A Defense Of GTA4
- Thread starter Strafe Mcgee
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I did trade this in due to boredom. Trading in my DS to get it on release day only exacerbated
my disappointment.
However, it's now going for around £20. so I'm quite tempted to give it another go.
my disappointment.
However, it's now going for around £20. so I'm quite tempted to give it another go.
Idk about niko being the most compelling protagainists ever, he wasnt horrible haha but the rest of your beliefs i agree with. It seems to get a bad rap for a few things, but the fact that i finished the game and not only had more stuff to do but wanted to do it is always a good sign.
First point: Why do a pair of plate gauntlets grow your muscles by 50 points? It's how RPGs work.teh_gunslinger said:While I see your point about the lab coat I'll say it's a bit contrived. And it doesn't explain bonuses from Lincoln's Hat and various glasses and stuff.Therumancer said:teh_gunslinger said:
Well I think the idea is that the labcoats and such have tools in the pockets or whatever. Hey, you've got to have treasure somehow.
Otherwise I DO feel your pain, Bethesda's biggest weakness as an RPG producer has been their ridiculously limited bestiary, this has been an issue going back as far as Arena.
That said, I *DO* feel Fallout 3 is a much better game, but then again I'm more of an RPG nut than a crime game nut.
The problem with turning off your phone in GTA IV is that if you do that, then you can wind up losing the abillities you gained from your contacts. I vastly prefer gaining an abillity and then having the abillity remain with you. Not to mention that they added an achievement in for juggling this, and honestly I don't think there should be an achievement for enduring annoyance factor.
But I agree that the friends part of the game could have been handled better, but on the whole I think GTAIV was a stellar game, albeit with some flaws and annoyances. Just as any game. And as I said, personally I was able to look past them. I just had to phone up Jacob and I was happy again. He was the only one I found actually somewhat fun to spend time with. Don't get me started on Dwayne the Depressed Ex-Con.
And Fallout 3 was a good game, no doubt, but I think it had some large blunders. And I didn't really feel it was very open in it's nature. You could decide the order of the quests but that was about it (I think). Your characters skills had very little effect on the game, with regards to conversations and such. The player don't have a lot of choices in how to handle quests without shooting stuff up, and you can't be a retarded moron like you could in the old Fallout games. I guess it was a great game, but a bad Fallout game, if you can say that?
Second point: Your character skills definitly have effect on the game, but you don't notice till they're high level. A high conversation skill definitly helped me avoid certain sticky situations and a high science skill helped me too. It even helped me in the main quest a lot.
That's true of anyone who's killed a human being. The majority of gamers probably don't understand the typical human response to murdering someone.Ionami said:
The point of GTAIV's characters was to illustrate the kind of choices these characters made with their lives, how society tied them up in a high spot then cut the strings. Niko is basically the ultimate example of this; he's been destroyed inside by the murders he's committed.
This makes him superior to CJ and Tommy, neither of which showed any truly human response to suffering, particularly since within game parameters there is a real potential to be someone extremely harmful to the city, killing vast numbers of innocent people. GTAIV is making an actual comment on Western society through Niko, adding layers of meaning to the game.
--------------
It comes down to what you seek when you play games. You might want meaning, or you might want fun. It's unrealistic for any of us to expect others to want what we want. But what makes GTAIV so captivating is that it allows many of us to have one or the other, particularly since it is designed in an incredibly convenient fashion.
1. Yes, it's how RPGs work but it was not quite how Fallout worked. I guess I was just hoping for that to be continued.DYin01 said:teh_gunslinger said:While I see your point about the lab coat I'll say it's a bit contrived. And it doesn't explain bonuses from Lincoln's Hat and various glasses and stuff.Therumancer said:teh_gunslinger said:
Well I think the idea is that the labcoats and such have tools in the pockets or whatever. Hey, you've got to have treasure somehow.
Otherwise I DO feel your pain, Bethesda's biggest weakness as an RPG producer has been their ridiculously limited bestiary, this has been an issue going back as far as Arena.
That said, I *DO* feel Fallout 3 is a much better game, but then again I'm more of an RPG nut than a crime game nut.
The problem with turning off your phone in GTA IV is that if you do that, then you can wind up losing the abillities you gained from your contacts. I vastly prefer gaining an abillity and then having the abillity remain with you. Not to mention that they added an achievement in for juggling this, and honestly I don't think there should be an achievement for enduring annoyance factor.
