@plaintomato said:

@mandude said:

It seemed to have a lot going for it, aye, but gameplay wasn't one of them.

Huh?

I'm sorry you didn't catch that. Allow me to reiterate.

@mandude said:

It seemed to have a lot going for it, aye, but gameplay wasn't one of them.

Let me know if you're still having problems.

@DeeGee said:

Niko was a terrible character, and his whole "I want to be a good guy" mantra while shooting people in the face just made no sense. He was not a conflicted, tortured soul like they tried to make him out to be. He was a dick who murdered everyone for money yet bitched about doing it.

I quite liked Niko, and what you said makes me think you didn't even pay attention to the story. Yes he wanted to make positive changes to his life so he decided to go to Liberty City because Roman promised him the "American Dream" but when he got there he found out Roman wasn't exactly living the American Dream, at all. Roman was in severe debt and being hounded by loan sharks. Niko had to use his previous life experiences to help pay off Roman's debts by working for Vlad, and after Vlad came Dimitri and then things just got out of hand.

TL;DR: Despite wanting to be a good guy, there were legitimate reasons Niko was being a bit of a dick.

I really like what Rockstar do with their stories, characters and multiplayer. The only problem I had was even thou there were a lot of things to do in Liberty City, the only reason and influence we got to try everything was the annoying "mate dates". Apart from that everything was just... there. Having the opportunity to do go to the comedy club, play darts, etc. online would be awesome. Cheeky gang fight... relax at strip club. Also going on a rampage just wasn't as fun as it had been in previous games. I believe Rockstar learnt a lot about open-worlds with RDD and the open-world multiplayer was really good and should be improved on for GTA V. I really liked how the RDD multiplayer even included the challenges found in single player.

@S0ndor said:

It is the stark contrast between Niko feeling so bad about killing all those people, and me running around the city firing RPG's into crowds, that made the main story in GTA IV feel less than effective for me.

I sincerely hope they go for a lighter tone this time around.

That's probably the biggest problem with the GTA games. There's a wild sense of disconnection from the story when you can just kill as many people as you want.

A lighter tone? Nahhh. I liked what they did with IV, and hope it progresses into V.

I actually hope the game plays on the fact that the protagonist isn't a stable sane man, kinda like in Vice City. Going on rampages made more sense in Vice than SA or GTA4 because of the tone. Even Tommy Vercetti calls himself a psychopath at the end. There was more of a disconnect in GTA4 and EFLC.

Maybe in GTA 5 they should actually give the main character some sort personality disorder that way he has some sort of excuse when you don't follow his morals. Also I've always thought it would be interesting if you could play as a corrupt cop, a Bad Lieutenant if you will. I wonder if that will ever happen.

I actually really like GTAIV, it has a great world, and a pretty good characters but I tend to like stories with a lot of deconstruction. I think the game just needs bit of role playing and a suspension of disbelief to enjoy. While the morality choices are few and far between I'd argue that they are well done. I hate how in so many games the moral choices are tied to game mechanics. Games like Infamous, Mass Effect and Fable all judge you on the choices you make, there is a clear good and evil path each with different rewards and perks. I find this so boring and that it constrains the player.

It's nice that GTAIV just gives you a choice and doesn't have some some meter fill up telling you what you did was bad. When you have to decide between playboy and Dwayne you don't know how that will play out. Are you a sell out? do you kill the guy that's already dead inside or do you let him live and become one of the few people he can trust?

Also there is the whole Darco Brevik thing when you finally have him at your mercy and have learned the truth that he killed your entire unit for $1000 he asks you "how much do you charge to kill?" and he calls you a hypocrite. Leaving him alive or dead has no impact on things in the long run but it is a choice you have to make, should you have revenge on the guy, is he no different than you? Killing him won't change things, maybe you should put him out of his misery or let him suffer a little more. This is the moment you came to america for, its what you took every shitty job for, what are you going to do, jut keep running away? Or finally kill the guy that ruined everything?

