GTA IV... overrated?

Duke Leonal Felmet

I recently bought a PS3, so I am a bit late to some titles. I have been big into GTA since the very first one came out. However, I have been hugely disappointed by GTA IV. Aside from the repetitive missions, there is very little left to do. The little pub-games and shows aren't exactly addictive or entertaining and the map is very constrictive when compared to, say, Red Dead Redemption. Anyone think that they got a little complacent?

Penn

I don't know about complacent. I think they tried to add too much realism (thereby damaging a lot of the off-the-wall stuff from San Andreas like the jetpack, bicycles and parachutes, although parachutes return in The Ballad of Gay Tony expansion pack). I also think they tried to make the city feel too realistic, which didn't leave them with enough room to add their own elements to it.

GTA:IV did improve a lot of elements from previous games, they just need to make it more fun. In San Andreas, you could spend hours wandering around, wondering what crazy thing you'd find next. In IV, they seem to have hidden most of the Easter eggs or even just funny things on the fake Internet in the game

Bloody Nipples

RDR came out over two years after GTA IV so of course there's going to be some improvements, so your comparison is a little unfair.

That said I loved GTA IV and I wouldn't agree with you at all that the map size was restrictive. While RDR and GTA IV are both sandbox games, GTA IV has to recreate an entire city and it's population, whereas RDR is for the most part empty wasteland.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

RDR came out over two years after GTA IV so of course there's going to be some improvements, so your comparison is a little unfair.

That said I loved GTA IV and I wouldn't agree with you at all that the map size was restrictive. While RDR and GTA IV are both sandbox games, GTA IV has to recreate an entire city and it's population, whereas RDR is for the most part empty wasteland.

Yeah, they should have stuck a few skyscrapers into it. Your description is disingenuous.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Barrington wrote: »

I don't know about complacent. I think they tried to add too much realism (thereby damaging a lot of the off-the-wall stuff from San Andreas like the jetpack, bicycles and parachutes, although parachutes return in The Ballad of Gay Tony expansion pack). I also think they tried to make the city feel too realistic, which didn't leave them with enough room to add their own elements to it.

GTA:IV did improve a lot of elements from previous games, they just need to make it more fun. In San Andreas, you could spend hours wandering around, wondering what crazy thing you'd find next. In IV, they seem to have hidden most of the Easter eggs or even just funny things on the fake Internet in the game

Yeah, it was pretty looking, but a very dull game.

steve_

I felt a little underwhelmed by GTA IV also. With GTAIII, Vice City and San Andreas they seemed to be hitting a nice stride, the gameplay was getting the tweaks it needed while adding nice additions also. Then with GTAIV it just seemed to change. It kinda felt like GTA but something was missing. Trying to go for ultra realism isnt what made GTA the series that it is. Its all good having great physics and effects and a huge sprawling city but when the mission are repetitive and "realistic" it just subtracts from what GTA is all about. I hope rockstar add the insane missions and crazy characters that made the previous titles so memorable in future titles. For me saints row 2 felt more like the GTA's of old.

Explosive_Cornflake

I don;t think GTA IV was over rated, as many people didn't like it when it came out. I think I only played 30% of it, and that's after having done 100% a couple of times in each of the "3d" versions.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Explosive_Cornflake wrote: »

I don;t think GTA IV was over rated, as many people didn't like it when it came out.

"Grand Theft Auto IV has received universal acclaim from video game critics and is one of the highest reviewed games of all time. The review aggregators GameRatio and TopTenReviews rank Grand Theft Auto IV as the best scoring game ever reviewed."

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_IV#Reception

Mensch Maschine

I liked GTA IV then diliked it and now again I like it. I tell you why.

I've played GTA since the first one. I'm obsessed with GTA and got 100% in San Andreas.

IV was an amazing achievement in looking realistic. Sure the graphics could have more textures etc but the game is techically near flawless in regards to graphics/animation and physics. The amount of time needed to tweak it and perfect it was neessecary. The way a car bounces off a pole, or the suspension in a car, or getting knocked off a bike. A bustling city, people talking, sweeping the road, fixing cars at the side of the road, people ordering food, guys doing roadworks, people on their phone, buskers, subway system.

