[Malkmus3]

I would agree about algonquin, in the north part there are loads of trashy blocks of flats and stuff

[mvega0422]

I'm sorry but I feel like this thread is weird. Are you guys just talking about looks? Sure, a place might look dangerous, but is it really? I've never ever been in any danger in GTA IV. I have no clue how you guys see any danger. It doesn't count as danger if you pull your gun on a gang member because YOU provoked it.

Now are there any places in LC that are actually dangerous?

I tried North Holland, South Bohan, and Hove Beach, none of them ever even threatened me.

[Official General]

QUOTE (mvega0422 @ Friday, Jul 6 2012, 17:01)

I'm sorry but I feel like this thread is weird. Are you guys just talking about looks? Sure, a place might look dangerous, but is it really? I've never ever been in any danger in GTA IV. I have no clue how you guys see any danger. It doesn't count as danger if you pull your gun on a gang member because YOU provoked it. Now are there any places in LC that are actually dangerous? I tried North Holland, South Bohan, and Hove Beach, none of them ever even threatened me.

I would say most of us on this thread were talking about certain areas of GTA IV's Liberty City that looked dangerous, and had a heavy presence of gang members and other criminal-looking people.

But you are 100% correct in saying that there were no areas in IV's Liberty City that actually felt dangerous. And I totally agree with you saying that pulling out a gun on gang members in an area to start trouble does not make the area dangerous at all. This was one of my main complaints about GTA IV. I really missed that element of danger and threat in the rougher districts of the city.

[TheDreamShatterer]

i thought the game needed to be more ghetto, you hardly see any blacks/latinos in the game and real life new york white people or the minority

[Zulu2065]

QUOTE (mvega0422 @ Friday, Jul 6 2012, 11:01)

I'm sorry but I feel like this thread is weird. Are you guys just talking about looks? Sure, a place might look dangerous, but is it really? I've never ever been in any danger in GTA IV. I have no clue how you guys see any danger. It doesn't count as danger if you pull your gun on a gang member because YOU provoked it. Now are there any places in LC that are actually dangerous? I tried North Holland, South Bohan, and Hove Beach, none of them ever even threatened me.

You haven't walked around the city then, because gang members can threaten you, they'll stare at you and follow you telling you you don't belong here, and then sooner or later fight you and/or start to shoot. It's happened to me.

As for dangerous, Hove Beach is the worst. I was at the diner when the waiter called me fat and so i shot here, so many gun shots went off and the members killed a lot of cops. Some cars even exploded, and all I did was take cover and watch.

Bohan haves to be the most ghetto by looks.

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (Zulu2065 @ Saturday, Jul 7 2012, 11:38)

QUOTE (mvega0422 @ Friday, Jul 6 2012, 11:01) I'm sorry but I feel like this thread is weird.  Are you guys just talking about looks? Sure, a place might look dangerous, but is it really? I've never ever been in any danger in GTA IV. I have no clue how you guys see any danger. It doesn't count as danger if you pull your gun on a gang member because YOU provoked it. Now are there any places in LC that are actually dangerous?  I tried North Holland, South Bohan, and Hove Beach, none of them ever even threatened me. You haven't walked around the city then, because gang members can threaten you, they'll stare at you and follow you telling you you don't belong here, and then sooner or later fight you and/or start to shoot. It's happened to me. As for dangerous, Hove Beach is the worst. I was at the diner when the waiter called me fat and so i shot here, so many gun shots went off and the members killed a lot of cops. Some cars even exploded, and all I did was take cover and watch. Bohan haves to be the most ghetto by looks.

The danger is still there. It's just not like it was in the GTA III era.

You're right though. Gang members will trash talk and eventually attack which seems to make sense. Isn't that what a gang member would do in person?

Even at the start of GTA III, VC and SA the gangs leave you alone.

It was only as the story progressed, but even then I found it a bit unrealistic. How would a random gang member know you've just capped one of their leaders?

In SA you can dress CJ up in a gimp suit and they still know he's apart of Grove Street.

My only really gripe with the way gangs were handled was in TLAD. In that case crossing a member of AOD should escalate into a gun fight, but you can walk by them like any normal ped.

[Linki]

QUOTE (TheDreamShatterer @ Saturday, Jul 7 2012, 00:10)

i thought the game needed to be more ghetto, you hardly see any blacks/latinos in the game and real life new york white people or the minority

I think LC captured the diversity of New York quite well. There were lot of blacks around too, in all boroughs.

