Post by: ShyGuy on March 30, 2007, 06:28:37 AM
http://www.rockstargames.com/IV/index2.html
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on March 30, 2007, 06:42:37 AM
Post by: capamerica on March 30, 2007, 06:47:08 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 30, 2007, 06:56:27 AM
as in ROCKY IV!?
Post by: ShyGuy on March 30, 2007, 07:00:59 AM
Post by: capamerica on March 30, 2007, 07:25:42 AM
I was just asking cause I know someone who actually thought the name was 'IV'
Post by: vudu on March 30, 2007, 07:39:23 AM
you're you're you're you're you're you're YOU ARE
Post by: couchmonkey on March 30, 2007, 09:56:35 AM
Post by: Kairon on March 30, 2007, 11:02:45 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: wandering on March 30, 2007, 03:32:14 PM
Post by: BranDonk Kong on March 30, 2007, 04:08:45 PM
Post by: Kairon on March 30, 2007, 08:32:54 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Infernal Monkey on March 30, 2007, 10:28:16 PM
Post by: Svevan on March 30, 2007, 10:33:34 PM
No one has mentioned yet how the opening minute of the trailer is a direct quote of the Godfrey Reggio film Koyaanisqatsi. It's recommended viewing, and if Rockstar is deliberately invoking the perspective of that film, their satire and cultural critique may reach new levels. We'll see.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 31, 2007, 03:42:37 AM
"MAN, I SURE HOPE THERE ISN'T A PIT OF SPIKES BEHIND THIS DOOR!"
Viewer: OH GOD THERE'S A PIT OF SPIKES BEHIND THAT DOOR! WE'VE SEEEEEEEN IT!
*opens door, falling into pit*
"AW, THERE WAS A PIT OF SPIKES BEHIND THAT DOOR!"
Oh yeah, I would like the game to actually be more than a tapestry put over a wire mesh...That is, I would like to be able to enter a good bit of the buildings, not have the game be a maze of streets...
Post by: vudu on March 31, 2007, 05:55:15 AM
QuoteJust when I thought that I was out they pull me back in!!
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
He says he used to kill people, and "maybe this time it'll be different"? Uh, this is Grand Theft Auto, so just how does that work? Unless they are pulling a film-type cliche, where a character says he hopes something doesn't come and the viewer already knows it's there...
Post by: ShyGuy on March 31, 2007, 06:13:46 AM
Post by: Artimus on March 31, 2007, 09:38:05 AM
Post by: Kairon on March 31, 2007, 10:31:58 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 31, 2007, 10:46:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
They have a sense of art direction. A good one. It's quite subtle.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
I sure hope you are joking, GTA games have no art direction besides "Pretty, realistic buildings". Anyway the game looks impressive visually, but then again Rockstar is known for chugging framerates, so I'll wait and see.
Post by: Artimus on March 31, 2007, 10:56:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
"Pretty, realistic buildings".
There are many things about the GTA series that are impressive, but their graphics are most certainly not one of things things.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 31, 2007, 11:51:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArtimusQuote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
"Pretty, realistic buildings".
There are many things about the GTA series that are impressive, but their graphics are most certainly not one of things things.
That is what I seen in the trailer, the GTA has zero artistic value in its visuals.
Post by: Svevan on March 31, 2007, 12:02:43 PM
Quote
No one mentioned it because it's a pretty stupid quote in the context...I mean...He says he used to kill people, and "maybe this time it'll be different"? Uh, this is Grand Theft Auto, so just how does that work? Unless they are pulling a film-type cliche, where a character says he hopes something doesn't come and the viewer already knows it's there...
You misunderstood me. I said the opening minute of the trailer is a direct quote, as in the images and music prior to when the character begins to speak.
Quote
That is what I seen in the trailer, the GTA has zero artistic value in its visuals.
We're not watching the same trailer, then.
Post by: Artimus on March 31, 2007, 12:45:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: SvevanQuote
No one mentioned it because it's a pretty stupid quote in the context...I mean...He says he used to kill people, and "maybe this time it'll be different"? Uh, this is Grand Theft Auto, so just how does that work? Unless they are pulling a film-type cliche, where a character says he hopes something doesn't come and the viewer already knows it's there...
You misunderstood me. I said the opening minute of the trailer is a direct quote, as in the images and music prior to when the character begins to speak.Quote
That is what I seen in the trailer, the GTA has zero artistic value in its visuals.
We're not watching the same trailer, then.
Or you're easily impressed by crap?
Post by: Mario on March 31, 2007, 03:37:37 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 31, 2007, 05:37:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: SvevanQuote
No one mentioned it because it's a pretty stupid quote in the context...I mean...He says he used to kill people, and "maybe this time it'll be different"? Uh, this is Grand Theft Auto, so just how does that work? Unless they are pulling a film-type cliche, where a character says he hopes something doesn't come and the viewer already knows it's there...
You misunderstood me. I said the opening minute of the trailer is a direct quote, as in the images and music prior to when the character begins to speak.Quote
That is what I seen in the trailer, the GTA has zero artistic value in its visuals.
We're not watching the same trailer, then.
It looked like a replica of New York, that is not artistic that is called copying real world landmarks and buildings. Tell me what this oh so great artistic direction in the GTA series is, that competes with games like Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, Zelda:TP and Killer 7 when it comes to artistic value.
Post by: Kairon on March 31, 2007, 06:52:47 PM
GTA: Vice City successfully recaptured the sunny seedy Miami vibe that they were going for. Liberty City, in the original GTA 3, was a run-down distopia with garbage blowing in the wind everywhere. And San Andreas wasn't real, but instead SURREAL, just like it's shockingly satirical radio talk shows and commercials. The gritty visuals and sometimes even less-than-clean graphics add to the entire thing even.
GTA never sells us reality, it's always selling us a CARICATURE of it.
Additionally, it exposes the juxtaposition of our urban environments. One moment you're driving through the inner city, the next you're going through some eerily plastic, walled, luxury residential neighborhood. Both are extremes, and their co-existence only serves to accentuate the odd uneasyness of that co-existence between privileged rich and those stuck in a cycle of crime and poverty outside those walls. And then there's the feeling of loneliness and isolation in a concrete jungle: no one is ever at skater parks for example, and pedestrians exist only to be gunned down. They all start looking the same after awhile.
ANNNDDDDD.... I may have pulled that all out of some bodily orifice. I hold no degrees in art or film, my education in both is only as an avid appreciator and attentive observer, and as a netflix addict. And I took a film 101 and Western Art History 101 class... But that's my opinion on it.
It's not just about pretty eye-candy art GoldenPhoenix. It's what the visual TELLS you about the game world, about its inhabitants, about its story, and about your relationship with it. That's what art direction is suppoed to do, and that's what I feel the GTA games have accomplished.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on March 31, 2007, 08:00:47 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 31, 2007, 08:19:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
Ehhh...Kairon, all that amounts to is that GTA is basically as real as they can manage with humour added. There's nothing interesting about their art direction at all. Vice City, for example, is as cliche and basic as you can get. It has nothing to do with Okami (which GP shouldn't have mentioned, as it's irrelevant). The entire series is totally unremarkable graphically and artistically.
Actually I used Okami to illustrate what art value is, it is something unique and cannot be found in the everyday world. GTA series lacks 0 art direction, the game is about creating a realistic city landscape, that is IT, does it mesh together? Sure it does, but that is not creative, in fact I would argue that any game that tries to replicate the real world in design is in fact the complete opposite of what art value truly means. Art value is something that is abstract, something that must be created from the mind that you cannot find in the real world. Heck even Gears of War has better art direction and value than the GTA direction, and that is quite sad. Then again GTA has basically been the same game since GTA3, being creative has not been in the series vocabulary whether it be visuals (which No More Heroes is at least atttempting) and I definately do not see it in this new one, which seems to be focused on replicating a real city. It isn't creative, perhaps it will be well designed, but creative or an abstract idea it is not.
Quote
The gritty visuals and sometimes even less-than-clean graphics add to the entire thing even.
Um wow, never thought I'd hear someone actually defend lazy programming as adding to the game. The game has a terrible framerate and used the same engine for every game after GTA3, then again I'm sure Rockstar was counting on people to defend them. Heck many N64 or PS1 games could be classics as well, there are some pretty poor visuals with some poorer framerates on both that definately add to them. Please do not defend lazy programming as adding to the charm, Rockstar got lazy with the GTA series, and did not refine the engine like they should of (But then again when people suck up everything they throw out as artistically amazing even when it has some severe technical problems, but hey they add to the game too. I really can't blame them for leaching off that mentality).
P.S. Maybe this is all an April fools joke in regards to the visuals being artistic, that is the only way it would make sense!
Post by: Mario on March 31, 2007, 09:45:58 PM
Quote
Rockstar got lazy with the GTA series
LMAO. You have a point if you're talking about the crappy PSP ports, but nobody cares about those. When you have the most revolutionary, most popular game in the past decade, you're not gonna instantly do a 180 on all the people who are starting to fall in love with the game. It's not like they've been trying to fool us either, Vice City and San Andreas clearly aren't labelled "GTA4". They aren't just expansion packs either, San Andreas adds a TON, you can't even fly planes in GTA3, let alone parachute out of them onto highways. They refined the HELL out of it for San Andreas. Completely different areas, different story / setting, lots of added gameplay elements, the only thing that remains from GTA3 is the core gameplay design which is why both games have "Grand Theft Auto" in the title. There's no core gameplay difference in Super Mario Bros 1,2,3, World. Every Zelda game since Ocarina of Time has played EXACTLY the same. Nobody cares.
Calling the developers of the three of the biggest games in history (all released so close together on one system), lazy, is the DUMBEST thing i've ever heard in my entire life.
We've also barely even seen anything of GTA4.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 31, 2007, 11:28:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
It's not trying to be some fantasy game with flying unicorns. If they tried some fancy crap with "art" design it would SUCK. WHY would you want that?Quote
Rockstar got lazy with the GTA series
LMAO. You have a point if you're talking about the crappy PSP ports, but nobody cares about those. When you have the most revolutionary, most popular game in the past decade, you're not gonna instantly do a 180 on all the people who are starting to fall in love with the game. It's not like they've been trying to fool us either, Vice City and San Andreas clearly aren't labelled "GTA4". They aren't just expansion packs either, San Andreas adds a TON, you can't even fly planes in GTA3, let alone parachute out of them onto highways. They refined the HELL out of it for San Andreas. Completely different areas, different story / setting, lots of added gameplay elements, the only thing that remains from GTA3 is the core gameplay design which is why both games have "Grand Theft Auto" in the title. There's no core gameplay difference in Super Mario Bros 1,2,3, World. Every Zelda game since Ocarina of Time has played EXACTLY the same. Nobody cares.
Calling the developers of the three of the biggest games in history (all released so close together on one system), lazy, is the DUMBEST thing i've ever heard in my entire life.
We've also barely even seen anything of GTA4.
GTA the biggest game of the decade (someone is forgetting games that previously did the open ended environments, such as the Elder Scrolls series)? Um ok. Three biggest games of history? Whatever you want to believe. And Rockstar did get lazy, they have used the same engine for all 3 of the GTA games after GTA3, they made little to no attempt to iron out the visuals, and yes GTA Vice and San Andreas added more stuff, but that was it, they still felt like large expansion packs. Even the time difference between the 3 GTA series is a clear signal of how little they did to evolve the series, I'm sorry but SMB1 and 3 were distinct evolutions in the series, including gameplay mechanics.
The defense of artistic merit is ridiculous, the game tries to replicate a city that is not creative no matter what you want to believe (AT least No More Heroes is attempting to add some artistic style to the GTA realistic environment formula). You want to know why exactly the GTA series (particularly the first two, and soon GTA: SA) should not be deemed classics? It is because they have been outdated by GTA SA, there is little in the way of redeeming elements from GTA3 (Or GTA VC to a certain extent) that can hold up to the myriad of additions that the following GTA games had, they are the PERFECT example of cookie cutter sequels, with things added here and there to keep the drooling fanboys satisfied every year (Like yourself Mario) who defend it as the greatest group of games in history. Rockstar is not a diverse company, and it shows through the GTA series, yes they had one "genre changing" game but that is pretty much all they can suck off of, at least when it comes to anything of much quality. Are the games fun? Sure they are but it is a series that will be remembered more for the most recent addition rather than the previous ones, similar to the situation with Madden. When you get the next GTA, you don't feel compelled to play the previous one because it has less "stuff", like flying planes or perhaps a larger place to explore, you can definitely see this trend through the rapid price drops when a new GTA game comes out (Just like Madden).
I'm willing to go out on a limb and state that GTA4 will follow in this trend, but like Madden it may "axe" some of the features or additions that previous GTA games had since it is restarting again for a next generation console, and then we'll see the same lazy trend Rockstar did with the PS2 games, reuse the same engine with blemishes and all to spit out iterations every year (or close to every year) with larger cities, more vehicles and maybe some new stuff to do. On the flip side like the PS2 games, you will only really care about playing the most current rehash of the GTA series, because the previous ones don't have all the cool stuff. That is completely different from games like the Mario, Resident Evil, Zelda, Metroid or other games where the games themselves are complete enough and have their own soul, that you WANT to replay them even when a newer game comes out. But hey that is what happens when people keep supporting a game that is basically a yearly expansion pack (granted larger than most expansion packs), you start to lose that spark that makes games in a series distinct in presentation and soul, instead of "The newest edition is the best". But hey, I guess I'm a dummy for thinking Rockstar is lazy and is cashing in on the franchise refusing to put more work (Meaning more development time) into each addition to give it a distinct soul, or at the very refusing to refine a flawed graphic engine much.
Post by: Kairon on April 01, 2007, 12:15:01 AM
My previous points still stand because art direction is NOT limited to fantasy and it is NOT about technical prowess.
Art direction is about the juxtaposition of silent, light-colored, and clammed-up high-class residential districts that are surrounded by plaster walls and criminalized, run-down urban slums where gunfights break out every five minutes. It is about the constant garbage that is blowing around an inner city distopia, no matter where you turn or look. It is about the choice of dull colors that make up the world; even the most darkly hued of which lack any joy or spark. And it's about the empty bargain-bin shops, their bare walls, the mess of clothes on the floor and skeletal racks, their cheap particle board doors and mass-produced white paint.
Complain about frame rates all you want, but that's graphics engine guff. All of THESE things are choices made to invoke something in the player, and all of these things are art direction.
Just because a game is based in a realistic-esque modern day, doesn't mean that it isn't artistic. A game doesn't need fantasy elements, aliens, monsters, flight, or even bright colors to be artistic. The art direction in the GTA games is in the composition of the world, the modeling of the environment, and the effects they produce on the player. Sega loves those clean, anti-septic neo-tokyo cityscapes for their sonic games, and Activision wants their CoD guns, environs, and dialogue to strike us as authentic. Just like Blizzard's terrain design in their World of WarCraft MMORPG is so amazing because its been painstakingly handcrafted by Blizzard ARTISTS to give each zone its own unique feel, so too has GTA's world been constructed to convey themes and emotions to the player.
I mean... c'mon. Are you now going to tell us that Shenmue is artistically inept, visually bankrupt, and creatively vacuous?
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on April 01, 2007, 12:21:53 AM
What about great portraits of real people? What about famous landscapes? What about the entirety of the renaissance?!?! Photography? Film?
GTA doesn't even do all that. GTA is a caricature of these cities and their stereotypes. It's a cultural and sociological magnifying glass. It's a lens.
And it isn't an attempt to recreate a city for the sake of realism. Not one bit. That game is called True Crime.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on April 01, 2007, 12:24:52 AM
GTA IV for Wii
Post by: Infernal Monkey on April 01, 2007, 01:32:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
GTA the biggest game of the decade (someone is forgetting games that previously did the open ended environments, such as the Elder Scrolls series)? Um ok. Three biggest games of history? Whatever you want to believe. And Rockstar did get lazy, they have used the same engine for all 3 of the GTA games after GTA3, they made little to no attempt to iron out the visuals, and yes GTA Vice and San Andreas added more stuff, but that was it, they still felt like large expansion packs. Even the time difference between the 3 GTA series is a clear signal of how little they did to evolve the series, I'm sorry but SMB1 and 3 were distinct evolutions in the series, including gameplay mechanics.
