[˸øåíüêà]

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Wednesday, May 30 2012, 03:40)

QUOTE (DarrinPA @ Wednesday, May 30 2012, 14:31) Did GTA IV have bikes*? If not, then there isn't a fair comparison. It's one of those 'If you don't like it then don't use it' things that GTA SA had. {*I have bad memory when it comes to IV} The first mission in SA requires riding a bike. Besides that I just don't like the driving physics in SA. The only thing SA done better in terms of physics were motorbike physics IMO. I hate that slot car like feeling I get from driving cars in SA. GTA IV is a country mile better.

I, for one, think SA physics were great. Maybe unrealistic, but certainly well designed so that you can go cross country on a push bike being able to climb cliffs, NOT driving around them. Motorbikes were also great, they stopped when you wanted them to, and CJ didn't fall off every time you hit a lamppost. Cars handled much better on the corners than in IV, however I have to admit that the damage model was much better in IV.

You just have to get over the fact that it is not nostalgia, it's just that some people prefer fun and re-playability over realism and grittiness.

This post has been edited by ˸øåíüêà on Wednesday, May 30 2012, 23:07

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (˸øåíüêà @ Thursday, May 31 2012, 09:41)

You just have to get over the fact that it is not nostalgia, it's just that some people prefer fun and re-playability over realism and grittiness.

Can I just say I really can't stand it when people say this? Most people find realism and gritiness "fun". Fun by its very nature is extremely subjective.

For example some people like parachuting and whatnot. That's cool, but I like bowling, going on vigilante missions, doing drug runs for LJ fun.

If we all had the same definition of fun the world would be very boring. It's always bugged me when people try and define fun as a universal code of practice.

We all play games for fun, but we're all very different in how we express it. Just remmeber you may not have found GTA IV fun, but others like me sure did.

As for replayablity once again it's subjective. I have come back to GTA IV more than SA because I prefer its tone and overall atmosphere.

[Ghetto American]

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Thursday, May 31 2012, 03:33)

QUOTE (˸øåíüêà @ Thursday, May 31 2012, 09:41) You just have to get over the fact that it is not nostalgia, it's just that some people prefer fun and re-playability over realism and grittiness. Can I just say I really can't stand it when people say this? Most people find realism and gritiness "fun". Fun by its very nature is extremely subjective. For example some people like parachuting and whatnot. That's cool, but I like bowling, going on vigilante missions, doing drug runs for LJ fun. If we all had the same definition of fun the world would be very boring. It's always bugged me when people try and define fun as a universal code of practice. We all play games for fun, but we're all very different in how we express it. Just remmeber you may not have found GTA IV fun, but others like me sure did. As for replayablity once again it's subjective. I have come back to GTA IV more than SA because I prefer its tone and overall atmosphere.

You make a good point. Gritty and realistic doesn't necessarily preclude a game from being fun and vice versa.

But at the same time, you yourself have said that we only prefer San Andreas for it's nostalgia value, which is no different then what ˸øåíüêà was saying (and clearly isn't true, as there have been fans who played IV first and then San Andreas, and preferred SA).


Looking for your honest opinion, what about the tone and atmosphere in IV that makes you prefer it?

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (Ghetto American @ Thursday, May 31 2012, 15:08)

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Thursday, May 31 2012, 03:33) QUOTE (˸øåíüêà @ Thursday, May 31 2012, 09:41) You just have to get over the fact that it is not nostalgia, it's just that some people prefer fun and re-playability over realism and grittiness. Can I just say I really can't stand it when people say this? Most people find realism and gritiness "fun". Fun by its very nature is extremely subjective. For example some people like parachuting and whatnot. That's cool, but I like bowling, going on vigilante missions, doing drug runs for LJ fun. If we all had the same definition of fun the world would be very boring. It's always bugged me when people try and define fun as a universal code of practice. We all play games for fun, but we're all very different in how we express it. Just remmeber you may not have found GTA IV fun, but others like me sure did. As for replayablity once again it's subjective. I have come back to GTA IV more than SA because I prefer its tone and overall atmosphere. You make a good point. Gritty and realistic doesn't necessarily preclude a game from being fun and vice versa. But at the same time, you yourself have said that we only prefer San Andreas for it's nostalgia value, which is no different then what ˸øåíüêà was saying (and clearly isn't true, as there have been fans who played IV first and then San Andreas, and preferred SA). Looking for your honest opinion, what about the tone and atmosphere in IV that makes you prefer it?

Maybe nostalgia wasn't the right word. I retract the statement after some very good counter points.

As for GTA IV I've found myself leaning towards more gritty and serious games over the years. Funnily enough I don't like GTA III's dark and grittty atmosphere very much yet I love GTA IV's.

It probably helps I like Niko so much too. Sometimes I probably give the impression I don't like SA, but it's not true. I love the game as much as I alove all the GTA games, but I simply prefer GTA IV more.

I guees I'm not affraid to speak my mind.

[Mockage]

For the realism aspect, GTA IV all the way. For the fun side of things, GTA III. As much as I love roleplaying (GTA IV offering a good base for that concept) I can't digress the fact that I prefer GTA III's 'cartoony' and gritty atmosphere compared to IV where realism had played a huge role in the concept of the game. Not to mention I also didn't find IV lively (a huge factor) as much as GTA3 was, which in general tones the game down.

[˸øåíüêà]

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Thursday, May 31 2012, 03:33)

Most people find realism and gritiness "fun".

There. I am not claiming this is the most correct poll reflecting the views of millions of players, but I think it disproves your point.

Although I myself was surprised to see the poll results.

