@pornstorestiffi said:

I can tell you one thing though Sleeping Dogs is not better than Vice City.

I'd like to know the justification for that one. Vice City's mission design and gunplay was terrible back then and it's still piss poor now.

Most open world games I've played are better than GTAIV.

It sure is popular to dislike GTA 4.

@JasonR86 said:

It sure is popular to dislike GTA 4.

For a game that set the standard for all these clone games like Saints Row 3 and Sleeping Dogs (which are good games), yeah, it gets all the hate instead of appreciation.

im going to try it out and hope its atleast better than IV, that was a bore. better than V, most likely not.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@JasonR86 said:

It sure is popular to dislike GTA 4.

For a game that set the standard for all these clone games like Saints Row 3 and Sleeping Dogs (which are good games), yeah, it gets all the hate instead of appreciation.

I wonder how many people will buy, play through, enjoy, and then dislike GTA 5? Has it happened with Red Dead Redemption yet? I'm sure it will soon enough.

I've had infinitely more fun with Sleeping Dogs than I've had with GTA IV, but I don't know if I'd objectively say that. :S

@JasonR86 said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@JasonR86 said:

It sure is popular to dislike GTA 4.

For a game that set the standard for all these clone games like Saints Row 3 and Sleeping Dogs (which are good games), yeah, it gets all the hate instead of appreciation.

I wonder how many people will buy, play through, enjoy, and then dislike GTA 5? Has it happened with Red Dead Redemption yet? I'm sure it will soon enough.

Jeff hated Red Dead Redemption because the opening cutscene was too long, such a disgrace that game wasn't in the running for game of the year even with Brad trying so hard.

@Milkman said:

Completely different games with completely different goals.

Um, what? Sleeping Dogs is basically GTA IV set in Hong Kong with more polish and some parkour moves.

I liked Sleeping Dogs a lot, and I liked GTA IV a lot. I am super glad I have both.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Milkman said:

Completely different games with completely different goals.

Um, what? Sleeping Dogs is basically GTA IV set in Hong Kong with more polish and some parkour moves.

Also a smaller world where you can't see into the distance thanks to all the high rises, this is why its alot easier to run instead of GTA4

Bold words there. GTA isn't the world's biggest punching bag for snobby people who want to look or sound different from the mainstream. First of all, the last GTA came out 4 years ago, so give them a tiny a bit of slack. Second of all, with the release of Saints Row the Third people have more or less agreed that today there are two open-world genres - the serious one, and the crazy one, and they're two different categories unto themselves.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@JasonR86 said:

It sure is popular to dislike GTA 4.

For a game that set the standard for all these clone games like Saints Row 3 and Sleeping Dogs (which are good games), yeah, it gets all the hate instead of appreciation.

The open-world genre has grown to the point where these games can't be called GTA clones anymore. Saints Row and Sleeping Dogs both do things that GTA either doesn't, or isn't very good at.

It would probably be more fair to compare it to GTA V at christmas ;-)

It'a an improvement in mechanical respects over GTA but it should be considering GTA 4 came out 4 years ago.

This thread is pointless and should be locked.

Sleeping Dogs feels like the spiritual successor to bully. I really enjoyed it.

Sleeping Dogs was immense fun for me, and still is since I guess I'm still in the middle of the last few tasks towards 100% completion. It has some serious shortcomings when you compare it to GTA 4 though. For a start it's so very much smaller than GTA in terms of city size and core content (ie. story missions). That in turn cuts into how well the radio works, since you simply spend way less time listening to it in SD. Then there's the driving physics and overall animation engine, which still makes GTA 4's sandbox a pleasure to mess around in for me, whereas I don't feel much reason to return to Hong Kong to do anything there. Also the characterisation was far more convincing to me in GTA - I fully believed in every character right down to the minor roles like Phil and Elizabeta. In comparison, Sleeping Dogs' characters, while likeable, are clichés and their fates are so easy to predict it verges on parody. Also the mouse camera controls for Sleeping Dogs are frankly shoddy on PC, whereas in GTA they are fine.

On the other hand, the feel of HK in Sleeping Dogs is much more convincing and atmospheric to me than GTA 4's NY. Obviously Sleeping Dogs looks better, but it's also a better designed world and far better optimised release on PC than GTA was. GTA 4 was full of bland geometric spaces that you could take one look at and think 'yep, absolutely nothing for me to interact with there', whereas every space feels like it has potential in SD. Melee combat is superb (which makes it even more of a shame that there's very little opportunity to fight spontaneously once the hacking sidequests are done). I do like the fact that Sleeping Dogs made an effort to have some interesting side activities, where GTA had practically none. It's just they they don't quite compensate for the sparsity of central content.

