What made GTA4 just not as playable as the others?

#51dafreestylekingPosted 2/10/2013 7:58:57 PM
I'll have to disagree with you. One of my favorite things to do in the older GTA games was punch pedestrians and try to get them to chase me, which would lead to 2 stars at most, but usually the rating disappeared on it's on. But in IV, doing this can result in a 5 star wanted level. It's ridiculous that just punching people can cause the FBI to come after me.

And I didn't notice the cops spawning out of control in SA like they did in IV. I've even seen cops spawn behind me when I was shooting them running through the door in my safe house.
---
Madden 13...sigh I am disappointment.
#52DarkLordMorsulPosted 2/10/2013 8:08:53 PM
dafreestyleking posted...
I'll have to disagree with you. One of my favorite things to do in the older GTA games was punch pedestrians and try to get them to chase me, which would lead to 2 stars at most, but usually the rating disappeared on it's on. But in IV, doing this can result in a 5 star wanted level. It's ridiculous that just punching people can cause the FBI to come after me.

And I didn't notice the cops spawning out of control in SA like they did in IV. I've even seen cops spawn behind me when I was shooting them running through the door in my safe house.


That has literally never happened, ever. Punching ped 1 maybe 2 stars and in IV they don't appear next to you if you watch the map they spawn way down the street which makes sense to me they call on the radio hey guy's heading up blah blah and cops like well I'm up here I'll cut him off.
---
Skit Tells is Really good
#53dafreestylekingPosted 2/10/2013 8:24:24 PM
I have no reason to lie. In IV, the wanted level kept going up instead of fading away if the cops couldn't catch me...unless I ran out of the wanted area. The problem with that is, running meant that the pedestrians I got to follow me couldn't keep up. Sure it may have been more realistic, but it wasn't fun.
---
Madden 13...sigh I am disappointment.
#54DarkLordMorsulPosted 2/10/2013 8:29:51 PM
dafreestyleking posted...
I have no reason to lie. In IV, the wanted level kept going up instead of fading away if the cops couldn't catch me...unless I ran out of the wanted area. The problem with that is, running meant that the pedestrians I got to follow me couldn't keep up. Sure it may have been more realistic, but it wasn't fun.


never experienced that. In fact if I laid low long enough I'd usually lose a star.
---
Skit Tells is Really good
#55hellfire582Posted 2/10/2013 11:49:08 PM
LordPoncho posted...
hellfire582 posted...
Sword of Death posted...
Or vice versa,
GTA4 I feel like it was lacking something. But, I dont know what, can anyone explain ?
And how are the expansions (Gay Tony and THe biker one)?

I feel like GTAV will be way better because the different environments that they offer.
GTA4 just seemed like Big city, Puerto rican ghetto projects, and thats about it..


The missions were kind of repetitive and boring, they took out the planes, they made the map a lot smaller, there were fewer side missions, etc...

Overall, they basically just took a bunch of the cool things SA had and released another GTA game in order to make a lot of money with a new game. I really think that GTA IV was the most dishonest, unscrupulous attempt from Rockstar and it really made me lose faith in the company.


You don't spend 4 years developing a new engine, learning how to work with new physics and AI, just to make a quick buck. Sorry. You just sound like someone throwing s fit because something wasn't what they wanted.


Well of course they changed the engine and physics. Not doing so but still releasing the game for a newer gen console would be ridiculous. Zelda Skyward Sword had a brand new engine and new mechanics, but a lot of people think it was a cheap attempt from Nintendo because the quality of the gameplay and story went down.

Rockstar had no particularly good reason to reduce the map size by so much, take out planes and tanks, make the story shorter, or make the missions more monotonous. All of these are clear examples of them cutting out significant features of SA to reduce the amount of work they had to put into the game.

It's true that I didn't "get what I want" with GTA IV, but that's not the reason I thought it was ill-conceived. The game has obvious, objective deficiencies, and a new engine is no excuse for being lackluster in so many other areas.
#56LordPonchoPosted 2/11/2013 1:41:26 AM
hellfire582 posted...
LordPoncho posted...
hellfire582 posted...
Sword of Death posted...
Or vice versa,
GTA4 I feel like it was lacking something. But, I dont know what, can anyone explain ?
And how are the expansions (Gay Tony and THe biker one)?

I feel like GTAV will be way better because the different environments that they offer.
GTA4 just seemed like Big city, Puerto rican ghetto projects, and thats about it..


The missions were kind of repetitive and boring, they took out the planes, they made the map a lot smaller, there were fewer side missions, etc...

Overall, they basically just took a bunch of the cool things SA had and released another GTA game in order to make a lot of money with a new game. I really think that GTA IV was the most dishonest, unscrupulous attempt from Rockstar and it really made me lose faith in the company.


You don't spend 4 years developing a new engine, learning how to work with new physics and AI, just to make a quick buck. Sorry. You just sound like someone throwing s fit because something wasn't what they wanted.


Well of course they changed the engine and physics. Not doing so but still releasing the game for a newer gen console would be ridiculous. Zelda Skyward Sword had a brand new engine and new mechanics, but a lot of people think it was a cheap attempt from Nintendo because the quality of the gameplay and story went down.