This post has been edited by ˸øåíüêà on Friday, Jun 1 2012, 01:17

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (˸øåíüêà @ Friday, Jun 1 2012, 12:14)

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Thursday, May 31 2012, 03:33) Most people find realism and gritiness "fun". There. I am not claiming this is the most correct poll reflecting the views of millions of players, but I think it disproves your point. Although I myself was surprised to see the poll results.

I'm not sure how that disproves my point? I never said most people find realism and grittiness fun as the ultimate deciding factor, but I've seen many over the years say they find realism and grittiness a fun aspect of GTA IV.

I just don't understand why people are adamant of trying to distinguish the two. I'm sure everyone plays games for fun and re-playability, but as I said before it's all very subjective.

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't find the wacky and over the top nature of the old games as fun anymore. Give me GTA IV, RDR, LA Noire and MP3 anyday.

This post has been edited by Miamivicecity on Friday, Jun 1 2012, 04:02

[LoveMediaExecutive]

Honestly I don't think GTA has lost it's "magic", that GTA magic still remains strong in GTA IV and it's expansions it's just new technology and more movie realism was added to the mix but in the end the core GTA mix of action and satire was still present. What I think really is happening is that veterans of the franchise have gotten very use to the feel of a GTA game that everything in the series feels very ordinary to them, I've talked to newcomers who started with IV and they have talked about a magic to the game that they found unbelievable: the amount of freedom, the casual use of violence and the cynical humor, to those people it was something new and bold but to me and many other longtime players that's business as usual.

As far as what happens next in the series, we'll see, but for now as far as GTA IV is concerned it's still GTA, as long as they improve upon the groundwork made with GTA IV I'll be satisfied and we will never lose that GTA magic as long as they keep the tradition going.

[ViceCityMobster86]

I liked GTA 4, I don't see why people hate it. I liked it better then San Andreas.

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (ViceCityMobster86 @ Sunday, Jun 3 2012, 04:28)

I liked GTA 4, I don't see why people hate it. I liked it better then San Andreas.

That kind of honesty will get you shot around here dude.

[Linki]

Oh sh*t, it's another IV hate circlejerk. Sorry, but I just have to rain on this particular parade.

People who prefer the III era much more than IV seem to have this belief that they own the argument of "fun". It seems fun and replayability is exclusive to the III games. Which is complete. Utter. F*cking. Bullsh*t.

I have played GTAIV for easily over 500 hundred hours. It's the only game I can pick up and play right now and still have something new happen to me. And I'm talking after the story singleplayer gameplay. Not online.

GTASA used to deliver this sort of long lasting playability too, but honestly? I played III more, even after I got SA. I guess I prefer the GTA games that feel more like a GTA. GTAIV felt like a return to what GTA is all about, to what made GTAIII so great. SA spread itself out and left nothing in between, trying to please everyone with less than fine tastes. No offense if you like SA, I do too, but it's not the best GTA.

GTA has never had a bad game, though. Never. That's what the "GTA magic" is. The consistent quality. So don't come here and twist the definition of GTA to your own personal preferences and make believe it's gospel. I know the internet creates entitled opinions, but for f*cksake.

[nightwalker83]

I must admit it took me a while to get into the feel of GTA IV.

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (Linki @ Sunday, Jun 3 2012, 17:37)

Oh sh*t, it's another IV hate circlejerk. Sorry, but I just have to rain on this particular parade. People who prefer the III era much more than IV seem to have this belief that they own the argument of "fun". It seems fun and replayability is exclusive to the III games. Which is complete. Utter. F*cking. Bullsh*t. I have played GTAIV for easily over 500 hundred hours. It's the only game I can pick up and play right now and still have something new happen to me. And I'm talking after the story singleplayer gameplay. Not online. GTASA used to deliver this sort of long lasting playability too, but honestly? I played III more, even after I got SA. I guess I prefer the GTA games that feel more like a GTA. GTAIV felt like a return to what GTA is all about, to what made GTAIII so great. SA spread itself out and left nothing in between, trying to please everyone with less than fine tastes. No offense if you like SA, I do too, but it's not the best GTA. GTA has never had a bad game, though. Never. That's what the "GTA magic" is. The consistent quality. So don't come here and twist the definition of GTA to your own personal preferences and make believe it's gospel. I know the internet creates entitled opinions, but for f*cksake.

I feel the same way Linki. I feel GTA IV went back to what GTA used to be. Simplistic gameplay without the heavy reliance on features.

You make your own fun. Not have your hand held through the entire game.

[B_Live]

GTA IV is one of my favourite games this gen, that being said it is a huge letdown in terms of things to do outside the main story compared to Vice City and San Andreas. Also for GTA V I think Rockstar should stick to the realism of IV but tweak the controls so they flow more easily and add some crazy funny characters. Compare Ken Rosenburg to Roman. Sure Roman was funny but I think GTA IV's story was too serious. Add some more crazy weapons like the chainsaw

[Redketman]

The problem is that many people seem to demand that new games must be as realistic and well deisgned in terms of graphics as possible. I actually thought that things like cell phones, "a more realistic driving system" and a new wanted system made things worse in GTA IV.

Another thing about GTA IV was that there were plenty of things and elements that were gone if we compare the game to some older games. At least I think so. There could have been more features. I missed the countrysides and variety of landscapes. You coulnd't buy any houses in GTA IV. There was no economic system (like Empires in Vice City Stories or Drug Dealing in CW). There were no driving schools and so on. Instead we got cell phones, Internet and the ability to hang out with friends which was okay but not great features IMO.