Is GTA IV "too"' realistic?

[.Ryan.]

This has always been one of the forefront comments when it comes to GTA IV whether it's meant positively or negatively, but is it something you personally agree with? IMO the word "realism" gets thrown around far too much especially when it comes to video games.

 

I've never really felt with GTA IV R* were trying to make it more realistic. More of a stronger sense of belief if anything. For example instead of having floating heart icons scattered around the map there are much more believable ways of obtaining health, but the logic behind them is still far fetched. A hotdog that can heal gunshot wounds? Similarly with police bribes. No more floating stars.

 

Overall I think GTA IV has always had a much more sensible and believable approach than its predecessors, but I don't think that makes it "realistic" as such. Certainly not a detriment though. GTA IV has a great balance that it knows it's still a video game, but it's not afraid of making the player believe they're more than just inside of one.

[DOUGL4S1]

I'll mostly talk about Handling, but you couldn't have said it better. My friend plays a lot of GTA V (my potato can't handle it) and he always goes back to GTA IV because he misses things such as weight on car's handling and such.

 

A way to see how a realistic GTA would be: the modder Killatomate has a "realistic" handling file for GTA IV. I put realistic in quotations because some vehicles handle really weird, but most are great. Anyways, the mod has an option for 300% damage, where one slightly hard crash and your car is gone, almost like IRL. It is by far one of the best mods for IV I've seen. Also, the realistic helicopters are IMPOSSIBLE to control.

Edited December 24, 2016 by DOUGL4S1

[TheOriginalGunslinger]

What a good read!

 

I personally felt the story to be deep in a sense. The characters were interesting and I really don't know why some people said during the beginning of the game (the Broker/Dukes missions) were a drag. I didn't think that at all. I thought the story was really good and in the beginning gave us a taste of what Liberty City as a whole would behold. "Realistic" in a sense is said a bit much, I agree. Just the flow of the game from beginning to end is very well done for that time and it still holds up to this day. GTA IV was and still is always a pleasure to play. Not too many video games have made me feel some type of way that GTA IV does. There is just something about Niko, the characters, the atmospheric setting of Liberty City (that beautiful concrete jungle featuring towering skyscrapers), the city's NPCs, ambient sounds throughout it as well, and more...

 

I appreciated GTA IV for also using the things in the environment as interacting things to do. Go up to a food vendor and purchase a hotdog/nuts, go inside a fast food joint and purchase a burger, tip saxophone playing NPCs, give homeless NPCs some money, etc...

Edited December 24, 2016 by TheOriginalGunslinger

[RogerWho]

IMO the word "realism" gets thrown around far too much especially when it comes to video games.

This. It's like people don't even know what the word means anymore. Some time ago there was a thread here about the potential of a sci-fi future GTA and people kept responding that no, GTA should remain realistic

 

So the term is meaningless anyway. I mean, what's up with it in regards to GTA IV? The only thing that could be called more realistic compared to the other games is the car handling. Which I still don't even think is realistic anyway, not unless you drive a monster truck or something with such a ridiculous high suspension IRL. It's more on the opposite side of realistic compared to most other GTA games.

 

I'd actually not have a problem if the car handling was actually realistic. In fact I find driving in Gran Turismo easier than a lot of the arcade-style games where it can be really difficult to make turns due to ridiculously high turning sensitivity. And after playing GTA IV for a long time a few weeks ago, getting back to GTAO's handling felt quite weird

 

Maybe car damage - I could get behind that but mostly for visual reasons (it kinda sucks to find a great new car and get it all bumped up within 30 seconds) but this was actually scaled way, way, waaaaaaay down from the 3D GTAs where I commonly blew up cars completely by accident while shooting at something else. So that was a step in the right direction IMO, realistic or not.

 

Then there's the story and the overall vibe, which is less cartoonish and outrageous in general. And that's solely a personal opinion if that's a good thing or not. I think it is - I don't mind stories that go either way as long as they are well written and the IV saga stands high above anything else in GTA in terms of storytelling. And besides, there's always TBOGT to fall back if one wants more arcade stuff - and considering it's the least liked part of the trilogy, it probably didn't help anyway.