Rockstar had no particularly good reason to reduce the map size by so much, take out planes and tanks, make the story shorter, or make the missions more monotonous. All of these are clear examples of them cutting out significant features of SA to reduce the amount of work they had to put into the game.

It's true that I didn't "get what I want" with GTA IV, but that's not the reason I thought it was ill-conceived. The game has obvious, objective deficiencies, and a new engine is no excuse for being lackluster in so many other areas.


But those aren't objective deficiencies, as you call them. Yes, smaller map is, yes, no planes is. Deficiencies? No. Everything else you said is subjective to the point that it really is just not what you wanted.

And they definitely did not put in a lesser effort. Stop acting like they went lazy on it. They didn't. No developer puts in four years of their lives making new engines, using new AI software, and develops such a detailed city just to be seen as lazy.
---
"lol der was a shdow on my carpet but ti looked like a stane and tried to clen it up but ti was a shadoow" -Ghost4800
#57GodsHamsterPosted 2/11/2013 4:31:39 AM
I loved the different direction they went with in IV. Keeps things fresh.
I loved the amount of stuff to do in SA, but IV felt more realistic and mature, which was carried off very well.

I hope for a little more insanity this time round. Not a huge amount....but a little more. I loved the TV in IV, I used to roll spliffs and watch it while I smoke. loved it.
---
I hate people who take drugs......Customs men for example.
#58hellfire582Posted 2/11/2013 11:42:05 AM
LordPoncho posted...
hellfire582 posted...
LordPoncho posted...
hellfire582 posted...
Sword of Death posted...
Or vice versa,
GTA4 I feel like it was lacking something. But, I dont know what, can anyone explain ?
And how are the expansions (Gay Tony and THe biker one)?

I feel like GTAV will be way better because the different environments that they offer.
GTA4 just seemed like Big city, Puerto rican ghetto projects, and thats about it..


The missions were kind of repetitive and boring, they took out the planes, they made the map a lot smaller, there were fewer side missions, etc...

Overall, they basically just took a bunch of the cool things SA had and released another GTA game in order to make a lot of money with a new game. I really think that GTA IV was the most dishonest, unscrupulous attempt from Rockstar and it really made me lose faith in the company.


You don't spend 4 years developing a new engine, learning how to work with new physics and AI, just to make a quick buck. Sorry. You just sound like someone throwing s fit because something wasn't what they wanted.


Well of course they changed the engine and physics. Not doing so but still releasing the game for a newer gen console would be ridiculous. Zelda Skyward Sword had a brand new engine and new mechanics, but a lot of people think it was a cheap attempt from Nintendo because the quality of the gameplay and story went down.

Rockstar had no particularly good reason to reduce the map size by so much, take out planes and tanks, make the story shorter, or make the missions more monotonous. All of these are clear examples of them cutting out significant features of SA to reduce the amount of work they had to put into the game.

It's true that I didn't "get what I want" with GTA IV, but that's not the reason I thought it was ill-conceived. The game has obvious, objective deficiencies, and a new engine is no excuse for being lackluster in so many other areas.


But those aren't objective deficiencies, as you call them. Yes, smaller map is, yes, no planes is. Deficiencies? No. Everything else you said is subjective to the point that it really is just not what you wanted.

And they definitely did not put in a lesser effort. Stop acting like they went lazy on it. They didn't. No developer puts in four years of their lives making new engines, using new AI software, and develops such a detailed city just to be seen as lazy.


I would argue that a shorter story and number of missions that are very similar to each other are also objective. Either way, we do agree that there are some things you could call "objective deficiencies," and I think they are clear examples of laziness. I don't give a game credit for keeping up with advancing hardware; that's just a basic expectation. Zelda OoT wasn't great because it was the first 3D Zelda game, it was great because the developers put a lot of time into making a great story, new items, and challenging puzzles. Sure, the developers put time into making it 3D, but I would've still deemed them lazy if they hadn't added all the other elements to make it a great game. In the same way, the developers of GTA IV were lazy because although they spent the minimal time needed to adapt the game to a new engine, they didn't take the time to retain a lot of the beloved features of SA.
#59DruffPosted 2/11/2013 11:59:40 AM
GTA 3 - I've played through it from beginning to end about 8 times I think.

GTA Vice City, probably about the same. Maybe less.

GTA San Andreas, I only finished once. I've started a new game several times, but I always seem to get bored and stop when I get close to finishing the San Fierro missions.

GTA 4, I've played through that from beginning to end, I dunno, at least 15 times by now I think. That's not even counting the DLC. So I obviously find it far more playable than the previous GTAs. For me it's not about "mission variety" or whatever, it just being able to run around in such a fully realized virtual world. People always say things like "They forgot to put in the fun" but somehow I have more fun in it than the others. The PS2 GTAs were awesome in their day, but when I go back to them after GTA 4 they feel to me like LEGO Grand Theft Auto.
---
Caution - You are approaching the periphery shield of Vortex Four
#60nativenginePosted 2/11/2013 12:08:53 PM
I keep hearing this SA had more story which is odd to me. SA had 105 missions where 4 had 95. That's only 10 more, not much at all.
---
Vegetarian- an old Indian word meaning bad hunter
Elected Leader of the GTA5 360 board