... What? GTA SA was about ten times bigger than GTA 3, with zero loading times between areas unlike GTA 3. The frame rate was a lot more stable, there were MANY more things happening on screen, pedestrians had AI, they'd chase you down, beat you up, start a conversation with you. The draw distance was pushed back further, there were new weather effects mixed in, to say Rockstar were lazy is absolutely mind boggling. The missions? GTA 3's were all extremely basic, the whole 'fetch this and go deliver it here' type thing. GTA SA had missions that put other games to bloody shame with their depth. But I know NWR and the majority of Nintendo forums have some demented, pointless anger/fear about the series though, because they're successful, fun games that aren't on Nintendo, so I'm not going to get caught up in this mess anymore.
Quote
The defense of artistic merit is ridiculous, the game tries to replicate a city that is not creative no matter what you want to believe (AT least No More Heroes is attempting to add some artistic style to the GTA realistic environment formula).
Is it? They'd added the Killer 7 cel-shading to extremely basic looking environments. Wow! Better hang that in an art gallery.
Post by: oohhboy on April 01, 2007, 02:14:48 AM
Fastward a couple years and played GTA3. played around with it, but I just couldn't get in to it. The controls were rubbish. The driving was like riding a motorised obesed man in an ice rink on the moon. The combat didn't move a step up from the 2D versions.
Skip to GTA:SA. Now includes some pretty LOL cutscenes, but they were rare. Everything else was basicly montages of black guys being hard. The combat system now includes couch and driveby shootings that can't hit air if they tried. I am still fighting the controls and drive now no longer includes the ice rink, that feature is reserved for 2 wheels. The RPG/Life system of eating and running was tacked on and annoying as hell.
Of all those only the "2D" GTAs had any graphical nice as they merged the 2D and 3D elements effectively. Every 3D version was bland and talentless. Sure they had the right fashion period, but nothing in that world had any life in it. Grade A generic.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 01, 2007, 09:24:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Complain about frame rates all you want, but that's graphics engine guff. All of THESE things are choices made to invoke something in the player, and all of these things are art direction.
Just because a game is based in a realistic-esque modern day, doesn't mean that it isn't artistic. A game doesn't need fantasy elements, aliens, monsters, flight, or even bright colors to be artistic. The art direction in the GTA games is in the composition of the world, the modeling of the environment, and the effects they produce on the player. Sega loves those clean, anti-septic neo-tokyo cityscapes for their sonic games, and Activision wants their CoD guns, environs, and dialogue to strike us as authentic. Just like Blizzard's terrain design in their World of WarCraft MMORPG is so amazing because its been painstakingly handcrafted by Blizzard ARTISTS to give each zone its own unique feel, so too has GTA's world been constructed to convey themes and emotions to the player.
I mean... c'mon. Are you now going to tell us that Shenmue is artistically inept, visually bankrupt, and creatively vacuous?
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
So wait poor or inconsistent framerates are in the game to invoke something in the player (Perhaps, what an inept and outdated grahical engine the game uses?). Did they smooth out the framerate a bit? Yes it was but it still was big problem and the games visuals still looked outdated, that includes GTA SA as well, even people who love the game admit that. The reason for the outdated look isn't because of artistic design, but because Rockstar was reusing the same engine over and over again without putting much effort into substantially improving it. Regardles I wonder if anyone read what I said, I didn't say GTA was visually bankrupt (well it started to get to that point during SA) or not creative in other areas, but the graphical style it uses is NOT creative or artistic whatsoever (and I do think you are exagerrating a bit when it comes to that area, separating neighborhoods into different economic classes is not what I call brilliant, but just a way to add diversity to the game to make it seem like a city), fine it may convey emotions but that does not make it an artistic gem, well put together, perhaps, artistic no. If you want my personal opinion I think that anything is basically copying or using a model (such as a painting) is not something to be praised for its brilliant artistic merit, on the other hand abstract artists should be because they are creating something NEW and symbolic. (BTW I don't think Shenmue is an artistically brilliant game either, well designed? Yes. Creative in other areas? Yes. But the visuals aren't what I would call artistic.).
Quote
... What? GTA SA was about ten times bigger than GTA 3, with zero loading times between areas unlike GTA 3. The frame rate was a lot more stable, there were MANY more things happening on screen, pedestrians had AI, they'd chase you down, beat you up, start a conversation with you. The draw distance was pushed back further, there were new weather effects mixed in, to say Rockstar were lazy is absolutely mind boggling. The missions? GTA 3's were all extremely basic, the whole 'fetch this and go deliver it here' type thing. GTA SA had missions that put other games to bloody shame with their depth. But I know NWR and the majority of Nintendo forums have some demented, pointless anger/fear about the series though, because they're successful, fun games that aren't on Nintendo, so I'm not going to get caught up in this mess anymore.
Gee I would hope GTA SA was 10 times bigger than GTA 3 (well take out the overly long country side and it isn't nearly that much) it came out 3 years after it. Heck you even look at the Madden series and a 3 year gap tends to show some significant changes as well. Regardless of what changes SA had in the way of visuals it still was using an aging engine that was created back in 2001, and even fanboys agree it was starting to show its age big time (besides for some odd reason people here). And I do like how people conveniently overlook the fact that it is the NEWER GTA game that people care about when it comes to what will be remembered and replayed, that is lazy design, plain and simple. I'm sorry it is, they just took basically the same game (same engine and all) and expanded on it each year. That is not GTA hate, that is just how it is, and is common sense when you consider each game in the series had around 1 year development time, because that is what you ALWAYS face when you do a yearly edition.
Also I'm not sure where you got I "hate" the game, I'm being realistic and not some blind fanboi that sucks down everything Rockstar gives as "brilliant". The GTA series is a fun series, in fact I own every single game since GTA3, but each game feels more like a glorified expansion pack then something new or unique. When I get GTA4 (which I will) I doubt I'll ever feel like going back to the old ones, unless of course they gimp many of the additions to the series because of the new engine. Hey at least then they can release GTA: Glorified Expansion Pack 1, 2, 3 and still garner praise from all the drooling fans as being the greatest game in history.
To shift the subject a bit here is what I'd like to see improved in the GTA games:
1. Make driver, enemy, and pedestrian AI better. This has been a flaw in most "sandbox" games like GTA
2. Do not sacrifice a smooth (at least 30fps) framerate for purty visuals
3. Don't RUSH THE GAME OUT. Every GTA game on PS2 has a myriad of glitches, they could use much more polish even if it means delaying the game
4. Allow more buildings to be open for exploration
5. Better use of the enviroment. The GTA games are able to provide quality cities and landscapes, but Rockstar seems to have a problem with utilizing alot of that space (Take for example the long drive between cities in SA). Yeah the world may be expansive, but like so many games in the genre most of it feels uninteresting besides select spots.
6. Spread games out for 2 years or more each to be better able to polish the game engine and to make each game a distinct entity so you actually want to go back to an older game because it has an unique soul, instead of an outdated game because the new GTA Pseudo-Expansion pack does more than it.
7. Aiming needs to be improved, it still sucks pretty badly even after all 3 games (another example of an area that Rockstar ignored for the most part)
8. For heaven's sake, PLEASE get rid of the invisible barriers. That is a clear sign of a flaw in the level design when you can't creatively cover up the game's boundary line, and instead run (or swim) into an invisible wall.
Post by: Kairon on April 01, 2007, 06:06:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
If you want my personal opinion I think that anything is basically copying or using a model (such as a painting) is not something to be praised for its brilliant artistic merit, on the other hand abstract artists should be because they are creating something NEW and symbolic.
I... I simply cannot respond to, nor fathom, such a response that flies in the face of Michaelangelo's (or Leonardo's) David, the sumptuous banquet still lifes of Flemish painters (btw, one of the movies I find extremely watchable is "Girl with a Pearl Earring" involving the Dutch master Johannes Vermeer) and indeed, so much of renaissance art. It flies even in the face of the statue of liberty itself.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 01, 2007, 06:54:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
If you want my personal opinion I think that anything is basically copying or using a model (such as a painting) is not something to be praised for its brilliant artistic merit, on the other hand abstract artists should be because they are creating something NEW and symbolic.
I... I simply cannot respond to, nor fathom, such a response that flies in the face of Michaelangelo's (or Leonardo's) David, the sumptuous banquet still lifes of Flemish painters (btw, one of the movies I find extremely watchable is "Girl with a Pearl Earring" involving the Dutch master Johannes Vermeer) and indeed, so much of renaissance art. It flies even in the face of the statue of liberty itself.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Hate to break it to you but Statue of Liberty is an abstract creation, it wasn't based on a real woman model. Not to mention David was completely abstract because no one knew for sure what he looked like and that is ignoring the fact that it took alot of talent and creativity to create it out of stone. I am talking about painters who basically paint a portrait of what they are seeing, without adding anything abstract or symbolic, basically it is a glorified sketch artist or Xerox machine (And I think the team at Rockstar would fall under that category when it comes to the building and landscape design). Also nice job completely sidetracking the issues that I raised about the GTA games in addition to art direction. What I do find funny is you seemingly defend GTA by comparing it to renaissance art, which seems kind of humorus.
Post by: Kairon on April 01, 2007, 07:14:18 PM
If you want to accuse True Crime of that, then we might be going somewhere. But GTA games are FAR from trying to recreate realistic examples of cities, they create caricatures of them: caricatures that are seen through interpretive lenses the same way that an artist doing a grotesque portrait views their subject. The fact is that you can't escape that subjective, perceptive, interpretive lens when you're making a game, especially a game as satirical, culturally-and-socially-reflective, and controversial as GTA. You don't think that Liberty city is an abstract creation. I ask you: what could be more abstract than a sense of "New Yorkness."
I don't think that the world of GTA was created by rote, I believe that to say so is a gross injustice to the people who worked on it and their vision. I believe it was hand-crafted in the same manner as Blizzard hand-crafted their world in WoW to control player flow, experience, and environment. Of course, Blizzard probably did a better job, but still.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 01, 2007, 07:22:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I've bypassed a lot of your technical discussion because I simply don't disagree with you there. I willingly concede to all your complaints about frame rate and etc. I care about your classification of GTA as a game without art design, a game that's a photocopy of real life places with no creative thought in its arrangement, composition, hues, atmosphere, or effects on the player.
If you want to accuse True Crime of that, then we might be going somewhere. But GTA games are FAR from trying to recreate realistic examples of cities, they create caricatures of them: caricatures that are seen through interpretive lenses the same way that an artist doing a grotesque portrait views their subject. The fact is that you can't escape that subjective, perceptive, interpretive lens when you're making a game, especially a game as satirical, culturally-and-socially-reflective, and controversial as GTA. You don't think that Liberty city is an abstract creation. I ask you: what could be more abstract than a sense of "New Yorkness."
I don't think that the world of GTA was created by rote, I believe that to say so is a gross injustice to the people who worked on it and their vision. I believe it was hand-crafted in the same manner as Blizzard hand-crafted their world in WoW to control player flow, experience, and environment. Of course, Blizzard probably did a better job, but still.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
I believe we are slipping up when it comes to design vs artistic merit. THe GTA games are fairly well designed for the most part, and the building of the city itself is well crafted (for the most part, it still has the problem of an ever growing expansion of empty space that takes forever to bypass). For the sake of this argument, will you agree with the following statement:
The LOOK of GTAs buildings, or enviroment (meaning the landscape, not how it is put together) are not what would be considered artisically creative (Or wholly unique creations), but are based closely upon real world examples. But the design of the game itself is creative when it comes to placement and design of the city? Would that work for you Kairon?
Post by: ShyGuy on April 01, 2007, 07:43:10 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 01, 2007, 07:46:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
SOME GILDED ARIZONA CITY HAS TRAINWRECK MY INTRAVENOUS FLUID TOPIC!
Well serves you right for bringing up a series that has started to become the Madden of go anywhere, crime games!
Post by: Kairon on April 01, 2007, 08:00:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I believe we are slipping up when it comes to design vs artistic merit. THe GTA games are fairly well designed for the most part, and the building of the city itself is well crafted (for the most part, it still has the problem of an ever growing expansion of empty space that takes forever to bypass). For the sake of this argument, will you agree with the following statement:
The LOOK of GTAs buildings, or enviroment (meaning the landscape, not how it is put together) are not what would be considered artisically creative (Or wholly unique creations), but are based closely upon real world examples. But the design of the game itself is creative when it comes to placement and design of the city? Would that work for you Kairon?
Wheee! Late night arguments!
As long as that's considered art direction I'm fine with it. But seriously, GTA 3 has garbage just blowing in the wind when you're in the inner city... I personally think that the GTA has more art direction than merely its city planning... but maybe that'll have to be a point of personal opinion-based disagreement? That shouldn't be too hard to swallow. After all, I AM the Nintendo fanboi who's defended such non-Nintendo games as Halo (for which I referenced the anime Grave of the Fireflies to defend, no less!) and Little Big Planet.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on April 01, 2007, 09:24:57 PM
And HALO is extremely overrated. Grave of the Fireflies is not.
Actually, HALO's story = GTA's art direction. It's there, yes, but it's totally irrelevant and adds nothing to the game.
Post by: Kairon on April 01, 2007, 10:08:32 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: oohhboy on April 01, 2007, 11:31:53 PM
Post by: Kairon on April 02, 2007, 03:22:11 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 02, 2007, 06:41:27 AM
I'm glad I waited to play Godfather for the Wii controls. Frankly, I don't think I could ever play another sandbox crime game. It's similar to Pokemon: I played one game to see what all the fuss was about and that was it. I never need to do it again.
I don't see what GTA could add to the formula to make it fresh and interesting again, or worth buying another game.
Post by: Kairon on April 02, 2007, 09:38:18 PM
And it's true:p the sandbox genre seems to be half-formed... like its waiting for someone to come in and finish the equation, fill in the missing parts of its soul, and almost re-invent the genre to save it... Heck, most sandbox games could actually learn from oldies but goodies (and not exactly sandbox...) like New Horizons, Tail of the Sun, Oregon Trail and Privateer.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: SixthAngel on April 03, 2007, 10:29:23 AM
If in Mario 64 you gave Mario a star meter and when you killed enough goombas Koopa sent enemies after you it would be the same amount of interaction. You can already "car jack" turtle shells, are free to roam the world and complete missions out of order, and kill what is in the level.
Real sandbox games are more like the Elder Scolls (haven't played the new one) where your freedom to do what you want encompasses more then stealing cars and killing civilians. The new GTA needs to increase the interaction with the world a significant amount.
Post by: Kairon on April 03, 2007, 03:31:04 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on April 03, 2007, 03:34:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: SixthAngel
I would hardly even call GTA games sandbox games. A sandbox lets you do what you want but GTA games seem to let you only steal cars and kill people.
If in Mario 64 you gave Mario a star meter and when you killed enough goombas Koopa sent enemies after you it would be the same amount of interaction. You can already "car jack" turtle shells, are free to roam the world and complete missions out of order, and kill what is in the level.
Real sandbox games are more like the Elder Scolls (haven't played the new one) where your freedom to do what you want encompasses more then stealing cars and killing civilians. The new GTA needs to increase the interaction with the world a significant amount.
I'm not a major GTA fan, but this is just silly.
Post by: SixthAngel on April 03, 2007, 05:33:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
I'm not a major GTA fan, but this is just silly.
Its a little bit of a stretch but the so called sandbox feel of gta is generally the world being big and you are able to drive around and kill anyone. Last time I checked sandbox games weren't supposed to be so limited. When gta3 first came out I thought it was cool but they really need to increase the amount of interactivity with the world on the next gen systems. It isn't even supposed to be a slight a gta, I think they do a good job with the games just that I don't see it as much of a sandbox game like people say.