 

And again IV has plenty of silly stuff in it: the ridiculous characters, the massive shootouts, taking down helicopters from other helicopters, and off course all the typical crass humor.

 

And almost everything else works on the same logic as the other GTA games - you can steal thousands of cars off the street, lose cops just by running away for a moment (again here IV scaled down the difficulty a lot), respawn at hospitals, replenish health with health packs and food - where is the realism in that?

 

In short, people who use the word realistic when it comes to any GTA should... Um... They should think about it. Yea. Let's leave it at that.

Edited December 24, 2016 by RogerWho

[Zello]

Not at all if it were very realistic we wouldn't be able to have magic pockets that carry all sorts of weapons and Niko would get sleepy, get hungry, take showers, etc..I could go on and on.

 

IV is just much more believable like you said no more floating heart icons, but instead Niko can buy hotdogs or a soda to heal. Missions were more believable instead of breaking into military bases and stealing government secrets Niko was taking out gang members and interacting with more criminals around Liberty City.

Edited December 24, 2016 by Zello

[Jabalous]

How common are the players who say that it is too realistic? And what do they mean by 'realistic'? It's a vague statement to make about a video game. Apart from the change to a more realistic simulation of physics and animations, IV is just as realistic as its predecessors. In my opinion, that change was mainly driven by the available technology rather than a design choice and I don't think that anyone would object to having the game built around realistic simulation of objects.

[The Deadite]

Kinda... but not that much, gameplay and world lore is as stupid as it ever was, hardly realistic.

The story and characters are relatively more put together that they ever were before though. The story is lowkey and takes itself a bit seriously, tere's no jetpack alien snot f*cktarded bullsh*t or crazed drug addled suicide bombers so it seems more grounded when compared to past gtas.

Edited December 24, 2016 by The Deadite

[AuSsIeThUnDeR36]

Probably the realism in IV are the ambient sounds. You take a walk in Middle Park you can hear the birds chirp, breeze blowing through trees and even hoots from other birds. I have even heard a duck quack.

The ominous sound of an impeding storm, the sky becomes grey, the wind kicks up, the flash of lightning and the rain comes, everything becoming saturated with a wet slickness.

It's the sounds of Liberty City that make it more realistic although in the end it's a mask covering an imaginary alter reality. The way it's presented makes for a very believable game world. I have to say u have had a few 'oh sh@#' moments where I've encountered groups of hobos and wondered what I have walked into. Or a bunch of gang members that cornered me in an alley. Moments like that have made IV realistic because it makes you think what would really happen in this situation.

So IV to me is somewhere between realistic and unrealistic. The sound effects add the most realism but masks the unrealistic world for what it's worth.

[ViceBoy69]

Depends what you consider realistic, the setting certainly is, buildings and cars, way the peds move around. The gameplay is unrealistic, such as getting shot you wouldnt survive like Nikko does, getting hit by a car, you would be dead. but thats the thing about GTA realistic and unrealistic, they go together in a good way. Gta could never be real life, it would be almost impossible to do any missions, it would probably be frustating.

[DOUGL4S1]

^Getting hit by a car is not instant death in real life tho, but I got your point.

[CreepShow]

Nah

[woggleman]

It was a little more realistic than the GTAs before it and the one after it but that is a good thing. It fit the gritty NYC urban jungle story they were trying to tell. Each GTA has it's own characteristics that work for it is trying to achieve.

[The Time Ranger]

No it's not too realistic imo. Storywise it is more grounded by Gta standards but the gameplay is unrealistic, that's not a criticism though, if it were to be realistic Niko could be killed by one bullet, after a shootout with cops he would be a wanted man forever, no change of clothes or pay n spray visits would change that.