@Zulu: Yeah, if you simply walk around in some rough areas gangsters will threaten you and fight you for simply being there. I went to a Cluckin' Bell in Dukes and a gang of Latino's nearly killed me for standing still looking at the little advertisement posters R* puts into the game.

Sometimes, gangs in cars will give chase with their buddies hanging out the side, shooting at your car. It's really cool when the police chase as well.

[lzw3]

North Holland or the Firefly Projects (near the swingset) are pretty ghetto, most of the time if you hang around there for too long you'll get shot up.

[Official General]

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Saturday, Jul 7 2012, 01:31)

QUOTE (Zulu2065 @ Saturday, Jul 7 2012, 11:38) QUOTE (mvega0422 @ Friday, Jul 6 2012, 11:01) I'm sorry but I feel like this thread is weird.  Are you guys just talking about looks? Sure, a place might look dangerous, but is it really? I've never ever been in any danger in GTA IV. I have no clue how you guys see any danger. It doesn't count as danger if you pull your gun on a gang member because YOU provoked it. Now are there any places in LC that are actually dangerous?  I tried North Holland, South Bohan, and Hove Beach, none of them ever even threatened me. You haven't walked around the city then, because gang members can threaten you, they'll stare at you and follow you telling you you don't belong here, and then sooner or later fight you and/or start to shoot. It's happened to me. As for dangerous, Hove Beach is the worst. I was at the diner when the waiter called me fat and so i shot here, so many gun shots went off and the members killed a lot of cops. Some cars even exploded, and all I did was take cover and watch. Bohan haves to be the most ghetto by looks. The danger is still there. It's just not like it was in the GTA III era. You're right though. Gang members will trash talk and eventually attack which seems to make sense. Isn't that what a gang member would do in person? Even at the start of GTA III, VC and SA the gangs leave you alone. It was only as the story progressed, but even then I found it a bit unrealistic. How would a random gang member know you've just capped one of their leaders? In SA you can dress CJ up in a gimp suit and they still know he's apart of Grove Street. My only really gripe with the way gangs were handled was in TLAD. In that case crossing a member of AOD should escalate into a gun fight, but you can walk by them like any normal ped.

@ Miami

I know you adore GTA IV and I acknowledge that it is you believe it is best ever out of the whole series, but come on!

GTA IV just did not have the kind of danger that would give the player a safety concern when entering the more rougher areas of the city. This is something that is clear to see, it cannot be downplayed. I don't see what you see on this at all - frankly GTA IV had very, very little danger to be encountered in the game outside of the missions and side activities.

Gang members in IV do sometimes talk sh*t and threaten the player with violence, and in some cases may end up attacking or even shooting at the player. But that only happens if the player provokes the action by either bumping into, pushing, hitting or shooting at a gang member. But that to me is not serious danger if you still had to provoke it, I never once encountered violence from gang members unprovoked. And believe me, I tested the game repeatedly to conclude this.

In GTA III and Vice City, there were rough areas where gang members follow you and shoot at you, criminals would just carjack you like that, you would see other peds get carjacked and robbed, you would see explosive shoot-outs in streets between rival gangs. The player did not have to do anything or provoke anyone to see all this stuff happen - to me that is the real meaning of danger. As for SA - CJ was a rival gang member, and it is a quite realistic to see LA gangs blast at each other in streets just for wearing the wrong color clothes in the wrong hood, regardless of whether they recognize an enemy face or not. In gang hoods in LA (like many gang hoods in U.S. cities), gang members will attack or even shoot you simply because you are on their turf and they don't know who you are. Trust me, that sh*t happens for real.

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (Official General @ Monday, Jul 9 2012, 00:25)