Post by: wandering on April 03, 2007, 07:58:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
As American Beauty showed us, sometimes blowing trash is all you need.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
As Family Guy showed us, IT'S JUST A PIECE OF TRASH BLOWING IN THE WIND! DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW COMPLEX YOUR CIRCULATORY SYSTEM IS?!
Post by: vudu on August 02, 2007, 10:36:09 AM
IV has been delayed to MMVIII.
Post by: Mashiro on August 02, 2007, 10:49:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
In true Mashiro fashion...
IV has been delayed to MMVIII.
Well done Vudu well done lol.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 02, 2007, 11:06:42 AM
Post by: Kairon on August 02, 2007, 11:57:29 AM
Post by: Mashiro on August 02, 2007, 12:01:17 PM
(any killer app)?
Post by: EasyCure on August 02, 2007, 12:11:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
In true Mashiro fashion...
IV has been delayed to MMVIII.
Hm Manhunt taken off their release schedule, that sucks.
the wishful thinker in me hopes IV is really being pushed back so they can make a downgraded wii version to release with the other two systems.
Post by: Arbok on August 02, 2007, 12:33:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Poor PS3 needed the game more than 360 and now that is gone too!
Both needed the game, considering how well the Wii is selling. It's now up to Halo 3 to stave off the months and months of great sales that have led to great momentum for Nintendo's console. Without GTA, I think the number of 360s that could be sold this holiday just dropped a lot, as now it has to tap largely into the Halo fanbase that was there for the previous generation rather than leaping forth to grab a lot of the PS2 fans who might have been on the fence this holiday season.
Post by: Luigi Dude on August 02, 2007, 12:39:12 PM
Now I'm sure Halo 3 will get good sales in September and October but when November and December come around it's hype will have died down and without GTA to help them, Mario Galaxy and Smash Bros are going to be the dominate force this holiday.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 02, 2007, 12:40:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Luigi Dude
Well Nintendo has now won this holiday season easily. This pretty much kills the PS3 this year but it's also going to hurt Microsoft big time. They needed this to go along with Halo 3 this fall in order as a combination that would be a sure killer app system seller. But now all Microsoft has is Halo 3 and that's coming out in September, two months before the holiday rush.
Now I'm sure Halo 3 will get good sales in September and October but when November and December come around it's hype will have died down and without GTA to help them, Mario Galaxy and Smash Bros are going to be the dominate force this holiday.
MS will be fine with Halo 3, Mass Effect, and Bioshock.
Post by: ShyGuy on August 02, 2007, 12:40:42 PM
Post by: Arbok on August 02, 2007, 12:47:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
MS will be fine with Halo 3, Mass Effect, and Bioshock.
Question: Do you see the latter two reaching for many console owners who weren't already on board with Gears of War or Halo 3? I don't doubt that all three will be great sellers to the 360 base, but I personally don't see the latter two expanding the market for Microsoft very much.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 02, 2007, 12:50:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArbokQuote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
MS will be fine with Halo 3, Mass Effect, and Bioshock.
Question: Do you see the latter two reaching for many console owners who weren't already on board with Gears of War or Halo 3? I don't doubt that all three will be great sellers to the 360 base, but I personally don't see the latter two expanding the market for Microsoft very much.
Yeah but would GTA4 expand the market much since it is multiplatform? Personally I think it will be interesting to see how it sells systems with it being multiconsole. I think Bioshock has a chance to expand the market but we will have to see, I'll agree that Mass Effect may not though.
Post by: Arbok on August 02, 2007, 12:53:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Yeah but would GTA4 expand the market much?
For Microsoft? Why wouldn't it? In terms of sales, GTA can only really be challenged by Pokémon and Mario versus other franchises. It had the potential to reach into the large PS2 market who hasn't gone for a next generation system yet. For everyone singing the praises of Halo 3 as a system seller, I think it's hard to over look how much larger GTA is and what it would mean to push consoles this holiday season.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 02, 2007, 12:54:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArbokQuote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Yeah but would GTA4 expand the market much?
For Microsoft? Why wouldn't it? In terms of sales, GTA can only really be challenged by Pokémon and Mario versus other franchises. It had the potential to reach into the large PS2 market who hasn't gone for a next generation system yet. For everyone singing the praises of Halo 3 as a system seller, I think it's hard to over look how much larger GTA is and what it would mean to push consoles this holiday season.
Read my updated comments
.
Post by: nickmitch on August 02, 2007, 12:54:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Should I rename this thread to make it more easily identifiable as the GTAIV thread?
No, then the first posts wouldn't make sense.
Post by: Arbok on August 02, 2007, 12:57:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Read my updated comments
The answer is the same. The market leader, at this point, appears to be posed to be the Wii. Had GTA been released on all three, it would have been a non-factor in terms of console sales, but with the Wii missing it, and Halo 3 as a possible "side kick killer ap", Microsoft had the potential to move a lot of units this holiday season to stave off the Wii. That power has been greatly diminished now with GTA moved to 2008.
Post by: Mashiro on August 02, 2007, 01:04:17 PM
With that said, MS still has Halo 3 and while it may be lacking GTA IV for the holiday, you have to figure that Wii will be near impossible to get for the holidays. What's the alternative?
For players, PS3 really has absolutely nothing to offer for the holidays. Xbox will have Halo 3 and some other decent games coming out and with a smaller price point than the PS3 will probably default as the second system to get for the holidays (or even a back up system).
Not to say the lack of GTA will not hurt Xbox sales but I think out of all systems it's just another nail in the coffin for PS3.
Edit: To further this, PS3 will just have more issues with convincing developers to make games for their system as their share of the market keeps slipping away. As we go into 2008 Wii will pull away as the clear number one system and Sony will probably be left playing catch up for the rest of this gen.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 22, 2008, 01:10:30 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on April 22, 2008, 01:59:33 AM
Post by: DAaaMan64 on April 22, 2008, 02:14:59 AM
Post by: Maverick on April 22, 2008, 01:25:52 PM
Post by: Nick DiMola on April 23, 2008, 12:58:37 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 23, 2008, 04:18:32 PM
I really would like to pick this up, do any of the versions have support for mouse/keyboard? Having played all of the others on the PC, the thought of playing this game with a controller really doesn't sit well with me. Ultimately, if it doesn't support KB/M it will keep me from purchasing it.
Odd, I am the exact opposite, I cannot stand playing the game with a keyboard beyond aiming with the mouse.
Post by: Maverick on April 25, 2008, 08:03:31 PM
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/869/869381p1.html (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/869/869381p1.html)
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on April 25, 2008, 09:42:12 PM
Well, IGN just gave this game a perfect 10.
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/869/869381p1.html (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/869/869381p1.html)
IGN gave Jade Empire IIRC a 9.9 and we all knew how that one ended up to be. I don't know if it's me but I never had long lasting appeal for GTA.
Post by: ShyGuy on April 25, 2008, 10:21:49 PM
Post by: Mario on April 26, 2008, 01:53:40 AM
Quote
10 Lasting AppealOr maybe people who don't plow through the game in one day ticking boxes and making notes have a sense of wonder and like exploring. Awful, AWFUL review.
The story will take anywhere from 25-45 hours to complete, depending on your skill level and attention span.
Should be a great game though. Might pick up a cheap 360 in 5 years or so and check it out.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on April 26, 2008, 03:07:37 PM
It must suck if they are already done with the game. 7 page review? You have to be joking. Nobody is impressed.Quote10 Lasting AppealOr maybe people who don't plow through the game in one day ticking boxes and making notes have a sense of wonder and like exploring. Awful, AWFUL review.
The story will take anywhere from 25-45 hours to complete, depending on your skill level and attention span.
Should be a great game though. Might pick up a cheap 360 in 5 years or so and check it out.
Wouldn't it be feasible to pick up a PS3 five years down the line since Sony likes to support their systems with long life spans and MS just tossed out the original Xbox like a prom date reject in four years and moving on to the 360 without looking back at all. And when Nintendo and Sony had their first console systems (NES and PS1) in support for roughly 7 - 10 years.
Post by: Nick DiMola on April 26, 2008, 03:36:57 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 26, 2008, 05:58:21 PM
Post by: Kairon on April 26, 2008, 06:15:19 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 26, 2008, 06:31:38 PM
Fanboi reviews are the ones that give Smash Brawl a 10.
Uh huh, show me that 10 that IGN gave Smash Brawl. Or that gamestop review that gave it a 10, or heck any widely recognized publication that gave it a 10.
Post by: Kairon on April 26, 2008, 08:02:53 PM
Fanboi reviews are the ones that give Smash Brawl a 10.
Uh huh, show me that 10 that IGN gave Smash Brawl. Or that gamestop review that gave it a 10, or heck any widely recognized publication that gave it a 10.
Huh, really? Man, us fanbois are a dying breed.
But what about Zelda: TP? Surely some fanbois reviewed that right?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 27, 2008, 02:16:35 AM
Post by: Dirk Temporo on April 27, 2008, 05:46:33 PM
I've decided to hold off on getting this game till I get a PS3. The multiplayer seems like it could be fun and I really don't want to pay for Xbox Live to enjoy it.
Enjoy your gimped verson of the game.
EDIT:
Quote
Grand Theft Auto IV is the best game since Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.
IGN credibility: 0
Post by: BranDonk Kong on April 27, 2008, 05:52:27 PM
Post by: blackfootsteps on April 27, 2008, 08:33:30 PM
The Video review makes me want to play the game.
It also makes me want to pay $300 for the game... eh what?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 28, 2008, 03:36:38 AM
Post by: Nick DiMola on April 28, 2008, 09:29:05 AM
I've decided to hold off on getting this game till I get a PS3. The multiplayer seems like it could be fun and I really don't want to pay for Xbox Live to enjoy it.
Enjoy your gimped verson of the game.
EDIT:QuoteGrand Theft Auto IV is the best game since Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.
IGN credibility: 0
I've read that both versions are the same.
As to the Zelda comment, did IGN really say that? If so, I agree. I'm guessing this game isn't significantly different than the other GTA games, which would make these reviews so over stated it's disgusting, but I guess we'll see.
Post by: ShyGuy on April 29, 2008, 03:58:09 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 29, 2008, 11:23:24 AM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on April 29, 2008, 12:05:54 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 29, 2008, 12:22:47 PM
Gamespot is hilarious their original review they gave GTA a 9.5 but then they change the score to a 10.
Lol, seriously?
Post by: Caliban on April 29, 2008, 12:28:28 PM
So, is this game any good?
A friend of mine that likes this series, GTA3 is his favourite, was telling me this morning that the game is like like Jesus had come back and made this game however, after I watched a bunch of MasterbitHD vids from IGN it just seems like the same old game that GTA3 was which I never completed because I got bored with the missions. I just ain't getting any vibe from it. I do like the concept of Cops n Crooks in multiplayer from what I heard from podcasts, but from what my friend tells me is that it's not worth it because most anonymous people that will play with you are a bunch of retards and forget what they're supposed to do, so basically your best bet is to play multiplayer with your on line friends.
I'm probably going to pick up the game this afternoon if I can, and then I will add my own impressions to this thread.
Post by: ThePerm on April 29, 2008, 05:06:08 PM
Post by: DAaaMan64 on April 29, 2008, 08:46:05 PM
Okay I just watched and played this game for about 3 1/2 hours last night. So far, in terms of looks it looks just like a updated version of Liberty City. Now unfortunately I have some nit picks.
1. You can't stand on cars while they're moving for any extended period.
2. Seems like there are to many cops and the range you have to run away from them is very large, and how long it takes for them to get off your case seem to be forever. (This could change if I played more)
3. Cops shoot you A LOT. It results in death A LOT. (Could change)
4. You walk weird and sort of weird and floaty, gonna take some time to get used to.
5. If you "get busted" then resist you can get away but you have 2 starts, it's nice to be able to get away, but 2 stars a pain to get rid of.
6. The cops are UNMARKED on your radar. (Could change, but for now, super annoying considering how many cops there are.)
7. Free aiming seemed to be a pain in the ass get started.
8. The cars can STALL and not work any more more often then they will blow up. Totally annoying and unexpected.
9. This isn't a problem depending on who you are, but the environment has a very boring color pallet just like GTA3 did.
10. You have a sell phone, and people freaking bother you with it for missions all the time, even if your in the middle of a giant ass car chase. I don't like that. (This probably will change)
Anti-Nitpicks:
1. Insane graphics, absolutely great.
2. Cars drive pretty alright.
3. Got weapons quick.
4. Physics are wonderful.
But these are IMPRESSIONS AFTER ONLY 4 HOURS. So please be aware.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 30, 2008, 04:48:43 AM
Post by: Dasmos on April 30, 2008, 08:02:43 AM
"How many cities are there?"
"Uhhh just one, but it's huge!"
"Really? San Andreas had 3. I'd prefer more smaller ones than one big boring one."
"Let's steal a plane, that's my favourite thing to do."
"Uhhhh, you can't. You can fly a helicopter though."
"What? Helicopters are lame, this game is lame."
There were many more examples, it was fun seeing him get overly frustrated, but yeah it's an awesome game. Definitely would warrant a purchase down the track.
Post by: Nick DiMola on April 30, 2008, 08:27:05 AM
Post by: DAaaMan64 on April 30, 2008, 11:36:01 AM
It's easy for a game to get 10s when the rest of the platform's library is not up to par hur
If it is true that it is the exact same map pretty much as 3 than I am very surprised that it would get a ten. I mean it is pretty much a remake at that point.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 30, 2008, 11:45:08 AM
Post by: ThePerm on April 30, 2008, 01:03:30 PM
Post by: DAaaMan64 on April 30, 2008, 02:10:10 PM
Link (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/29/nega-review-grand-theft-auto-iv/)
I need to play this game, I can't believe it has a gotten a 10. It didn't seem like much when I played it yesterday. I hope it comes out for PC soon.
Will you guys on our forums that have it please keep us updated with your impressions? I'm curious what your opinion is. So far look at some of this stuff:
GTA4 is Gamespots 5th Perfect 10 ever, the prior 10s were: Chrono Cross, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Soul Calibur, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 (PlayStation 2)
Quote: "canada.com — Tuesday's release of Grand Theft Auto IV is expected to be so big, there's a real concern in Hollywood that the video game could dampen the box office for the May 2nd release of Iron Man."
Quote from a developer: "As a developer, I am crapping in my pants. The game seems so big and so vast and there are so many things you can do that it has not simply raised the bar as to what is expected in a AAA game, but it's taken the bar and hurled it into outer space."
And countless other things like that ALL over the internet. After playing and watching it for 4 hours I really don't feel that good about this game, but whatever.
It must be REALLY damn good.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on April 30, 2008, 02:28:36 PM
Gamespot is hilarious their original review they gave GTA a 9.5 but then they change the score to a 10.
Lol, seriously?
Yup and now they are trying to play it off as if it was a bug Source (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/30/gamespot-brief-9-5-for-gta-iv-was-a-bug/)
Post by: Nick DiMola on April 30, 2008, 02:46:05 PM
Post by: DAaaMan64 on April 30, 2008, 02:56:31 PM
With everything pointed out in that nega-review it is pretty clear that this game is not a perfect 10.
Well I have to play it, I mean it could be like No More Heroes where it has plenty of little problems but when you actually play the game it is so overwhelming awesome you let the score a little higher anyway.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 30, 2008, 03:25:11 PM
The framerate is erratic at times and the textures seem kind of blah, especially door textures which give no sense of realism to the buildings and look painted on, something I was hoping they would fix with this, perhaps even allowing you to enter more of the buildings, but instead it appears to be more of a step back in terms of that instead of a step forward.
So a perfect 10 seems quite far fetched so far for a game that basically a flashier GTA3. Though that does not mean it is a bad game by any means. I'll update my impressions as I get more time in it.
Post by: Nick DiMola on April 30, 2008, 03:32:31 PM
Well I played it for a couple of hours last night and have to say it is good but definitely not great, then again I haven't been able to play many of the missions because I've been exploring the town. It basically feels like GTA3 with a makeover and realistic physics (which are great). There is nothing really innovative about the game from what I've seen. The cop escape radius is stupid IMO, and it has some clunky jumping controls that sometimes make you try more than once to jump over something.
