And what's with the "constantly" rubbish? Friends calling in IV has got to be the most overstated criticism of any game ever. Besides, I like when they call, it adds to the illusion that these characters exist in the world regardless of the player.

 

I agree that after the story the world can seem boring, but to me the conclusion of the story is the end of the game anyway. It's not a flaw because like I said, mindless carnage is fun for 10 minutes.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Cheatz_N_Trickz

[Fuzzknuckles]

I don't really want to get into a discussion with anyone about my opinions on this one, but here it is anyway:

 

V.

 

- First game with multiple protags and seamless switching

- First game with a score

- First game with S&F AND random events

- First game where the countryside and surroundings eclipsed the city

- First game with an online equivalent that wasn't just a bunch of multiplayer shootman modes

- Expansion of existing mini-games to actual sports

- Very clever and interesting easter eggs that went beyond a few signs on a wall

- Undersea world with stuff to explore

- Director/Editor that wasn't limited to PC version and opened up a new element in console gamer's experience

- PLAY AS A CAT

- Heists and the set up missions, which took fairly formulaic, linear experiences and added a side to them that we hadn't seen before - whether you enjoyed them personally or not is not at question here.

 

There's probably a lot more that I'm not remembering here. As I've made no comment on anyone else's opinions here, I don't really expect the usual people to try and prove my opinion wrong, but hey, I'm sure they can't wait to tell me what I've done wrong here.

[Osho]

Well IV kind of fits the definition only because of pointless, gimmicky ragdoll/euphoria effects otherwise its a waste of a title.

I don't find any GTA ( including III ) mentioned in the poll as something close to "innovative" for the series.

SA was amazing, and quite revolutionary as not only GTA but also as an open world game.

Mafia 1 is what I'd like to call the first game that introduced a lot of innovative ideas to the open world genre that games like GTA SA, IV and others started to follow.

Mafia 1 is different and still stands out from the crowd and that also makes it an innovative game.

What's so special about IV that one doesn't find in any games before its release for innovation that takes a leap forward to set a benchmark other than the extremely obvious change in game engine???

Nothing. Zero!

I don't remember euphoria/ragdoll makes a difference to story missions, and other activities in any significant and meaningful way that I should give a damn about it.

For a 3D game, Mafia 1 was noted for having a lot of unique features, including the damage physics rivaling other games of the day with the ability of vehicles to break down and sustain realistic damage from crashes, and it actually plays a part in improving the gameplay experience via actual missions unlike IV that's mostly cosmetic.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Osho

[Jabalous]

Grand Theft Auto San Andreas would be the most innovative when thinking in terms of the sheer scale of the game and the amount of activities that the player can engage in. Relative to its time, it was the pinnacle of what an action-adventure open world game can be and It planted the seed from which other developer took inspiration to create Just Cause, Saints Row and their ilk. On the other hand, when you think of innovation in terms of technicalities that are graphics, animations, physics and world simulation, you stop and realize it was the 2008 game that is GTA IV. This game took the wacky open-world formula and turned it into an unparalleled technical marvel in which even the animations when stepping over ladders are done in style and with great care. It was polished with so many technical details that even many linear games today do not bother themselves about, let alone those which are based in open worlds, and this is a differentiating factor for Rockstar.

[RogerWho]

And was III so innovative in the first place? It's basically DMA's own 1998 N64 title Body Harvest reskinned as 1999's Urban Chaos, just sayin' (Not serious.)

 

BTW Mafia still remains unsurpassed in some areas. Apart from truly realistic driving and car damage, you could stack up a few dozens cars or wrecks, drive to the other side of the map, stack another few dozens of cars, drive back and find that original stack exactly as you left it. Games these days remember maybe 2 cars at most, as long as they remain in your cone of vision. As soon as you look away, poof. Thanks M$/$ony for teaching devs how to work around pathetically small memory.

 

And overall, as soon as Mafia comes into discussion, any talks about innovation can be thrown out the window for being pointless.

Edited June 30, 2016 by RogerWho

[Nah nah nah Gta 6]

GTA 1, probably because it started the gta series, then again none of the gta games are innovative, they just took an existing concept and perfected it.

[DimitriFaustin]

@DimitriFaustin: Well, we are trying to find which GTA (besides III) was the most innovative to the Series. Since GTA I/II were the Series "blueprint" they weren't considered.

Of course that is just my point of view on how things work

Sorry for the late reply, but I do understand the title of this thread. I just happen to be somebody who doesn't think that GTA III and the word innovative should be lumped into the same sentence.

