What made GTA4 just not as playable as the others?

#31CreepyEPosted 2/9/2013 10:08:12 PM
N30Chaos687 posted...
CreepyE posted...
Yeah I know, I noticed the big fake Big Pun mural on the second island when you switch apartments for the first time.


Really? I never noticed that.


Yeah I remember a painting kind of like a "fallen soldier wall" with a fat tan dude with a puertorican flag bandana on his head. I'll try to list directions but I'm not sure if I'm remembering it right.

1 Starting from your second safehouse that Roman's girlfriend gave to you face away from the building

2 walk directly across the street (safely) to the sidewalk on the other side. Turn left and walk that direction to where the intersection is.

3 turn right and there should be a wall that's the side of the business on the corner and the mural is on that wall. It's pretty huge and hard to miss but I may not be remembering where it is correctly.
#32NukapepsiPosted 2/10/2013 7:43:00 AM
DarkLordMorsul posted...
Nukapepsi posted...

Too many gimmicks, .


IV=gimmicks
SA= Good

Mmmmmkkk.....................


Gimmicks? Maybe a few, but SA didn't use them as a crutch.
---
Casual racism is not ok. Damn casuals ruin everything.
#33DarkLordMorsulPosted 2/10/2013 8:27:02 AM
Nukapepsi posted...
DarkLordMorsul posted...
Nukapepsi posted...

Too many gimmicks, .


IV=gimmicks
SA= Good

Mmmmmkkk.....................


Gimmicks? Maybe a few, but SA didn't use them as a crutch.


SA was about 65%gimmicks.
---
Skit Tells is Really good
#34nativenginePosted 2/10/2013 8:43:55 AM
DarkLordMorsul posted...
Nukapepsi posted...
DarkLordMorsul posted...
Nukapepsi posted...

Too many gimmicks, .


IV=gimmicks
SA= Good

Mmmmmkkk.....................


Gimmicks? Maybe a few, but SA didn't use them as a crutch.


SA was about 65%gimmicks.


I don't really want to get into this SA vs. 4 argument but when I saw:

"Gimmicks? maybe a few, but SA didn't use them as a crutch"

I have to call foul on that. Whenever this argument pops up its more SA's gimmicks vs. GTA4's gameplay instead of SA vs. 4.
---
Vegetarian- an old Indian word meaning bad hunter
Elected Leader of the GTA5 360 board
#35Pr3dat0r23Posted 2/10/2013 8:53:56 AM(edited)
GTA IV lacked:
- Entertaining storyline (Most missions seemed to be repetitive)
- Interesting characters
- Things to do (Can't think of many side missions aside Vigilante)
- Customization!!! (Cars, clothes, gym)
- Map variety (Just a plain old city, New Jersey is misrepresented too)
- Few decent weapons
- No property to be purchased

GTA SA had:
- VERY entertaining storyline (I have fully completed each mission 15-20x)
---> Black Project, Casino heist, etc
- Wide variety of things to do
----> Gang wars, schools, trucking missions, etc
- Wide variety of characters (Caesar, Wu Zi, Mike Toreno, Sweet, betrayal by Rider and Big Smoke, etc)
- Customization (Gym, Cars, Clothes, you name it)
- Subways, bicycles, cars, boats, helis, planes, attack choppers, swimming, jet packs
- Property purchasing
- Map variety (Country, desert, city with unique weather)
-----> Ghettos, upper class areas, hill billies, etc
- Weapon variety


I honestly have NO idea how anyone could possibly prefer GTA IV over SA.
---
its only a matter of time before a cop runs over a bunch of pedestrians and unloads a hundred rounds
into a suspect then blames his actions on playing GTA.
#36nativenginePosted 2/10/2013 9:20:59 AM(edited)
Pr3dat0r23 posted...
GTA IV lacked:
- Entertaining storyline (Most missions seemed to be repetitive)
- Interesting characters
- Things to do (Can't think of many side missions aside Vigilante)
- Customization!!! (Cars, clothes, gym)
- Map variety (Just a plain old city, New Jersey is misrepresented too)

GTA SA had:
- VERY entertaining storyline (I have fully completed each mission 15-20x)
---> Black Project, Casino heist, etc
- Wide variety of things to do
----> Gang wars, schools, trucking missions, etc
- Wide variety of characters (Caesar, Wu Zi, Mike Toreno, Sweet, betrayal by Rider and Big Smoke, etc)
- Customization (Gym, Cars, Clothes, you name it)
- Subways, bicycles, cars, boats, helis, planes, attack choppers
- Map variety (Country, desert, city with unique weather)
-----> Ghettos, upper class areas, hill billies, etc


I honestly have NO idea how anyone could possibly prefer GTA IV over SA.