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Saturday, Jul 7 2012, 01:31) QUOTE (Zulu2065 @ Saturday, Jul 7 2012, 11:38) QUOTE (mvega0422 @ Friday, Jul 6 2012, 11:01) I'm sorry but I feel like this thread is weird.  Are you guys just talking about looks? Sure, a place might look dangerous, but is it really? I've never ever been in any danger in GTA IV. I have no clue how you guys see any danger. It doesn't count as danger if you pull your gun on a gang member because YOU provoked it. Now are there any places in LC that are actually dangerous?  I tried North Holland, South Bohan, and Hove Beach, none of them ever even threatened me. You haven't walked around the city then, because gang members can threaten you, they'll stare at you and follow you telling you you don't belong here, and then sooner or later fight you and/or start to shoot. It's happened to me. As for dangerous, Hove Beach is the worst. I was at the diner when the waiter called me fat and so i shot here, so many gun shots went off and the members killed a lot of cops. Some cars even exploded, and all I did was take cover and watch. Bohan haves to be the most ghetto by looks. The danger is still there. It's just not like it was in the GTA III era. You're right though. Gang members will trash talk and eventually attack which seems to make sense. Isn't that what a gang member would do in person? Even at the start of GTA III, VC and SA the gangs leave you alone. It was only as the story progressed, but even then I found it a bit unrealistic. How would a random gang member know you've just capped one of their leaders? In SA you can dress CJ up in a gimp suit and they still know he's apart of Grove Street. My only really gripe with the way gangs were handled was in TLAD. In that case crossing a member of AOD should escalate into a gun fight, but you can walk by them like any normal ped. @ Miami I know you adore GTA IV and I acknowledge that it is you believe it is best ever out of the whole series, but come on! GTA IV just did not have the kind of danger that would give the player a safety concern when entering the more rougher areas of the city. This is something that is clear to see, it cannot be downplayed. I don't see what you see on this at all - frankly GTA IV had very, very little danger to be encountered in the game outside of the missions and side activities. Gang members in IV do sometimes talk sh*t and threaten the player with violence, and in some cases may end up attacking or even shooting at the player. But that only happens if the player provokes the action by either bumping into, pushing, hitting or shooting at a gang member. But that to me is not serious danger if you still had to provoke it, I never once encountered violence from gang members unprovoked. And believe me, I tested the game repeatedly to conclude this. In GTA III and Vice City, there were rough areas where gang members follow you and shoot at you, criminals would just carjack you like that, you would see other peds get carjacked and robbed, you would see explosive shoot-outs in streets between rival gangs. The player did not have to do anything or provoke anyone to see all this stuff happen - to me that is the real meaning of danger. As for SA - CJ was a rival gang member, and it is a quite realistic to see LA gangs blast at each other in streets just for wearing the wrong color clothes in the wrong hood, regardless of whether they recognize an enemy face or not. In gang hoods in LA (like many gang hoods in U.S. cities), gang members will attack or even shoot you simply because you are on their turf and they don't know who you are. Trust me, that sh*t happens for real.

I'm not saying it's more dangerous general however there's still an element there. In GTA III especially I thought it was way over the top.

I don't think I'd enjoy exploring LC as much if I was getting shot at by gangs all the time, but however I do like how gangs seem to blend in.

[Official General]

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Sunday, Jul 8 2012, 14:25)

QUOTE (Official General @ Monday, Jul 9 2012, 00:25) QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Saturday, Jul 7 2012, 01:31) QUOTE (Zulu2065 @ Saturday, Jul 7 2012, 11:38) QUOTE (mvega0422 @ Friday, Jul 6 2012, 11:01) I'm sorry but I feel like this thread is weird.  Are you guys just talking about looks? Sure, a place might look dangerous, but is it really? I've never ever been in any danger in GTA IV. I have no clue how you guys see any danger. It doesn't count as danger if you pull your gun on a gang member because YOU provoked it. Now are there any places in LC that are actually dangerous?  I tried North Holland, South Bohan, and Hove Beach, none of them ever even threatened me. You haven't walked around the city then, because gang members can threaten you, they'll stare at you and follow you telling you you don't belong here, and then sooner or later fight you and/or start to shoot. It's happened to me. As for dangerous, Hove Beach is the worst. I was at the diner when the waiter called me fat and so i shot here, so many gun shots went off and the members killed a lot of cops. Some cars even exploded, and all I did was take cover and watch. Bohan haves to be the most ghetto by looks. The danger is still there. It's just not like it was in the GTA III era. You're right though. Gang members will trash talk and eventually attack which seems to make sense. Isn't that what a gang member would do in person? Even at the start of GTA III, VC and SA the gangs leave you alone. It was only as the story progressed, but even then I found it a bit unrealistic. How would a random gang member know you've just capped one of their leaders? In SA you can dress CJ up in a gimp suit and they still know he's apart of Grove Street. My only really gripe with the way gangs were handled was in TLAD. In that case crossing a member of AOD should escalate into a gun fight, but you can walk by them like any normal ped. @ Miami I know you adore GTA IV and I acknowledge that it is you believe it is best ever out of the whole series, but come on! GTA IV just did not have the kind of danger that would give the player a safety concern when entering the more rougher areas of the city. This is something that is clear to see, it cannot be downplayed. I don't see what you see on this at all - frankly GTA IV had very, very little danger to be encountered in the game outside of the missions and side activities. Gang members in IV do sometimes talk sh*t and threaten the player with violence, and in some cases may end up attacking or even shooting at the player. But that only happens if the player provokes the action by either bumping into, pushing, hitting or shooting at a gang member. But that to me is not serious danger if you still had to provoke it, I never once encountered violence from gang members unprovoked. And believe me, I tested the game repeatedly to conclude this. In GTA III and Vice City, there were rough areas where gang members follow you and shoot at you, criminals would just carjack you like that, you would see other peds get carjacked and robbed, you would see explosive shoot-outs in streets between rival gangs. The player did not have to do anything or provoke anyone to see all this stuff happen - to me that is the real meaning of danger. As for SA - CJ was a rival gang member, and it is a quite realistic to see LA gangs blast at each other in streets just for wearing the wrong color clothes in the wrong hood, regardless of whether they recognize an enemy face or not. In gang hoods in LA (like many gang hoods in U.S. cities), gang members will attack or even shoot you simply because you are on their turf and they don't know who you are. Trust me, that sh*t happens for real. I'm not saying it's more dangerous general however there's still an element there. In GTA III especially I thought it was way over the top. I don't think I'd enjoy exploring LC as much if I was getting shot at by gangs all the time, but however I do like how gangs seem to blend in.

