Everyone complained about driving in GTA IV and now in gran Turismo 6...

#1redorblue88Posted 7/5/2013 5:14:51 PM
To this day I see so many people complain about how bad the driving physics were in gta iv, a complaint I could never understand. I still find it amazing the way the weight shifts across the car and you can really see the suspension working. So many people said it was too loose and unrealistic, but this was people trying to compare driving a car at 40mph in real life to 80+ in a game.

Now years later, I just played the GT6 demo, the supposed God of driving simulation and lo and behold I'm surprised to see weight transition and suspension handled similar to how it was in gta iv. Guess it's potential proof that rockstar were right on the money and got driving physics down pretty well years ago even when driving sims hadn't!

I hate how it's become a cool, almost hipsterish thing to say gta iv was a bad game or at the very least a boring game. I guess their the kind of gamers keeping the cods of this world in the gaming industry and calling games like last of us boring.
#2David_FaustinoPosted 7/5/2013 5:58:48 PM
i totally agree with what you said about the weight shifting seeing the suspension on the cars work. i thought the driving in gta4 was phenomenal. it felt good
---
SVER is not OP people in the other factions are genuinely bad. GTA is the greatest franchise ever. bethesda games are boring. these are all FACTS
#3InfernoSDPosted 7/5/2013 6:17:55 PM
I guess their the kind of gamers keeping the cods of this world in the gaming industry

I think this comment is more accurate than you realize. Looking at the trends in the industry, the games that gain the greatest following or praise are not the ones that offer deep or complex gameplay. People would rather play CoD, where you feel like a floating, disembodied gun, than something like Killzone, where your character has a sense of weight, or Mirror's Edge, where there's layers of depth to the movement mechanics.

Or look at platformers. Super Mario Bros continues to use what is practically the same physics model that was present in the first SMB. Countless other platformers use it too. And the moment any developer tries to make one with a different physics model, it's met with derision. Look at the sheer amount of hate aimed at LittleBigPlanet's physics, simply because it doesn't allow you to air control your way out of every mistake.

Beat 'em ups, now, too. Batman Arkham City is praised for its combat, despite it being incredibly easy and mindless to mash Square through 90% of the game. But it looks stylish while doing so, so it's alright. Even Assassin's Creed has greater depth than that, but most people can't wrap their mind around the concept of killstreaks, so I've literally read comments like, "If a guard detects you, it's faster to just let them kill you and respawn nearby instead of fighting."

Racing games, too, maybe. I'm not sure how well Gran Turismo sells by comparison, but there's a reason games like Burnout and NFS are as popular as they are. It takes all of five minutes to learn how to drift through every corner for maximum boost.

Basically, in every genre, most people are just looking for quick fun that they can jump right into. Developers that attempt to do something new or create gameplay that's tough to master are inevitably met with disdain. So perhaps it speaks to how excellent GTA IV is that it managed to succeed so far as it did, in spite of the complaints. Or maybe it was just the brand popularity.
---
|| ||\ || ||"" ||"" ||"") ||\ || /''''\
|| || \|| ||"" ||, ||""\ || \|| \,,,/
#4mentallyfunny00Posted 7/5/2013 6:42:55 PM
I found Arkham combat boring and easy until I started using combos and doing the challenges. It completely changed my mind before I just went punch, punch, punch, counter but using combos made me think about what I was doing. Other than that I agree with every thing that's been said in this topic so far.
---
You should be less worried about who is behind you and more worried about who is ABOVE you.-charging_zebra
#5nativenginePosted 7/5/2013 6:53:05 PM
InfernoSD posted...
I guess their the kind of gamers keeping the cods of this world in the gaming industry

I think this comment is more accurate than you realize. Looking at the trends in the industry, the games that gain the greatest following or praise are not the ones that offer deep or complex gameplay. People would rather play CoD, where you feel like a floating, disembodied gun, than something like Killzone, where your character has a sense of weight, or Mirror's Edge, where there's layers of depth to the movement mechanics.

Or look at platformers. Super Mario Bros continues to use what is practically the same physics model that was present in the first SMB. Countless other platformers use it too. And the moment any developer tries to make one with a different physics model, it's met with derision. Look at the sheer amount of hate aimed at LittleBigPlanet's physics, simply because it doesn't allow you to air control your way out of every mistake.

Beat 'em ups, now, too. Batman Arkham City is praised for its combat, despite it being incredibly easy and mindless to mash Square through 90% of the game. But it looks stylish while doing so, so it's alright. Even Assassin's Creed has greater depth than that, but most people can't wrap their mind around the concept of killstreaks, so I've literally read comments like, "If a guard detects you, it's faster to just let them kill you and respawn nearby instead of fighting."

Racing games, too, maybe. I'm not sure how well Gran Turismo sells by comparison, but there's a reason games like Burnout and NFS are as popular as they are. It takes all of five minutes to learn how to drift through every corner for maximum boost.