But I agree that the friends part of the game could have been handled better, but on the whole I think GTAIV was a stellar game, albeit with some flaws and annoyances. Just as any game. And as I said, personally I was able to look past them. I just had to phone up Jacob and I was happy again. He was the only one I found actually somewhat fun to spend time with. Don't get me started on Dwayne the Depressed Ex-Con.
And Fallout 3 was a good game, no doubt, but I think it had some large blunders. And I didn't really feel it was very open in it's nature. You could decide the order of the quests but that was about it (I think). Your characters skills had very little effect on the game, with regards to conversations and such. The player don't have a lot of choices in how to handle quests without shooting stuff up, and you can't be a retarded moron like you could in the old Fallout games. I guess it was a great game, but a bad Fallout game, if you can say that?
First point: Why do a pair of plate gauntlets grow your muscles by 50 points? It's how RPGs work.
Second point: Your character skills definitly have effect on the game, but you don't notice till they're high level. A high conversation skill definitly helped me avoid certain sticky situations and a high science skill helped me too. It even helped me in the main quest a lot.
2. Yes, it does help in some situations, it's true, but it's not as pervasive as in the old games. I just fell that there is a huge lack of actual rpg stuff and depth in Fallout 3. BUt still, I enjoyed the game. I would just like to have enjoyed it even more.
Hey Strafe Mcgee. I don't have a lot to add, but I'd like to say I agree with you, because most of the time the complainers get all the airtime. I'd add that much of the backlash is from people who found GTA4 was not the game they wanted, and in their minds that made it crap. You can see in this thread a lot of people who are unable or unwilling to consider that something they don't like might still be good for other people.Strafe Mcgee said:
You're confused. The sorts of opinions that can't be wrong are personal, like "I don't enjoy games that sacrifice fun for realism." You said "A game should never sacrfice fun for realism," which is a statement of fact. Statements of fact can be wrong and usually are.Spyalt said:
Right... but I found I could relate to CJ from San Andreas in certain ways, and I generally like the character a lot. It just wasn't there with Niko is what I'm saying.Silva said:
Really has very little to do with being able to relate to a murderer, it was not being able to relate to someone who had come from another country, and was trying to make his way in America... etc etc, among other things.
Niko may add "layers" but they weren't enough. Although CJ never made a "revelation" and "changed" for the better, I don't think it's always necessary for a character in a story to do so. That's simply following a standardized character and story structure.
And it still doesn't change the fact that I personally find it easier to relate to CJ and find him generally more likeable than Niko.
GTA took a little bit of getting used to. But it really was an amazing game, and by the end I found myself really loving Niko.
You see the problem with people starting threads like this is that after another person has posted it's no longer in defence it's simply another discussion on if GTA is good or bad, don you really think Rockstar still needs you to defend them after all they've been making controversial games for a long time now and I'm pretty sure they know how to handle criticism on their own.
I love how the arguments against sequels seem to basically boil down to, "it wasn't what I expected/exactly the same as the iteration of the series that I liked, therefore its crap and not worth mentioning or holding up as good"
Okay so GTAIV wasn't so unrealistic and hilarious, that in itself doesn't make it a bad game. You went into the game with expectations, and when those expectations weren't met you played the child who didn't get their candy and threw a tantrum. We get it, you wanted candy, but sometimes you need to have your vegetables. Okay I think I'm losing you on this analogy, but what I'm trying to say is maybe instead of getting all frustrated that your exact expectations weren't met and holding that against a game, maybe you could give it a chance as an entirely seperate entity?
What if this was the first GTA game ever released? I feel like a lot of the negativity would melt away. The same goes for many other games, people just nitpick at things because its not exactly what they expected and apparently that is some huge injustice. Back in my day when we played games we got the most out of them and enjoyed them for what they were, not what they lacked when compared to other games. You can have loads of fun with even a bad game, it just takes an open mind, and a big GTFO to your overblown expectations.