The element of danger in GTA IV was very minimal, so minimal that it barely had an impact - it made the roughest areas of Liberty City and Alderney feel so safe.

I think you are a little misled by what I'm saying. When I say the feeling of danger in GTA, I'm not just talking about gang members or mobsters simply shooting at you in the street. I'm talking about a lot of bad, criminal stuff happening in the streets that the player can witness without having to be involved in it all. In the dangerous hoods of LC in IV, I wanted to see people getting robbed, store-hold ups, people getting carjacked, rival gangs in shoot-outs, etc - I saw none of that. I'd have loved IV even more if I saw all those things. I would not want to get shot at all the time in IV's LC, but it would have been good to witness gunfights and every now and then become a target without provoking anyone.

III, VC and SA had most the stuff I mentioned. I think III went over the top with the Mafia blasting at you with shotguns anytime they saw you, but other than that, the III-era games had a much greater and more exciting element of danger than IV did.

[shadyslady]

QUOTE (Official General @ Sunday, Jul 8 2012, 16:34)

III, VC and SA had most the stuff I mentioned. I think III went over the top with the Mafia blasting at you with shotguns anytime they saw you, but other than that, the III-era games had a much greater and more exciting element of danger than IV did.

before niko starts working for the russians and after you kill faustin the russians get violent very soon. they tell you to go away if you only stare at them, then they pull aks and pump action shotguns and uzis.

this is violence.

[B10BLE]

Fortside, South Bohan, East Holland, Northwood, Acter & Tudor

[ZoomZoom]

Alderney and South Bohan

[runkkari203]

where the non-white people live pretty much

[billy james]

Most of Bohan

[Vercetti27]

people say the danger is still there but it really isn't, how often does crime randomly happen against you? Like in III if you stay around chinatown for too long they'll attack you for no reason, and little haiti in VC there were plenty of times I had to escape for my life but the only place in GTA4 where you will be threatened is hove beach if you start causing trouble.

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (Vercetti27 @ Sunday, Jul 22 2012, 20:31)

people say the danger is still there but it really isn't, how often does crime randomly happen against you? Like in III if you stay around chinatown for too long they'll attack you for no reason, and little haiti in VC there were plenty of times I had to escape for my life but the only place in GTA4 where you will be threatened is hove beach if you start causing trouble.

Actually they do attack for a reason. These gangs are harmless before you start pissing them off in the story.

At the start of GTA III and VC you can walk by these gangs without so much as a second look. SA is different with the Ballas, but other than that the gangs wont even look at CJ until much later on.

I guess the point I'm making is it's not really random as they all have motivation. Something the series has always lacked are true random attacks. Like if you're walking through an alleyway and you get jumped by some crazed crackhead.

I'd like it to be more spontaneous like how animals attack in RDR. The thing with gangs is you eventually get to know how hostile they are.

