Quantcast
Destructoid - B-Radicate's Community Blog




About Me
My name is Brad. My DToid name and GT are both derived from my nickname, B-rad. Not Radicate the Pokemon. Shame on you.

MechaMonkey says: "I think we have a winner."

*~<Current Favorites>~*

Game(s): Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood - feels far too similar to 2 right now... not sure I'll finish it.

Movie: N/A

TV Show(s): Archer - Watch it.

Book: The Walking Dead vol. 6 - 5 was so good! I can't wait to find time to read this one.

Album(s): N/A

Song: N/A

Story of my life:


Also,

PSN: B-Radicate



Gamer Profile
3DS friend code:
Steam:
Battle:
PSN:
Mii: Wii has online play?
Gamertag: B Radicate
Following (21)
Aaron Mxy Yost
Aerox
ArrestedDeveloper
BiZznAcH
blehman
BlindsideDork
Butmac
Copyright 2008 Agent Chieftain
Cowzilla3
DJDuffy
FlatTopJesus
GuitarAtomik
Jack Thompson
Jim Sterling
Kryptinite
Nick Chester
pinksage
power-glove
Snaileb
tsunamikitsune
vexed alex
GTA IV: A Retrospective/Review
B-Radicate | 7:37 PM on 06.10.2008 9 comments


Alright, so it took me a little longer than I anticipated, but I finally finished GTAIV. My review will attempt to be as spoiler-free as possible, but I can’t promise anything. If something serious slips through I apologize now.

Also, before anyone gets up my ass about this, I honestly like the game. It’s one of the best I’ve played in the last few months. However, I do not think it is nearly as amazing as people make it out to be, nor do I even believe it deserves GOTY status, as so many people already claim. But, please read on knowing that fact up front, and yet retaining an open mind.

Story

I can honestly say I disliked IV’s story. If you want my full breakdown, head over to Rev. Anthony’s “Deconstructing GTAIV’s Ending” article and check comment #74 (the spoilers fly in my response, as well as in said article). Otherwise, just know I felt as though the whole story gets kinda pulled out from under you, despite what Rev. says.

I also feel as though, while Niko may have had a “clear motivation” for his visit to Liberty City, I had a hard time relating to said motivation in the first place. When you get off the boat and the few missions thereafter there’s a lot of talk as to why Niko left the old country and how some guy did him harm and killed his friends blah blah blah. Yeah, well, since the player never experiences that tragedy, let alone finds out the whole true story behind the occurrence, I felt as though, while Niko may have had a reason to be doing what he was doing, I as the player did not. I really couldn’t relate to the dude if I didn’t know what the hell was bothering him, ya know?

This resulted in him feeling just as “faceless” as Claude (from GTAIII) to me. His character may have been better written than others in the series, but he still didn’t mean much to me, especially given the anti-climactic search that unfolds near the end.

Graphics

I’m likely in a small minority here, but I really dislike the more serious/realistic tone GTA is apparently taking with this iteration of the series. As someone who has been in love with GTA’s art style since GTAIII, I can honestly say I was praying that IV would be cell shaded. Honestly.

I think Rockstar has some of the best artists working for them and I really wish the series would truly embrace the art style of the game covers/concept art (especially from San Andreas) and move into a more cartoony look. I know that’ll ruffle some feathers, but hear me out.


Try and tell me this wouldn't be sexy in motion. Try me.

What few people realize is just how big of a joke the GTA series is. GTAIII was developed by a company in Scotland in order to more effectively look at American culture and satirize it. The games are essentially a caricature of our entire culture. I have always felt that the series is at its best, most memorable, and most poignant when it unabashedly takes aim at the things we Americans hold most sacred. I like when it mocks us. In order to more effectively do so, I think the game should become more of an outright satire/joke (while of course retaining a compelling narrative and gameplay… Bad Day L.A. it doesn’t hafta become).

I feel as though a less realistic, slightly more over the top (think TF2), yet stylized artistic direction would serve the series well. Plus, it would help players look past any problems with the graphics approaching the Uncanny Valley because, hey, it’s just a cartoon, right? Plus, it would go great with our own Jonathan Holme's idea for a scathing new GTA narrative, which I fully support.

Gameplay

Okay, so here’s where I really need to dig into the game and rip apart any reviewer that gave IV a 10/10. I don’t know what kind of crack people were smoking or how many guns Rockstar had pressed against their temples (maybe even of their wife, kids, mothers, grandmothers, dogs, etc.) but seriously. A perfect score? Honestly?

“Oh, but a 10/10 doesn’t mean the game is perfect. It’s not the score that matters.” That’s very true. Too bad none of the reviews I read (save for some things in Dtoid’s own review) even made light of HALF of the major problems I have with this game. And this isn’t a matter of what was placed in the game (for that you can see my relationship rant) but all of the gameplay and fun that was completely excised from the game.

