GTAV

[Npoess]

the GTAIV world was awesome but the game they put in it did nothing for me. Maybe the DLC stuff is better?

 

The DLC was much more fun. Especially TBoGT had some incredibly fun mission.

[awepittance]

Jesus fuck there are alot of GTAIV haters on here. Am I the only one who remembers getting into roman's car on release night, fully blown away, knowing gaming will never be the same again?

 

yeah, probably

[awepittance]

it just seems like another cock-tease world with time-waster style mission gameplay. I want a true sad box game where you can go anywhere do anything without 'oh you cant go here yet becausey ou didnt do this mission' fuck that junk

 

not since GTA 3 the original have i been able to play in a pure pleasure way not doing any of the missions and actually get a lot of milage out of the game. Since 3 it seems like when you go on a rampage not as many cops or army people come after you which kind of sucks.

 

I agree, my only issue with Vice City was how small and flat the city was, but they developed the game in about 9 months so it's to be expected. Some missions were terrible, some were ace, and some were really silly and not much fun but became fun through the silliness. Since GTA IV and with Red Dead Redemption, Rockstar's games are like huge boring po-faced overwhelming epics with disappointing mission after disappointing mission. PS2 Rockstar games were technically poor in some areas, like the character models were horrid, or the controls for the shooting was messy, but they'd nail the important things like the atmosphere at night when its raining. And that continued through to Manhunt. They seemed to be real gamers who concentrated on making every element of their games fun. Their games had real charm and personality, not since Rare's N64 games did I feel like they were the only developer making the games they wanted to make and as such included loads of exciting new ideas I'd not seen in games before.

 

i think you hit the nail on the head here, Rockstar tasted the mana when they got huge heaping praise for GTA 3, it got to their heads and since then they've merely been trying to recreate it's success by expanding the world even larger and making the physics more realistic. When this whole time all i've really wanted is the exact same gameplay on GTA3 with all these 'advanced' engines and upgrades they've put out since then. San Andreas did have one of the most exciting and exploratory worlds i've ever played in a videogame combined with some of the most boring and time waster game play ever. I mean shit, i wouldn't mind if if while driving up in those san andreas hills i could blow away a farmer and have the whole army come after me again up there, it doesnt fucking happen, instead we get a weak sauce chase

[Guest Pennywise]

I think a co-op story mode would be cool.

[Guest Gary C]

Jesus fuck there are alot of GTAIV haters on here. Am I the only one who remembers getting into roman's car on release night, fully blown away, knowing gaming will never be the same again? The sheer power of the initial impact justified any boredom that came once you realized the limits of the city. It wasn't about that. It was, if only for a while, a perfect illusion of new york in hd; gorgeous physics & animations, hilarious and mind blowing random/unscripted events made possible only by the variety & complexity Rockstar put into it. I find it hard to come up with any game that so gloriously exceeded expectations.

 

Absolutely, I was blown away by the intro. A perfect introduction to a grimy, rainy New York district.

 

The game was/is stunning in many respects, but it had practically zero replay value because of some hideous additions... That fucking phone; and the annoying characters you HAD to spend time with.

 

Also, yeah, the DLC was good. Well, The Ballad of Gay Tony was really fun and over-the-top. The biker thing was kind of shitty. Boring storyline.

[Ego]

You can turn off the phone notifications if you don't want to be bothered by them. I like the phone system honestly. The dating/minigame crap is stupid but you don't have to do much of that either (unless you want 100%.) The biggest gripe I have with GTA IV is that a lot of the missions are much too tightly controlled. There are very few missions that exploit the sandbox nature of the game and I feel that's where it would shine the most.

 

They should reintroduce stuff like rampages, stunt jumps, vehicle missions, import/export cranes and assets. And I want to be rewarded for it. In GTA III to San Andreas you got weapons and gear at your hideout if you completed the side missions. I loved mastering the ambulance missions in GTA III and getting infinite sprint as a reward. In GTA IV you don't get shit, even the money is worthless.