Here's the thing with a large part of your post, it's opinion based. Saying GTA 4 lacked an entertaining story and characters is completely opinion based. If you had said:

GTA4 lacked
Planes
Tanks
Character and vehicle customization

Those are legitamite points. Now I can say that SA had the single worst story in any GTA that's my opinion, not a valid point though. Now I can say SA lacked multiplayer and detail, thoses are not opinion based and therefore a credible point.

What it comes down to for me was how 4 built apon the core gameplay of GTA, which to me, is far more important then filler content just for the sake of filler content. The driving was better, the shooting was better, the city felt far more alive, the physics were incredible and the detail was unmatched at the time.
---
Vegetarian- an old Indian word meaning bad hunter
Elected Leader of the GTA5 360 board
#37NukapepsiPosted 2/10/2013 9:17:32 AM
Those are legitamite points. Now I can say that SA had the single worst story in any GTA that's my opinion, not a valid point though. Now I can say SA lacked multiplayer and detail, thoses are not opinion based and therefore a credibly point.

What it comes down to for me was how 4 built apon the core gameplay of GTA, which to me, is far more important then filler content just for the sake of filler content. The driving was better, the shooting was better, the city felt far more alive, the physics were incredible and the detail was unmatched at the time.

---
Casual racism is not ok. Damn casuals ruin everything.
#38NukapepsiPosted 2/10/2013 9:19:45 AM
Those are legitimate points. Now I can say that SA had the single worst story in any GTA that's my opinion, not a valid point though. Now I can say SA lacked multiplayer and detail, those are not opinion based and therefore a credible point.

What it comes down to for me was how 4 built apon the core gameplay of GTA, which to me, is far more important then filler content just for the sake of filler content. The driving was better, the shooting was better, the city felt far more alive, the physics were incredible and the detail was unmatched at the time.


SA had offline co-op, which was great for its time. Can't complain about that.

Now SA wasn't my favourite, not compared to Vice City, but it had a lot to explore.

Where were all the explorable places in 4, let alone the multitude of fully explorable buildings that were promised?
---
Casual racism is not ok. Damn casuals ruin everything.
#39DarkLordMorsulPosted 2/10/2013 9:32:20 AM
Nukapepsi posted...
Those are legitimate points. Now I can say that SA had the single worst story in any GTA that's my opinion, not a valid point though. Now I can say SA lacked multiplayer and detail, those are not opinion based and therefore a credible point.

What it comes down to for me was how 4 built apon the core gameplay of GTA, which to me, is far more important then filler content just for the sake of filler content. The driving was better, the shooting was better, the city felt far more alive, the physics were incredible and the detail was unmatched at the time.


SA had offline co-op, which was great for its time. Can't complain about that.

Now SA wasn't my favourite, not compared to Vice City, but it had a lot to explore.

Where were all the explorable places in 4, let alone the multitude of fully explorable buildings that were promised?


IV had quite a few interiors trick was they didn't have giant yellow arrows in front of them.
And honestly IV had so many alleys and back roads and the subway system I find something new pretty much every time I pla. And V will be even better.

And I agree VIce City was the best but that comes down to a preference of setting. Vice City was small but fun(like IV) but the 80's setting was amazing.
---
Skit Tells is Really good
#40nativenginePosted 2/10/2013 9:34:38 AM
Nukapepsi posted...
Those are legitimate points. Now I can say that SA had the single worst story in any GTA that's my opinion, not a valid point though. Now I can say SA lacked multiplayer and detail, those are not opinion based and therefore a credible point.

What it comes down to for me was how 4 built apon the core gameplay of GTA, which to me, is far more important then filler content just for the sake of filler content. The driving was better, the shooting was better, the city felt far more alive, the physics were incredible and the detail was unmatched at the time.


SA had offline co-op, which was great for its time. Can't complain about that.

Now SA wasn't my favourite, not compared to Vice City, but it had a lot to explore.

Where were all the explorable places in 4, let alone the multitude of fully explorable buildings that were promised?


Well there was over 60 buildings/businesses that you could enter. Which is way more then SA had and lets not forget how large the subway system was. The city had plenty to explore, I assume most just got sick of it fast and didn't bother to really explore it. That's understandable, to some the city could seem boring. To this day I can still come across stuff I've never seen before.
---
Vegetarian- an old Indian word meaning bad hunter
Elected Leader of the GTA5 360 board