This is all amazing. However, the game did lack in fun features. I got annoyed and dissapointed, once I got used to all those things. I am only hopful that GTA IV was stipped back to it's roots, new graphics plus engine and the they will buil upon the strong backbone and add more features as we go along. I'm thinking the next installment will be more over the top and crazy.

After venturing out to other games in wait for another GTA I started playing COD, Mass Effect a heap load of other games. Then after months I went back to IV last week and I just drive around the city in amazment at what they achieved technically.

So, no GTA IV is not ovveratted, technically. It still blows most games out of the water. But fun and feature-wise (comparing to GTA own high standards) it fails and it doesn't help the it had to live up to San Andreas.

Playing COD though and the graphics are fine but I feel constricted in the map and that the walls are thin and that there's really nothing on the other side. GTA maps make me feel like theres rooms in every building. It's got depth. Atompshere and it really does give me a sense of the living, breathing city - even if I can't rob a jetpack.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Mensch Maschine wrote: »

So, no GTA IV is not ovveratted, technically. It still blows most games out of the water. But fun and feature-wise (comparing to GTA own high standards) it fails and it doesn't help the it had to live up to San Andreas.

That is exactly why it is over-rated. Flashy graphics and physics engines don't count for squat when compared to fun gameplay.

That was the whole philosophy of GTA1, remember? GTA4 is a boring, boring game. Pretty, but boring. And it is definitely over-rated because the popular opinion is that it is the greatest game ever.

It most certainly is not.

Nuri Sahin

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

That is exactly why it is over-rated. Flashy graphics and physics engines don't count for squat when compared to fun gameplay.

That was the whole philosophy of GTA1, remember? GTA4 is a boring, boring game. Pretty, but boring. And it is definitely over-rated because the popular opinion is that it is the greatest game ever.

It most certainly is not.

Who has said that?

The popular opinion is that the structure of the game is near perfect when it comes to graphics, physics and so on. But obviously, the lack of humour is missing and as we all know that is a key factor that shouldn't be missing in any GTA game.

I recently only played The Ballad of Gay Tony. That for me is what GTA IV should have been at the very least.

Penn

The thing is, try comparing GTAIII to Vice City. The leap in fun, atmosphere, story, character... everything, was amazing. GTAIII was fun, but Vice City was far better.

And thats why I'm excited about GTA5. If it can take the same kind of leap, taking the physics and graphics that GTA4 had, but adding more fun etc, it could be an absolutely fantastic game. I think GTA4 was slightly overrated, but it wasn't the step backwards a lot of people thought. A lot of the fun I had in GTA4 came from the new physics and AI. Stealing a car, having them try and get back in and then dragging them for a few blocks never fails to make me laugh. Driving as fast as possible before hitting something and flying through the windscreen is brilliant.

It has learned a lot for the next game. It just has to try to bring back and update some of the stuff it lost

Duke Leonal Felmet

El LoCo Ade wrote: »

Who has said that?

The popular opinion is that the structure of the game is near perfect when it comes to graphics, physics and so on. But obviously, the lack of humour is missing and as we all know that is a key factor that shouldn't be missing in any GTA game.

I recently only played The Ballad of Gay Tony. That for me is what GTA IV should have been at the very least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_IV#Reception

The word perfect pops up quite a few times.

And

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/release-date/available/ps3/metascore?view=condensed

So it would seem that critics would rank it as a perfect game, and place it top of all releases on PS3.

But we all know that it is a dullard of a game, and that is why it is over-rated.

o·ver·rate (vr-rt)
tr.v. o·ver·rat·ed, o·ver·rat·ing, o·ver·rates
To overestimate the merits of; rate too highly.

Nuri Sahin

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_IV#Reception

The word perfect pops up quite a few times.

And

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/release-date/available/ps3/metascore?view=condensed

So it would seem that critics would rank it as a perfect game, and place it top of all releases on PS3.