[Squee]

Jesus fuck there are alot of GTAIV haters on here. Am I the only one who remembers getting into roman's car on release night, fully blown away, knowing gaming will never be the same again? The sheer power of the initial impact justified any boredom that came once you realized the limits of the city. It wasn't about that. It was, if only for a while, a perfect illusion of new york in hd; gorgeous physics & animations, hilarious and mind blowing random/unscripted events made possible only by the variety & complexity Rockstar put into it. I find it hard to come up with any game that so gloriously exceeded expectations.

 

Gamers will always be bitching and moaning no matter what.

"What is this? A new Mario platform game? I was expecting something else".

[Braintree]

Since GTA IV and with Red Dead Redemption, Rockstar's games are like huge boring po-faced overwhelming epics with disappointing mission after disappointing mission.

 

Red Dead Redemption was fucking amazing. It was like playing a character in Once Upon a Time in the West. The game mechanics, graphics, generative missions, and side quests were all outstanding. And I played way too much hold'em in that game.

[KovalainenFanBoy]

You guys know you could turn off the phone, or just say "yes" to all of your friends and tell them you can't go so you don't lose "like" percentage, don't you?

[jhonny]

RDR was absolutely brilliant, loved it.

 

LA Noire was really boring, I gave up after 2/3rds of it

[Guest Gary C]

You guys know you could turn off the phone, or just say "yes" to all of your friends and tell them you can't go so you don't lose "like" percentage, don't you?

 

Yeah, that was fine during mindless rampages.

 

But if I wanted achievements for unlocking a characters special ability, or, unrealistically 100% then I had to go fucking bowling with Roman, drinking with Paddy or play fucking pool with that depressed gangster.

[Guest El_Chemso]

Jesus fuck there are alot of GTAIV haters on here. Am I the only one who remembers getting into roman's car on release night, fully blown away, knowing gaming will never be the same again? The sheer power of the initial impact justified any boredom that came once you realized the limits of the city. It wasn't about that. It was, if only for a while, a perfect illusion of new york in hd; gorgeous physics & animations, hilarious and mind blowing random/unscripted events made possible only by the variety & complexity Rockstar put into it. I find it hard to come up with any game that so gloriously exceeded expectations.

 

Absolutely, I was blown away by the intro. A perfect introduction to a grimy, rainy New York district.

 

The game was/is stunning in many respects, but it had practically zero replay value because of some hideous additions... That fucking phone; and the annoying characters you HAD to spend time with.

 

Also, yeah, the DLC was good. Well, The Ballad of Gay Tony was really fun and over-the-top. The biker thing was kind of shitty. Boring storyline.

 

Yeah I loved it to, never played a GTA before it except little bits on friends PS. I've never played a game so hard, I did 24hrs in about 4 days with one day playing for 11 hours. Plus the MP free roaming was friends was the best xbl experience ever.

[Guest theSun]

lol yeah that gangster guy was really sad. you had to kill the rich guy to get the sweet apartment tho. efffffff

[Bubba69]

it just seems like another cock-tease world with time-waster style mission gameplay. I want a true sad box game where you can go anywhere do anything without 'oh you cant go here yet becausey ou didnt do this mission' fuck that junk

 

not since GTA 3 the original have i been able to play in a pure pleasure way not doing any of the missions and actually get a lot of milage out of the game. Since 3 it seems like when you go on a rampage not as many cops or army people come after you which kind of sucks.

 

I agree, my only issue with Vice City was how small and flat the city was, but they developed the game in about 9 months so it's to be expected. Some missions were terrible, some were ace, and some were really silly and not much fun but became fun through the silliness. Since GTA IV and with Red Dead Redemption, Rockstar's games are like huge boring po-faced overwhelming epics with disappointing mission after disappointing mission. PS2 Rockstar games were technically poor in some areas, like the character models were horrid, or the controls for the shooting was messy, but they'd nail the important things like the atmosphere at night when its raining. And that continued through to Manhunt. They seemed to be real gamers who concentrated on making every element of their games fun. Their games had real charm and personality, not since Rare's N64 games did I feel like they were the only developer making the games they wanted to make and as such included loads of exciting new ideas I'd not seen in games before. I even much prefer the crappy death animation in GTA 3 where I think they just jump backwards and widen their legs as opposed to the floppy ragdoll deaths we get now. I like simplicity and lightness of touch, games where every element has been designed by a flawed human being.