I'll agree to disagree.

[The Rockstar Gamer 108]

Hi Friends! Which of the games has brought The Biggest Revolution in all the GTAs?

For me, it's Vice City. R* actually had made a huge profit by selling that game. I mean R* earned money by selling VC and soon started SA. SA had more big profit, tgen it set for LCS. However LCS was'nt that hit but R* made a little bit of profit from it and soon started Vice City Stories.

GTA III Era made R* so rich that it set a HD Universe. GTA IV was really A Brilliant Game at that 2008 Time. It brought 100s of real life features in it. Phone, Computers etc. Same with the EFLC. Have you ever marked GTA V's most of the bikes are from TLaD & TBOGT? At last GTA V. It has more features in it. I have'nt played that but heard that it is good. However GTA V Graphics is cool and it contains many weapons. You can't imagine about a game which contains animals in it!

[Mikeol1987]

Hands down GTAIII. nothing has beaten the hype from the original players that knew we were going into three dimensions for the first time!

Vice City maintains its position of best soundtrack and aesthetic feel, San Andreas wins its title for 2nd best soundtrack and variety, but nothing comes close to what GTAIII did for the series. That's just history. fact!

Edited July 6, 2016 by Mikeol2014

[Megumi]

Gotta be GTA Online. The day the multiplayer totally enclipsed the story mode forever.

[The Rockstar Gamer 108]

Vice City made a large profit. Then slowly slowly R* began to make better and better GTAs. Vice City is really a fantastic game in a low budget. GTA III did aint make R* that big profit.

[GamesBoy316]

If we're talking about revolution, GTA III is the GTA that brought the series to 3D and made the series popular for what it is. You can basically say that GTA III is the one that started it all.

Edited July 6, 2016 by GamesBoy316

[Osho]

For all the GTAs?

Then GTA SA.

Before SA, I'd say, GTA 2.

GTA III isn't anything special besides the addition of the cutscenes. Otherwise its pretty much GTA 2 clone in a new map and a bit more boring than GTA 2.

[RogerWho]

Everyone will have a different idea what a revolution is. Obviously the first GTA is the biggest revolution since it spawned GTA in the first place. Then III since it brought the series to 3D, IV when the series stopped sucking (for a while) and Online for being online.

 

GTA III isn't anything special besides the addition of the cutscenes. Otherwise its pretty much GTA 2 clone in a new map and a bit more boring than GTA 2.

Now I get it! When you talk about any GTA game, you have it shifted by one title. So when you talk about GTA 2, you mean GTA III. You talk about III, you mean VC. You talk about SA, you mean IV, you talk IV, you mean V.

 

As in:

VC is a clone of III with a new map (you just wrote III is a clone of 2)

IV is the most fun (you always write that SA is the most fun)

V has an unlikeable protagonist, weak story and is boring (you write that about IV)

 

This explains everything.

Edited July 6, 2016 by RogerWho

[Son of Zeus]

III obviously, the rest just sort of followed. With SA the series really took off and gained massive popularity, further helped by the birth of Youtube. This gave R* a safety net to try something different in IV,

 

IV turned out to be average, having a pretentious story, introducing polished graphics, new physics but lacking the ''fun n' freedom'' factor of the 3D Era, which was the essence of GTA. Not surprisingly then, it failed to beat SA's sales, despite the much bigger marketing campaign, which was a major shock to R*. Then they tried to add some 'fun factor' with TBoGT, which turned out to be terrible.

 

Then they promised a return to the glory days of 3D Era with V, a lot of hype was generated(with an even bigger marketing campaign) and....it was murdered by Online. R* promised an SP DLC, which led SP fans to believe there was still hope... but sadly SP DLC was murdered by Online too. And now we're here, wondering if SP GTA is dead.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Son of Zeus

[Osho]

I don't think GTA 4 brought any revolution for the GTA series, but triggered the downfall instead. Any layman can observe the common elements between V and IV, when it comes to highly flawed, disappointing aspects of the series post HD.

 

IV honestly feels like a lazy, dumbed down and downgraded version of the amazing 3D era GTAs. R* thought that fancy graphics, hollywood-like cutscenes, and ragdoll physics would be enough to please the audiences after the remarkable experience of GTA SA, and didn't add as much substance in IV than SA.

Just do a job, job goes wrong, shootout and/or a chase, go after the target, chase to a certain scripted point, again shootout, and then escape the police. That was the "revolutionary" part of probably 90% of IVs story missions that were incredibly underwhelming, too linear and set-piecy in nature.