The framerate is erratic at times and the textures seem kind of blah, especially door textures which give no sense of realism to the buildings and look painted on, something I was hoping they would fix with this, perhaps even allowing you to enter more of the buildings, but instead it appears to be more of a step back in terms of that instead of a step forward.
So a perfect 10 seems quite far fetched so far for a game that basically a flashier GTA3. Though that does not mean it is a bad game by any means. I'll update my impressions as I get more time in it.
This is exactly the impression I got from reviews. Meh, I'll pass for now. Once I can find it used for about $5 like the others, I'll buy it up.
Post by: DAaaMan64 on April 30, 2008, 03:33:28 PM
Post by: Dirk Temporo on April 30, 2008, 05:36:06 PM
1. You can't stand on cars while they're moving for any extended period.
You can't in real life either.
Quote
2. Seems like there are to many cops and the range you have to run away from them is very large, and how long it takes for them to get off your case seem to be forever. (This could change if I played more)
WHAT. COPS ACTUALLY CHASE YOU?
Quote
3. Cops shoot you A LOT. It results in death A LOT. (Could change)
Suck less.
Quote
4. You walk weird and sort of weird and floaty, gonna take some time to get used to.
I don't even know wtf that means. Niko walks perfectly normal.
Quote
5. If you "get busted" then resist you can get away but you have 2 starts, it's nice to be able to get away, but 2 stars a pain to get rid of.
So they FINALLY give you an option to resist arrest, and you COMPLAIN ABOUT IT?
Quote
6. The cops are UNMARKED on your radar. (Could change, but for now, super annoying considering how many cops there are.)
Why should they be marked on your radar? It's ridiculous enough that they're marked when you have a wanted level.
Quote
7. Free aiming seemed to be a pain in the ass get started.
Free aiming works MUCH better than it did in SA.
Quote
8. The cars can STALL and not work any more more often then they will blow up. Totally annoying and unexpected.
As with the arrest, they finally give an alternative to a car billowing out smoke and flames then exploding, thus taking you and everyone in a twenty foot radius with it (which probably killed me more than anything else in the other games), AND YOU'RE COMPLAINING?
Quote
10. You have a sell phone, and people freaking bother you with it for missions all the time, even if your in the middle of a giant ass car chase. I don't like that.
So... Don't answer your phone. Problem solved.
PS: Haha. Mr. Jack thinks he'll be able to find this used for $5 when games that came out at the 360 launch are still $60.
Post by: Bill Aurion on April 30, 2008, 05:42:48 PM
Definitely not a 10 so far, but I'll have more time to put into it this weekend...
Post by: DAaaMan64 on April 30, 2008, 05:44:12 PM
2. They didn't take that much work to get away from. See #1
3. "Playing" with the cops was fun. See #1
4. He doesn't run or move like in past GTAs, it feels like you have less control over him. I ask GP to say what she thinks about this.
5. Considering how often the cops come out to play, this seems much more annoying then before.
6. See #1 There are tons of cops walking and driving around, all the time is this one so far. It's annoying.
7. That maybe true, last one I played was Vice City.
8. Because the cars die sooner! I don't want to accidentally hit a wall and then not realize my car died! I'd rather it went on fire! Very annoying to have this happen when your running from someone.
10. Cause it's fricking annoying to harassed with "meet Roman at the Pool hall" crap when your just trying to goof off.
Please stop being so rude about this, I distinctly stated impressions after only FOUR HOURS.
Post by: DAaaMan64 on April 30, 2008, 05:44:46 PM
The controls are pretty awful, especially in combat...Missions have been okay, and the humor is still really good...
Definitely not a 10 so far, but I'll have more time to put into it this weekend...
Bill remember to lock on to people when fighting, we didn't realize that for a while.
Post by: Bill Aurion on April 30, 2008, 05:50:58 PM
The one thing I forgot to mention that irritates me the most are the camera options while driving...Why did they decide to stick the camera DIRECTLY BEHIND the car? It makes it very hard to tell what the hell is in front of you...So I find that as I drive around I try to raise the camera a bit manually, but that just doesn't work out too well in a car chase... =/
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 30, 2008, 08:51:34 PM
You know what I would compare this game to? GTA3, Madden, Wrestling Games, The Sims 2, and Burnout. What the heck do these all have in common? Well the first game on a new system (or a sequel) feel incomplete, like they were more concerned about building a foundation to milk the franchise every year or two. Unlike, let's say, a Bioshock, Mario, or Zelda which feel like complete games where not much could be added to them and that the next game will be a full fledged sequel 3 or 4 years down the line. When games like Godfather had more interaction with buildings than GTA4, this feeling is emphasized 10 fold. The game even took a step back when it came to expanding the full map, San Andreas had a HUGE map complete with woods and cities.
Post by: Bill Aurion on April 30, 2008, 09:03:26 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 30, 2008, 09:22:47 PM
Somehow I just got arrested for being a cab passenger... :cool;
LOL. One thing I like about GTA4 is that the civilians act more realistic, and are kind of fun to fool around with.
Post by: Caliban on May 01, 2008, 03:15:04 PM
One thing I will tell anyone is to start playing this game with either none, or negative expectations. I did.
It's not the greatest game to come out this year, but I am impressed with a few details. I'm liking the story so far, so I'm not going to deviate myself into a path of anarchy just yet, I will leave that for mulitplayer.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 01, 2008, 04:09:55 PM
I got the game today. I have played for a couple of hours or so.
One thing I will tell anyone is to start playing this game with either none, or negative expectations. I did.
It's not the greatest game to come out this year, but I am impressed with a few details. I'm liking the story so far, so I'm not going to deviate myself into a path of anarchy just yet, I will leave that for mulitplayer.
I think you are right, I do NOT believe it is a bad game at all. It is quite good, perfect 10? Not a chance, but good. It does have neat little visual details, and the story is quite solid (like most GTA games).
Post by: Maverick on May 01, 2008, 04:53:12 PM
I heard that there are no planes to fly in this one, though. That makes me a very sad panda. :(
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 01, 2008, 06:11:23 PM
Just got this last night, but so far I'm finding myself liking San Andreas more. Then again I'm only like, five hours into the game, so that could very well change.
I heard that there are no planes to fly in this one, though. That makes me a very sad panda. :(
That is what I was talking about in regards to the game feeling like a foundation game to build off of like GTA3 was. In some ways it is a step BACK from San Andreas when it comes to exploration, I LOVED the open area and woods in it and Liberty City in GTA4 feels cramped.
Post by: DAaaMan64 on May 01, 2008, 06:17:41 PM
Post by: Maverick on May 01, 2008, 06:42:13 PM
That is what I was talking about in regards to the game feeling like a foundation game to build off of like GTA3 was. In some ways it is a step BACK from San Andreas when it comes to exploration, I LOVED the open area and woods in it and Liberty City in GTA4 feels cramped.
Yeah that's what it's feeling like to me too. It's like when The Sims 2 was released, instead of incorporating all of the features present in the expansion packs to Sims 1 like they should have, they repeated the formula for da monies and released near identical expansion packs for the second one. Now I'm fully expecting them to do the same thing with 3.
This is inexcusable to me for a GTA game. I was under the impression that Liberty City in GTA IV was going to be the size of San Andreas or bigger, when taking into account actual content and things to do. It feels like a denser GTA 3 so far, and it seems they have purposely stripped advancements made in Vice City and San Andreas out of the game.
I'm still enjoying it, mind you. I'm just disappointed.
Post by: Caliban on May 01, 2008, 11:17:00 PM
... and the story is quite solid (like most GTA games).Like most GTA games? Hmm, well I would have to disagree with you on that point.
From the two GTA games that I played: GTA3, GTA Vice City. Both games of which I could not complete the main story because I fell into boredom, and I think the only thing that's keeping me playing GTA IV is the great voice acting and animations that come with the story cinematics.
There is one event which I've experienced in this game that I would have liked to have seen expanded onto other non-mission situations. In Mass Effect you could choose either verbal or physical actions during, or when the conversation was done, and in GTA IV there is a similar situation where you get to choose between life and death. I know that you can just run over people at your own will, except this situation is part of the story, and what I would like to see is this kind of choice applied to the conversations that Niko has with the main and secondary characters. I think it would give this game an even greater sense of freedom.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on May 02, 2008, 08:03:16 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 02, 2008, 08:08:35 PM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on May 02, 2008, 08:21:42 PM
Well I would say it is better than GTA3 and MAYBE VC, but it took a few steps back from GTA SA. It is really a next-generation version of GTA3 completely with better AI, better physics, better graphics (More technical than real changes to the gameplay).
I actually wasn't that fond of SA(played it a few times over friends), I heard that it isn't as big because they didn't want a lot of "empty space". Does GTA4 have the "RPG system" from SA where you build up your skills? BTW how is the online multiplayer?
Post by: Maverick on May 02, 2008, 08:32:53 PM
I heard that it isn't as big because they didn't want a lot of "empty space".
I assume you're talking about GTA IV right here, saying it's not as big as San Andreas. This is true, and one of the things I find myself missing the most is that empty space. I feel so cramped all throughout the map that I have unlocked so far. Perhaps that was the goal, however.
Quote
Does GTA4 have the "RPG system" from SA where you build up your skills?
As far as I can tell so far in the game, no.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on May 02, 2008, 08:38:11 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 02, 2008, 08:43:15 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 02, 2008, 09:45:48 PM
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 03, 2008, 11:08:58 PM
If you don't play this game an instantly realize that it is, by far, the best GTA game to date, then you have some sort of grudge.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 03, 2008, 11:11:37 PM
All of Nico's friends are a bunch of women... =(
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 04, 2008, 03:47:30 AM
I think GP just has his panties in a bunch about something.
If you don't play this game an instantly realize that it is, by far, the best GTA game to date, then you have some sort of grudge.
Please get the gender right next time.
I think I laid out perfectly why I felt it was a step back from previous games in the series and previous "clones" in the genre. But what am I doing responding to anything you say? You hardly ever have anything constructive to say. You are obviously a fan(boi?) of the series, and maybe some day you'll realize that some of us may not be taken in by the awe of a new GTA game. If you wish to debate points that I and others have made regarding "steps backs", go right ahead, that would be constructive unlike this stupid gushing post. I would think that after buying EVERY GTA game since GTA3 would give me the right to criticize whatever I want and show that I must not have a huge thing against the series.
To make it easy here is where I thought the series took steps back:
1. Escaping police is much more tedious
2. Less building interaction
3. Less ground to explore (I'm sorry but I like to feel free in sandbox games, which is why I have a soft spot for GTA SA. This is in itself is a reason to prefer aspects of San Andreas to GTAIV)
4. Some vehicles have been cut like the airplane (Probably will be in the next game)
5. Not really related to previous GTA games, but where is progress in character customization? There aren't even exercise related customization. Pathetic in my opinion especially when games like Saints Row will let you, gasp, actually be a woman! Amazing, some companies are actually getting over their sexist portrayal of women.
Some things that have not been fixed from previous GTA games:
1. Clipping
2. Slowdown
3. Sluggish controls, sometimes leaping over walls can be imprecise in the game recognizing what you attempted to do
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 04, 2008, 09:40:33 AM
"1. Escaping police is much more tedious"
I actually feel that outrunning the police is much more realistic and fun now that you actually have an idea of where and how to escape...
"5. Not really related to previous GTA games, but where is progress in character customization? There aren't even exercise related customization. Pathetic in my opinion especially when games like Saints Row will let you, gasp, actually be a woman! Amazing, some companies are actually getting over their sexist portrayal of women."
First, about exercise, as long as the game didn't force you to do it (bah, San Andreas)...Second, it's a lot harder to have character customization in a game with a story that is entirely focused on a specific character with a specific background (and gender)...Saint's Row's story is as generic as you can get in that respect, so they had a lot more freedom in character customization...(And personally I'd rather have a deep character than having the ability to change what my character looks like...)
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 04, 2008, 04:14:34 PM
Quote
Second, it's a lot harder to have character customization in a game with a story that is entirely focused on a specific character with a specific background (and gender)...Saint's Row's story is as generic as you can get in that respect, so they had a lot more freedom in character customization...(And personally I'd rather have a deep character than having the ability to change what my character looks like...)
Mass Effect did this perfectly, it just takes some effort and, um, talent. But knowing Rockstar, perhaps the most sexist developer around, you will NEVER have a female protagonist.
Quote
I actually feel that outrunning the police is much more realistic and fun now that you actually have an idea of where and how to escape...
Because we all know when you are escaping the police you just need to get out of a grid :). I prefer the old method, and maybe I'm mistaken but it appears MUCH harder to get away from the police now because they are all over.
Post by: DAaaMan64 on May 04, 2008, 07:31:49 PM
QuoteI actually feel that outrunning the police is much more realistic and fun now that you actually have an idea of where and how to escape...
Because we all know when you are escaping the police you just need to get out of a grid :). I prefer the old method, and maybe I'm mistaken but it appears MUCH harder to get away from the police now because they are all over.
QFT, I hate spending so much time trying to figure out whether I'm going to get seen by a cop or how to get away from the cops. Seems like it happens to often when I much more enjoy just running around and messing with stuff.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 04, 2008, 08:37:02 PM
On another note, I finally beat the game, and I'm not happy...First, they killed off the Irish girl...That's just not right...Second, the game is basically a giant cliffhanger...So many loose ends it's not even funny, and the game left me feeling empty, which was the point, I guess, but it still pisses me off and I hate endings like that... =\
Post by: DAaaMan64 on May 04, 2008, 09:58:06 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why you two like the old system more, which involved nothing but luck in hoping your stars would go away (or finding a star, which was pretty stupid...) And outrunning two-stars, much less one-star is incredibly easy to do, so eh... =)
Shouldn't be too difficult to understand Bill. I liked how the cops locations were marked on my radar at all times and I thought it was totally easier to get away. And there were less cops, leaving me to go about my crazy antics to random people.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 04, 2008, 10:34:24 PM
(If it bothers you that much, just look up the phone number "Lower Wanted Level" cheat on GameFaqs...)
Post by: DAaaMan64 on May 04, 2008, 10:41:16 PM
Well that should teach you not to do crazy antics to random people... :cool;
(If it bothers you that much, just look up the phone number "Lower Wanted Level" cheat on GameFaqs...)
I would too. haha :) But again this is from impressions of about 10 hours now, I don't actually own the game.
Post by: Maverick on May 05, 2008, 02:31:39 AM
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, though.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 05, 2008, 04:15:49 AM
GP, I don't understand where you're coming from with the *gasp I can't make Niko a woman" comments. I understand if you prefer that kind of customization, but I myself have always enjoyed a specific character with a specific background rather than a "create-a-character" that fits into the story.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, though.
Not if you are actually creative, it is quite possible to shift elements of a story to fit a gender of a character maybe even their background. Think of it as a multi-branching story that is somewhat different depending on the character you create, something like a Mass Effect which tailors elements to the character creation without making it feel like "A character that fits into the story". Sandbox style games are about role play as much as they are about the environment you explore, at least that is how I perceive them, character customization needs to expand not diminish. Yeah it may take some more work to integrate the customization into a story that actually revolves around that character, and personally I'm not sure Rockstar has the creativity to do so, but it is something to strive for. At least GTA's competition is trying to do that stuff, but Rockstar seems to be stuck.
Rockstar is so proud of their pushing boundaries, why not at least push some boundaries with a female protagonist. If they are so dead set against taking the time to make an integrated create a character why not really go into new territory with the gender of their character. They probably won't though, they seem more than happy to make females into prostitutes with hardly any strong females.
Post by: Kairon on May 05, 2008, 04:38:21 AM
GP, I don't understand where you're coming from with the *gasp I can't make Niko a woman" comments. I understand if you prefer that kind of customization, but I myself have always enjoyed a specific character with a specific background rather than a "create-a-character" that fits into the story.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, though.