A true element of danger IMO should be completely random. One thing I think GTA IV does do better though is when a fight/gunfight breaks out the nearest cop will respond.

Always thought the GTA III era was retarded when there would be a full scale gang war and the cops just go by like nothing's happening so while GTA IV did drop the ball in some aspects the cops aren't the brainless dumbasses they were in the GTA III era and detect any immediate danger against the player or other peds.

This post has been edited by Miamivicecity on Sunday, Jul 22 2012, 11:37

[Official General]

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Sunday, Jul 22 2012, 10:56)

QUOTE (Vercetti27 @ Sunday, Jul 22 2012, 20:31) people say the danger is still there but it really isn't, how often does crime randomly happen against you? Like in III if you stay around chinatown for too long they'll attack you for no reason, and little haiti in VC there were plenty of times I had to escape for my life but the only place in GTA4 where you will be threatened is hove beach if you start causing trouble. Actually they do attack for a reason. These gangs are harmless before you start pissing them off in the story. At the start of GTA III and VC you can walk by these gangs without so much as a second look. SA is different with the Ballas, but other than that the gangs wont even look at CJ until much later on. I guess the point I'm making is it's not really random as they all have motivation. Something the series has always lacked are true random attacks. Like if you're walking through an alleyway and you get jumped by some crazed crackhead. I'd like it to be more spontaneous like how animals attack in RDR. The thing with gangs is you eventually get to know how hostile they are. A true element of danger IMO should be completely random. One thing I think GTA IV does do better though is when a fight/gunfight breaks out the nearest cop will respond. Always thought the GTA III era was retarded when there would be a full scale gang war and the cops just go by like nothing's happening so while GTA IV did drop the ball in some aspects the cops aren't the brainless dumbasses they were in the GTA III era and detect any immediate danger against the player or other peds.

@ Miami

Go easy on the GTA III-era, I think you are being too harsh - you keep calling many of its features retarded and comparing them to that of GTA IV, and you seem to forget that III-era games were using last-generation console technology. For what it was at the time, the element of danger in the III-era games were great for their time. Remember most of us had not experienced stuff like this in a video game before when III first came, and Vice City and San Andreas made good improvements on it all to even further wow us.

You are wrong about SA though, it was not just the Ballas that would randomly attack CJ - stay around any other rival gang neighborhood long enough in Los Santos (Vagos or Aztecas) and eventually they would attack you after questioning you about why you are there - no reason was needed. In VC and SA, non-gang member street criminals in the rough areas would randomly carjack you, they would just drag you out of the car and take your ride away.

You talk about fights and gunfights in GTA IV ?? If you are talking about those that did not involve the player, fights were not common, but they were not rare - however gunfights were so rare, that they were pretty much non-existent. That is more the issue for GTA IV when it came to a lack of an element of danger. The danger element also importantly needs to be about peds committing violence against each other in rough area, to give that dangerous area feel. VC and SA did this very well, much better than IV did, and yet those games are last-gen. That is what many people don't get.

I agree with you on the need for more random crimes in GTA though.

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (Official General @ Monday, Jul 23 2012, 12:52)

Go easy on the GTA III-era, I think you are being too harsh - you keep calling many of its features retarded and comparing them to that of GTA IV, and you seem to forget that III-era games were using last-generation console technology. For what it was at the time, the element of danger in the III-era games were great for their time. Remember most of us had not experienced stuff like this in a video game before when III first came, and Vice City and San Andreas made good improvements on it all to even further wow us.

I'm not sure how I'm being harsh? It was a fundamental flaw GTA IV fixed which when going back to the GTA III GTAs is really noticeable.

Honestly I get a bit sick of the one way street outlook on this forum sometimes. I mean I love the GTA III too, but it seems any flaw the GTA III era GTAs have that GTA IV fixed gets protected or an excuse made for it based on the fact it's last generation.

How hard was it to make the cops notice others committing crimes? I'm not talking about those random car chases, but when getting attacked? The idiotic A.I would only notice the player and completely ignore the other ped.

It's also not something I developed when GTA IV came out. I can give GTA III and VC some slack, but it's something R* definitely should've considered for SA. The last generation excuse is bullsh*t IMO (no offense). I was even thinking about this back in late 2004/2005.

It completely ruins the moment when you can have two gangs going at it and the cops go by like it's not even happening yet if you open fire....hey presto you're a wanted felon.