[mkey82]

Replay value is hard to achieve, usually story driven games have a hard time providing for it.

[theworldfamous]

@rare.steak: so your point is r* should've stuck to making ps2 games, is that it?

IV was a lot more than a leap in graphics, also in gameplay. To be frank, SA needed all those features, cause the core gameplay was pretty stale by then. Jacking cars wasn't fun anymore, the shooting was lightweight, the driving unpredictable. IV was a redefinition of the basics. If they hadn't gone back to basics people would've bitched about it being too similar to SA and outdated. If they had added back in all the features people wanted the game still wouldn't be done and probably ended up in development hell.

I liked it, it was a return to the simpler joys of GTA III, and the grittyness of III, but on a much bigger scale. What's not to love? Did it, and does it, still blow just about every competitor out of the water, or not? I don't get why people found it boring? Probably playing it wrong...

Not that you're not entitled to your opinion, but if they'd gone your way there would be just as many people complaining about that.

[mkey82]

QUOTE (theworldfamous @ Sunday, Jul 29 2012, 11:44)

IV was a lot more than a leap in graphics, also in gameplay.

Pray tell, what did these leaps in gameplay consist of? I have obviously been playing the game wrong, maybe there's a launcher to start the fresh version of the game.

[azali10]

QUOTE (mkey82 @ Sunday, Jul 29 2012, 09:47)

QUOTE (theworldfamous @ Sunday, Jul 29 2012, 11:44) IV was a lot more than a leap in graphics, also in gameplay. Pray tell, what did these leaps in gameplay consist of? I have obviously been playing the game wrong, maybe there's a launcher to start the fresh version of the game.

Core mechanics. Movment was improved to look more believable. Shooting mechanics were drastically improved. You now move to an over the shoulder angle and have zoom when aiming, making free aiming actually possible for those who prefer not to lock-on. In previous games you couldn't move backwards or sideways while aiming freely, another thing that was fixed. Shooting actually feels like it has weight too it. A cover system was added, bringing new depth to the combat. Physics were improved drastically as well. Objects in the game world actually feel like they have weight to them. Including vehicles. Driving is much better and the cars have weight to them and behave much more believably. It makes crashes more satisfying and it makes actual driving more satisfying. And finally, IV created a living and breathing game world, or at least a much better one than San Andreas and its predecessors, which seem lifeless and empty in comparison. That is what IV added in terms of gameplay. Core mechanics.

[mkey82]

QUOTE

Movment was improved to look more believable.

For me it's slow and unresponsive, changed yes, improved no. Better animated, but at what expense?

QUOTE

Shooting mechanics were drastically improved.

Define drastically. I don't use cover nor auto aiming, hence I haven't found anything to be that advanced in this regard. However, I did notice there's still no recoil, which I still find silly.
Are you quite sure you couldn't move when aiming in previous GTAs? I can distinctly remember you got to "develop" that ability while improving your gun skill.

QUOTE

Shooting actually feels like it has weight too it.

I don't quite understand what you're talking about here.

QUOTE

A cover system was added, bringing new depth to the combat.

Yes, it made it even more of a console game which I personally don't find improves the series specifically.

QUOTE

Physics were improved drastically as well.

Well of course, wast improvement, just like the animations. However, I personally wouldn't classify those under core gameplay mechanics. Just like the graphics.

QUOTE

Driving is much better and the cars have weight to them and behave much more believably.

Yes, that's why you can flop the car at about 30 km/h, because of the weight :] If anything, the cars are too light, with centers of mass set inappropriately. Overall, driving is a lot better (past all the skidding), however not leaps better in comparison to SA. Yes when comparing to old sequels.

QUOTE

And finally, IV created a living and breathing game world, or at least a much better one than San Andreas and its predecessors, which seem lifeless and empty in comparison.

Yeah, I especially like how apparently nobody in LC actually goes anywhere. Or how they say something, stop talking for a while and then say something completely unrelated. Dropping the packages is a very nifty feature, as well. The only improvement I found in this regard is the ped variation, which was rather nice. I shall ignore your idiotic statement about lifelessness of previous GTAs.

All in all, I found that driving was the only significantly improved core gameplay feature, minus the idiotic car damage system, the fact you can go flying through the windshield at really low speeds or that every car starts to burn from the tires up before exploding (don't know what they were thinking with that one.) I wouldn't label it as a "leap", however.

