A Defense Of GTA4

[Eamon]

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.

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.

I also think a fair few people are jumping on the Yahtzee bandwagon.

If people dislike the game because it's not what they like it is not your place to argue. Simillarly with the Yahtzee issue people are influence by media and that can show in their taste of games, and you shouldn't try to change people to confom to your veiws.

 

[Inco]

Ok, i played GTA 4 with a lot of excitement, hoping it was going to be awesomely fun. But the problem was that it lacked it.
The realism of the graphics made like a dull movie that was made with a bad camera, the driving was horrible, feeling more like a chore than an aspect of the game and with the graphics making all the cars look pretty tasteless not helping it. (Vice city was great on the other hand with these aspects.) The game took itself too seriously, and really the story wasn't too appealing to me.
The multiplayer aspect needs some toning up too, cause it gets boring after a while, even with a lobby full of friends. This is my opinion, analyze it all you want cause i want some people to at least question it so i can explain myself appropriately, and not just dissolve into yo' momma jokes.

 

[Strafe Mcgee]

If people dislike the game because it's not what they like it is not your place to argue. Simillarly with the Yahtzee issue people are influence by media and that can show in their taste of games, and you shouldn't try to change people to confom to your veiws.

What? I'm not trying to change anyone, just making my case as a defense for GTA! It says it right there in the title!

 

[Eamon]

If people dislike the game because it's not what they like it is not your place to argue. Simillarly with the Yahtzee issue people are influence by media and that can show in their taste of games, and you shouldn't try to change people to confom to your veiws.

What? I'm not trying to change anyone, just making my case as a defense for GTA! It says it right there in the title!

Ok then, when put like I can only ask that you re-read my first post as you have just admitted to defending Rockstar, a fact that you previously denied and led to this conflict.

 

[smartalec]

I felt there *were* characters in GTA4 that would have been at home in other GTA games. However, one of the things that endeared me to Niko was the way that he seemed constantly amazed at the level of self-delusion or self-aggrandisement some of these characters had, and the small snarks of sarcasm with which he'd try to deflate them a little. I thought it was a very clever move to have a protagonist who is an outsider to gangster culture, and I related to him in that way.

 

[jimduckie]

gta4 was good if not great but gta5 is coming eventually till then i'll still play gta4 and the other gta games and this will give me time to play gta4 on the 360 and wait for gta5 ,as for discussing gta4 i think it's time to stop beating a dead horse and save all that bs energy for when gta5 comes out cause we all know that the shit will hit the fan soon enough

 

[Strafe Mcgee]

Ok then, when put like I can only ask that you re-read my first post as you have just admitted to defending Rockstar, a fact that you previously denied and led to this conflict.

What? I'm putting forward a defense of GTA4 because I wanted to, since I felt that the game had gotten a bad rap for a number of reasons. Sure, I suppose that's defending Rockstar as well, but whatever. Rockstar don't need me to defend them but I WANT to defend them since I feel that they've made a fantastic game which has been backlashed against. Do I need to do it? Nope. But do we really need to discuss anything on these forums?

 

[Spyalt]

*sigh* Just because you want an argument doesn't make everything people say into a personal challenge. What I said was my opinion and that cannot be wrong so shut the hell up.

Good lord... Spyalt, Vivaldi is right. If you want other people to accept your opinion then you need to logically back it up. You did not do this. Would you care to elaborate on why you think realism in GTA is a bad thing?

I did back it up. I said I felt that GTA sacrified fun for realism. Try actually reading my post.

 

[Eamon]

Ok then, when put like I can only ask that you re-read my first post as you have just admitted to defending Rockstar, a fact that you previously denied and led to this conflict.

What? I'm putting forward a defense of GTA4 because I wanted to, since I felt that the game had gotten a bad rap for a number of reasons. Sure, I suppose that's defending Rockstar as well, but whatever. Rockstar don't need me to defend them but I WANT to defend them since I feel that they've made a fantastic game which has been backlashed against. Do I need to do it? Nope. But do we really need to discuss anything on these forums?

Ok relax for a second ... calm yet? I have expressed my point on this matter and like Rockstar I don't need defend it, so goodbye.

 

[GebGuy]

I dont know if this has been said yet on this thread, I only read the first page of comments and dont care to read the rest.

But, I think what most people found to be a problematic with GTAIV was that it wasn't like the previous ones. Everyone went in with a certain expectation of whacky zany over the top gameplay which the previous ones are well known for.