So it's a close run thing, but still GTA 4 for me.

@Hailinel said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@JasonR86 said:

It sure is popular to dislike GTA 4.

For a game that set the standard for all these clone games like Saints Row 3 and Sleeping Dogs (which are good games), yeah, it gets all the hate instead of appreciation.

The open-world genre has grown to the point where these games can't be called GTA clones anymore. Saints Row and Sleeping Dogs both do things that GTA either doesn't, or isn't very good at.

Yes, Red Faction Guerrilla is set on Mars and has sledgehammers, space guns and destruction. Just Cause 2 has a grappling hook, tons of vehicle types, land sea and air battles. inFamous, Arkham City and Prototype have super heroes with supernatural abilities which radically changes the nature of the game, the missions and so forth. Red Dead Redemption is set in the Wild West with horses and trains.

Those are games that broke away from the confines of the GTA formula and presented their unique setting, gameplay mechanics, aesthetics and story/mission progression.

Saints Row 3 and Sleeping Dogs, however, went the urban way of having one big city to drive cars around, a crib to sleep in, a phone to call other characters, car chasing missions, car races, GPS, warehouse shootouts, and evading police cars until the minimap flashes blue. All things that GTA IV either carried on from past GTA games, or things that IV first featured. That is why SR3 and Dogs are GTA IV clones.

Bear in mind, I'm not criticizing them. I enjoyed both games, and each one of them had one or two "unique" things that made them worth the play, not to mention the great polish, but I am currently playing Sleeping Dogs and I am immensely enjoying the fact that there's finally a new GTA to play.

GTA IV was actually pretty bad in most respects so that wouldn't be too surprising.

@Paul_Tillich said:

Am I the only person in the world who thinks the game is better than GTA IV? The graphics are better (and close to on par with those ice mods).

Hmm sir, isn't GTA IV 4 years old now.. i mean c'mon... Sleeping Dogs is great but I wouldn't say it was 'better' than GTA IV.

@JasonR86 said:

It sure is popular to dislike GTA 4.

For a game that set the standard for all these clone games like Saints Row 3 and Sleeping Dogs (which are good games), yeah, it gets all the hate instead of appreciation.

@MikeGosot said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@JasonR86 said:

It sure is popular to dislike GTA 4.

For a game that set the standard for all these clone games like Saints Row 3 and Sleeping Dogs (which are good games), yeah, it gets all the hate instead of appreciation.

Maybe some people, just, you know... Dislike GTA 4. Some people think that the driving was shit and the shooting was lackluster, and it also was a completely new direction on the series, making it a very divisive game. The level of hype also didn't help, because people could expect things that were entirely different from what they got. Besides, even if GTA pionereed the gangster-open-world genre, that doesn't mean that every game with gangster and an open world are GTA clones. GTA attempts to create an organical city, parodying American Culture while Sleeping Dogs is a homage to Asian Action Movies not only in the story, but also in gameplay. Saints Row 3 focus more on the toys that you have than in the sandbox, almost the polar opposite of the objectives in GTA.

And further along those lines, where Saints Row: The Third is concerned, the game embraces the ludicrous, while GTAIV was content to tell a more down-to-earth story and took itself far more seriously despite its riffs on American culture.

Of course the graphics are better, duh.

@MikeGosot said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@JasonR86 said:

It sure is popular to dislike GTA 4.

For a game that set the standard for all these clone games like Saints Row 3 and Sleeping Dogs (which are good games), yeah, it gets all the hate instead of appreciation.

Maybe some people, just, you know... Dislike GTA 4. Some people think that the driving was shit and the shooting was lackluster, and it also was a completely new direction on the series, making it a very divisive game. The level of hype also didn't help, because people could expect things that were entirely different from what they got. Besides, even if GTA pionereed the gangster-open-world genre, that doesn't mean that every game with gangster and an open world are GTA clones. GTA attempts to create an organical city, parodying American Culture while Sleeping Dogs is a homage to Asian Action Movies not only in the story, but also in gameplay. Saints Row 3 focus more on the toys that you have than in the sandbox, almost the polar opposite of the objectives in GTA.