I don't know, I find these choices way more meaningful than FEED THE PEOPLE OR KEEP THE FOOD FOR YOURSELF because there you just are saying so do you want to blow everything up with red powers or do you just want blue powers.

@S0ndor said:

@plaintomato: It's even harder for us to care, since you gave absolutely no explanation at all, LOL! Oops! ROFLMAO, thanks for your input, though. Much apprecieee

I played through every other GTA game multiple times, I had to force myself to finish IV. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I literally couldn't finish IV. It was lacking all over. I swear most of the people who say they really like the style of IV probably didn't even like GTA before :P

@Nottle: Exactly.

@Chavtheworld: I didn't so much, no. Problem?

@BBQBram said:

@Nottle: Exactly.

@Chavtheworld: I didn't so much, no. Problem?

No it's not a problem, it just came to me that might be the reason there's such a split on people who want GTA V to go back to old GTA, and those who like the new serious tone.

@mandude said:

@plaintomato said:

@mandude said:

It seemed to have a lot going for it, aye, but gameplay wasn't one of them.

Huh?

I'm sorry you didn't catch that. Allow me to reiterate.

@mandude said:

It seemed to have a lot going for it, aye, but gameplay wasn't one of them.

Let me know if you're still having problems.

I guess if you mean no planes or jet packs and the cars didn't turn on a dime, I can comprehend what you're saying but...yeah, I'm still having problems. The "gameplay" was much improved over previous GTAs - more precise aiming, cover system, more natural animations, etc, etc etc. Maybe you don't like GTA, sooo...that's so great for you! But the "gameplay" was best in series.

@S0ndor said:

@plaintomato: It's even harder for us to care, since you gave absolutely no explanation at all, LOL! Oops! ROFLMAO, thanks for your input, though. Much apprecieee

I played through every other GTA game multiple times, I had to force myself to finish IV. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

For most it needed no explanation. Let me explain as mandude did for me:

The game was not boring. Lighter tone is a bad idea, I'll play Saints Row for that. Niko was a solid character, a nice change up from your standard target-market-joe-cool-buff-hero-dude. The gameplay was best in series.

Maybe you like to play with your own feces; you wouldn't be the only one, but you'd pretty much be in the minority. But yay! You are unique!

@plaintomato: I like how you went from "lighter tone" to "playing with your own feces."

Thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts on the matter. It would, however, make you slightly more likeable if you didn't present your own personal opinions as universal facts. Something tells me that that's not really your primary concern, though. Anyway, enjoy your gloomy Niko, meanwhile, I'll be gunning down hoes while flying over Los Santos with my jet pack :P

@plaintomato said:

I guess if you mean no planes or jet packs and the cars didn't turn on a dime, I can comprehend what you're saying but...yeah, I'm still having problems. The "gameplay" was much improved over previous GTAs - more precise aiming, cover system, more natural animations, etc, etc etc. Maybe you don't like GTA, sooo...that's so great for you! But the "gameplay" was best in series.

Aside from the incremental gameplay improvements one would expect in making the transition between generations, all it did was strip features. It doesn't help the case for better gameplay either, when you can describe it as etc.

So much arguing in this thread... I guess I'm the only one who has hope in Rockstar. Sure, I want V to stay away from ridiculousness that was San Andreas, but even if they do bring back the craziness... In the end, it's the characters and dialogue that make Rockstar games incredible.

@BBQBram said:

Well yeah if you go on silly killing sprees GTA IV's themes fall apart but if you kinda roleplay it a bit it's definitely there. The previous GTAs were all very lighthearted, pulpy references to iconic crime archetypes from Hollywood. Niko had some actual depth to him. I've never been that much into Rockstar games but IV totally sold me on their tone. They have really come into their own with GTA IV and RDR; seems like they now have the confidence to write deeper, actual characters instead of just cartoonesque parody. Even someone like Brucie had some introspective moments as to why he's so fucked up. The reason there's an inherent duality between Niko's hopes of changing and his actions is because that's the point. He wanted to change but he couldn't, and the "American Dream" only amplified his situation instead of offering a fresh start. Say what you will about how much fun you had with the game, I for one love it, but they truly did step it up in the story department.