But we all know that it is a dullard of a game, and that is why it is over-rated.

o·ver·rate (vr-rt)
tr.v. o·ver·rat·ed, o·ver·rat·ing, o·ver·rates
To overestimate the merits of; rate too highly.

No need to patronise me by posting the definition of over hype.

Yet again, what did I say was near perfect? Graphics and game physics. Did you seriously have issues with these two aspects of the game? If so, well you must be very hard to please. Anyone I know personally be it online or in real life, had no complaints regarding the graphics or game physics.

I take the gaming media with a pinch of salt tbf. I do not base my opinion solely of what gaming media say as initial reaction is almost impossible is usually over the top these days and not just in video games as we all know.

I'm not arguing that the game devolved in something quite lackluster and dull. There's no denying it did. I'd like to think whoever reviewed the game, their opinions changed over time.

Take away the GTA name and Rockstar emblem, repackage it with another title and publisher and the game deserves be fully lauded. But since GTA, we as fans expect better dialogue , characters and all round better humour. It's clear Rockstar were testing the waters with a more serious, realistic game. Hopefully GTA V won't be the same. I genuinely though the Ballad of Gay Tony was what GTA was about... over the top, comical, fun from start to finish.

The back bone of GTA V is in place IMHO.

edit - out of curiosity, did you play The Ballad of Gay Tony and if so, did you enjoy it?

Duke Leonal Felmet

El LoCo Ade wrote: »

No need to patronise me by posting the definition of over hype.

Yet again, what did I say was near perfect? Graphics and game physics. Did you seriously have issues with these two aspects of the game? If so, well you must be very hard to please. Anyone I know personally be it online or in real life, had no complaints regarding the graphics or game physics.

I take the gaming media with a pinch of salt tbf. I do not base my opinion solely of what gaming media say as initial reaction is almost impossible is usually over the top these days and not just in video games as we all know.

I'm not arguing that the game devolved in something quite lackluster and dull. There's no denying it did. I'd like to think whoever reviewed the game, their opinions changed over time.

Take away the GTA name and Rockstar emblem, repackage it with another title and publisher and the game deserves be fully lauded. But since GTA, we as fans expect better dialogue , characters and all round better humour. It's clear Rockstar were testing the waters with a more serious, realistic game. Hopefully GTA V won't be the same. I genuinely though the Ballad of Gay Tony was what GTA was about... over the top, comical, fun from start to finish.

The back bone of GTA V is in place IMHO.

edit - out of curiosity, did you play The Ballad of Gay Tony and if so, did you enjoy it?

I am fairly saddened to see that some people still value graphics and game physics over quality gameplay. I would take a classic SNES game over a boring game with 'near perfect graphics and game physics' any day. There is more to a great game than flashy graphics (same goes for movies) and anyone who liked GTA1/2 should be able to appreciate why that is. That is why GTA4 is an utter failure, in my opinion. A game is about gameplay, remember that? Did you even like those games (GTA1/2), or did the graphics put you off the amazing gameplay?

I didn't play The Ballad of Gay Tony, I wouldn't waste another cent playing this game. I will wait for the sequel to Red Dead Redemption, a prime example of how both quality gameplay and flashy graphics are required to make a perfect game.

corcaigh07

Ballad of Gay Tony is a lot more fun than GTA4, you should try it.gta4 is a great game, it just took itself far too seriously sometimes. online is good on GTA4 as well

Nuri Sahin

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I am fairly saddened to see that some people still value graphics and game physics over quality gameplay. I would take a classic SNES game over a boring game with 'near perfect graphics and game physics' any day. There is more to a great game than flashy graphics (same goes for movies) and anyone who liked GTA1/2 should be able to appreciate why that is. That is why GTA4 is an utter failure, in my opinion. A game is about gameplay, remember that? Did you even like those games (GTA1/2), or did the graphics put you off the amazing gameplay?

I didn't play The Ballad of Gay Tony, I wouldn't waste another cent playing this game. I will wait for the sequel to Red Dead Redemption, a prime example of how both quality gameplay and flashy graphics are required to make a perfect game.

Deary me.