For the gameplay mechanics that are still in and still pissing me off, please see this little blog.

Gangs

I don’t know about anyone else buy GTAIV really felt like the least compelling game world yet seen in a GTA game. Even with all of the crisp graphics (pssh) and details tucked into every nook and cranny of the city, it simply felt empty and I know why: because there were no persistent gangs!

It took me 55 hours to complete the game (with 90% completion… fuck packages) and yet only a small handful of times (I’d say 3 or 4) did I ever encounter any gang members outside of a mission. Part of the fun of the previous installments was running into gang territory and shooting gangbangers and having them all team up on you, then allowing you to cause a big ruckus/riot/mayhem in the streets. In IV, sometimes I would jack a car and instead of a pedestrian trying to punch me or chase after me he’d pull a gun on me and then another pedestrian would do the same. I’m assuming they were in the same gang. Who knows?


Remember these guys? Didn't think so...

For some reason, in IV, Rockstar decided to remove clearly visible gang members in favor of normal pedestrians everywhere. Throughout the story you work for who knows how many crime families (Italians, Russians, Irish, bikers… you fight Yakuza, etc.) and yet there are never any of them walking the streets at any particular moment (save for bikers… arguably… they are likely just guys riding motorcycles). The whole story revolves around the “rampant gang problem” in the city and yet YOU NEVER SEE ANY GANGS!

To coincide with the lack of visible gangs, they also removed the gang turf mini-game/mechanic from San Andreas wherein you could fight to take over gang turf, which earned you money (see my next point). In so doing you could effectively take out rival gangs and accrue a vast turf for yourself and you’re your fellow gang members. Very cool stuff, indeed. Some people claimed defending turf in SA was too tedious or annoying, though. Well, those people likely never had to take Packie’s prude ass sister out on a date in IV only to be harassed because she doesn’t like the BRAND NEW SUIT you’re wearing. Whore.

Money

The GTA series is known for its recreation of the American dream: make a butt ton of money and spend it all however the hell you see (un)fit. Well, too bad there’s no real incentive to earn any money in GTAIV.

In Vice City (and later SA) players could take their earned cash and buy multiple houses (for save points), businesses (to earn more cash), and tons of customization options like clothes and tats (well, in SA anyway). Too bad there’s literally nothing to buy except guns, food, some clothes (which really do very little since you can’t “flash” your gang colors like in SA), cab fares, and dates (which you never even know how much you’re gonna spend anyway). All of which may sound like a lot and that they’re important, but in the end, since you never technically need to date anyone, only ever have to buy one suit, and never need to buy food if you don’t want, it really boils down to jack shit. As Rev. Anthony pointed out in his critique of the ending, once you make $100,000 you are pretty much good to go. Save for an Achievement (on 360, anyway) at the $500,000 mark there’s no reason the player needs money.

Now, I spent a lot of money on guns, ammo (love me them RPGs), dates (to get everyone’s like for me over 90%), and cab fares all over the place (I disliked driving across town all the time) and yet when I finished the last level, with the reward I made from that final mission, I now have $1.2 million. Awesome. It officially serves no purpose whatsoever.

The worst part of it all is that the game teases you with ATMs scattered all over the city and yet all they do is show you your current balance of funds. That’s weird. That’s also the exact same function THE DOWN BUTTON serves. WTF?


I remember a time when you could buy cool shit like this club. Sigh... the memories.

The first time I saw an ATM I thought I’d be able to put money in the bank a la Scarface: The World is Yours and eventually use it to pimp out my apartments, defend business, buy cars, etc., all fun things a cheap Vice City clone like Scarface allows you to do. Nope, sorry Rockstar faithful. Why evolve the process of buying property and businesses like Scarface did when, instead, you can get the shaft aka none of it? Who the hell knows? Not me.

Side Missions

Now, for anyone who has read any of my comments in any GTAIV posts ‘round these here parts you’ll know how much I loathe Rockstar for removing all the fun side missions from IV. For those of you who haven’t, let’s recap.

GTAIII: Vigilante, Fire truck, Ambulance, Rampages, stunt jumps; (may have had chop shop/car delivery, can’t recall)
GTA:VC: All of the above + Pizza delivery, Ice cream truck, RC racing/flying, chop shop/car delivery, street racing, business purchasing (most came with missions/story arcs)
GTA:SA: All of the above + Turf wars, gambling (both horse and numerous casino types), character/car customization, 3 separate types of packages
GTAIV: Vigilante, Most Wanted, chop shop/car delivery, street racing, stunt jumps, 1 package type, + DATES (which may or may not include darts, drinking, shows, bowling, pool, or eating, but all of which were annoying as shit)!