So yeah, please keep V at least as pseudo-intellectual as IV. They've done the violent chaos shtick to death already and I welcome changes towards deeper narratives instead of just a new setting and different guns and cars.

BUT YOU GUYS JETPA - Shut up.

Edit:

Also looking forward to some actual discussion instead of these clever single lines responses; "No you're wrong it sucked" without any reasoning or arguments behind it. What's the point of a message board then.

Anyway, judging by Rockstar's latest games they will definitely piss off the haters again. Can't wait.

You pretty much summed up my feelings for that game , it really was amazing and yes trying to roleplay a bit instead of going for the teenage "I'm gonna kill people just cause!" detracts a bit from the story but I think the message is still there, hell you could still have that kinda fun and understand the story for what it was , but of course is easy to pick on that part as is the player who has active control over Nico's actions , V will probably build upon that and hopefully be even better

@mandude said:

@plaintomato said:

I guess if you mean no planes or jet packs and the cars didn't turn on a dime, I can comprehend what you're saying but...yeah, I'm still having problems. The "gameplay" was much improved over previous GTAs - more precise aiming, cover system, more natural animations, etc, etc etc. Maybe you don't like GTA, sooo...that's so great for you! But the "gameplay" was best in series.

Aside from the incremental gameplay improvements one would expect in making the transition between generations, all it did was strip features. It doesn't help the case for better gameplay either, when you can describe it as etc.

OMG I just realized you are right. The gameplay was bad. Incrementally improved from previous games sure, but the gameplay in those must have been so bad that improvements couldn't salvage it. Too bad all the critics just fell for the hype; if there was even just one single honest reviewer out there I might have been saved from this terrible game. Too bad I'm so thick-headed that I never learn so I'll probably just end up buying GTA V anyway. Lucky for you, you recognize garbage when you see it so you surely won't waste the money.

Now that I realize that all they did between San Andreas and IV was strip features, I've realized that Rockstar is a terrible developer, pinching every penny, rushing development, producing bare-bones product and gouging their fans. It makes me sad to think of all the money I will waste buying their games. Thanks for being right, sadly I'm a lost cause but hey, you tried.

@plaintomato said:

OMG I just realized you are right. The gameplay was bad. Incrementally improved from previous games sure, but the gameplay in those must have been so bad that improvements couldn't salvage it. Too bad all the critics just fell for the hype; if there was even just one single honest reviewer out there I might have been saved from this terrible game. Too bad I'm so thick-headed that I never learn so I'll probably just end up buying GTA V anyway. Lucky for you, you recognize garbage when you see it so you surely won't waste the money.

Now that I realize that all they did between San Andreas and IV was strip features, I've realized that Rockstar is a terrible developer, pinching every penny, rushing development, producing bare-bones product and gouging their fans. It makes me sad to think of all the money I will waste buying their games. Thanks for being right, sadly I'm a lost cause but hey, you tried.

You are putting a lot of strong words in my mouth. It's hard to tell who you are lampooning here, because it certainly has no basis on anything I've said.

Perhaps you quoted the wrong person?

@mandude said:

@plaintomato said:

I guess if you mean no planes or jet packs and the cars didn't turn on a dime, I can comprehend what you're saying but...yeah, I'm still having problems. The "gameplay" was much improved over previous GTAs - more precise aiming, cover system, more natural animations, etc, etc etc. Maybe you don't like GTA, sooo...that's so great for you! But the "gameplay" was best in series.

Aside from the incremental gameplay improvements one would expect in making the transition between generations, all it did was strip features. It doesn't help the case for better gameplay either, when you can describe it as etc.

OMG I just realized you are right. The gameplay was bad. Incrementally improved from previous games sure, but the gameplay in those must have been so bad that improvements couldn't salvage it. Too bad all the critics just fell for the hype; if there was even just one single honest reviewer out there I might have been saved from this terrible game. Too bad I'm so thick-headed that I never learn so I'll probably just end up buying GTA V anyway. Lucky for you, you recognize garbage when you see it so you surely won't waste the money.