 

The more I played GTA IV, the more I hated it. I thought the decision to return to Liberty City was safe, but Rockstar said they chose New York/Manhattan because it's what they know best. Setting the new one in LA is just...if you're a gamer and not already apathetic enough, this doesn't help. I remember a writer in a column was bemoaning the sheer size and scope of San Andreas, he was put off by the fact you could go to the gym and put tedious work in to alter your appearance. He gave up on it, even though it's all optional. GTA 3 was so refreshing because it was obvious they'd put more thought and sense of joy in the missions than they did worrying about technical inadequacies. GTA IV has the oppisite approach. I liked San Andreas, but it's true, the cop chases weren't as fun, and that in part was due to the tighter, heavier car handling. I loved trying to cause as much chaos to earn 5 stars in GTA 3 and have the super quick FBI cars chase me, they'd hit a bump and go flying. I have so many happy good memories of playing that game. It's so generous and joyous, it feels like it loves you. GTA IV is such a horrible game, it feels like it hates you, it resents you.

 

The countryside in San Andreas was great, driving in pitch darkness on a road in the middle of nowhere was amazing. The words 'the largest and most ambitious game Rockstar has yet created' don't mean the same as they did in 2002, it fills me with dread more than anything..I'd rather it said 'the most creative and experimental game Rockstar has yet created'.

 

finally somebody who agrees that gta3 was the best gta. most people either say vice city, san andreas, or gta4. I probably spent more time on that game than any other I have ever played. I used to play just to exploit glitches in the game. this video(which the original is much older than 2007) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm56NN9gkCs for some reason made me want to play the game obsessively and recreate all the glitches. I used to do the bridge floating car glitch and try to "ride" the cars as far as possible around the city, but I always fell off.

[Guest Pennywise]

[youtubehd]JYy69qOJWoM[/youtubehd]

 

awesome

[Guest exaze]

[Guest Z_B_Z]

if its not the new bioshock i dont care. videogames (for the most part) are fun like solitaire and have about the same amount of substance.

[awepittance]

ok Roger Ebert, no really i pretty much agree except i think the technology is there for potentially awesome and diverse video-games but developers have become far too entrenched in genre trappings.

[Guest]

I hope GTA V still has this

[Guest Z_B_Z]

ok Roger Ebert, no really i pretty much agree except i think the technology is there for potentially awesome and diverse video-games but developers have become far too entrenched in genre trappings.

 

hehe i agree but i think think the problem ultimately lies deeper than genre conventions.. it needs to go way deeper than that. games are fun tho.

[Bubba69]

[youtubehd]JYy69qOJWoM[/youtubehd]

 

awesome

 

I remember in the original game you could take the disc out and put it in your cd player and tracks 2 and up would be the songs from the game, likewise you put in your own cd after loading the game and you could put your own tracks in(I think....).

[oscillik]

yup, same with Quake (PC of course)

[Suffocate Peon]

Since GTA IV and with Red Dead Redemption, Rockstar's games are like huge boring po-faced overwhelming epics with disappointing mission after disappointing mission.

 

Red Dead Redemption was fucking amazing. It was like playing a character in Once Upon a Time in the West. The game mechanics, graphics, generative missions, and side quests were all outstanding. And I played way too much hold'em in that game.

 