Not if you are actually creative, it is quite possible to shift elements of a story to fit a gender of a character maybe even their background. Think of it as a multi-branching story that is somewhat different depending on the character you create, something like a Mass Effect which tailors elements to the character creation without making it feel like "A character that fits into the story". Sandbox style games are about role play as much as they are about the environment you explore, at least that is how I perceive them, character customization needs to expand not diminish. Yeah it may take some more work to integrate the customization into a story that actually revolves around that character, and personally I'm not sure Rockstar has the creativity to do so, but it is something to strive for. At least GTA's competition is trying to do that stuff, but Rockstar seems to be stuck.
Rockstar is so proud of their pushing boundaries, why not at least push some boundaries with a female protagonist. If they are so dead set against taking the time to make an integrated create a character why not really go into new territory with the gender of their character. They probably won't though, they seem more than happy to make females into prostitutes with hardly any strong females.
I'm sorry to go against you here GP, but Rockstar is NOT making Mass Effect. They're making seedy underworld crime movies. And the movie they're making, in the form of a videogame, very specifically calls for a male protagonist.
What we have to realize is that Rockstar isn't really making a sand-box game. They're making a game recreation of these types of movies, within the confines of the sandbox genre. The only reason it's sandbox isn't because that's the boundary that Rockstar wants to push, but because American/Western gaming sensibilities emphasize freedom of choice and action, and deep full-scale simulations, over tightly wound gameplay threads.
The only thing that Rockstar wants to do is make games that are as close as possible to underworld crime movies... and a lot of those don't have female protagonists, nor do they offer the open-endedness that would accept a feminine character. I'm not a fan of that movie genre much, but it seems to me to be a very structured genre, a very narrated one, and one in which traditional and possibly misogynistic gender roles are very important and very prevalent.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on May 05, 2008, 11:40:03 AM
I think Rockstar likes to make games that give them "attention whore" status because they do something controversial. I remember GTA:VC had controversy because it had the racist blurb of "Kill the Hatians", SA had the whole hot coffee fiasco.
I think the main difference between GTA and Saints Row is that in GTA it centers around one person's story about making it big and Saints Row centers around a whole gang trying to gain control of all the turf in the city,so I think thats why Volition added in a male/female character creation feature because in Saints Row all your playing as in the beginning is just a Gang Member.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 05, 2008, 11:59:36 AM
I think Rockstar likes to make games that give them "attention whore" status because they do something controversial. I remember GTA:VC had controversy because it had the racist blurb of "Kill the Hatians", SA had the whole hot coffee fiasco.
While I do agree that was the case with the last games, GTAIV is quite a bit deeper than that...(For once the main character isn't a knob, and he's actually a good guy deep down...)
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 05, 2008, 12:01:55 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 05, 2008, 12:28:18 PM
GP, I don't understand where you're coming from with the *gasp I can't make Niko a woman" comments. I understand if you prefer that kind of customization, but I myself have always enjoyed a specific character with a specific background rather than a "create-a-character" that fits into the story.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, though.
Not if you are actually creative, it is quite possible to shift elements of a story to fit a gender of a character maybe even their background. Think of it as a multi-branching story that is somewhat different depending on the character you create, something like a Mass Effect which tailors elements to the character creation without making it feel like "A character that fits into the story". Sandbox style games are about role play as much as they are about the environment you explore, at least that is how I perceive them, character customization needs to expand not diminish. Yeah it may take some more work to integrate the customization into a story that actually revolves around that character, and personally I'm not sure Rockstar has the creativity to do so, but it is something to strive for. At least GTA's competition is trying to do that stuff, but Rockstar seems to be stuck.
Rockstar is so proud of their pushing boundaries, why not at least push some boundaries with a female protagonist. If they are so dead set against taking the time to make an integrated create a character why not really go into new territory with the gender of their character. They probably won't though, they seem more than happy to make females into prostitutes with hardly any strong females.
I'm sorry to go against you here GP, but Rockstar is NOT making Mass Effect. They're making seedy underworld crime movies. And the movie they're making, in the form of a videogame, very specifically calls for a male protagonist.
What we have to realize is that Rockstar isn't really making a sand-box game. They're making a game recreation of these types of movies, within the confines of the sandbox genre. The only reason it's sandbox isn't because that's the boundary that Rockstar wants to push, but because American/Western gaming sensibilities emphasize freedom of choice and action, and deep full-scale simulations, over tightly wound gameplay threads.
The only thing that Rockstar wants to do is make games that are as close as possible to underworld crime movies... and a lot of those don't have female protagonists, nor do they offer the open-endedness that would accept a feminine character. I'm not a fan of that movie genre much, but it seems to me to be a very structured genre, a very narrated one, and one in which traditional and possibly misogynistic gender roles are very important and very prevalent.
Good excuse to not expand their gameplay. Very convenient way to skip out on expanding the plot. I used Mass Effect as an example of how you can expand plots with different characters without sacrificing story. You give Rockstar far too much credit for a game that is meant to be a sandbox game that is tied together with a plot. The game is NOT structured, if it was events would occur with or without you getting to the next checkpoint to activate a mission to push the plot along. The odd thing is that I've seen a few of these crime movies and not a whole lot of them have the protagonist driving around to pick up hookers to help him recover from his injuries and then have the protagonist kill them. Some of these crime movies do actually have strong female leads as well which are absent in Rockstar games, sot hat point is suspect.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 05, 2008, 12:28:52 PM
I think Rockstar likes to make games that give them "attention whore" status because they do something controversial. I remember GTA:VC had controversy because it had the racist blurb of "Kill the Hatians", SA had the whole hot coffee fiasco.
While I do agree that was the case with the last games, GTAIV is quite a bit deeper than that...(For once the main character isn't a knob, and he's actually a good guy deep down...)
Good guys kill hookers. To be serious this is a problem I have with most of these Sandbox games that fans argue as being this "cohesive" story, and I think it is fair to be especially harsh with Rockstar because they started the genre and should be able to advance it. In Rockstar's games you can put the Green River Killer to shame, but the basic story is "Oh he really isn't a bad guy", it is like you are living two totally disconnected plots. To be fair at least Rockstar advanced this a bit with some missions on going on killing sprees, but it is still extremely flawed for a game that individuals like Kairon argue is a "crime movie".
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on May 05, 2008, 12:33:45 PM
I think Rockstar likes to make games that give them "attention whore" status because they do something controversial. I remember GTA:VC had controversy because it had the racist blurb of "Kill the Hatians", SA had the whole hot coffee fiasco.
While I do agree that was the case with the last games, GTAIV is quite a bit deeper than that...(For once the main character isn't a knob, and he's actually a good guy deep down...)
Good guys kill hookers.
Because we all know that good guys have pent up anger so they have to take it out on the ladies of the night ;).
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 05, 2008, 01:07:26 PM
Good guys kill hookers. To be serious this is a problem I have with most of these Sandbox games that fans argue as being this "cohesive" story, and I think it is fair to be especially harsh with Rockstar because they started the genre and should be able to advance it. In Rockstar's games you can put the Green River Killer to shame, but the basic story is "Oh he really isn't a bad guy", it is like you are living two totally disconnected plots. To be fair at least Rockstar advanced this a bit with some missions on going on killing sprees, but it is still extremely flawed for a game that individuals like Kairon argue is a "crime movie".
That is, of course, the limit of having a lot of freedom...The way I play the game involves me trying to involve as few innocents as possible...Unless I'm jacking their car... ='D
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on May 05, 2008, 02:07:59 PM
Good guys kill hookers. To be serious this is a problem I have with most of these Sandbox games that fans argue as being this "cohesive" story, and I think it is fair to be especially harsh with Rockstar because they started the genre and should be able to advance it. In Rockstar's games you can put the Green River Killer to shame, but the basic story is "Oh he really isn't a bad guy", it is like you are living two totally disconnected plots. To be fair at least Rockstar advanced this a bit with some missions on going on killing sprees, but it is still extremely flawed for a game that individuals like Kairon argue is a "crime movie".
That is, of course, the limit of having a lot of freedom...The way I play the game involves me trying to involve as few innocents as possible...Unless I'm jacking their car... ='D
Bill Honest thief Robin Hood confirmed!
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 05, 2008, 03:02:39 PM
Good guys kill hookers. To be serious this is a problem I have with most of these Sandbox games that fans argue as being this "cohesive" story, and I think it is fair to be especially harsh with Rockstar because they started the genre and should be able to advance it. In Rockstar's games you can put the Green River Killer to shame, but the basic story is "Oh he really isn't a bad guy", it is like you are living two totally disconnected plots. To be fair at least Rockstar advanced this a bit with some missions on going on killing sprees, but it is still extremely flawed for a game that individuals like Kairon argue is a "crime movie".
That is, of course, the limit of having a lot of freedom...The way I play the game involves me trying to involve as few innocents as possible...Unless I'm jacking their car... ='D
Then again it is possible to integrate consequences in your actions that may even affect the flow of the story. But I am happy you aren't pro-killing innocent people :P.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 05, 2008, 05:10:39 PM
1. Escaping police is much more tedious
Which is an improvement.
Quote
2. Less building interaction
what
Quote
3. Less ground to explore (I'm sorry but I like to feel free in sandbox games, which is why I have a soft spot for GTA SA. This is in itself is a reason to prefer aspects of San Andreas to GTAIV)
Fun fact: New York City isn't as big and open as California.
Quote
4. Some vehicles have been cut like the airplane (Probably will be in the next game)
Oh noes. They cut vehicles which would be completely useless. :(
Quote
5. Not really related to previous GTA games, but where is progress in character customization?
Rockstar has commented on that several times.
Quote
There aren't even exercise related customization.
Because it was f**king stupid.
Quote
Pathetic in my opinion especially when games like Saints Row will let you, gasp, actually be a woman! Amazing, some companies are actually getting over their sexist portrayal of women.
Not portraying women as gangbangers is not "sexist." Women make up a miniscule, almost non-existent, portion of organized crime. The women that ARE involved in organized crime are almost always drug dealers, and nothing more.
Post by: Kairon on May 05, 2008, 05:31:30 PM
Good excuse to not expand their gameplay. Very convenient way to skip out on expanding the plot. I used Mass Effect as an example of how you can expand plots with different characters without sacrificing story. You give Rockstar far too much credit for a game that is meant to be a sandbox game that is tied together with a plot. The game is NOT structured, if it was events would occur with or without you getting to the next checkpoint to activate a mission to push the plot along. The odd thing is that I've seen a few of these crime movies and not a whole lot of them have the protagonist driving around to pick up hookers to help him recover from his injuries and then have the protagonist kill them. Some of these crime movies do actually have strong female leads as well which are absent in Rockstar games, sot hat point is suspect.
What movies? I'd be happy to put them on my netflix!
But yeah, perhaps Rockstar is at fault here, but not because they're reluctant to advance the genre or anything like that. Instead, I think they've come smack up against the problems of trying to push both for cinematic gaming... and decidedly uncinematic freedom. Both are directions that western game development is chasing, and both are highly incompatible.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 05, 2008, 07:04:11 PM
1. Escaping police is much more tedious
Which is an improvement.Quote2. Less building interaction
whatQuote3. Less ground to explore (I'm sorry but I like to feel free in sandbox games, which is why I have a soft spot for GTA SA. This is in itself is a reason to prefer aspects of San Andreas to GTAIV)
Fun fact: New York City isn't as big and open as California.Quote4. Some vehicles have been cut like the airplane (Probably will be in the next game)
Oh noes. They cut vehicles which would be completely useless. :(Quote5. Not really related to previous GTA games, but where is progress in character customization?
Rockstar has commented on that several times.QuoteThere aren't even exercise related customization.
Because it was f**king stupid.QuotePathetic in my opinion especially when games like Saints Row will let you, gasp, actually be a woman! Amazing, some companies are actually getting over their sexist portrayal of women.
Not portraying women as gangbangers is not "sexist." Women make up a miniscule, almost non-existent, portion of organized crime. The women that ARE involved in organized crime are almost always drug dealers, and nothing more.
Good for you, you like the tedious and annoying cop escape "radius" game, I do not. Building interaction is referring to being able to go into more buildings instead of GTA's painted doors.
Fun Fact: There is no reason to limit it to Liberty City AGAIN, the genre is moving past a cramped city. It worked for GTA3 but it is outdated for a series that expanded that.
Exercise: Your opinion, it was a step in the right direction and could have been fine tuned.
Women: Because GTA is a great realism simulator right? We all know most women are hookers right? The sexist stereotypes are borderline sickening in GTA games and don't even come close to replicating anything in reality so why not get their "Creative" juices going and try a female gangster working her way up, could make for a unique story.
Crime Movies with strong female characters (I know I'm forgetting some):
-The Godfather movies had some secondary but strong women (probably the king crime movie)
-Scarface (The original 30s film)
Those are two right there. Guess it depends what you consider a "crime" movie. Does Kill Bill count? ROFL.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 05, 2008, 08:04:38 PM
(Hint: There's a rather solid and realistic gang family woman later on...)
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 05, 2008, 08:51:40 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 05, 2008, 09:06:51 PM
I think you should finish the game first before continuing on about Rockstar's classic stereotypes...Just a heads-up... =)
(Hint: There's a rather solid and realistic gang family woman later on...)
I read about that, mainly mixed views on her. I'll see when I get the time to play more of the game which is going to be tough with Boom Blox! Let me be clear even though I have some problems with GTAIV I still think it is a good to great game, there are just areas that I find disappointing.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 06, 2008, 04:48:04 PM
Good for you, you like the tedious and annoying cop escape "radius" game, I do not. Building interaction is referring to being able to go into more buildings instead of GTA's painted doors.
It's easier to escape your wanted level in GTA 4.. Two and three starts were stupidly difficult to escape before, whereas four+ was completely impossible without a Pay'n'Spray. So I still fail to see what you're complaining about. Also, you can go into more buildings in this game than in SA, not counting safehouses.
Quote
Fun Fact: There is no reason to limit it to Liberty City AGAIN, the genre is moving past a cramped city. It worked for GTA3 but it is outdated for a series that expanded that.
The city has THREE TIMES THE LAND MASS of GTA 3. That means if you took every island in GTA 3, and put it all together, it would make up ONE of the islands in GTA 4. That is not, in any way, "limiting" Liberty City.
Quote
it was a step in the right direction and could have been fine tuned.
Your opinion. (Teehee. See what I did there?)
Quote
We all know most women are hookers right? The sexist stereotypes are borderline sickening in GTA games and don't even come close to replicating anything in reality so why not get their "Creative" juices going and try a female gangster working her way up, could make for a unique story.
The entire GTA series is based on stereotypes, satire, and generally making fun of everyone. Women don't get special treatment.
Also, a GTA game with a woman as a main character would be COMPLETELY different than one with a male main character. It's not like Metroid or Perfect Dark where the character being a woman doesn't mean anything. If they didn't design two completely different storylines, one for male, one for female, LOTS of people would be pissed. There's no reason they should have to spend the time and effort on that just to appeal to the 2% of gamers who even care.
I know women who play GTA, and none of them are as BAWWWWWWWW as you.
Post by: Kairon on May 06, 2008, 08:26:37 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 06, 2008, 11:03:32 PM
Yeah, it may be that Rockstar is writing an experience deliberately focused at a... male-dominated audience. Umm... which makes me feel real dumb for discovering something that's seemingly apparent.
So I guess Rockstar isn't for pushing boundaries right? Just boundaries that involve shock value. How surprising.
Since I don't think Dirk deserves much response:
-City is still cramped (My whole point, not how "big" the city's land mass is compared to GTA3
-You must have played a different game than me in regards to the cops
-Building interaction: see Godfather
-Women are shown and treated like crap for the most part in the series, the male characters are not so overwhelmingly shown like this. Obviously you didn't read my points in how this could be accomplished and that maybe they could have a female lead for once.