Yes for a game about driving that whole aspect was handled poorly. Driving didn't feel very good and it was hard to just go wild. It's GTA so I should be able to just handbrake around corners when going 150 MPH but every single car in that game handled ridiculously awful. Remember how fun Bikes were in San Andreas or Vice City? They were terrible in GTA4, could barely turn and spun out constantly. The story was also poor and the ending was awful. To this day I think Vice City has the best ending. In San Andreas the protagonist was a brainless errand boy which sucked and in GTA4 it was all so convoluted and disjointed I can't tell you what it was about - the American gone to shit I suppose with some clever commentary about whats the true meaning of success and happiness; brilliant.

I didn't really enjoy GTA 4 - the Ballad Of Gay Tony was decent though - so I would definitely say I like Sleeping Dogs a hell of a lot more.

Objectively? I Sleeping Dogs did a hell of a lot of stuff better than GTA 4. GTA 4 had bad characters, a poor story, clunky as hell gunplay. Sleeping Dogs has some decent characters, a poor story, and mediocre gunplay - but it doesn't concentrate on it like GTA did. Both have well realised worlds, and both are fun to just drive around in and do shit. Sleeping Dogs has much better melee and much better traversal mechanics, and the collectibles aren't bullshit. So I guess it's a better game.

People will still moan that it's some sort of clone and belittle it for it though, instead of embracing the crime genre. The Getaway was a open world crime game with a serious tone, but people don't say GTA 4 copied it.

@AlexW00d: GTA IV had some of the best characters this generation with alot of back story and character.

Yes, yes it is.

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@AlexW00d: GTA IV had some of the best characters this generation with alot of back story and character.

Like who? Niko was a piece of shit, his brother was a moron, that steroid junkie was a cliche fucking steroid junkie. I can't even remember half the characters. The Irish family were all right, but still, hardly likable. I just could not give the smallest of shits about any character in that game, and that is a sign of terrible characters to me.

Most open world games are a lot better than GTA IV, and unless GTA V changes things up drastically I don't see that being worth playing either

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@AlexW00d: GTA IV had some of the best characters this generation with alot of back story and character.

Like who? Niko was a piece of shit, his brother was a moron, that steroid junkie was a cliche fucking steroid junkie. I can't even remember half the characters. The Irish family were all right, but still, hardly likable. I just could not give the smallest of shits about any character in that game, and that is a sign of terrible characters to me.

@AlexW00d: Roman was suposed to be a moron and a well written one, that steroid junkie Brucie had some of the funniest dialogue in the game and all he really wanted were some friends, the Irish family was great Packie and his brothers had some great banter on the bank mission, little Jacob had great banter with Niko because none of them could understand what the other were saying, Elisabetha was a strong female drug dealer that would rip your spine out if you didnt pay on time but the most amazing character was Dwayne who had just came out of jail he like alot of inmates released just couldnt fit back into the outside world he had really bad depression and on that mission when you can take out Playboy X and Dwayne I went over to kill Dwayne but he just didnt care that I was going to kill him saying something like "well get it over with then" as soon as he said that I rushed out his apartment and took Playboy X out, it was one of the greatest moment in that game that a little bit of dialogue from a character had such a impact on me. Overall the characters in this game are really unique and memorable.

@Paul_Tillich:

I'd rather hear how this game compares to its last gen counter part True Crime.

@Demoskinos said:

@AlexW00d

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@AlexW00d: GTA IV had some of the best characters this generation with alot of back story and character.

Like who? Niko was a piece of shit, his brother was a moron, that steroid junkie was a cliche fucking steroid junkie. I can't even remember half the characters. The Irish family were all right, but still, hardly likable. I just could not give the smallest of shits about any character in that game, and that is a sign of terrible characters to me.

This. Niko babbled on and on about how he did horrible things and felt bad and wanted "out" but then in the next mission is doing hits for a coke dealer. Like fuck off with your sympathetic dribble man. I dont feel shit for you because your a piece of shit.

You could say the same about Sleeping Dogs (which is a fantastic game just defending the blind GTA hate). Pretty much the only time Niko went on about that was the start of the game, once he got a taste he was back in. Alot of the missions he did that he wasnt really keen for were to get information to find his old comrade that betrayed them in eastern europe.

I am but a few hours into Sleeping Dogs and GTA IV was in many ways the worst GTA to date, so in a way I agree considering my initial reaction to Sleeping Dogs is about 10 fold more positive than I had with GTA IV.