Now that I realize that all they did between San Andreas and IV was strip features, I've realized that Rockstar is a terrible developer, pinching every penny, rushing development, producing bare-bones product and gouging their fans. It makes me sad to think of all the money I will waste buying their games. Thanks for being right, sadly I'm a lost cause but hey, you tried.

@mandude said:

@plaintomato said:

OMG I just realized you are right. The gameplay was bad. Incrementally improved from previous games sure, but the gameplay in those must have been so bad that improvements couldn't salvage it. Too bad all the critics just fell for the hype; if there was even just one single honest reviewer out there I might have been saved from this terrible game. Too bad I'm so thick-headed that I never learn so I'll probably just end up buying GTA V anyway. Lucky for you, you recognize garbage when you see it so you surely won't waste the money.

Now that I realize that all they did between San Andreas and IV was strip features, I've realized that Rockstar is a terrible developer, pinching every penny, rushing development, producing bare-bones product and gouging their fans. It makes me sad to think of all the money I will waste buying their games. Thanks for being right, sadly I'm a lost cause but hey, you tried.

You are putting a lot of strong words in my mouth. It's hard to tell who you are lampooning here, because it certainly has no basis on anything I've said.

Perhaps you quoted the wrong person?

Nah, I'm just taking your comments - that "gameplay" wasn't something that GTA IV had going for it, and all GTA IV did was "strip features" - to their extreme conclusion. I wouldn't say my comment had no basis in what you said, but the point was the gameplay was pretty damn solid, the scope was huge compared to most anything comparable except for San Andreas, and stripping features is hardly "all they did".

Anyway, I could seriously care who likes GTA and who doesn't; this all started because it's my opinion that the comments about GTA IV being boring, having a bad lead character, and having bad gameplay, are the comments of people who just need something popular to hate on and got bored of knocking the latest COD derivative. I'm hardly the honorable defender of GTA's sancitity, and all Rockstar wants from me is my money - but at least they earned it, which is more than I can say for most games.

@DonutFever said:

Bold #1: You read all the reviews for GTA IV. All of them. And in addition to that, you feel that it getting reviewed well (And later shitted on by most of them, but I'll just ignore that) makes it an objectively good game. Great.
Bold #2: Yes, saying that the improvements were not as large as most games made across generations and what you wrote are exactly the same thing.

#1: Well, I probably read at least one, or at least perused one, some time or other I'm sure. I guess it would be easier to find one reputable review about how terrible GTA IV was than for me to read all of them, so if you're up for the challenge and all...go find it! I'd love to eat my words if you can find someone who has made a reputable career out of their love for video games and thought GTA IV was a sophomore effort suck game.

I'm just looking forward to GTA V, hoping for the quality of IV combined with the scope of San Andreas. Is that so far fetched? Should I just be pining for this year's re-issue of COD or Assassins Creed?

Jesus GB board, your awful tastes are showing.

GTA IV was indeed a masterpiece, though I don't expect V to deal with the same kind of themes. If you listen to the narrator in the GTA V trailer, he didn't sound hesitant or remorseful at all. Sounds like more of a Tommy Vercetti character, almost gleeful about his criminial activities, as opposed to Niko's reluctance.

And from that original press release R* put out, with the bit about the "pursuit of the almighty dollar" I think it'll paint in broader strokes than IV. Will probably deal with/parody the current economic problems that America is facing.

Red Dead Redemption had a nice balance between studying the character of John Marston, and shedding light on broader ideas and themes about the American old west (advancement of technology, increasing government influence, racism, treatment of the Native Americans, etc.). I'm hoping that GTA V has a similar combination.

@plaintomato: I think you need to calm down. You aren't even responding to me at all. You are building up some misplaced caricature of my words, and responding to that instead. You might be surprised to learn that I like Rockstar. I'd place then as my second favourite developer in the industry. Not only that but I paid for GTAIV not once, but twice, as circumstances would have it, and it is a game I like and immensely respect.