Basically, in every genre, most people are just looking for quick fun that they can jump right into. Developers that attempt to do something new or create gameplay that's tough to master are inevitably met with disdain. So perhaps it speaks to how excellent GTA IV is that it managed to succeed so far as it did, in spite of the complaints. Or maybe it was just the brand popularity.


Well f*** me, couldn't have said it better myself.

*starts slow clap*
---
Vegetarian- an old Indian word meaning bad hunter
#6InfernoSDPosted 7/5/2013 7:33:11 PM
mentallyfunny00 posted...
I found Arkham combat boring and easy until I started using combos and doing the challenges. It completely changed my mind before I just went punch, punch, punch, counter but using combos made me think about what I was doing. Other than that I agree with every thing that's been said in this topic so far.

I didn't hate it, but for the most part all that's required to defeat enemies is that punch-punch-counter. Eventually the game starts throwing gimmick enemies at you that are invulnerable to certain attacks but fatally weak to one specific move, which is where I started to find it irritating. I did play quite a bit into the riddler challenges as well, and although there's some satisfaction to flawlessly and stylishly wasting a group of thugs, I didn't like how it derived difficulty from a points system instead of from the gameplay itself. Or maybe I just didn't like how often I kept ending my combo in dumb ways.

The combat in Sleeping Dogs gets compared to Batman a lot, and I think it's an interesting comparison. Sleeping Dogs play more like a fighting game by giving you full control over which attack you're going to use, and by making the distances between you and opponents actually matter. It's definitely satisfying when you get to the point where you can judge that distance and pick the right strike for it without opening yourself up, or knowing when to use a sweep kick or whatever. And SD also has way less of that gimmick enemy problem. The big thug enemies are capable of countering standard head-on attacks, but they don't do it 100% of the time. SD is still a pretty casual game anyone can jump into, though.
---
|| ||\ || ||"" ||"" ||"") ||\ || /''''\
|| || \|| ||"" ||, ||""\ || \|| \,,,/
#7MShogunHPosted 7/5/2013 8:49:59 PM
nativengine posted...
InfernoSD posted...
I guess their the kind of gamers keeping the cods of this world in the gaming industry

I think this comment is more accurate than you realize. Looking at the trends in the industry, the games that gain the greatest following or praise are not the ones that offer deep or complex gameplay. People would rather play CoD, where you feel like a floating, disembodied gun, than something like Killzone, where your character has a sense of weight, or Mirror's Edge, where there's layers of depth to the movement mechanics.

Or look at platformers. Super Mario Bros continues to use what is practically the same physics model that was present in the first SMB. Countless other platformers use it too. And the moment any developer tries to make one with a different physics model, it's met with derision. Look at the sheer amount of hate aimed at LittleBigPlanet's physics, simply because it doesn't allow you to air control your way out of every mistake.

Beat 'em ups, now, too. Batman Arkham City is praised for its combat, despite it being incredibly easy and mindless to mash Square through 90% of the game. But it looks stylish while doing so, so it's alright. Even Assassin's Creed has greater depth than that, but most people can't wrap their mind around the concept of killstreaks, so I've literally read comments like, "If a guard detects you, it's faster to just let them kill you and respawn nearby instead of fighting."

Racing games, too, maybe. I'm not sure how well Gran Turismo sells by comparison, but there's a reason games like Burnout and NFS are as popular as they are. It takes all of five minutes to learn how to drift through every corner for maximum boost.

Basically, in every genre, most people are just looking for quick fun that they can jump right into. Developers that attempt to do something new or create gameplay that's tough to master are inevitably met with disdain. So perhaps it speaks to how excellent GTA IV is that it managed to succeed so far as it did, in spite of the complaints. Or maybe it was just the brand popularity.


Well f*** me, couldn't have said it better myself.

*starts slow clap*


Give me a time/place and I'll be there lool

*continues slow clap*
---
(PSN: MShogunH)
Grand Theft Auto V Countdown: 73 Days
#8caboose84Posted 7/5/2013 9:35:20 PM
Well this topic turned out a lot better than the one on the 360 board haha.
---
GT:UrNeighborJimmy
Karma Keepers
#9adz-specPosted 7/6/2013 12:53:16 AM(edited)
I am not one who hated (ie: sucked at) GTA IV's driving, but I wouldn't even think about comparing it to Gran Turismo. Of course I haven't played the GT6 demo, but I can't imagine they'd have changed it that much.
---
PSN: adz-spec
#10vivalatourPosted 7/6/2013 1:27:57 AM
I was one of the guys that complained about the driving , but to use the word "hate" ? no , I still think the driving mechanics were off ! the stinking AI had way more control with the CoPs of course given the edge < what about giving me an edge running from 20 squad cars ! but , I am now practicing the drivinfg ans will get better ..