You can't make roadblocks with various vehicles, nor IV envourages more divergent thinking in the missions like the 3D Era games did.

So, how does any one find GTA IV as revolutionary is beyond me?

I can still agree about GTA III despite the fact that Mafia 1 seems much more groundbreaking and revolutionary, but GTA IV?

No way..

Edited July 6, 2016 by Osho

[Algonquin Assassin]

GTA III and GTA IV, but I voted GTA III seeing as it basically defined the open world genre like no other game did before.

[Femme Fatale]

GTA III...

[PhillBellic]

The first GTA. Without it, the Series would not exist.

[RogerWho]

GTA III and GTA IV, but I voted GTA III seeing as it basically defined the open world genre like no other game did before.

It did revolutionize the GTA series, but Urban Chaos did a lot of the same and came 2 years earlier. Unless we think that open world games have to be crime sims.

 

I personally regard Operation Flashpoint as the open world game of that generation (albeit it's a different genre) until Mafia came along.

[Osho]

Oh. Operation Flashpoint is indeed far more revolutionary and influential in many ways. No doubt.

That's why I just don't feel right the way GTA III has been placed on such a high pedestal by many people without even trying or played other games that released prior to III or the same year.

If anything Rockstar took inspiration from other open world games to finally switch to 3D.

 

GTA 2 is what stands out from the crowd of crime games of its time. Its still more unique in my eyes than III.

 

E:

 

Turbo Esprit Provided a 3D free-roaming city environment in 1986 and has been cited as a major influence on GTA.

TX-1(1983), The Battle-Road(1984) and Out Run(1986) were non-linear driving games that allowed the player to drive through multiple different paths that lead to different possible routes and final destinations. River City Ransom (1989) was an early sandbox brawlerreminiscent ofGrand Theft Auto. Another early open-world game reminiscent ofGTA wasTakeshi (Takeshi's Ch allenge), a 1986 Famicom game only released in Japan; it was an unusual game for its time, featuring free-roaming gameplay while, much like GTA, allowing players to randomly attack any people (and having to escape police if the player murders a person) or even punch random objects (including menus). Another precursor was Speed Rumbler(1986), which featured a combination of run & gunshooter with drivingmechanics, resulting in a new action game hybrid that would inspire games like GTA decades later.

Source: Internet.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Osho

[Cheatz/Trickz]

GTA III and GTA IV, but I voted GTA III seeing as it basically defined the open world genre like no other game did before.

This. GTA III influenced basically every game after it, and IV has had a heavy influence on storytelling in games. Red Dead Redemption is the result of the innovations made in IV, with the grounded story and random characters/strangers to present mini-stories. Both of these were carried into V as well as the three protagonists approach, also a result of IV's innovations to storytelling.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Cheatz_N_Trickz

[Misunderstood]

III obviously, the rest just sort of followed. With SA the series really took off and gained massive popularity, further helped by the birth of Youtube. This gave R* a safety net to try something different in IV,

 

IV turned out to be average, having a pretentious story, introducing polished graphics, new physics but lacking the ''fun n' freedom'' factor of the 3D Era, which was the essence of GTA. Not surprisingly then, it failed to beat SA's sales, despite the much bigger marketing campaign, which was a major shock to R*. Then they tried to add some 'fun factor' with TBoGT, which turned out to be terrible.

 

Then they promised a return to the glory days of 3D Era with V, a lot of hype was generated(with an even bigger marketing campaign) and....it was murdered by Online. R* promised an SP DLC, which led SP fans to believe there was still hope... but sadly SP DLC was murdered by Online too. And now we're here, wondering if SP GTA is dead.

 

FFS, can I get a clear answer on this. Sometimes, I see people say IV sold more, sometimes, people say SA sold more. I can't f*cking find a legit answer on this. Which one sold more, GTA IV (PC + PS3/360) or GTA SA (PC +PS2/Original Xbox)? Seriously, not including re-releases, mobile ports, etc, which one?

Edited July 6, 2016 by Misunderstood

[RogerWho]

This. GTA III influenced basically every game after it, (...)

Do you mean every GTA or every game in general?

 

Because now that I'm thinking, the post-GTA3 era of video games was actually known for the exact opposite, extreme linearity.

 

In particular, games like Deus Ex IW, Thief 3, Doom 3 and a lot of others. were regarded as super-linear games unlike their fairly open originals. The linear shooters genre (both first person and cover-based) then boomed and it wasn't until Assassin's Creed et. al that open world games got brought to the spotlight they occupy today.