Also, I think the comparison is completely fair. I love me some GTA, but it does not need white knights in its corner.

@Hailinel said:

@pornstorestiffi said:

I can tell you one thing though Sleeping Dogs is not better than Vice City.

I'd like to know the justification for that one. Vice City's mission design and gunplay was terrible back then and it's still piss poor now.

Don't really need to justify anything, its just my opinion on the matter. But here it is anyhow. GTA's gunplay has always been shitty, even GTA 4. But Vice City was a great game back then, even despite the controls. And i for one didn't even think that part of the game as being horrible back then, i was used to shitty gun controls from GTA 3, so walking into Vice City it was just more of the same. I would never go back and play it now, cause i know i would hate it. Cause lets face it a lot has happened since then. But personally i remember most of the missions being pretty damn good, and i think the city, atmosphere and cast of characters where all around great.

And even despite Vice City being shitty by todays standards, i would rather go back and play that lump of turd, than sit down and play Sleeping Dogs. The only thing i can say i like about Sleeping Dogs is the melee system.

@pornstorestiffi said:

@Hailinel said:

@pornstorestiffi said:

I can tell you one thing though Sleeping Dogs is not better than Vice City.

I'd like to know the justification for that one. Vice City's mission design and gunplay was terrible back then and it's still piss poor now.

Don't really need to justify anything, its just my opinion on the matter. But here it is anyhow. GTA's gunplay has always been shitty, even GTA 4. But Vice City was a great game back then, even despite the controls. And i for one didn't even think that part of the game as being horrible back then, i was used to shitty gun controls from GTA 3, so walking into Vice City it was just more of the same. I would never go back and play it now, cause i know i would hate it. Cause lets face it a lot has happened since then. But personally i remember most of the missions being pretty damn good, and i think the city, atmosphere and cast of characters where all around great.

And even despite Vice City being shitty by todays standards, i would rather go back and play that lump of turd, than sit down and play Sleeping Dogs. The only thing i can say i like about Sleeping Dogs is the melee system.

All I can say to that in response is that Vice City's terrible mission design prevented me from finishing the game out of sheer frustration.

@pornstorestiffi: Sleeping Dogs is great, alot more than the melee system but GTA IV just too good!

@Hailinel said:

@pornstorestiffi said:

@Hailinel said:

@pornstorestiffi said:

I can tell you one thing though Sleeping Dogs is not better than Vice City.

I'd like to know the justification for that one. Vice City's mission design and gunplay was terrible back then and it's still piss poor now.

Don't really need to justify anything, its just my opinion on the matter. But here it is anyhow. GTA's gunplay has always been shitty, even GTA 4. But Vice City was a great game back then, even despite the controls. And i for one didn't even think that part of the game as being horrible back then, i was used to shitty gun controls from GTA 3, so walking into Vice City it was just more of the same. I would never go back and play it now, cause i know i would hate it. Cause lets face it a lot has happened since then. But personally i remember most of the missions being pretty damn good, and i think the city, atmosphere and cast of characters where all around great.

And even despite Vice City being shitty by todays standards, i would rather go back and play that lump of turd, than sit down and play Sleeping Dogs. The only thing i can say i like about Sleeping Dogs is the melee system.

All I can say to that in response is that Vice City's terrible mission design prevented me from finishing the game out of sheer frustration.

I'm not gonna disagree that there wasn't bad missions in GTA Vice City, i especially hated the mission where you had to fly this little plane around, that almost made my piss boil. But over all i didn't have any issues with them. I had way more frustrations in GTA 4. Also it didn't help that i felt that game just kept dragging along.

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Demoskinos said:

@AlexW00d

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@AlexW00d: GTA IV had some of the best characters this generation with alot of back story and character.

Like who? Niko was a piece of shit, his brother was a moron, that steroid junkie was a cliche fucking steroid junkie. I can't even remember half the characters. The Irish family were all right, but still, hardly likable. I just could not give the smallest of shits about any character in that game, and that is a sign of terrible characters to me.

This. Niko babbled on and on about how he did horrible things and felt bad and wanted "out" but then in the next mission is doing hits for a coke dealer. Like fuck off with your sympathetic dribble man. I dont feel shit for you because your a piece of shit.