It seems that the people who have a problem with GTA IV find the lack of dildo's, jetpack's and gimp suit's to be the main problem.

@General_Mapache said:

It would appear not all of you are able to fully appreciate a study of the human condition.

Ah, no mere brute mercenary, but a thinker – perhaps even a scholar!

'Tis not this thread that is stupid, but instead most of the comments

@General_Mapache said:

It seems that the people who have a problem with GTA IV find the lack of dildo's, jetpack's and gimp suit's to be the main problem.

Hey dude. Some of us just hate open world games in general.

And don't pretend that GTA IV didn't have it's share of shit to appeal to the lowest common denominator. IE: Tw@t, the brilliantly named internet place that I probably came up with when I was 10 and thought spelling fuck as f@#! was funny shit.

@General_Mapache said:

It seems that the people who have a problem with GTA IV find the lack of dildo's, jetpack's and gimp suit's to be the main problem.

Not really. GTA IV's main problem was that it was shallow in every sense. The audience who see it as some sort of crime story essay on Nihilism are equally shallow. Ultimately though, it's a game as a game it's very very limited in what it allows you to do. Sure, the EFLC stuff extends some of limits with new weapons and vehicles but really, it's not by much at all. GTA IV is shallow and quite dated.

@BBQBram said:

@SeriouslyNow: Hey, I like GTA IV, including it's plot, care to explain WHY we're so shallow? It certainly wasn't high literature but it sure as hell wasn't satirical dribble like last gen's GTAs. You know what's the worst thing about this board, or any board? People trying to disprove opinion. And calling someone out for not understanding why he shouldn't be into something, while having no idea on what level he appreciates it and weighs it's components personally. Now if people want to get into discussion that's fine. But all I read in this thread is fucking AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM. It's really discouraging how many people need to validate their own opinions that they actually start believing they're objective truths. Fuck that shit.

I like GTA IV too (I bought it twice on PC, once when it released and the second time on Steam) but its morality is laughable, Niko gets his dick wet with any woman and yet he moralises at Roman for going hookers and strippers while being in a relationship. He also kills indiscriminately and yet complains when other people do the same. The gameplay is shallow; all you can do is drive and shoot and with EFLC : Ballad of Gay Tony, also engage in some mindless rhythm and drinking mini-games --there's no levelling, no car or character customisation, around 5 mission types, almost no variety in enemy units and very little weapon variety. In many ways it seems a step back from GTA III (lack of Rhino tank) and especially from GTA : SA. Sure, the radio is great is always, the city looks amazing and the driving can be a lot of fun but the actual combat and raw gameplay is severely lacking. So yeah, shallow isn't really an opinion but a statement of fact.

And yes, people who think it's not a shallow game and by proxy then attack others who complain that it is (because it seeming lacks the OTT rudeness of SR2/3 (which by and large are much better offerings in terms of gameplay and SR3 especially is better in every respect, it even has some real pathos in a few scenes) when really we're just judging GTA IV on its own lacking merits) are shallow and also quite deluded. Taste is one thing and I'm criticising anyone's taste, but to say that GTA IV is a really deep and well tuned game is a lie. It's a good game and when it was released it was a great game, but it fell quite short of the mark when compared to GTA SA in terms of gameplay.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BBQBram said:

@SeriouslyNow: Hey, I like GTA IV, including it's plot, care to explain WHY we're so shallow? It certainly wasn't high literature but it sure as hell wasn't satirical dribble like last gen's GTAs. You know what's the worst thing about this board, or any board? People trying to disprove opinion. And calling someone out for not understanding why he shouldn't be into something, while having no idea on what level he appreciates it and weighs it's components personally. Now if people want to get into discussion that's fine. But all I read in this thread is fucking AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM. It's really discouraging how many people need to validate their own opinions that they actually start believing they're objective truths. Fuck that shit.