 

There is video game logic, you have to suspend disbelief during missions, that applies to most games. I think the too unrealistic criticism is unfair, perhaps some people miss the more zany aspects of previous Gta's such as the jetpack and the diverse set of cheat codes (which I miss myself) Maybe that's where the too realistic criticism comes from, although this would make Gta IV more grounded rather than too realistic.

[.Bach]

Certainly it is more realistic than other Grand Theft Auto games, but I don't consider it by no means a realistic game. It is at the same level of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, maybe a little more. It feels that way because compared to most Grand Theft Auto games it has a way more believable story, setting and gameplay mechanics. Let's be honest, do you seriously imagine Niko driving that rocket car that was released not long ago in Grand Theft Auto Online?

 

 

[turbocharger]

Before I say anything, I want to point out I'm not a IV fanboy. But... it was just perfect. Playing through the storyline felt like watching a movie with Al Pacino and Robert De Niro, only better because it's a video game so it gave you an opportunity to be a part of it. Hopefully, the next title will be any similar to IV, rather than a fairy tale V was. And I'm not talking solely about storyline (which objectively showed the misfortunes of immigrants, underground world of crime which is cruel and unforgiving that it makes your stomach turn at times, where there are no happy endings), but also vehicle handling, combat system, ragdoll physics, visuals (for its time), everything. A classic, an example for other open world games to look up to.

[TheOriginalGunslinger]

I appreciate GTA Online at times but some of these Updates are really dumb in my opinion. "Import/Export" really wasn't my type due to the fact of some of the silly looking vehicles included with it. That car with the Rocket on the back was so silly to me and instantly made me think of Saints Row. The "Deadline" adversary mode was basically TRON. Again, all just silly. Rockstar ruined "Turf Wars" by including marking areas in cars on the ground with highlighted colors. Seriously, what the heck was that?

[Johnny Spaz]

I was fine with the realism of GTA Iv because it didn't impact gameplay too much I liked the driving and health meter but of course GTA V ruined with the low amount of health you have, dying instantly after you get ejected from the windshield, vehicle blowing up when falling from a large height, getting stabbed/hit with bat once and sent to the hospital, running people over makes you drive slower, etc. It's all bad with GTA V.

[AuSsIeThUnDeR36]

The euphoria physics is what made IV realistic. The way bodies tumble and roll, how pedestrians will jump out of the way and protect themselves if you graze past them and get angry sometimes if you bash into them. That aspect of the game was realistic.

[Official General]

No way not at all.

 

IV was realistic enough as it should have been relative to it's era of gaming technology - it ushered the GTA series into the HD era in the most suitable way possible, it didn't go overboard with the realism. IV essentially stuck to the traditional GTA staple themes of career criminal/hitman-for-hire/gangster and just made it feel more real-life like but in a gaming-friendly kind of way, in other words, a straight forward, simplified gangster action/drama that had been dressed up in the latest and advanced gaming technological features to make it look more authentic. The more 'realistic' graphics, visual/audio effects among other things complimented that aim very well too. It was all good enough for what it was.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Official General

[The Rockstar Gamer 108]

1) Unrealistic Vehicle Physics.

2) Luis, Johnny and several other characters looked totally different in all 3 games.

3) Less Weapons.

4) Not a 'Too' Good representation of NY.

5) GTA 4 LC =/= EFLC LC

[HaythamKenway]

When people say that a game is "realistic", what they actually mean is that it's "authentic". Unless they are talking about sims.

 

So no, there is nothing overly "realistic" about IV. It's just that its more far-out and explicitly videogamey features have been reworked to compliment the more believable presentation. The game was toned down to compliment a similarly grounded story and a setting that aimed to be a reflection of the real New York - more than a carefree playground of the previous games. To better immerse the player in a world that looks and feels more like the real life, while retaining just enough video game simplifications and breaks from reality to keep the game enjoyable to play casually.

 

In a nutshell, the whole thing is just about the suspension of disbelief and how far the game can bend and still have a relatable setting and a story the player can take as something grounded in reality, albeit augmented, without jumping through fantastical hoops.