You could say the same about Sleeping Dogs (which is a fantastic game just defending the blind GTA hate). Pretty much the only time Niko went on about that was the start of the game, once he got a taste he was back in. Alot of the missions he did that he wasnt really keen for were to get information to find his old comrade that betrayed them in eastern europe.

First, kind of a silly thread. Personal preference and all that blah blah blah. Anyway...

I'm with Demos and Alex. Disliked Niko from the start, and the peripheral activities were tedious at best. But my main hitch-up was that most of the characters were just walking stereotypes. Sleeping Dogs doesn't have the most intricate or original plot either, but many of the main players in the game had decent character arcs that progressed throughout that humanized them a bit more and ergo made them more interesting to me, instead of just relying on formulaic chuckle-head humor most the time.

"Oooooh no! Brucie the Roid Monkey is gonna FREEAK out again, folks!" *applause sign*

Just my opinion though.

@Shady said:

A lot of open world games are better than GTA IV.

This, pretty much.

It says a lot in GTA's favor that the haters here are impressed that Sleeping Dogs is technically superior (which I'm not sure is even true) to not only the franchise's four year old game but it's ten year old game too. Congratulations? I guess....

@Grimhild said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Demoskinos said:

@AlexW00d

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@AlexW00d: GTA IV had some of the best characters this generation with alot of back story and character.

Like who? Niko was a piece of shit, his brother was a moron, that steroid junkie was a cliche fucking steroid junkie. I can't even remember half the characters. The Irish family were all right, but still, hardly likable. I just could not give the smallest of shits about any character in that game, and that is a sign of terrible characters to me.

This. Niko babbled on and on about how he did horrible things and felt bad and wanted "out" but then in the next mission is doing hits for a coke dealer. Like fuck off with your sympathetic dribble man. I dont feel shit for you because your a piece of shit.

You could say the same about Sleeping Dogs (which is a fantastic game just defending the blind GTA hate). Pretty much the only time Niko went on about that was the start of the game, once he got a taste he was back in. Alot of the missions he did that he wasnt really keen for were to get information to find his old comrade that betrayed them in eastern europe.

First, kind of a silly thread. Personal preference and all that blah blah blah. Anyway...

I'm with Demos and Alex. Disliked Niko from the start, and the peripheral activities were tedious at best. But my main hitch-up was that most of the characters were just walking stereotypes. Sleeping Dogs doesn't have the most intricate or original plot either, but many of the main players in the game had decent character arcs that progressed throughout that humanized them a bit more and ergo made them more interesting to me, instead of just relying on formulaic chuckle-head humor most the time.

"Oooooh no! Brucie the Roid Monkey is gonna FREEAK out again, folks!" *applause sign*

Just my opinion though.

Um this is completely wrong about Brucie, he was a pretty cool character if you listened to all the talk and did the friends side missions with him and he makes alot more sense when you meet his brother in Ballad of Gay Tony! There is alot of great moments with characters just read what I wrote a few posts back.

i like both games but the fact that we r still talking GTA4 says a lot. i like gta more it felt more real to me while SD felt arcadey. The only thing that sd did better was the fighting which they borrowed from batman(its a good thing).

Three Leaf Clover

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Grimhild said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Demoskinos said:

@AlexW00d

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@AlexW00d: GTA IV had some of the best characters this generation with alot of back story and character.

Like who? Niko was a piece of shit, his brother was a moron, that steroid junkie was a cliche fucking steroid junkie. I can't even remember half the characters. The Irish family were all right, but still, hardly likable. I just could not give the smallest of shits about any character in that game, and that is a sign of terrible characters to me.

This. Niko babbled on and on about how he did horrible things and felt bad and wanted "out" but then in the next mission is doing hits for a coke dealer. Like fuck off with your sympathetic dribble man. I dont feel shit for you because your a piece of shit.

You could say the same about Sleeping Dogs (which is a fantastic game just defending the blind GTA hate). Pretty much the only time Niko went on about that was the start of the game, once he got a taste he was back in. Alot of the missions he did that he wasnt really keen for were to get information to find his old comrade that betrayed them in eastern europe.

First, kind of a silly thread. Personal preference and all that blah blah blah. Anyway...

I'm with Demos and Alex. Disliked Niko from the start, and the peripheral activities were tedious at best. But my main hitch-up was that most of the characters were just walking stereotypes. Sleeping Dogs doesn't have the most intricate or original plot either, but many of the main players in the game had decent character arcs that progressed throughout that humanized them a bit more and ergo made them more interesting to me, instead of just relying on formulaic chuckle-head humor most the time.