Just for clarification. The majority of my favourite games are from the SNES and N64 consoles. Anyone who actually knows me be it here or irl will tell you how much I yap on about previous generation games being far better than todays current efforts. Heck I'll use the Call of Duty series for current gen perspective. I much prefer Call of Duty 2 and 4 compared to the last 3 installments in the series despite superior graphics.

All I did was mention two positives with GTA IV. Graphics nor game physics aren't the be all to end all when it comes to judging a game, of course not. I just stated that I thought these two aspects that were impressive, I was pleasantly surprised at how impressive it was actually and I for one hope Rockstar don't spend time tweaking and improving these two aspects because it would be wasting time on other aspects that need the time being put into.

I said the game (ie: gameplay!) became dull -

I'm not arguing that the game devolved in something quite lackluster and dull. There's no denying it did. I'd like to think whoever reviewed the game, their opinions changed over time.

I have very vague memories of playing both GTA I and II mainly down to the reason I was totally immersed in playing my N64 with any 3 of my friends. Graphics don't matter in regards to either game anyway.

Thanks for confirming my original thought regarding you having not played Ballad of Gay Tony.

Mensch Maschine

Nowhere did the guy indicate he would take graphics & physics over gameplay. Nor do I. BUT, we are pointing out (at least I am) that GTA IV exceeded games by miles in all other genres when it came to graphics and physics. Heck that wasn't even my point. I'm not even trying to defend the game I've had my mixed feelings about it myself. It is a bit dull and there were some dodgy choices in features and annoying things like friends ringing all the time etc. But like the guy said above me, strip the GTA name and who it's by and it definitely deserves it's praise.

I feel Rockstar were so happy with the long hard work they put in to making a new game for a new console with their own new physics engine, the graphics that they may have neglected or figured it was enough to keep people happy or that eventually they'd just add the features as they went a long. No one knows what was up because Rockstar has never commented on the reaction.

So to summarise my feelings on it again. Lacked fun features (high standard set already by other GTA's) but exceeded in the graphics and physics department. hen I say exceeded I mean it's historics how good they are for a sandbox game with such little bugs and glitches compard to say RDR or other games. No, i'm not choosing graphics over gameplay and I don't think Rockstar are but the graphics and physics are so exceptional that the game is not overrated generally as a play through the story is one of the more enjoyable. You'll also get more hours out of a GTA story than most other games. Go on multiplayer aswell. People play that all the time and a game that game out about 3 years ago, I'd say it has some of the busiest servers of a computer game of all time.

Duke Leonal Felmet

El LoCo Ade wrote: »

Thanks for confirming my original thought regarding you having not played Ballad of Gay Tony.

Obviously I didn't. Only a fool would sink any more money into a game he doesn't like.

DonkeyStyle \o/

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I didn't play The Ballad of Gay Tony, I wouldn't waste another cent playing this game.

You're not missing much IMO. I thought GTA4 was alright, but gay tony & lost and damned expansions bored the tits off me.

I think GTA needs to go back to its roots a bit, be more about fun and less about story-telling.
As accomplished as GTA4 was in its physics, graphics, plot and overall polish, I had more fun playing through Saints Row 2... I actually had a laugh playing it (streaking in SR2 has to be one of the funniest moments I've seen in gaming, as well as randomly grabbing people and throwing them into the harbour).

One thing I will say about GTA4 is that the environment they made was very cool. I must have spent my first half-hour just walking around looking at things, listening to the pedestrian chatter and messing around with them to see what they'd do.
Unfortunately, that wears off completely with time and exposure. Very low replayability for me.

super_furry

Honestly it felt too claustrophobic for me after the vast expanses of San Andreas - which I still play.

Nuri Sahin

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Obviously I didn't. Only a fool would sink any more money into a game he doesn't like.

Luckily for me I downloaded it for free

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote: »

You're not missing much IMO. I thought GTA4 was alright, but gay tony & lost and damned expansions bored the tits off me.

I think GTA needs to go back to its roots a bit, be more about fun and less about story-telling.