Toning down the crazy meant that anyone who wanted/expected that were disappointed - some got over it and enjoyed the game for what it is - others just pan it as the WORST GAME EVAR! with little justification except that it wasn't what they expected.

The biggest problem with franchises likes this is the fan base - they always want what the got from the first game (i.e. the feelings of something new and exciting and different) and if sequels dont deliver then... well, I'm sure you guys see where I am going with this.

 

[Strafe Mcgee]

I did back it up. I said I felt that GTA sacrified fun for realism. Try actually reading my post.

I was actually referring to your claim that if you wanted realism then you'd go outside (see? I did read your post. No need to get tetchy.) I was just trying to get the argument to move on since it was clogging up the thread. Hence why I asked you to explain in a bit more detail why you thought GTA was rubbish. That's all.

 

[Spyalt]

I did back it up. I said I felt that GTA sacrified fun for realism. Try actually reading my post.

I was actually referring to your claim that if you wanted realism then you'd go outside (see? I did read your post. No need to get tetchy.) I was just trying to get the argument to move on since it was clogging up the thread. Hence why I asked you to explain in a bit more detail why you thought GTA was rubbish. That's all.

Its not an argument that is clogging up your thread, Its an attack seeing as I am not responding to the flamers.

 

[Sethzard]

i played for hours trying to have fun, but i couldn't. it's just do dull

 

[Guido656]

I've said this before but it really bothered me that GTAIV was criticized for not having enough silly wacky fun. That's like criticizing Half Life 2 for having terrible RPG elements. The game goes for a more realistic pulpy adventure that makes all the explosions and car chases more exiting.

You can ignore the friends by hitting b twice.

I disagree, GTA used to have the silly and wacky stuff in it, whereas Half-Life was never an rpg. So that doesn't really make alot of sense.

I think they should have, by all means, improved the graphics/realism (which they did) and the realistic feel to the game. But why take out things which just made the world more real + fun anyway? I.e gym/bicycles/haircut/clothes - it's not much, but having that stuff available adds to the experience.

My opinion is that it could have done with more fun stuff being included. What happened to the insanely studpid missions involving remote control cars, dirt bike tracks and destruction derbys? I personally think that because of the new generation look to the graphics, the wacky stuff that IS included in GTAIV is hard to pick up on anyway (silly billboards, etc).

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

Realism in games does not always mean the game is going to be interesting or immerse me in its world. The Jak series, Ratchet and Clank, Timesplitters, many RPGs, etc. all have a distinct lack of realism but are tons more fun than any of the Tom Clancy Rainbow 6 blah blah blah games or GTA IV. As long as the reality of the game world is consistent and fun, I will stay immersed in the story they're trying to tell. Games like GTA IV have sacrificed some of the silliness and fun that appeals to me, so I don't continue playing them. Sometimes making things over the top and outlandish is more fun.

 

[Mackinator]

I've recently been working on a dissertation about the press' representation of videogames in the mainstream media, and have been thinking a lot about GTA4 recently. GTA4, for me at least, is probably the best game of this console generation. The only games which compete with it are Bioshock and Fallout 3.

So why am I writing this now? Because I'm fed up of the backlash against GTA4 , mostly caused by it failing to live up to the hype of perfect review scores in the minds of gamers and comparisons to Saints Row 2. So, lets take a look at the what the game does right:

Attention To Detail
GTA4's recreation of New York is an utterly compelling area to drive around. The beautiful rendering of New York city is packed with detail and for the most part runs smoothly on the Xbox 360, which is an impressive feat in itself. The world is also full of the satire and jokes which GTA is famous for. Even now, a year after it was released, I'm still discovering jokes on the sides of buildings and in the names of companies which I hadn't noticed before. Even getting in a taxi and being taken for a drive around the city is a pleasant experience simply because it allows you to examine the care and attention that has been taken in bringing a virtual world to life. The GPS system, the television adverts which relate back to the rest of the world, the radio which refers to your and other peoples actions, the chat between characters which changes every time you repeat a mission... All of these touches combine to create a more detailed and realistic world than anything else ever seen in a game.

Realism
Initially it is difficult to get used to the way the cars handle in GTA4. After the gloriously ridiculous handling of the cars in previous games, realistic handling, suspension and control is a bit difficult to get used to. This is a major barrier point for GTA detractors, since they are used to jumping into a car in an openworld game, holding down the accelerator and letting rip. It took me a while to realise it too, but that's not what GTA4's driving's about. The improved physics engine actually encourages driving more akin to games like PGR4 than Burnout, which, when you realise it makes the game's driving much more crunchy and enjoyable. Using skill to navigate through the city successfully becomes enjoyable in itself, and makes all of the carnage much more satisfying. Though I will admit, they should have toned down how much force it takes to propel you out the windscreen.