That’s a drop from roughly 15 (depending on how you count 3 package types, date types, etc.) down to 7. That’s being generous considering dating and pool existed in SA, by the way.

All I can say is WHAT THE FUCK? Do people not realize there was so much more to actually DO in the previous installments? How are people so impressed with the interactivity (see my next point) in this city/game when it pales in comparison to the offerings of the older installments (and that’s not even getting me started on the lack of base jumping and planes)? It astounds me. It’s like people got blinded by the fact the game has multiplayer (which the PC versions have had for years) and forgot how much they were missing out on. Seriously.

Interactivity

Now, this may come as a shock to some, but I liked Assassin’s Creed. I liked it a lot, in fact. So much so, that I often walked around Liberty City wishing I could scale some buildings or at least jump and not look like a fairy humping a fence.

Now, I realize to “realistically” bring something like building scaling to a game like GTA would require them to institute some sort of “grip/fatigue” meter a la Shadow of the Colossus, but I think it would totally be worth it. My only argument to that is that, as much as GTA claims it’s realistic, it’s really really not.


Ya know, something like this... but with actual Shoop skills, not Paint ones.

Shooting a pedestrian on the street or jacking a car in front of dozens of people only to have the police forget about you the moment you’re out of their line of sight is ridiculous. By the second or third innocent pedestrian death “real” cops would have hunted you down and put you behind bars. So, given there are obvious and very large suspensions of disbelief built into the game, why not allow the main character to climb to his heart’s content? Let me tell you, as a previous varsity swimmer at a Big Ten school, anyone who can swim circles around the three islands making up LC likely has enough stamina to crawl up a story or two downtown. Just throwing that out there.

What's worse is that early reports of the game said they saw Niko climbing telephone polls and stuff and how Rockstar was really building up the verticality of the game (much like Crackdown). Too bad nothing ever came of most of it.

Physics

My only major complaint with the physics is simply how hard destroying cars has become. And I'm not even talking about within missions where the "open" gameplay is contrived down to "follow this car until the game SAYS you can actually destroy it so you can witness some shitty predetermined chase scenes/crashes." No, I'm talking about in general.

In making the physics "stronger" they somehow made cars impossible to destroy. Trust me, I tried. A lot. I'm not an engineer or anything but I'm pretty sure if you put over 60 rounds from an assault rifle into the engine block of a modern sedan you won't be able to take it off the lot and speed away. I'm also pretty sure crashing a car at full speed straight into a wall (or another car, for that matter) at 60mph should fuck up the transmission so bad it won't be able to be backed away from the scene of the crash. Instead your car's bumper barely gets dented. Lame.

So, basically, I want cars to be modeled with their entire frame in tact so that they can be more affected by crashes and jumps and gunfire and such. Every car in IV is a god damn tank and it's no fun. It'd be much more frenetic if, in the midst of a car chase or battle, you had to ditch your ride and find a new one (and not only because of blown tires, mind you) but because you took some jumps too fast and destroyed your shocks/frame. I also want engine blocks to fly through the hood when I crash into that wall I previously mentioned. I want shit to get fucked up, period. If this means a few less cars popping up on the road as I drive through the city, so be it. It's not like their spawning is realistic anyway. Zing.

Controls

Anyone who played the game for more than 5 minutes obviously picked up on the fact the cars handle differently. In fact, they handle realistically. So, fuck you if you hate real life driving physics, they’re the best in the series (and better than many racing games, for that matter). I loved them and it only took about an hour or so of solid practice to get a handle for the majority of the vehicles. If you’re more than 10% through the story and still pulling 180 degree turns around corners, then you’re a fucktard.

What many people fail to mention is how god awful Niko handles on foot. The dude is like a tank with sacks of shit in his pants. Pulling a 180 toward the camera is horrendous (see my next point) and he leans at an angle around turns like Shepard in Mass Effect (fuck me in the beard). Not only that, the dude can’t seem to understand that when you sprint up steps YOU’RE ALLOWED TO SKIP A FEW! Who the fuck runs up stairs while being shot at and looks down to watch their feet?

Plus, you hafta love the random phone calls in the middle of fire fights that are story-specific, which means you hafta answer them. Those are great fun. I bet Roman really couldn’t wait ‘til I was not under heavy fire to tell me about this or that. Who cares, I love being slowed To A WALKING PACE mid-fight and being pelted with lead. Doesn’t everyone?

Camera

The camera blows, plain and simple. It tries really hard to be dramatic and such but all it does is fail miserably.


Ten bucks says the camera is going NUTS right now for the person playing this.