I like GTA IV too (I bought it twice on PC, once when it released and the second time on Steam) but its morality is laughable, Niko gets his dick wet with any woman and yet he moralises at Roman for going hookers and strippers while being in a relationship. He also kills indiscriminately and yet complains when other people do the same. The gameplay is shallow; all you can do is drive and shoot and with EFLC : Ballad of Gay Tony, also engage in some mindless rhythm and drinking mini-games --there's no levelling, no car or character customisation, around 5 mission types, almost no variety in enemy units and very little weapon variety. In many ways it seems a step back from GTA III (lack of Rhino tank) and especially from GTA : SA. Sure, the radio is great is always, the city looks amazing and the driving can be a lot of fun but the actual combat and raw gameplay is severely lacking. So yeah, shallow isn't really an opinion but a statement of fact.

And yes, people who think it's not a shallow game and by proxy then attack others who complain that it is (because it seeming lacks the OTT rudeness of SR2/3 (which by and large are much better offerings in terms of gameplay and SR3 especially is better in every respect, it even has some real pathos in a few scenes) when really we're just judging GTA IV on its own lacking merits) are shallow and also quite deluded. Taste is one thing and I'm criticising anyone's taste, but to say that GTA IV is a really deep and well tuned game is a lie. It's a good game and when it was released it was a great game, but it fell quite short of the mark when compared to GTA SA in terms of gameplay.

I agree with all your points, it must have been mindblowing at the time, but games have done so much more since then, and Jeff's argument that Niko was a very human character was completely invalid he isn't really motivated by anything, his actions do nothing but set up plot events. I hope they make some big changes to the formula in 5 to give it some depth.

@Mikemcn said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BBQBram said:

@SeriouslyNow: Hey, I like GTA IV, including it's plot, care to explain WHY we're so shallow? It certainly wasn't high literature but it sure as hell wasn't satirical dribble like last gen's GTAs. You know what's the worst thing about this board, or any board? People trying to disprove opinion. And calling someone out for not understanding why he shouldn't be into something, while having no idea on what level he appreciates it and weighs it's components personally. Now if people want to get into discussion that's fine. But all I read in this thread is fucking AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM. It's really discouraging how many people need to validate their own opinions that they actually start believing they're objective truths. Fuck that shit.

I like GTA IV too (I bought it twice on PC, once when it released and the second time on Steam) but its morality is laughable, Niko gets his dick wet with any woman and yet he moralises at Roman for going hookers and strippers while being in a relationship. He also kills indiscriminately and yet complains when other people do the same. The gameplay is shallow; all you can do is drive and shoot and with EFLC : Ballad of Gay Tony, also engage in some mindless rhythm and drinking mini-games --there's no levelling, no car or character customisation, around 5 mission types, almost no variety in enemy units and very little weapon variety. In many ways it seems a step back from GTA III (lack of Rhino tank) and especially from GTA : SA. Sure, the radio is great is always, the city looks amazing and the driving can be a lot of fun but the actual combat and raw gameplay is severely lacking. So yeah, shallow isn't really an opinion but a statement of fact.

And yes, people who think it's not a shallow game and by proxy then attack others who complain that it is (because it seeming lacks the OTT rudeness of SR2/3 (which by and large are much better offerings in terms of gameplay and SR3 especially is better in every respect, it even has some real pathos in a few scenes) when really we're just judging GTA IV on its own lacking merits) are shallow and also quite deluded. Taste is one thing and I'm criticising anyone's taste, but to say that GTA IV is a really deep and well tuned game is a lie. It's a good game and when it was released it was a great game, but it fell quite short of the mark when compared to GTA SA in terms of gameplay.

I agree with all your points, it must have been mindblowing at the time, but games have done so much more since then, and Jeff's argument that Niko was a very human character was completely invalid he isn't really motivated by anything, his actions do nothing but set up plot events. I hope they make some big changes to the formula in 5 to give it some depth.

Indeed. I really hope that Rockstar aren't just rehashing the GTA IV 'new graphics/old gameplay' shtick they did in GTA IV. Euphoria was definitely amazing on release, but now, it's just OK and can't be a feature beyond a bullet point anymore.