Post by: KnowsNothing on May 06, 2008, 11:18:09 PM
Anyway, it's alright, I guess. Only a couple hours in so obviously the missions are boring, but even keeping that in mind everything just seems underwhelming to me. It's my first GTA game ever, too. Perhaps this just isn't my type of game.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 06, 2008, 11:26:32 PM
So I went ahead and bought this game. It's okay. I kind of wish I waited for a PC version since it seems like the kind of game I'll just go mess around in every once in a while and I won't be able to do that next year when I go to school...
Anyway, it's alright, I guess. Only a couple hours in so obviously the missions are boring, but even keeping that in mind everything just seems underwhelming to me. It's my first GTA game ever, too. Perhaps this just isn't my type of game.
Wow. Have you played any previous "sandbox" games like Godfather, Scarface, or Saint's Row?
Post by: Kairon on May 06, 2008, 11:34:20 PM
Yeah, it may be that Rockstar is writing an experience deliberately focused at a... male-dominated audience. Umm... which makes me feel real dumb for discovering something that's seemingly apparent.
So I guess Rockstar isn't for pushing boundaries right? Just boundaries that involve shock value. How surprising.
Not so much any shock value. The only shock value that Rockstar is pursuing in GTA games is the shock value their cinematic sources are. Anything else is beyond their attention.
You may accuse me of cutting Rockstar slack all you want. I only accuse them of chasing a vision.
Post by: blackfootsteps on May 07, 2008, 12:39:42 AM
Post by: DAaaMan64 on May 07, 2008, 12:47:20 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 07, 2008, 03:59:59 AM
Yeah, it may be that Rockstar is writing an experience deliberately focused at a... male-dominated audience. Umm... which makes me feel real dumb for discovering something that's seemingly apparent.
So I guess Rockstar isn't for pushing boundaries right? Just boundaries that involve shock value. How surprising.
Not so much any shock value. The only shock value that Rockstar is pursuing in GTA games is the shock value their cinematic sources are. Anything else is beyond their attention.
You may accuse me of cutting Rockstar slack all you want. I only accuse them of chasing a vision.
Wow, do you honestly think Rockstar isn't going for shock value with many of the elements in their GTA games? Rockstar has built a reputation on pushing boundaries in gaming, and not "cinematic" boundaries. How many cinematic sources have the protagonist murdering cops, killing hookers, and hijacking cars by the butt load and running over civilians. Even some of the most brutal crime movies like Scarface didn't go near the levels that the GTA series has went. I hate to say this, but I really don't think you know what you are talking about Kairon. Hate to sound rude but your argument makes zero sense. Rockstar is proud of pushing what is tasteful in gaming, just look at the hoopla over Manhunt 2, most of that game was built around shock value. It is like saying Midway wasn't going for shock value in the Mortal Kombat games, but were trying to achieve some cinematic experience.
It is almost ridiculous that you defend someone like Rockstar for their "cinematic" experience yet the GTA world is really disconnected from the main "mission" or "cinematic" aspect of it. Yeah it includes elements of the city, but overall your actions in the world around you have ZERO impact on the main story. Funny I recall you saying Zelda: TP was disconnected yet you defend one of the most disconnected games around. If Rockstar had such a need to replicate or show homage to these crime movies, the best way to attain that would be through a structured game, that is if their only concern was as you say "shock value their cinematic sources have", then they would be much more straightforward. Obviously this was not their main concern, or they wouldn't take time putting together an open-world where you can do totally contradictory things to the "cinema".
Let's not forget the GTA series was founded on being controversial, you were basically a criminal doing criminal things and you could run over people. In fact when it first came out the main draw to the game was this sort of "shocking" things, more so than the game itself which was average at best. Heck much of the fan base would probably admit much of the content in the GTA series is merely for the "cool" or "shock" value rather than cinematic. You don't hear them say "Hey me driving that Hooker off the bridge to drown reminds me SOOOO much of Scarface", or "Hey murdering that homeless man reminds me of this one scene in the Godfather where the protagonist murders that begger"
Regardless, at least these "creative" people have GTA to release every few years, because their genius doesn't translate to much else besides creating controversial games that suck when you strip it out of them.
Post by: blackfootsteps on May 07, 2008, 04:25:55 AM
Dare I say the annoying cops make it feel like less of a sandbox game then it should.
Yep, which sucks for someone like me. I can't resist pushing / smacking innocents especially when they either a) get in my way or b) say something as I'm running past. This culminated in me accidentally stabbing Roman and then not being able to pick him up from the hospital coz I was evading the fuzz.
Post by: DAaaMan64 on May 07, 2008, 04:28:20 AM
Dare I say the annoying cops make it feel like less of a sandbox game then it should.
Yep, which sucks for someone like me. I can't resist pushing / smacking innocents especially when they either a) get in my way or b) say something as I'm running past. This culminated in me accidentally stabbing Roman and then not being able to pick him up from the hospital coz I was evading the fuzz.
QFT. There is still fun to be had, but my heart cannot express itself as fully.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 07, 2008, 04:35:29 AM
Post by: oohhboy on May 07, 2008, 05:21:31 AM
When I played it I pretty much ignored the main plot. I was way too busy finding the next bug or idiot moment. I mean load up a hummer full of home boys and drive into a gang war. Absolute frame rate killing mayhem. Also RPGing helos. Satire at it's finest.
Post by: Kairon on May 07, 2008, 07:37:07 AM
If Rockstar had such a need to replicate or show homage to these crime movies, the best way to attain that would be through a structured game, that is if their only concern was as you say "shock value their cinematic sources have", then they would be much more straightforward.
I agree. That's why in an earlier post, though not the one you quote, I point out that Rockstar is stuck between two possible contradictory ideals: the cinematic experience, and the simulation sandbox experience. I see both as results of western game tastes: the desires to replicate big-screen spectacles... but also leverage simulation technology to create "un-cinematic" virtual reality freedom. This contrast is what leads to the possible disconnect behind the story drive in most free-roaming sandbox games and the actual gameplay suggested by sandbox-style freedoms.
So the point isn't that people are getting killed in these movies which are most definitely related to the game. The point is that in GTA IV, there's the added layer of simulated free agency that the videogames, and the sandbox genre, bring to the table. The GTA games may be inspired by movies, but that's only half the story. The other half of the story is how western-style free-agency in games, along with simulation of urban environments, almost offers an opportunity to magnify the violence and acts beyond what the strictly narrated, director-controlled films do. (In fact, a prototypical sort of this real-life-situation-free-roaming game design thinking can be seen in DMA's (Rockstar North's) Body Harvest for the N64.)
Oh yeah, and take another look at Mortal Kombat. That game definitely had cinematic inspiration: a throw-back to cheesy kung-fu flicks that has been lodged in American consciousness ever since the hey-day of Bruce Lee. That's obviously not everything about the game, but don't discount the effect it had on it.
How many cinematic sources have the protagonist murdering cops, killing hookers, and hijacking cars by the butt load and running over civilians. Even some of the most brutal crime movies like Scarface didn't go near the levels that the GTA series has went.
Hookers are a convenient target in underworld movies aren't they? I mean, Eastern promises revolved around figuring out why a pregnant one was killed. A hooker's death in Godfather 2 was just the starting point for blackmail. And Taxi Driver had all the psychotic violence of a GTA game... though Jodi Foster's character was actually a beneficiary instead of a victim of the violence. You mention ScarFace, but that was one of their direct inspirations for GTA:Vice City (see quotes below). And yes, these are tamer than the acts in GTA, but I've addressed that above: that's a function of the sandbox-simulation-freedom, the other main push of western design tastes.
So at least since GTA III, Rockstar has drawn an excess of information from movies and the pop culture surrounding them. There are loads of movie touchstones, just read these excerpts from a Wired article:
Quote
For the young Brits weaned on Run DMC and The Warriors, it was a revelation.
...
Dan Houser assumed the creative reins, writing game dialog and directing star-studded voice-over sessions. Sam Houser, president and executive producer, played the charismatic visionary. He hung a poster in his office of Don Simpson, the infamous playboy producer of films like Flashdance and Top Gun.
...
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City would be a fun-house-mirror version of Florida circa 1986, drawing on TV’s Miami Vice, the film Scarface, and other ’80s iconography.
...
Voice-overs featured talent like Dennis Hopper as a seedy porn film director, Burt Reynolds as a corrupt land baron, and Philip Michael Thomas as the treacherous sidekick of the protagonist, voiced by Ray Liotta. Porn star Jenna Jameson recorded dialog for the aptly named character Candy Suxxx.
...
San Andreas is set on the West Coast in the early ’90s. The action takes place in a Boyz n the Hood-style LA, an ersatz Bay Area complete with Haight-Ashbury hippies, and a glitzy Las Vegas.
http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2007/03/FF_160_rockstar?currentPage=1
Rockstar has built a reputation on pushing boundaries in gaming, and not "cinematic" boundaries.
I totally agree that Rockstar has benefitted from, and even encouraged, shock and controversy. They've been pushing buttons and boundaries ever since the beginning. But to merely label them as controversial and obsessed with titillation is to remain only at the surface of the issue. We have to move past nominal fallacy and try to trace the evolution of the GTA series, design-wise, inspiration-wise, culture-wise.
I contend that Rockstar isn't practicing original chauvinism, but instead, having drawn so heavily from a culture steeped in violence, harsh gender roles, and the virtual reality to explore that, they're instead explicitly recycling old ...well... "poisons"... under new and more powerful mechanisms.
Post by: KnowsNothing on May 07, 2008, 10:16:15 AM
Wow. Have you played any previous "sandbox" games like Godfather, Scarface, or Saint's Row?The closest thing I've played would be Oblivion, which I begrudgingly enjoy. I thought I would really love exploring the city in GTAIV and whatnot, but it's kind of...boring, I guess. I think it'll pick up though once I get further into the story.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 07, 2008, 03:31:26 PM
And what is the underlying message? That killing hookers is NOT a good thing and has consequences, yet GTA does not have ANY consequences in killing people, especially in regards to the story. The only consequence you have is if the cops come after you and you bribe them, or you die and magically end up in a hospital.
I don't want to go into all your points, but GTA appears to be a series where the sand-box gameplay is the focus and the story is pretty secondary beyond perhaps inspiring a basic design of the city. Cannot comment on Taxi Driver since I have not seen the movie (I may try to get it though since I love Robert Dinaro). What is most telling about Rockstar not being this great genius in cinematic gameplay is that virtually every other game they've developed has been average to bad, they've only been able to succeed with the GTA series and that series garnered popularity not from its story but its open world. I really doubt many of the GTA fans know or really care about any relation its story elements may have to movies, they just like how cool it is and what all you can do in the city. And like many fanbois, they cannot notice the fact that the so-called clones have advanced the genre since GTA3 yet Rockstar seems stuck, and even taking some steps back.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 07, 2008, 05:53:47 PM
Post by: Kairon on May 07, 2008, 05:58:28 PM
Post by: D_Average on May 07, 2008, 06:08:29 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 07, 2008, 07:24:14 PM
Everyone but you is wrong, m i rite?
That is funny coming from someone like yourself who does nothing but insult people constantly who don't agree with you, with foul and immature language. The odd thing is I recall you saying that if you don't think GTAIV is the best GTA game that you must have something "against" it. Talk about "Everyone is wrong but you". So please, go back in your hole. Don't worry though I don't expect a decent debate with you, so don't take it too personally. Watch how Kairon and I debate, you may actually learn something about being somewhat civil.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 07, 2008, 07:28:33 PM
Well, videogames create their own morality. Animal Crossing turns players into materialists basically. GTA is... an almost anarchic society?
So you'd be ok with a child porn simulator? If you want to use the argument that it is ok for games to create their own morality, then you'd be fine with one that maybe glorifies the child porn industry? That is the slippery slope, that I'd rather not slide down.
One thing I would love to see in GTA and other games of it kind is more connection between your actions in the open-world and the plot. This IMO, would show more respect for crime films because most of those films have an underlying theme of how the protagonist's actions do stay with him, and can affect his overall destiny. If you truly wanted to show the utmost respect for these films wouldn't that be a brilliant (and engaging) way to feel more involved with the story and how it turns out? Some of the sandbox games have tinkered with a morality system of sorts, but it is still wide open for a developer to knock it out of the park while maintaining some cohesion with a great story.
Anyway to show that I do respect Kairon's points, I do think he makes a good point about GTA's satire, I think some of it is brilliant (especially the radio shows), but I do think some stuff in the series for no other reason than to add something cool and shocking. Also Kairon makes a fair point about the game being two different halves, but I think they can do more to bring them together. To show that yes, my opinion is imperfect, I apologize for being presumptuous regarding some of Kairon's points, and mistakenly misinterpreted them.
Oh yeah, because I like beating this point to death. I still stick with Rockstar being quite sexist, because I don't recall any of their games that have a strong female character much less a female lead (I don't recall though what State of Emergency had in the way of characters, so I MAY be wrong about that title).
P.S. If I misinterpreted your point on morality in gaming, please correct me.
Post by: Kairon on May 07, 2008, 08:19:35 PM
Everyone but you is wrong, m i rite?
Were you talking to me? Why yes, yes you're right! ^_^
But seriously. I think you're actually right GP, and that your point still stands that Rockstar has the opportunity to really lead with the genre, but so far I don't know if they have. Obviously GTA IV is a quality title, but all of my arguments are just explanations at best, and excuses at worst. Rockstar has spearheaded this sand-box world... but it's still static and an inflexibly constant setting where there are no interesting moral choices, no ways for players to fill out or break out the manifest destiny that the creator has specified for them.
I don't mean to say that being in a videogame makes different moral systems ok, but that morals inside the game are removed from the real world... except in the implied message that the developers are sending. So yes, I do believe that Rockstar games is responsible for considering the moral structures they're sending in the game, and moral feedback in games are going to become a much bigger feedback not because of public outrage, but because that is a natural direction for sandbox-freedom design to go: a flexible world that responds to you even though your actions are your own.
I think you're right GP in that other developers have already started to make more inroads here while Rockstar has stood still. Bioware is obviously prominent with Mass Effect, the RPG The Witcher tried to give delayed moral feedback too. (The Witcher also had prostitues you could hook up with... go figure. Maybe sordid worlds are a naturally itneresting setting for sandbox games?)
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 08, 2008, 12:42:35 AM
As I said before GTA IV is a great game, BUT, I think Rockstar played it a bit too safe, and that is disappointing. Once again, as much as I hate to say this, it is like Nintendo has done with games like the Zelda series and the Mario Kart series. Perhaps the next iteration of GTA, which we KNOW will be here within 2 years will break some new ground or build on previous sandbox games. Could it be a female lead? I hope so but I really doubt it. But that is not a game breaker because you can't be a female in any of my favorite sandbox games either. Hopefully though they do take some advances to heart. I still think there is tons of potential in how they tell the story to better integrate it into the sandbox game wrapped around it. As I said before, it won't be easy, but it could really open up the genre in regards to story telling.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 08, 2008, 10:50:52 AM
That is funny coming from someone like yourself who does nothing but insult people constantly who don't agree with you, with...immature language.
I take offense to that. Just because I swear a lot while I'm arguing doesn't mean I don't have valid points. I'm sorry that you can only read, but not comprehend.
Quote
So you'd be ok with a child porn simulator?
They exist, and yes I'm fine with them. Child porn is illegal because it puts children in danger. "Simualators" are not real life, and there are no children in danger. I don't care what you do in your bedroom as long as it isn't hurting anyone else.
PS: If you find me "immature," that's personal.
Post by: Spak-Spang on May 08, 2008, 02:15:02 PM
That is funny coming from someone like yourself who does nothing but insult people constantly who don't agree with you, with...immature language.
I take offense to that. Just because I swear a lot while I'm arguing doesn't mean I don't have valid points. I'm sorry that you can only read, but not comprehend.QuoteSo you'd be ok with a child porn simulator?
They exist, and yes I'm fine with them. Child porn is illegal because it puts children in danger. "Simualators" are not real life, and there are no children in danger. I don't care what you do in your bedroom as long as it isn't hurting anyone else.
PS: If you find me "immature," that's personal.