An improved side feature (I wouldn't call it a core mechanics element, however its been present for a decade in various GTA games) would be the vigilante missions which were revamped a bit and made at least somewhat interesting. It's also a nifty thing to have some henchmen with you, however they haven't expanded upon SA in that regard as they are still pretty much useless. Homies at least had some character, in my view.

[theworldfamous]

I get it. You don't like the direction they took with it and you're pissed off in general about the direction the industry is taking by turning it's back on PC gamers. I can't help you with that.

You wanted San Andreas 2, but you got a re-invented GTA III and that got you so mad that you're still angry about it even when you're about to finally get your San Andreas 2. The simple reality is that doing V at the time IV would've ran them into the ground. You can't spend 8 years tinkering away on The Perfect Game That Has Everything, you're running a business and you need to ship. Phonebills need to get paid, secretaries need to get paid, executives need to visit expensive strip clubs AND you need to invest in new technology so you're not just ready for the next game you're making, but the next one and the next one and to make sure you have the engine, artists and designers in place to do the next one. You can't just blindly throw all your resources at this one great game you're making, that's a recipe for disaster.

And that's also why they all move to consoles and only pay lip service to PC, it's not a better platform (far from it) but it generates more (and more stable) income. The only reason PC is getting a little more attention now is because everybody is waiting for the new consoles and developers hope to get a head start in directx 11 graphics for when they do arrive. I don't like it either but it's the way of the world. But relax, from the looks of things V will be the game you wanted IV to be.. it just took them a couple more steps to get there.

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (rare.steak @ Sunday, Jul 29 2012, 19:19)

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Saturday, Jul 28 2012, 13:33) QUOTE (rare.steak @ Sunday, Jul 29 2012, 00:02) QUOTE (Markhayzy @ Friday, Jul 27 2012, 23:34) You ignorant fools! Didn't any of you iv haters notice how much detail was put into that game, and the story was amazing! It was rockstars first attempt at a hd game and that was 4 years ago. Imagine what they can do now. Also if iv didn't go down that realistic gritty path and was just like San Andreas then what would we be lookin forward to now??? Rockstar are smart they made it that way for a reason, and if you count the dlc's which were obviously written in to the game at the start it was f*cking amazing! What would we be looking forward to? A truly amazing GTA instead of doubting it because of IV's extreme pre-release hyperboles. IV was nothing more than a graphical leap from III era, and a massive step back from the gameplay elements that SA introduced (which we were really looking forward to seeing an expansion of). Obviously 8 years after SA we're still in doubt if we're going to get an actually improved GTA instead of a piece of mediocre, pretentious "artsy" game. GTA IV was more than a graphical leap. As far as gameplay elements are concerened there still needs to be a core aka shooting, cover, driving, A.I etc which GTA IV is arguably superior in every way. Also throw in any GTA III era GTA and then GTA IV. Now compare each city with GTA IV's LC. Even if GTA IV's LC was built on Renderware it would still feel more authentic and real than any city before. In a lot of ways I'm glad R* used their heads creating a solid base rather than jumping into the deep end straight away. Yeah, what a city IV's LC is. Too bad R* took 4 years to make that, in comparison with SA and VC which took 2 and 1 year(s). SA, that took sandbox gameplay not matched by any other video game even until today, 8 years on. SA, that exemplified how gameplay destroys graphics in importance, which captivated any kind of casual or hardcore gamer into the GTA franchise with it's endless fun and even single player replayability. In short, SA which, I reckon, is in consensus the best PS2 game ever.So, the best game on the best console ever, then. Then you have IV, 4 years in development. Mountainous hype. Then R* delivered, but with what? Leap in graphics and a much more realistic gameplay environment. Lol. Fantastic huh. Slabs after slabs after slabs of concrete that were buildings, and each one of them so finely architectured. Wow, I wonder just how many people cared. I know I did, for the first week of playing it. The city's design with buildings and infrastructure, and every detail in it as a whole was as immense as ever. So what else did it bring? Hmm.... hmm... uh........ well I- nothing I guess. Sure the story was good, but it's not anywhere near movie-worthy, so IDGAF about that coming from a video game. Easily forgettable. I can't even name a quarter of the cast that involved in Niko's main storyline. Just a bunch of Russians or Slavs trying to take control of a portion of the criminal underworld. Wooooowww isn't that going to pique my interest? If not bribed, I think the only reason reviews gave IV perfect 10s was that GTA was not known for it's visual prowess. IV's visuals stunned me when I first saw IGN's review. Even I would have given it an automatic 10 in an instant. And that's the problem with reviewing a game quickly. You don't get to feel just how lackadaisical it is once you've played IV for a week. If it wasn't branded GTA, it would be a nice piece of artsy game in its own right. But in retrospect to the franchise, IV just further compliments SA's example of how much more important gameplay is than graphics; a lot more; graphics is no match for gameplay in GTA. If I were to review GTA every week, it would get a 10 on week 1, a 9.5 on week 2, 9 on week 3, so on and so forth until it saturates to an 8 on week 5 or so. So <insert metaphor on how the experience of when first playing IV was like a decaying lump of organic waste here>. Also, just look at mods. With high end rigs running Icenhancer in optimal and ultra settings, all you'd do in the game is admire just how much more it improved its graphics. But with gameplay mods and in multiplayer, everyone's just having a damn good time actually PLAYING the game, be it free-roam, modes, etc.