"Oooooh no! Brucie the Roid Monkey is gonna FREEAK out again, folks!" *applause sign*

Just my opinion though.

Um this is completely wrong about Brucie, he was a pretty cool character if you listened to all the talk and did the friends side missions with him and he makes alot more sense when you meet his brother in Ballad of Gay Tony! There is alot of great moments with characters just read what I wrote a few posts back.

Well, I didn't really enjoy GTA4 enough to buy the DLCs, so.

And I guess the issue then is that if it was an aspect of dialog that had no real bearing on the plot progression, and something you have to want to hang around Brucie more to get (which I didn't), then it seems a little shoe-horned in. Again, just from me as a player.

I'm not saying that Rockstar is incapable of writing good character-driven narratives, because I love me some John Marston. GTA4 just completely missed the mark for me since I felt no relation or compassion toward any of the characters in it.

@Grimhild: It was just filled with little moments of brilliance like the Dwayne decision. I agree that Niko wasn't the greatest character unlike John Marsden I think they learned things from the criticisms of him in IV, examples like you couldnt sleep with the hookers at the bar because he was married. RDR is my favourite story in a game and in anything really apart from Breaking Bad in years.

I certainly felt like sleeping dogs was able to reconcile having fun and interesting gameplay with telling its gritty story. I really think that is a very important aspect of an open world game that GTAIV kind of missed. Although the story, characters and attention to detail in GTA were all amazing and unprecedented in an open world game at the time, eventually I got sick of the tedious driving, laborious tasks and somewhat boring mission design. In sleeping dogs I feel like it does enough as a game to make me want to play it even without the story. I enjoy the combat, chase sequences, races, side activities, racing and gunfighting. All those things are fun by themselves. In GTA, a lot of things became a chore especially the relationship system and accidental arrests. The story, while great, was doled out at such a slow pace with so much driving around that it became somewhat boring.

So sleeping dogs suceeds because it has a narrative focus but is also a fun game underneath. It also never turns wacky like saints row so there is no disconnect between story and gameplay, although there are funny and lighthearted moments. GTA4 was a flawed game in a lot of ways but at the time there was no competition. 4 years later we can see that the games it inspired have improved a lot of those problems that no one recognized 4 years ago.

@AlexW00d: Niko's brother never made an appearance in GTA IV.

@Hailinel said:

@MikeGosot said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@JasonR86 said:

It sure is popular to dislike GTA 4.

For a game that set the standard for all these clone games like Saints Row 3 and Sleeping Dogs (which are good games), yeah, it gets all the hate instead of appreciation.

Maybe some people, just, you know... Dislike GTA 4. Some people think that the driving was shit and the shooting was lackluster, and it also was a completely new direction on the series, making it a very divisive game. The level of hype also didn't help, because people could expect things that were entirely different from what they got. Besides, even if GTA pionereed the gangster-open-world genre, that doesn't mean that every game with gangster and an open world are GTA clones. GTA attempts to create an organical city, parodying American Culture while Sleeping Dogs is a homage to Asian Action Movies not only in the story, but also in gameplay. Saints Row 3 focus more on the toys that you have than in the sandbox, almost the polar opposite of the objectives in GTA.

And further along those lines, where Saints Row: The Third is concerned, the game embraces the ludicrous, while GTAIV was content to tell a more down-to-earth story and took itself far more seriously despite its riffs on American culture.

I understand this. My point is that Sleeping Dogs and Saints Row 3 brought no foundations of their own. Both of them in their entirety are based on and built around what GTA IV pioneered, but since they came AFTER it, they naturally fixed Rockstar's mistakes and added more polish, which is why they're "better."

The notion that these games deserve more credit because they did it better is what's bothering me here. They wouldn't exist if IV didn't revolutionize the urban open world third person shooter and lay down the foundations that those games openly built upon, and all the mechanics they blatantly borrowed.

You can't blame IV for it's flaws, it was the FIRST game to do what it did, just like Assassin's Creed was flawed because it was the first time anyone did it. You should thank IV for SR3/Dogs just like you thank AC1 for AC2.

And about the characters, yes Niko was kinda lame, and yes the characters were all stereotypical, but you WOULDN'T have those good Sleeping Dogs cutscenes and that dialogue style if Rockstar didn't pioneer it in IV.