Also I'm completely aware only maybe 2 or 3 people may even read this due to the nature of the Escapist forum, but thats okay I moreso needed to get this out. Plus I can always make it its own thread if I get frustrated at a later date
Okay so GTAIV wasn't so unrealistic and hilarious, that in itself doesn't make it a bad game. You went into the game with expectations, and when those expectations weren't met you played the child who didn't get their candy and threw a tantrum. We get it, you wanted candy, but sometimes you need to have your vegetables. Okay I think I'm losing you on this analogy, but what I'm trying to say is maybe instead of getting all frustrated that your exact expectations weren't met and holding that against a game, maybe you could give it a chance as an entirely seperate entity?
What if this was the first GTA game ever released? I feel like a lot of the negativity would melt away. The same goes for many other games, people just nitpick at things because its not exactly what they expected and apparently that is some huge injustice. Back in my day when we played games we got the most out of them and enjoyed them for what they were, not what they lacked when compared to other games. You can have loads of fun with even a bad game, it just takes an open mind, and a big GTFO to your overblown expectations.
Also I'm completely aware only maybe 2 or 3 people may even read this due to the nature of the Escapist forum, but thats okay I moreso needed to get this out. Plus I can always make it its own thread if I get frustrated at a later date
I think I was as disappointed as most when I first played GTAIV, it was good but for me it just wasn't GTA, playing felt like a chore more than anything.
However, I bought the game again a couple of months of back and now that I knew what to expect from the game, I've actually found it to be one of my favourite games in the series. It's such a well presented game and it's got rid of all that crap that filled San Andreas, I'm very happy with it and my time with my second copy alone has justified the price of both.
I'd like to suggest that all those people that were disappointed and now find themselves hating it, perhaps try starting again, give it a second chance, it's a damned fine game, even if it isn't perfect.
However, I bought the game again a couple of months of back and now that I knew what to expect from the game, I've actually found it to be one of my favourite games in the series. It's such a well presented game and it's got rid of all that crap that filled San Andreas, I'm very happy with it and my time with my second copy alone has justified the price of both.
I'd like to suggest that all those people that were disappointed and now find themselves hating it, perhaps try starting again, give it a second chance, it's a damned fine game, even if it isn't perfect.
GTA (Or games ripping off GTA) should always be about fun. If they manage to mix fun with realism without sacrificing the fun part then they managed to create a great game. Now GTA IV was quite far from fun, sure the cars handled realistically and the physics were good but the main character was just depressing. I found myself avoiding the missions so i wouldn't have to watch him cry about his miserable life. There were some parts (Other then the grapics and physics) i liked about GTA IV but not enough to make up for the whiny characters.
The only other GTA game i played was Vice City. That was a fun GTA game. The game was realistic enough and the characters seemed to be having fun and mostly the main character's brother didn't call me every five minutes.
I have always compared GTA IV with Saints Row 2. Mostly because it does everything right that GTA IV does wrong. The main character was fun, entertaining and (s)he seemed to be having fun at least. Maybe it's not as realistic as GTA IV but the really is a small sacrifice for fun.
The only other GTA game i played was Vice City. That was a fun GTA game. The game was realistic enough and the characters seemed to be having fun and mostly the main character's brother didn't call me every five minutes.
I have always compared GTA IV with Saints Row 2. Mostly because it does everything right that GTA IV does wrong. The main character was fun, entertaining and (s)he seemed to be having fun at least. Maybe it's not as realistic as GTA IV but the really is a small sacrifice for fun.
Yeah, but I'm not trying to defend Rockstar, I'm just trying to reinvigorate the debate about GTA. Like I said in my first post, it seems like far too many people just ignore GTA and write it off, probably due to the game not quite being what they wanted it to be. Does it need to be discussed? No. But I wanted to discuss it and it seems like people still have something to say about it.Eamon said:
I also think a fair few people are jumping on the Yahtzee bandwagon.
You know what gets up my goat about this ongoing debate? The fact that it's still going on...
I personally found GTAIV to be a dry and uninviting game.
OK, it looks pretty and they've done some interesting things in it but I really just did not have any fun at all while playing it! And I'm clearly not alone in that judgement.
You can defend its technical brilliance all you like, but when it comes to a game it's much like assessing a work of art - Jackson Pollock may win awards but I don't want his work in my house.
I personally found GTAIV to be a dry and uninviting game.
OK, it looks pretty and they've done some interesting things in it but I really just did not have any fun at all while playing it! And I'm clearly not alone in that judgement.
You can defend its technical brilliance all you like, but when it comes to a game it's much like assessing a work of art - Jackson Pollock may win awards but I don't want his work in my house.