Oh for god's sake. Please listen to yourself. The reason it took 4 years to make GTA IV is it was built from the ground up. VC and SA had the luxuary of GTA III.

Not to mention technology is different to 10 years ago and at the time the only entry into current gen R* had was a a 360 exclusive table tennis game. GTA IV was the biggest and most challenging project they had undertaken at the time so it stands within why it took longer than VC and SA combined.

mkey82: I can't be bothered dissecting all your points so I'll just concentrate on the one in regards to the "life" in LC. Sorry, but I think you're lying to yourself or scraping at the bottom of the barrel. No one said GTA IV was perfect, but the fact is in this regard it's a HUGE improvement. Have you ever listened to the peds in SA talk to each other?

Atleast in GTA IV there's cohesion and structure. While they'll pause and talk about something else peds in SA are terrible. I listened to two peds talk the other day and literally the dialogue sounded like it was randomly mashed together. I never noticed before how terrible it is, but that's probably because I rarely walk the boring streets of SA's cities.

Also the the fact peds in GTA IV do simple things like talk on phones, carry coffee, bags etc. As I said it's not perfcet, but still better than its predecessors.

This post has been edited by Miamivicecity on Sunday, Jul 29 2012, 13:53

[mr6plow9]

This has went from "What you expect from GTA V" to a SA vs IV war.

[UberChargedCJ]

Custom music for PS3 and Xbox 360

[ThisIsHorosho]

QUOTE (UberChargedCJ @ Sunday, Jul 29 2012, 17:05)

Custom music for PS3 and Xbox 360

not too big for a "bold new direction" don't you think eh?

[rare.steak]

QUOTE (theworldfamous @ Sunday, Jul 29 2012, 09:44)

@rare.steak: so your point is r* should've stuck to making ps2 games, is that it? IV was a lot more than a leap in graphics, also in gameplay. To be frank, SA needed all those features, cause the core gameplay was pretty stale by then. Jacking cars wasn't fun anymore, the shooting was lightweight, the driving unpredictable. IV was a redefinition of the basics. If they hadn't gone back to basics people would've bitched about it being too similar to SA and outdated. If they had added back in all the features people wanted the game still wouldn't be done and probably ended up in development hell. I liked it, it was a return to the simpler joys of GTA III, and the grittyness of III, but on a much bigger scale. What's not to love? Did it, and does it, still blow just about every competitor out of the water, or not? I don't get why people found it boring? Probably playing it wrong... Not that you're not entitled to your opinion, but if they'd gone your way there would be just as many people complaining about that.

I only read your first two lines because I know that generic argument head to toe. It's the right step to "redefine the basics" as you call it, but if 8 or 9 years on and we haven't seen them take off from where they left SA then it'll be safe to assume they're dumping the old formula that made GTA's success in the III era.

I'll wish them luck with their new formulas or approach though, but the idea of gaudy artsy future GTAs is better left in the dust after the snooze-inviting piece that was GTA IV.