 

So I don't think GTA really influenced the whole industry all that much. Just compare the number of WOW clones that popped up to the number of GTA clones. How many were there... True Crime, Saints Row, not much else. No clone of GTAO seems to exist either.

 

BTW even apart of Urban Chaos, one could also argue that GTA III was the Body Harvest formula (DMA Design's 1997 N64 title) with GTA skin. So strangely, DMA/R* actually did have a fairly unique for its time, open world title, only it was years before GTA III. In fact, a year before the first GTA.

 

Which one sold more, GTA IV (PC + PS3/360) or GTA SA (PC +PS2/Original Xbox)? Seriously, not including re-releases, mobile ports, etc, which one?

According to wikipedia, SA sold 27.5 mil as of 2011 and IV sold 25 mil as of 2013. Original sources are linked in those respective wiki articles.

Edited July 6, 2016 by RogerWho

[Keano]

GTA III by a country mile! I remember playing that game on release and I just knew at that point, not just GTA, but gaming had changed forever.

 

I must say, the HD ERA has been great but it has brought drawbacks to the series such as limb dismemberment being removed and the six star wanted levels no longer have the army. Love the series but nothing beats the glory days of the 3D era.

[Nah nah nah Gta 6]

For all the GTAs?

Then GTA SA.

Before SA, I'd say, GTA 2.

GTA III isn't anything special besides the addition of the cutscenes. Otherwise its pretty much GTA 2 clone in a new map and a bit more boring than GTA 2.

For once I actually agree with you, GTA2 did a lot of things GTA III did and more.

[Osho]

FFS, can I get a clear answer on this. Sometimes, I see people say IV sold more, sometimes, people say SA sold more. I can't f*cking find a legit answer on this. Which one sold more, GTA IV (PC PS3/360) or GTA SA (PC PS2/Original Xbox)? Seriously, not including re-releases, mobile ports, etc, which one?

Its simple and even availabe on the internet.

Like SOZ said, IV failed to beat and didn't sell more than SA's ( 21.5 million units ) total sales, on "release" despite the much bigger marketing campaign, and it took roughly around 5 years ( 25 Million copies ) for IV released in 2008 to come closer to 2004s SA ( 27.5 million copies worldwide ) in total sales.

This still does not indicate that IV broke SA's record. I can't find any official confirmation about whether IV did overtake SA's lifetime sales or not, and when, if it did.

Unlike that of GTA V sales which took only 6 weeks after its release to overtake the lifetime figures of IV with nearly 29 million copies shipped!

Clearly, SA showed a fantastic progress and jump in sales on a year-on-year basis since its release compared to GTA IVs poor and incredibly underwhelming sales performance, which can be proven from the statement of Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick that also shared a similar sentiment in pointing out that this doesn't translate into a straight-line increase, only an expected increase in early sales.

I wont be surprised if IVs ability to perform saleswise seems to have had a hard time of even crossing the 30 million mark whenever Take-Two releases the next official figures about the IVs sales post 2013.

No. SA's lifetime sales data ( as posted abv ) do not include figures from the remaster, mobile ports or re-releases on LG/NG consoles.

 

Edit -

Take-Two Frustrated By GTA Expansion Sales

GTA IV Sales Not as Obscenely/Repulsively Huge as Expected, Barely 10 Million Sold

Is the Party Over for GTA?

^ Pretty much proves my point that IV didn't bring sort of revolution for GTA but triggered the downfall instead.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Osho

[RogerWho]

Just to put sales in perspective. Red Dead Redemption, regarded by many as the best R* game, sold 14 million copies. Bully, which actually is the best R* game, sold 1.5 mil on PS2 (numbers for the later 360/PC re-release are unknown).

 

Call of Duty Ghosts sold 19 million.

Edited July 7, 2016 by RogerWho

[Osho]

Different games first and foremost. Secondly, sales comparisons are being made for the games in a franchise much more popular in the public than RDR and Bully at the time of their release, and not to determine whether the game was a "commercial" success or not.

Lastly, RDR and Bully were console exclusives. In case of latter, it was platform ( PS2 ) exclusive until 2008 when the game was released on other platforms.

 

So, I'm not sure what is the point in bringing those games sales figures??

[Misunderstood]

-----

 

 

Thanks for the answer. I couldn't find sale numbers but I wasn't sure which included re-releases/mobile/etc and which included the three OG versions. Plus, I had this conversation with like three other guys in another topic and they said IV and SA were evenly matched in terms of sales. So, yeah. And anyways, none of those except the n4g link say IV had sold poorly which it clearly hasn't.