Story
This is something that GTA4 really doesn't get enough credit for. Niko is easily one of the most compelling protagonists in gaming simply due to his realism as a character. He is sympathetic, genuinely nice to those he cares about and regrets many of his actions throughout the game. How many other games can you talk about which have a character that actually goes through a development curve throughout the progress of the game? Beyond Good and Evil is one of the few that I can currently think of, though I'm sure that you guys will be able to conjure up some more.

These are the main things that the game does right, in my opinion. I have to go and study now, but feel free to challenge me, I'm up for a good debate about GTA

First off, I dont think you should defend GTA IV.
1. Attention to detail? what happened to the detail you could get by modding cars and putting nitrous on them? Me and several friends have agreed that this was a great thing to be able to do in San Andreas, and i know you dont want to keep repeating the same thing, but why remove something that was so much fun for so many. I thought the good things were supposed to be built on.

2. Who wants so much realism in a game where you're killing people with fully automatic weapons and heavy explosives, and you can kill hundreds of poicemen without getting arrested and you can heal bullet wounds by buying a $1 burger from the nearest Cluck N' Bell.

3. Your point on Story makes me laugh. "He is sympathetic, genuinely nice to those he cares about and regrets many of his actions throughout the game. How many other games can you talk about which have a character that actually goes through a development curve throughout the progress of the game?"
First thing that annoys me is about these regrets. Theres a mission when you go into a multistory building where you kill at least 30 guys and when you get to the top you can decide to have mercy on their leader. This is so stupid seeing as youve just killed 30+ men and 1000s of bullets have been shot at you yet you can suddenly decide to show mercy? This would tell me Niko is a Skitzophrenic and it is stupid that they give you the choice of mercy. He may have regrets of his actions at the end of the story, but lets say you choose the Path where Kate dies... you tell her you will change yet 10 minutes later you are hunting down the very thing you promised you would change from doing. Development curve? Niko may develop in the cutscenes but the story goes to crap the next mission when he asks Phil (i think its Phil) for help to find Darko as a "friend" and then you can kill him maybe a few missions later.
Another thing that I dont think was fully explained in this "doesnt get enough credit" story is why Niko needs money? To send home? You are advised to stock up on weapons before you go to kill Pegorino after he kills Kate for example, and as far as I know, I spent tens of thousands on rockets alone. Also back to the realism which is related to this. Some people said you made too much cash by the end of games like GTA III. But i would expect that killing 100 people would reward you with more than $10000. Another thing in my opinion they could have done is made is a car sales store, where you could buy cars with your cash, since at the end i have well over $500,000 to spend on nothing. The game has lost many of the great things that I loved in GTA and as such I call it a disappointment.

I wont deny its a decent game, but it has lost several of the things that were most fun about the game. I thought they would be upgrading the good things not trying new things like TV. Have you ever watched it? Theres is like 30 minutes of TV together and none of it is worth paying money for. I dont want to watch TV in a GTA game, a want to steal cool cars and kill people. Also, what happened to rampages? They were so fun but what do they do? Take it out maybe because Niko is a "genuine fella"? Lies... HE IS A MURDERER AND I DONT CARE WHAT YOU SAY HE IS NOT A GENUINE PERSON, no matter what you say, he put Roman's life in danger as well as Kate's. If he really cared about the people he loved, he wouldnt be a mass murderer, if so many people are out to get him, why does he associate with innocent people like Kate.

The Game is about Grand Theft Auto and killing people, not watching TV or spending time on an Internet Café so i think this GTA was good but some were much better in lots of ways.

Here are some things why it wasnt as good as any other GTA.

1. Missions in GTA III = Very Fun
2. GTA : VC = Better City, liked the brightness and unique new buying of properties.
3. Removal of Ambulance and Vigilante missions was annoying since they were fun to do when bored after a mission and good to see how high you could get.

 

[Ace of Spades]

Yes its realistic woop dee doo. If I want realism I open my door and walk outside. A game should never sacrfice fun for realism as GTA did.

But it didn't, it was more fun than any other GTA.

There, I said it.

I was starting to think that I was the only one who thought that.

 

[zombiechef]

Although I do agree with the majority of what you said, I still miss the flamethrower from the previous games. If the would have kept that in GTAIV would be higher on my favorite games list.