Did you not think Ballad of Gay Tony brought back some of that wacky element of past GTA games? I certainly did. It doesn't compare to San Andreas, sure. But it was leaning more towards the GTA of the past we all love - over the top missions and crazy characters.

Can't comment on Lost and Damned as I never played it nor do I intend to. Going from what I've seen and read, it looks more in tone with GTA IV.

Duke Leonal Felmet

super_furry wrote: »

Honestly it felt too claustrophobic for me after the vast expanses of San Andreas - which I still play.

you like vast expanses? try RDR, if you havent already. the most beautiful game environment I have ever seen.

DonkeyStyle \o/

El LoCo Ade wrote: »

Did you not think Ballad of Gay Tony brought back some of that wacky element of past GTA games?

A little bit, but it wasn't enough to keep me playing beyond the first few hours. I think I've gotten tired of the basic mechanics of the game. And the recycled game-world left nothing new to explore... which is one of the things I find exciting about a new GTA game.
Maybe it's just me, but I generally don't give a rats arse about plots and characters in video games (Deus Ex is about the only game where I'd say the plot was compelling and worked). So GTA4 with new characters and a new plot was never going to be a big winner for me.
The two GTA4 expansions, from what I've played, seemed like a series of chores... I just didn't have fun.
If you haven't played Saint's Row 2 yet, I'd definitely pick it up... it's what I imagine GTA4 would have been if they had taken the crazy feature-packed route.
I went from GTA4 -> SR2 -> GTA4 expansions... which is probably why the expansions feel so painfully more-of-the-same.

Duke Leonal Felmet

as for the games physics, did anyone feel like they were driving on polished ice in GTA4? its one thing to slide out of control at 100mph, but quite another when cruising with the R2 trigger halfdown. maybe they wanted to aid more exciting chases, but it certainly wasnt realistic.

12gauge dave

havent played any gta in well over a year or so but i bought liberty city stories yday cheap and started playin the motor bike story line(cant remember correct name)
but was amazed at how well it looks and the realism and depth they went into constructing buildings etc to be fair its mind boggling
the missions are abit rubbish and as post above veichle handling is a disaster
but after a long break from playin gta 4 and giving it heavy critiscism i think in some ways we expect too much from rockstar so i think that a few tweaks here and there with the fun factor and great storyline will make gta 5 a mammoth of a game:)

Duke Leonal Felmet

12gauge dave wrote: »

havent played any gta in well over a year or so but i bought liberty city stories yday cheap and started playin the motor bike story line(cant remember correct name)
but was amazed at how well it looks and the realism and depth they went into constructing buildings etc to be fair its mind boggling
the missions are abit rubbish and as post above veichle handling is a disaster
but after a long break from playin gta 4 and giving it heavy critiscism i think in some ways we expect too much from rockstar so i think that a few tweaks here and there with the fun factor and great storyline will make gta 5 a mammoth of a game:)

Indeed, if they can tweak GTA4 to make it more fun, then you can kiss my social life goodbye. I hope they use whatever they learned while making RDR.

Marsden

Right I know this post is stale but I have to stick my beak in. I had given up on video games but after playing my brothers copy of GTA4 3 years ago I went out and bought a PS3 and played the game several times over.

Its not just the physics engine, the vastness of the city, the unbelivable attention to detail that makes it one of the best games around, its the fact that it can be played again and again it doesn't get old.

Try going back and playing vice city and see how rubbish it is, and I was a big fan of it in its day. Several games have tried to emulate its playability and free roaming aspect and have failed miserably ie. Mafia2.

The story might be a bit lame but as a source of entertainment theres few games out there that come close.

Duke Leonal Felmet

A snoozefest.

Kaneda_

Did anyone else find that the game was very 'dark'? -As in the actual graphics.Every thing seemed, well.....dark!

hatz7

It was a poor game after the brilliance of San Andreas,
Online too is rubbish, 16 players?? you could be driving for 20mins without meeting anybody, the other online game modes were not that exciting.

I played an online version of San Andreas, SAMP,PC,but you still use playstation controller, check it out, it was awesome, an on it there were up to 200! players on a server,

so GTA IV just sucked in comparison, The missions though were really good,