 

The whole realism debate is a relic of the early 7th gen era, when the sudden jump in the visual fidelity coupled with new, more complex and less abstract gameplay features and systems made people clamor for the kind of games taking advantage of these advancements over the classic, more arcade-y games. Back in the day, people said that CoD4 (which unseated Halo - back then the last remnant of the arena shooters - as the most popular FPS on the market), Gears of War, Uncharted, Bad Company 1 or the first Assassin's Creed were also "realistic" games. Which is obviously bullsh*t.

 

No, these games just evolved with the modern technology to present more cinematic experiences.

Edited December 26, 2016 by HaythamKenway

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

No. Only thing overwhelming realistic was the atmosphere if you actually slowed down to enjoy it and that was a good thing. I'm not gonna lie, it was perfect. I haven't really played IV in ages because my PS3 is broken. Part of why I would love backwards compatibility on the PS4 but apparently that's being entitled according to this forum's idiots who think they know everything. It was genuinely perfect. I don't feel like it sacrificed much of anything to be what it was either.

[Official General]

No. Only thing overwhelming realistic was the atmosphere if you actually slowed down to enjoy it and that was a good thing. I'm not gonna lie, it was perfect. I haven't really played IV in ages because my PS3 is broken. Part of why I would love backwards compatibility on the PS4 but apparently that's being entitled according to this forum's idiots who think they know everything. It was genuinely perfect. I don't feel like it sacrificed much of anything to be what it was either.

I'm actually slowly taking in the atmosphere of Liberty City again right now with mods on my PC, and it's 5 times better than it is on console. I'm using a brilliant graphics enhancer (CryENB 3) and I've increased the amount of peds and traffic, I've added more traffic variety like buses and put random crimes on the streets. This game is so sick on PC with mods, I wouldn't even bother wishing for BC compatibility for new gen consoles.

[coach_wargo]

IV wasn't realistic, but it was grounded and gritty, and that atmosphere is what made it feel realistic. LaD is actually my favorite and BoGT my least favorite from that series for this very reason. I think that's also why I was so disappointed in the story of V.

 

My first R* games were RDR, IV, EFLC, and MP3 (in that order). All were gritty, and dark stories, with a grounded world. Then along comes V and I'm shooting aliens and clowns and doing things that felt over the top and not what I had come to expect from R* games.

[Jimbatron]

No, not too realistic in my opinion. As others have said above, the critique of too much realism is that some people found the story line too dark and serious I think. Or perhaps that it didn't have arguably over the top features like a jet pack.

 

One could argue it's not realistic enough. Why can't I order a 300g Rib-eye, medium rare, with a glass of Malbec at the Superstar Café which takes 15 minutes real time to arrive and another 20 to eat?

[AuSsIeThUnDeR36]

How about flying past a police cruiser or running red lights? Or my favorite, casually walking past a police officer while carrying a rocket launcher? "Morning officer."

These sorts of things are totally unrealistic but it's gta and it's a game.

There are elements which make it realistic like the sounds of Liberty City so it's a bit of both realistic and unrealistic.

[Cheatz/Trickz]

IV aimed for more realism, obviously, and it's a fac that this caused Rockstar to remove features they felt were far fetched or wouldn't suit the story. So sacrifices were made to the content of the game to serve realism and a story.

 

But was it too realistic? Considering the games before it, it might've been. But as a game alone, no way. There are no limitations made to the actual gameplay because of realism. I think IV was the game that Rockstar always wanted to make, they wanted GTA to be something more, and this mindset continued with Red Dead, which is basically GTA IV's spiritual successor. Of course, it being set in the west in 1911, nobody is bothered by the lack of planes or jetpacks there despite that being a direct result of a desire to tell a particular story in a particular setting.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Cheatz_N_Trickz

[RogerWho]

Almost forgot I did this

[.Ryan.]

Thanks for your responses guys. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the same way. Reading all these posts gives me the urge badly to play GTA IV.

[Official General]

Thanks for your responses guys. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the same way. Reading all these posts gives me the urge badly to play GTA IV.

 

Only on the PC this time.....with mods