@SeriouslyNow: Well, let's just agree to disagree as you are entirely entitled to your opinion, but I still don't think you can't claim things are objectively shallow apart from well, ponds I guess. The term is inherently subjective. Also, didn't know you were also applying it to the gameplay, because well, yeah, I'd agree it's just the classic GTA formula there. Here's hoping V expands upon the depth of the gameplay and metagame structure while keeping at least some semblance of the more character driven world of IV. Because in my opinion, while GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption and LA Noire are still only taking baby steps in the direction of a more serious narrative, that's still a whole lot more interesting to me than generic killfests or the pure aesthetics driven designs of the older GTAs.

@SeriouslyNow: I don't know. Personally, IV offered everything I wanted in a Grand Theft Auto game. And the little (yet, really important to me) details like the GPS (And taking a Taxi like a normal person is great), improved radio (The ability to turn it off for example), actual cover in gunfights, better melee system, the ability to freely aim while driving (I wanted this ever since I had played Scarface), better clothes shopping, minigames are also okay and new, and a lot of other details I won't mention now. I'm not even talking about the incredible physics or the cellphone and all that stuff.

So saying it's a step down from III (!!) is pretty "shallow". Maybe you forgot those things I mentioned, or simply don't care, but saying it stripped down features is not fair, either.

GTA IV's story is garbage - if anything it's a study in how to write stupid unjustified motivations for your protagonist (money he shows no intention of doing anything with and couldn't even if he wanted to, and a love interest which is established in about 20 seconds in a cutscene). Driving around the city at night when it's raining is cool at least I guess...

RDR is a better game, but again I'd stop well short of 'masterpiece'.

I really hope they drop the "Well I can't help you, but do me <random unrelated favour> and I might know somebody who can!" rinse/repeat structure from GTA 5. There are better ways to write these games.

@valrog: Nuhuh. You didn't read my comments carefully. All I said that was stripped down compared to GTA III was the lack of a tank like vehicle. Everything else gameplay-wise was less than what GTA: SA made available to the player. You can't argue that beyond the free aiming system as you drive. GTA IV has a cover system, sure, but it doesn't add much to the gameplay. Better clothes shopping? That's depth? Minigames? They add depth? 'a lot of other details? Like what? The dating sim aspect? The world within a world aspect, as in the Internet ads and News reports? That's all peripheral stuff and while some was great, a lot of it was in the way and annoying (NHO ROMUN I DO NOT WAANT TO GO BOWELLEENG).

@SeriouslyNow: Ah. My mistake. Well, I appreciate the little details, even if they didn't think everything through (Like bowling). Still, I think all that will benefit V in the end. I hope.

@valrog: I think that's exactly it, without all the minutia Liberty City would just have felt like a dead place. All of those things might be minor, they combine to deliver something only Rockstar strives for.

@Tylea002 said:

Saints Row goes crazy, GTA looks poorly at the human implications of the fucked up shit which occurs.

FTFY.

Also, that has never been the way of it until 4.

No game so far released has ever really approached the title of 'masterpiece' for me, at least when compared to classics of other mediums. Games need to mature immensely before we can begin labelling them as such. GTA IV is a good game, but it's attempts at anything sincere are awkward at best and embarrassing at worst.

@GetEveryone said:

@Tylea002 said:

Saints Row goes crazy, GTA looks poorly at the human implications of the fucked up shit which occurs.

FTFY.

Also, that has never been the way of it until 4.

Generalised it may have been, and no doubt it was a first attempt, before 4 it was kinda stupid and/or pulpy, but this is the way it should stay. Saints Row nail being retarded so perfectly, that being a simple crime simulator, as in pre 4, would be completely pointless. They should keep going down that route, improve upon their intentions on 4 and make it really really good.

But I really wouldn't say poor. When whoever got gunned down at the end, it was impactful as shit. Not poor.