Wow. That is really dangerous, and very narrow sited. Question who would be playing Child Porn Simulators? That is right people that desire to perp on children. A game is not going to relieve that desire, but actually make it stronger...because you aren't giving them an outlet, you are legitmizing their cravings...and desensitzing them. What is worse, is this could actually led to people that may not have desires for Child Porn to actually develop such a desire.
Like it or not what you expose yourself to affects you. Sex, violence, education, religion, porn, hate...basically everything you expose yourself to shapes your beliefs and actions. And Playing a child porn game will affect you. You may not go perp on a child, but your attitude towards such behavior may be altered.
This is a fact. You know the military has done experiments, and found that First Person Shooters, and other realistic shooting games can help the human brain not freeze when firing at people in real life.
This isn't a post talking about censoring games or that video games are evil...but just an acknowledgment games affect you, and you should be aware of that.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 08, 2008, 03:04:34 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 08, 2008, 03:07:09 PM
Like first of all, how in tune with reality is a person? Are they diagnosed with a personality or psychotic disorder? On the social side, were they taught what is and what is not socially or morally wrong? Someone who is taught that shooting people is bad is obviously going to be affected differently than someone who has not, and going back to mental disorders, one with schizophrenia is obviously going to react differently (and theoretically more negatively) than someone who does not...
You can't just say "Oh games will definitely change you," because that's not the case at all...
(And if anything, the military example is more an example of "familiarity"...Someone who has never fired a gun is holding something alien to them; they don't know what it will do when it fires, the kickback, etc...After putting yourself in the shoes of someone holding a gun, you are more familiar with it, and thus more confident to pull the trigger in real life...Morality is an impossible thing to judge, and thus can't be tested clinically...:))
Post by: Nick DiMola on May 08, 2008, 03:28:01 PM
Like first of all, how in tune with reality is a person?
I'd say if they are playing a child pr0n simulator, not very...
However, your points are valid.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 08, 2008, 03:58:23 PM
Post by: Nick DiMola on May 08, 2008, 04:05:11 PM
Let's see how consistent people are about this morality in games, would any of you be ok with a game that starred a racist organization (like the KKK) and it nothing but promote bigotry and hatred for a race, with tasks related to lynching or doing something worse to another race.
I'm down with it all, bring it on. As long as we properly label it all, making it available to only the proper crowds. A KKK game would never see a publisher, so you would never have to worry about it hitting store shelves. Publishers can be restrictive in a lot of cases, but they do keep out absolute crap like a racist KKK game from being released. I'm sure you can find stuff like that somewhere in the tubes, but I'm sure it isn't generating interest from anybody but people who are already major racists.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 08, 2008, 04:07:16 PM
Let's see how consistent people are about this morality in games, would any of you be ok with a game that starred a racist organization (like the KKK) and it nothing but promote bigotry and hatred for a race, with tasks related to lynching or doing something worse to another race.
I'm down with it all, bring it on. As long as we properly label it all, making it available to only the proper crowds. A KKK game would never see a publisher, so you would never have to worry about it hitting store shelves. Publishers can be restrictive in a lot of cases, but they do keep out absolute crap like a racist KKK game from being released. I'm sure you can find stuff like that somewhere in the tubes, but I'm sure it isn't generating interest from anybody but people who are already major racists.
I dunno, I think we thought up Rockstar's next project. ;)
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 08, 2008, 05:59:20 PM
A game is not going to relieve that desire, but actually make it stronger.
No. No no no.
No no no no no no no.
Where do you people GET this stuff? You realize that the OVERWHELMING majority of pedophiles NEVER touch a child EVER, right? And that the same overwhelming majority typically looks at some form of child porn quite frequently?
Looking at visuals does not increase likelihood of performing the act being shown in the visuals. Pedophiles have a fetish just like anyone else. Yes, some of them can't control it, but as I said, the overwhelming majority of them can. You're acting like pedophiles are automatically monsters and ticking time bombs. They're not.
Let's see how consistent people are about this morality in games, would any of you be ok with a game that starred a racist organization (like the KKK) and it nothing but promote bigotry and hatred for a race, with tasks related to lynching or doing something worse to another race.
What up?
(http://www.natvanbooks.com/cat/0866.gif)
And yes I'm fine with it.
Post by: Luigi Dude on May 08, 2008, 07:26:17 PM
Where do you people GET this stuff? You realize that the OVERWHELMING majority of pedophiles NEVER touch a child EVER, right? And that the same overwhelming majority typically looks at some form of child porn quite frequently?
Looking at visuals does not increase likelihood of performing the act being shown in the visuals. Pedophiles have a fetish just like anyone else. Yes, some of them can't control it, but as I said, the overwhelming majority of them can. You're acting like pedophiles are automatically monsters and ticking time bombs. They're not.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/luigidude/Hanson_dateline.jpg)
Why don't you take a seat over there
Post by: Maverick on May 08, 2008, 07:34:23 PM
(http://www.darunia.dommel.be/gifs/fiddybailout.gif)
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 08, 2008, 08:22:17 PM
**** this thread.
(http://www.darunia.dommel.be/gifs/fiddybailout.gif)
Lol.
Post by: oohhboy on May 08, 2008, 10:08:09 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 08, 2008, 10:11:31 PM
Yes, they are making a sequel... =|
Post by: DAaaMan64 on May 08, 2008, 10:18:11 PM
LOL. Where is that from?
Take it from a man who was a spy for the Soviets in '91, It's real footage from Operation: Desert Storm.
Post by: Maverick on May 08, 2008, 10:29:28 PM
http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/14242591/50-cent-blood-in-the-sand/videos/50Cent_BOTS_042408.html (http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/14242591/50-cent-blood-in-the-sand/videos/50Cent_BOTS_042408.html)
Post by: DAaaMan64 on May 08, 2008, 10:41:39 PM
Post by: Maverick on May 08, 2008, 10:45:22 PM
(I realize I have derailed this thread now, but I think a page or two of Fitty discussion is a lot better than child porn and race crime simulators, so indulge me.)
Post by: Spak-Spang on May 08, 2008, 11:46:12 PM
I think that's a fairly generalized view of how the mind works...There are a bunch of psychological and social factors that play into it...
Like first of all, how in tune with reality is a person? Are they diagnosed with a personality or psychotic disorder? On the social side, were they taught what is and what is not socially or morally wrong? Someone who is taught that shooting people is bad is obviously going to be affected differently than someone who has not, and going back to mental disorders, one with schizophrenia is obviously going to react differently (and theoretically more negatively) than someone who does not...
You can't just say "Oh games will definitely change you," because that's not the case at all...
(And if anything, the military example is more an example of "familiarity"...Someone who has never fired a gun is holding something alien to them; they don't know what it will do when it fires, the kickback, etc...After putting yourself in the shoes of someone holding a gun, you are more familiar with it, and thus more confident to pull the trigger in real life...Morality is an impossible thing to judge, and thus can't be tested clinically...:))
The military example comes from a study in which, they noticed human reluctance to fire in war situations and take a life. That trained soldiers, not people that have never fired a gun, still hesitated when targeting a human and taking a life. Then they started modeling targets to look like people, and found that people were finding it easier to target people. The mind altered some and the hesitation was gone. As they began to make the targets more realistic, even using computer characters with realistic death it became easier and easier. This is the mind changing.
There was another study that showed that behavior actually crystallizes and changes the how you process and think. The idea they were exploring was how patterns in behavior and how habits are created. I believe the media we take in has this effect on us.
I believe we do desensitize ourselves to whatever it is we expose ourselves to in life, and that doesn't mean it is always a bad thing, it is just habit. For example new parents desensitize themselves eventually to the sound their children crying or making crazy noises...but they can always tell when the baby is really in trouble.
And, I don't think this is a reason to ban all violence or sex, because you are right...exposure does not mean you are going to become a killer, a rapist, a pedophile, a racist, or whatever...and it doesn't even mean you are going to shift your moral compass and believe those behaviors are ok. What it does mean that behavior won't have the exact same effect on you as if you were never exposed to it. And that could be good or bad.
I do believe we should be careful what we expose ourselves to, and I think that even though we value the freedom of speech, and artistic expression we as a society and culture should place regulate in material to safe guard children and adults that do not want exposure. This regulation should never be forced or controlled by the government, but freely done by the industry.
And as the examples of the racist games existing and the child porn games existing, those are not created by the mainstream industry, nor would they even be accepted in anyway by the industry as a whole...those are fringe projects, and that type of media exists in all media forms and should not speak for what the industry is willing to accept.
Post by: DAaaMan64 on May 08, 2008, 11:50:10 PM
Still I could give a crap, I know my motives. Just enforce the ESRB and state level and educate. Problem solved.
Post by: Spak-Spang on May 09, 2008, 12:00:31 AM
And I completely agree. I don't believe we have a problem that needs fixing. I was just original shocked about the comment of child pornography games. Yes, enforce the ESRB limite and state level and education, and let retailers know what is in a game and if they want to support it by putting it on the shelf.
Case Solved.
The last thing I want is government involvement or any kind of enforcement against content. That is a scary road.
Post by: DAaaMan64 on May 09, 2008, 12:04:46 AM
The last thing I want is government involvement or any kind of enforcement against content. That is a scary road.
A tune sang by a God.
I don't watch GB much either, but I'll turn it on. At least he'll talk about the economy.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 09, 2008, 12:06:41 AM
The last thing I want is government involvement or any kind of enforcement against content. That is a scary road.
A tune sang by a God.
I don't watch GB much either, but I'll turn it on. At least he'll talk about the economy.
Crimm will come in with his ban hammer if this turns into politics!
Post by: DAaaMan64 on May 09, 2008, 12:11:59 AM
Like an eyebrow has never been raised at you. >.>
;)
I didn't know we banned anyone recently.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 09, 2008, 12:14:33 AM
It doesn't need to go any further.
Like an eyebrow has never been raised at you. >.>
;)
I didn't know we banned anyone recently.
I NEVER talk politics so you must be mistaking me with someone else.
Post by: Spak-Spang on May 09, 2008, 12:20:41 AM
Back to this game called IV...is it actually as good as the hype? Got any tips on missions? How about cheats? What do you think about the game compared to the sequels? Where would you like the next one to go.
Let's bring the topic back to the magically land of railed topic-ry.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 09, 2008, 12:22:28 AM
So Ok...after derailing this thread.
Back to this game called IV...is it actually as good as the hype? Got any tips on missions? How about cheats? What do you think about the game compared to the sequels? Where would you like the next one to go.
Let's bring the topic back to the magically land of railed topic-ry.
I already answered those questions though!
Post by: Maverick on May 09, 2008, 12:23:51 AM
San Andreas is the best GTA, period. GTA IV is fun, but feels empty compared to the richness that was SA. It feels like a step back feature wise. (Because it is.)
I really like the main character and some of the plot events (Not so much the plot itself, as a whole.) Unfortunately I feel the game is a little self contradictory because Niko is really a likeable guy, but at the same time he's a ruthless murderer if the price is right, he bangs hookers (or can if you so choose), and causes massive traffic hold-ups throughout the entire city. I suppose that's a curse of the whole series though, is that you're caught wanting to identify and like the character you play, but at the same time they're terrible, terrible people.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 09, 2008, 12:29:25 AM
Answer them again! Like I'm about to do.
San Andreas is the best GTA, period. GTA IV is fun, but feels empty compared to the richness that was SA. It feels like a step back feature wise. (Because it is.)
I really like the main character and some of the plot events (Not so much the plot itself, as a whole.) Unfortunately I feel the game is a little self contradictory because Niko is really a likeable guy, but at the same time he's a ruthless murderer if the price is right, he bangs hookers (or can if you so choose), and causes massive traffic hold-ups throughout the entire city. I suppose that's a curse of the whole series though, is that you're caught wanting to identify and like the character you play, but at the same time they're terrible, terrible people.
I basically agree with you, which is why I'd like to see this genre evolve more instead of still playing it safe. While GTAIV is a well done game, it is not even close to being as ground breaking as GTAIII which is sad because other sandbox style games have innovated and Rockstar hasn't built on many of those innovations. It is one thing to create a game that cannot really be improved much upon it is another to create a game where there are obvious areas to improve on yet it remains stuck. Hopefully the next GTA game will start innovating, now that the engine and the basics are in place.
Post by: Maverick on May 09, 2008, 12:33:07 AM
So do you think the next GTA will be GTA V or will they go the subtitle route again?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 09, 2008, 12:44:46 AM
Speaking of the next GTAs; I always got the feeling that Vice City and San Andreas were released to kind of "erase" GTA 1/2. They are both larger, more feature-rich games than GTA III, and chronologically they take place before hand. I never viewed them as spinoffs, but more like prequels.
So do you think the next GTA will be GTA V or will they go the subtitle route again?
I think they will use subtitles, and then when the NEXT generation of systems come out GTAV will be the title. In a way I think it is good because it would be kind of deceptive if GTAV was built off the same engine as GTAIV. At least this way you understand what you are getting, basically an expanded experience from the previous game when it comes to new additions, I just hope the next game has a better balance in regards to the city and the land around it. Like I said before in this thread I really enjoyed the freedom SA gave me, and it would be great to have that again.
Post by: DAaaMan64 on May 09, 2008, 12:48:25 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on May 09, 2008, 07:38:29 AM
So are there any missions you can accomplish by doing legal means? Why am I forced to become a criminal basically...a true sandbox game should not be like that.
I always wanted to make a sandbox game with this radical idea that you are going to do very mundane things. Go to the store and buy groceries for the family on a set budget...now do you want to speed there? Do you want to obey the speed limit? do you want to steal? Whatever...and you can accomplish your goal any way...but if you decide to do illegal things they have permanent consequences throughout the entire game. For instance, if you break the law you might just get a ticket...and then lay low. If you kill somebody and the body is discovered, then the police will be after you, and if you are caught for a crime you will be arrested and possibly sent to jail. However, if you kill a cop in the game you are a cop killer and they actively seek you out, and will shoot to kill instead of arrest.
Something like that sounds amazing...I know it would mean less crime storyline, but why is that needed. I really like the idea of forming the story by my actions, not a cheesy plot.
Post by: Nick DiMola on May 09, 2008, 07:54:26 AM
But generally speaking, what you have sounds awesome, the story has the ability to write itself with a sandbox style game, no need to be dragged along by the plot created by the game.
Post by: Sessha on May 09, 2008, 11:32:33 AM
Post by: Maverick on May 09, 2008, 12:16:17 PM
I really like the idea Spak but I think it would have the same flaw that GTA games have. If your sent to jail how will you be punished. I never quite understood how you can go on a shooting spree but be released from jail as long as you forfeit SOME of your money and all of your weapons.
After getting busted you fade to black. "20 Years Later" the screen says, and you appear in front of the jail a withered old man. Everyone you knew is dead, you are alone and feeble in this world, and you have no one to blame for it other than yourself.
Post by: vudu on May 09, 2008, 02:29:22 PM
I always wanted to make a sandbox game with this radical idea that you are going to do very mundane things.
Isn't this what games like Animal Crossing and The Sims already do?
Post by: Caliban on May 09, 2008, 04:40:22 PM
Post by: Plugabugz on May 09, 2008, 08:41:39 PM
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 11, 2008, 03:05:04 AM
Here is a question. The GTA series had me desiring to create a sandbox type game around a city. But I really wanted you to be an average Joe with missions that could literally be resolved several means.
So are there any missions you can accomplish by doing legal means? Why am I forced to become a criminal basically...a true sandbox game should not be like that.
I always wanted to make a sandbox game with this radical idea that you are going to do very mundane things. Go to the store and buy groceries for the family on a set budget...now do you want to speed there? Do you want to obey the speed limit? do you want to steal? Whatever...and you can accomplish your goal any way...but if you decide to do illegal things they have permanent consequences throughout the entire game. For instance, if you break the law you might just get a ticket...and then lay low. If you kill somebody and the body is discovered, then the police will be after you, and if you are caught for a crime you will be arrested and possibly sent to jail. However, if you kill a cop in the game you are a cop killer and they actively seek you out, and will shoot to kill instead of arrest.