I've not played much of it, only the beginning, and I watched my brother play through some of the later missions, and listened to what he said, and read other people's opinions on the game. And what they said matched what I thought; that, like GTA IV, Rockstar put more time and effort into just creating the world, story and cutscenes, that it meant the missions suffered. They're not as surprising, exciting, varied, creative as they could be. That they're largely samey and ordinary. I might play the game now I've finally got a hdtv. Gamers are a little bit sensitive to criticism of modern games and can't understand why anyone would be so negative and angry about just a videogame. Because it makes sense to want to enjoy a game. But what was so bad about GTA IV was that it never intends to hit any highs to excite and amaze you, it merely intends for you to play the game for as long as you possibly can, and that feels like a cheat. So they take away instant save, make you visit one of your few safe houses, run up the stairs, through the door, save by the bed, when if the game was truly freeform they'd allow you to save using your mobile phone, or maybe that's not immersive enough, they could allow you to save by falling alseep on a bench. But finding a bench might not be easy. They also take away mid-mission checkpoints purely to artificially lengthen the game just a little bit more, but the affect it has on your enjoyment is huge. If you play the game knowing it intends to have no highs, like the kind in San Andreas where you get to fly a fighter jet, then it's just a procession of things to do, which is what work is. Except work has a point to it, and an end result that needs to be done; you're not being cheated by doing it. Plus sometimes you get paid and the whole experience feels good and rewarding.

 

There has been a definite shift in tone in Rockstar's games. GTA 3 was never silly, and it never felt like work. They made the idea of finding different types of cars and driving them to a garage actually fun, whereas GTA IV struggled to make chasing cars around the streets fun because they strangle all the spontaneity out of it. Like the overlong shootouts, it's just a procession of things to do, to move on to the next mission, which is the same thing, but in a bigger warehouse with more baddies. Developers can't dedicate so much time and resources and effort into creating huge worlds without it affecting the actual creative part of the game, which is the missions. That's why I play GTA. The missions take the enjoyment you can have just messing about in the city and amplifies it. I play the game in anticipation of what cool missions will be next.

 

I loved Red Dead Revolver on the PS2 and raced through it because it's hugely linear and straight forward, it gives you the great moments without forcing you to do the time consuming work in between. I saw a mission in Red Dead Redemption where I thought he'd get to do a train robbery, which is the kind of thing that has to be in the game. What he actually did in the mission was shoot some enemies, climb the train, press some switches, shoot more enemies, mission ended. The game told him to climb the train and press the switches. There was barely a reason to do the mission. In GTA IV, one mission I was really looking forward to was the bank robbery, because one of the first screenshots shown of the game was of the lead character inside a vault. I continued playing the game until I reached that mission. I wanted something more comprehensive than the bank robbery mission in Vice City, where you do a few missions that lead up to the robbery and recruit your team. But in GTA IV you don't do missions to recruit your team, I think the missions preceding the bank robbery just involve driving around your mate as he tells you about the big job. You're not really involved, it's such an anticlimax. They could make it as exciting as possible, yet go the route of bringing it down to earth, making it completely dull. Then you get to the bank and a cutscene begins and skips the whole thing, and then you play out the bank escape from Heat in the streets. But even that is poor because you're shuffled along from area to area, told where to go. You do have some shootouts in the subway which are cool, but it's heavy, turning is heavy, moving is heavy, doing anything is heavy, but the mission sets the context of escaping from a bank trying to survive and get to safety so in that sense it's almost fun.

 

Of what I've seen and played of Red Dead Redemption (and GTA IV), the cutscenes are really boring. The writing is good, the voice acting is good, the animation is okay, but they're not succinct, they're not funny. GTA 3's cutscenes were both of those things, but also what was effective is when you have good voice acting and exaggerated hand and body movements that those two things done well mean you don't need to bother with facial animation because you're already convinced. The cutscenes in Vice City were entertining as well, San Andreas was where they got serious and actually tried to write a proper story.

[Silent Member]

I mostly agree with this hater.

[KovalainenFanBoy]

What I hate about Rockstar games is how the plot is basically the same for GTA III, SA, IV, RDR, etc.:

 

>You are a nobody (Claude/John who has just been shot and/or betrayed, Niko who has just arrived from eastern Europe, CJ, etc.)

 

>Looking for somebody (always someone from your old gang who betrayed you)

 

>You are nobody so you need help to find that person(s)

 

>99% of the missions are: "Hey dude I'll help you get that guy BUUUT you have to do 5 favours for me first"

 

>You spend almost, if not the entire game just doing favors to other people instead of actually working your own way.

 

 

Except for the Max Payne saga and, well, Table Tennis, Beatarator* and those games, every Rockstar game follows this scheme