@Three0neFive: @Three0neFive said:

holy shit op, you're a pretentious cock.

hahahahah best reply in this thread so far. Honestly, IV was a step in the right direction in terms of story telling for Rockstar but still needs improvement. I hope they nail it for GTA V honestly. Less mindless shooting, more believable stories in videogames please!

@General_Mapache: I beg to differ. Niko's character (as with all Rockstar main characters) had too much of a conscience to be doing the over-the-top things he was. Far from being left nothing but a hallow shell at the end of the game, he was still the same 'walk on the good side bastard' as he was at his arrival in Liberty City. Rockstar always premeditate a ridiculous conscience for their character, which they are always attempting to run away from. John Marston's character was pathetic. I expect my Characters to continue the badass mindset they had in the past, & why they got to where they are when you take over their lives/careers at the beginning off the game.

i thought GTA IV was cool. finished it last night and i liked a lot, even if Niko was an odd fit for the general chaos of the GTA series. whatever direction Rockstar takes with GTA V, i just hope that they do it very well as usual and please change the silly V on the logo.

@General_Mapache said:

It would appear not all of you are able to fully appreciate a study of the human condition.

Faggio moped, Whizz Wireless, Brown Streak Railroad, TW@ Internet Cafe, Sprunk energy drink, Love Meet online dating, America's Next Top Hooker, Pisswasser german lager,

@Three0neFive said:

holy shit op, you're a pretentious cock.

Yep, pretty much!

People sure have low expectations of their favourite medium. Baby steps in more interesting directions are immediately shut down with cries of "prentention". I sincerely hope Rockstar pisses y'all off more and more with each iteration, it means they'll be going in a direction I could actually care about. So far that's been going great!

well the guy you're hunting for the entire game, if you kill him niko feels empty

if you let him live then you are still happy

@DjCmeP: Didn't like the ending? Wow. One of the greatest endings to a game ever.

This thread is what happens when Dear Esther fans play Grand Theft Auto.

I agree with most of you here that GTA IV was fun for it's time but not as deep as I would have liked. I honestly got more enjoyment out of the DLC expansions than the main title, and the characters had motivations that seemed to better suit their personalities. At least the secondary characters didn't have any qualms about being criminals, and the whole "take over the city" or the "get rich or die trying" elements were left out of the DLCs. I just hope GTA V is deeper on a mechanical level with more RPG qualities that San Andreas employed. That, and I want it to be HUGE, so I can fly me some planes.

@Nottle: I never finished GTA IV cos I got robbed before I could, but the Playboy X/Dwayne decision was done incredibly well. I was genuinely conflicted, because they were both good dudes to Niko/me. The main reason is because through both their missions they drew me into those guys stories, what they were about. They felt real.

However, in those missions, oftentimes the stuff you had to do just felt really ancillary to what rockstar wanted to do. like they were begrudgingly throwing you some gameplay. That's the case in RDR as well, a little bit. Then again, the disconnect between story and gameplay is pretty much all over, and it's deeper than just being able to do stuff the character ostensibly wouldn't do. In a lot of ways games like GTA and RDR are better at that than say...Mass Effect (story, shooty bit, story, shooty bit) because they allow you to inhabit that character and play some poker or go bowling or whatever.

That said, I never really felt like GTA IV was quite the revelation everyone else told me it was. It did have decent characters, I will give it that.

@General_Mapache said:

esientaly

My face went downtown.

I would really hope that rockstar would build off of RDR and not GTA4. The characters and storytelling were far more compelling, and everything from the shooting to the random strangers was better. I also took RDR a little bit more serious because John wasn't a walking contradiction and he wasn't walking into the "69th Street Diner" or listening to satirical radio. GTA4 to me was conflicted; it wanted to be serious and dark, but it still had the juvenile american satire. I think the gameplay and the satire just don't fit with a dark and edgy story.

GTA5 won't be worse off if it continues that, but I'd like it to take itself a little bit less seriously. In reality though, it'll be a protaganist who just wants to provide for his family, but he'll be jacking cars from people and and shooting up Cluckin' Bell restaurants .

GTA IV was boring as fuck.