Something like that sounds amazing...I know it would mean less crime storyline, but why is that needed. I really like the idea of forming the story by my actions, not a cheesy plot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_reality_game
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on May 11, 2008, 12:13:10 PM
1. Game is way too dark - I had to bump up the brightness and contrast up a few levels, I have no idea how people can play on default.
2. Melee combat sucks - retarded control scheme that seems very archaic.
3. Cars can stall out or are sometimes hard to control - this factor can screw you up big time on car chase missions which can get frustrating.
4. On foot controls are clunky - they feel very sluggish and they are not tight at all.
5. Controls are in general mediocre or poor - See 2,3,4 and add to the fact that some button choices probably came out of no where.
6. Minimal HUD - I don't mind the health bar being on the radar but I do mind that they took out what weapon is constantly displayed, the only way to know is switching weapons via the dpad.
7. Doesn't feel "next gen" - Now I see why some of you above weren't happy that the city feels sterile and it does because its modeled after a really busy and yet
Edit: 8. Camera - I can not stand the camera angles or the camera system of this game at all.
But even though with those issues the game is still engaging and at times when it's not frustrating, it's fun. But it is not worth a 10/10 it should be somewhere between a 8.5 - 9.0 on a scale of 1 - 10.
Post by: D_Average on May 11, 2008, 02:58:59 PM
But even though with those issues the game is still engaging and at times when it's not frustrating, it's fun. But it is not worth a 10/10 it should be somewhere between a 8.5 - 9.0 on a scale of 1 - 10.
Let us not forget the acting is clearing "Oscar worthy" (confirmed by Hillary Goldstein), therefore a 10 sounds about right. ;)
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on May 11, 2008, 03:14:41 PM
But even though with those issues the game is still engaging and at times when it's not frustrating, it's fun. But it is not worth a 10/10 it should be somewhere between a 8.5 - 9.0 on a scale of 1 - 10.
Let us not forget the acting is clearing "Oscar worthy" (confirmed by Hillary Goldstein), therefore a 10 sounds about right. ;)
Maybe Rockstar wrote Hillary and IGN an Oscar worthy check and the check was made out of gold ;)
Post by: matt oz on May 11, 2008, 03:22:49 PM
My gripes (similar to most of Flames_of_chaos's):
- Camera. Especially while driving. I like to see as much of the road in front of me as possible, but when I move the camera angle to accommodate that, it automatically goes back to where it was before.
- On foot controls. Holding A to run? Repeatedly tapping A to sprint? WTF? I think the 360 controller has about 4 buttons too many, and the controls for this game could have been streamlined so that every minute action doesn't require a different button.
- I completely agree that this game doesn't feel next-gen. I finally bought a 360 for this game, and I was just expecting more out of it. Maybe I'm missing something, but the story doesn't seem that compelling to me. And the voice acting is certainly above average, but it's obvious they used an American for Niko's role. (I don't know exactly which country he's supposed to be from, but I've known several Russians and a couple of Serbs, none of whom spoke anything like Niko.) I don't have the opportunity to play this on an HDTV, so maybe I'm missing out on the graphics, but I really don't play games for graphics, anyway.
What I do enjoy:
- The missions have a lot of variety, at least from what I've seen so far (about 12 hours in).
- Some of the characters are fantastic. I think everyone knows a Brucie at some point in their life.
- The varied car physics.
- THE RADIO STATIONS – I love Radio Broker. I even love Juliette Lewis as the DJ even though she's a crazy scientologist. And PLR is always good for lolz.
- Maybe I'm immature, but I find the hookers' animations in the car to be hilarious. Great detail there.
Post by: Maverick on May 11, 2008, 03:28:46 PM
I haven't had any problems with the game being dark. My problem is reading messages and stuff on my cell phone. The text is extremely small and almost illegible.
Did you try changing the text option to "Large" in the cell phone menu? It helped me out a bit. I'm playing on a 47" 1080p and I still have trouble making out the text at times.
Quote
- THE RADIO STATIONS – I love Radio Broker. I even love Juliette Lewis as the DJ even though she's a crazy scientologist. And PLR is always good for lolz.
I actually think this is the worst GTA in terms of radio. Iggy on the rock station was alright, and there were good songs, but I don't know, they all just seemed kind of boring compared to earlier titles. Maybe 'cause I'm a classic rock guy and I heard all the classic rock stations they play in the game on the way home from work.
Quote
- Maybe I'm immature, but I find the hookers' animations in the car to be hilarious. Great detail there.
"Oh yeah, **** the **** out of it!" "That's it! Grab my ******* you ****!"
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on May 11, 2008, 04:00:35 PM
I think they are supposed to be Russian however a typical Russian can sound different because there are different slavic dialects(Russian is a Slavic dialect) and plus the region of Russia or countries that have Russian language is just huge.
I think Rockstar tried to force a Russian accent.
Post by: Maverick on May 11, 2008, 04:30:30 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 11, 2008, 04:42:44 PM
Post by: matt oz on May 11, 2008, 05:35:42 PM
Did you try changing the text option to "Large" in the cell phone menu? It helped me out a bit. I'm playing on a 47" 1080p and I still have trouble making out the text at times.
No, I haven't seen that option. I'll try that the next time I play. Thanks!
I actually think this is the worst GTA in terms of radio. Iggy on the rock station was alright, and there were good songs, but I don't know, they all just seemed kind of boring compared to earlier titles. Maybe 'cause I'm a classic rock guy and I heard all the classic rock stations they play in the game on the way home from work.
I'm really not familiar with how the radio stations were in other games. The only other GTA game I played was Vice City on the PC. I hated the controls so I only got about 20-30% through the game. All I know is that I love listening to the radio in this game. My problem is that I have a somewhat narrow taste in music, so there are only 3 music stations I can listen to for a long period of time.
I'm pretty sure Nico is Polish (at least he sounds that way), and is even called a "Polack" at one point in the game...
Ah, but Brucie's the one who calls him a Polack, and Brucie's a half-retarded juicehead, so I wouldn't put much credence in that, personally.
Post by: Maverick on May 11, 2008, 06:03:34 PM
Quote from: Wikipedia
Niko Bellic is a fictional character in the Grand Theft Auto video game series. He is the main protagonist and playable character of Grand Theft Auto IV. He is 30-years old, between 5’11” and 6’2” and is 190-200 lbs, of Serbian origin.[3][4] [5]
Niko grew up in war-torn Yugoslavia[6][7].
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 11, 2008, 08:38:39 PM
3. Cars can stall out or are sometimes hard to control - this factor can screw you up big time on car chase missions which can get frustrating.
Cars stall out when you beat the crap out of them. I still fail to see how having an alternative to the car blowing up and taking you with it is bad. Also, they're hard to control because they control more realistically now.
Quote
4. On foot controls are clunky - they feel very sluggish and they are not tight at all.
It only seems that way because in the others you could start a sprint from stand-still, and do a 180 instantaneously. Much like the cars, Niko runs more realistically now.
Quote
5. Controls are in general mediocre or poor - See 2,3,4 and add to the fact that some button choices probably came out of no where.
How do you mean "out of nowhere"?
Quote
6. Minimal HUD - I don't mind the health bar being on the radar but I do mind that they took out what weapon is constantly displayed, the only way to know is switching weapons via the dpad.
I like that. You see the weapon icon when you reload anyway.
[quote[7. Doesn't feel "next gen" - Now I see why some of you above weren't happy that the city feels sterile and it does because its modeled after a really busy and yet
I still can't even fathom how people say the city feels "empty" or "sterile." It's anything but, and is easily one of the best things about the game.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on May 11, 2008, 08:57:26 PM
I'm pretty sure Nico is Polish (at least he sounds that way), and is even called a "Polack" at one point in the game...
That is true but he doesn't have a Polish accent (or Rockstar butchered that badly). I know first hand because I'm a native of Poland. But in the game Nico does speak Russian(I vaguely know Russian), maybe hes a Russian offshoot.
Post by: Maverick on May 11, 2008, 11:15:27 PM
Quote from: WikipediaNiko Bellic is a fictional character in the Grand Theft Auto video game series. He is the main protagonist and playable character of Grand Theft Auto IV. He is 30-years old, between 5’11” and 6’2” and is 190-200 lbs, of Serbian origin.[3][4] [5]
Niko grew up in war-torn Yugoslavia[6][7].
Post by: Dasmos on May 12, 2008, 09:26:01 AM
3. Cars can stall out or are sometimes hard to control - this factor can screw you up big time on car chase missions which can get frustrating.
Cars stall out when you beat the crap out of them. I still fail to see how having an alternative to the car blowing up and taking you with it is bad. Also, they're hard to control because they control more realistically now.Quote4. On foot controls are clunky - they feel very sluggish and they are not tight at all.
It only seems that way because in the others you could start a sprint from stand-still, and do a 180 instantaneously. Much like the cars, Niko runs more realistically now.
"Realistic" doesn't always mean better, this game proves that without a shadow of a doubt. Besides I don't see how this is a defence.
Quote
Quote6. Minimal HUD - I don't mind the health bar being on the radar but I do mind that they took out what weapon is constantly displayed, the only way to know is switching weapons via the dpad.
I like that. You see the weapon icon when you reload anyway.
You like that they have taken out a useful feature for no reason? I can see why it would be excluded if it was distracting or obstructing the view, but it doesn't.
Quote
Quote7. Doesn't feel "next gen" - Now I see why some of you above weren't happy that the city feels sterile and it does because its modeled after a really busy and yetNew York CityLiberty City feels so empty also there are a lot of mechanics that don't feel polished at all.
I still can't even fathom how people say the city feels "empty" or "sterile." It's anything but, and is easily one of the best things about the game.
Oh wow, you're debating opinion? Good luck with that.
Post by: Spak-Spang on May 12, 2008, 02:01:56 PM
The reason being is simple, in real life there are much more inputs that you take in while driving...you basically "feel" the car and know how much you can push it, and you can get very subtle speed and break reactions, and you to basically feel the turns and the car with what is going on and react appropriately. In a game you can't do that. You are only watching the input you are putting in on the television, and so realism just doesn't work. Instead of striving for realism you need to strive for what makes the game feel good and is actually playable and fun.
If that is accomplished then it doesn't matter how realistic it is...you have succeeded in your game.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on May 14, 2008, 01:54:52 PM
Post by: DAaaMan64 on May 14, 2008, 02:02:38 PM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on May 14, 2008, 04:24:02 PM
Post by: matt oz on June 02, 2008, 11:56:44 PM
Sad story: I've put ~40 hours into GTA 4, and I've gotten more achievement points in the 8 or so hours I've played Uno.
Post by: matt oz on August 04, 2008, 08:15:47 PM
In the end, I wasn't overly impressed with the story. I didn't really feel anything for Nico. Sure, he's dealt with a lot of crap in his past, but he became a horrible person. Roman was no angel, but he got over it. I felt really bad for Ma McReary. Two of her kids are dead, one's in jail, one's a smack addict, and the only one she has left is Packie. So sad.
I would've liked to see more missions with the McRearys. They were by far my favorite to work for. Three Leaf Clover was the most challenging mission in the game, and for all the right reasons, too. The dynamic among all the siblings was interesting to see. And the Blood Brothers mission was a very good choice on Rockstar's part. That was the only "choice" mission where I hesitated, but I think I made the right decision.
Overall, I'd give it a solid 9/10. It's not perfect by any means, but it was an awesome "next-gen" gaming experience. It wasn't as immersive as Mass Effect, it wasn't as innovative as Portal, but it did a lot of things right, and I can't wait for the DLC. I'm hoping to see some new friends, new activities, new islands, and then a bunch of new side missions to go along with all that.
Post by: Caliban on August 04, 2008, 08:44:22 PM
the first guy I killed happened to be a Rockstar employee
I would've liked to see more missions with the McRearys. They were by far my favorite to work for.
Same here.
What was your favourite ending, Money or Revenge?
I think the Money ending was more complete, and emotional. It just felt more gratifying.
Post by: ShyGuy on January 04, 2009, 04:47:12 AM
- Wow, the game is very very very dark. The graphics look great they just need the brightness and contrast turned way up.
- Wow, the driving controls are hideous. Accidentally zoom in to your bumper while driving? WHY EVEN GIVE THAT OPTION? Stupid.
- Ugh, the walking controls aren't very good either. Is this because I'm playing on the PS3? Cause everything is very loose.
- I already want all the main characters to die in a fire.
After about thirty minutes I turned the game off. Most over hyped game of 2008 by far. The so called gaming media are filthy whores.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on January 04, 2009, 12:39:35 PM
I did enjoy it though.
Post by: D_Average on January 04, 2009, 02:05:31 PM
It definitely seems like a great game, but clearly, any reviewer that gives it a 10 for every category when the game has a wonky combat system is a total d bag.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 04, 2009, 06:35:54 PM
It's overrated, but it's still very good. What annoyed me the most was that they didn't have a checkpoint system in the longer missions, so if you nearly got to the end of a mission but died because you fell off a cliff or did something stupid, you had to do the ENTIRE thing over again (including driving halfway across the map). This is no big deal at the beginning of the game because the missions are short, but at the end of the game it's maddening.
I did enjoy it though.
I AGREE with Mr. Lindy Luthor. It is a good game, overrated, definably mainly because it seems like a step back in some ways from previous games. Hopefully they correct the checkpoint system with longer missions.
Post by: D_Average on January 04, 2009, 09:17:52 PM
It's overrated, but it's still very good. What annoyed me the most was that they didn't have a checkpoint system in the longer missions, so if you nearly got to the end of a mission but died because you fell off a cliff or did something stupid, you had to do the ENTIRE thing over again (including driving halfway across the map). This is no big deal at the beginning of the game because the missions are short, but at the end of the game it's maddening.
I did enjoy it though.
I AGREE with Mr. Lindy Luthor.
I'm speechless.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on January 04, 2009, 11:32:35 PM
I'm speechless.
Indeed, alert the press.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 05, 2009, 10:48:04 AM
I think NMH's driving is more annoying than e.g. SR's, for one the map in NMH does not scroll fluidly so it can be hard to tell which road on the map is which because of the snap distance and NMH doesn't have a GPS nav-style guide, only the position of the goal.
Post by: Dasmos on January 06, 2009, 08:57:33 AM
Post by: D_Average on January 06, 2009, 10:10:31 AM
Also in NMH there only 4 places to go in the whole map with little else in between. Maybe the occasional dumpster, but that's it.
And they all have the same song in the background. Oh well, at least its a good choice. I start every morning by dancing to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL2od1AF_Cs
Post by: D_Average on January 26, 2009, 11:06:05 AM
steal car
drive across town
rob bank
steal money
run and gun with tons of cops forever
run into subway
shoot more cops
avoid subway trains
shoot more cops
run out of subway
shoot more cops
steal car
run from cops
drop Pakie off
Dying at the end of this only to start all the way over is about as close as you can get to virtual masochism. Seriously, who's ever decision it was not to include a check point system should be punched in the face. And any reviewer that didn't dock them for this should be given a swift kick to the groin.
Its a pity too, as driving all over town again and again ruins and otherwise epic mission.
Edit - Son of a b##! Looks like they've placed checkpoints into the new DLC! http://www.gta4.net/news/index.php
Post by: Morari on January 26, 2009, 05:15:40 PM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on January 28, 2009, 12:36:27 PM
I'm more curious as to why Rockstar purposely sabotaged the PC port by including SecuROM and Windows Live. Here's a hint Rockstar; stupid DRM makes me pirate games!
They did it to prevent people from finding out how broken the PC port was in every conceivable way, at least according to what I've heard about that version of the game.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on January 28, 2009, 07:53:26 PM
I'm more curious as to why Rockstar purposely sabotaged the PC port by including SecuROM and Windows Live. Here's a hint Rockstar; stupid DRM makes me pirate games!
All the SecuROM in GTA4 does is the disc verification and I think a 1 time activation.