Any driving(-intensive) game that requires the use of both thumbsticks to adequately follow the vehicle around turns is not just a failure but an outright travesty. What’s worse is the camera is just as bad on foot, often trying to readjust itself the moment you move, which is actually the exact opposite of what’s usually intended/wanted. I’d like to be able to circle strafe someone or run one way and shoot another without the camera fighting me the whole time. You know, the way Saint’s Row did it. Zing.

Finito.

As far as I can tell that’s all I really needed to get off of my chest after completing Rockstar’s epic achievement. Yes, again, despite all the negative things I mentioned, I somehow managed to like GTAIV. Sadly, it’s that I liked it in the old “wow, that was fun, I can’t wait ‘til they make a sequel to it because there’s so much that can and needs to be improved on” kind of way. So, yeah, if that leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth… join the club.

Here’s hoping the next one’s at least as good as the old ones! Thanks for reading. Leave your thoughts below, as usual.

Oh, and for those looking for it... 7/10.



Attached photos:

Photo Photo Photo Photo Photo

Is this post awesome? Vote it up!

0



Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:

Comment with Facebook





Click connect and comment instantly!

Comment with Dtoid





New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds

9 comments | showing # 1 to 9
prev next

BFeld13's Avatar - Comment posted on 06/10/2008 20:20
BFeld13
I definitely see your complaints, but considering I never played a previous GTA, I guess I can enjoy it a lot more. I do see the series as more of a satire than a realistic portrayal, so I completely understand your want of a more exaggerated visual style.
4knuckleshuffle's Avatar - Comment posted on 06/10/2008 20:38
4knuckleshuffle
A 7/10? Rockstar is bribing you. It deserves a 4!
Tubatic's Avatar - Comment posted on 06/10/2008 22:29
Tubatic
The cover art looks a lot like the characters in SSX Blur. Blur looked pretty weak. I can appreciate cell shading, but I don't think that would look that great for an entire GTA game.

Considering setting, I think adding some of the gang related stuff from SA would have felt like shoe-horning. California gangs in the 90's were very much about sweeping, over the top gang moves, and a lot of off the cuff violence and yard stomping. The gang scene in New York, save for the organized hit here and there, was more about presence and a general, cold war-esque respect for turf. While it makes for fun gameplay, its would have been a little mood breaking for me.

I kind of agree about Niko's controls, which were a little off putting at first. But, have you ever played Driver? Compared to that guy, Niko controls like the Prince of Persia. Not to say you have to like it, but I think he could have been more broken than you feel he is.

Also, I think literally pounding out Niko's back story for you at the start would have been incredibly hamfisted, and he wouldn't have been any deeper for it. I personally appreciated that everything wasn't spelled out for you and they gave you more about Niko as a character while playing as him.

Good thorough write-up, though I don't agree with alot of your gripes.
B-Radicate's Avatar - Comment posted on 06/10/2008 22:39
B-Radicate
@Tubatic: A) I think done effectively, graphics more akin to stylish cell shading (maybe a la Crackdown?) would work really well for the game.

B) While I understand that the gangs were likely excised for story reasons, it makes me feel as though maybe they should have simply changed the story to fit the context of more compelling gameplay. Look at a series like God of War where a major gameplay mechanic (his chained swords) are sort of ridiculous when you think of them (how the hell do they fly back into his skin) but they made them work within the context of the story because they knew the gameplay was so compelling. That's how I feel about most of the particulars that were excised.

Other things, like bicycles (mentioned in one of my articles I linked to within the post), simply should never have been removed because there's no logistical reason they aren't present, ya know?

C) Saying that characters control worse in another game series is not an excuse for a series that is known for pretty deft and spot on controls to all of a sudden have shitty ones. There's simply no excuse for it.

D) I'm not saying I necessarily disliked the manner in which they slowly released Niko's back story, I was simply saying I found just as off-putting as any other main character's story in a GTA game. I really had no compelling reason to have Niko perform missions, especially considering the twist at the end.

Also, thanks for the support.
Tubatic's Avatar - Comment posted on 06/10/2008 23:04
Tubatic
@B-Radicate; Anytime.

In further agreement, it generally peeves me when a series rolls back on features when they jump console generations (see Madden).

Right Crackdown. enh. true enough, that game cel-outlines very well and looks/plays great. But I think they went in a good direction with IV pushing in the "realism" direction. The car damage modeling and euphoria animations were pretty sweet in texture pumping crispiness.

Re: Controls - Heh yeah, I know. More conversational than an argument. I think, to keep the character movement inline with the "more realistic", physics based controls, they went for animation and movement that grounded themselves a little more towards fitting into that ideas of inertia and direction. There was a lot of stop-on-a-dime turning and direction switching with the previous GTA's. Could use fine tuning to come off just a bit less tank-ish (Leaning into walking turns . . .), but after a while, the current control mechanics worked well for me.
ExpertPenguin's Avatar - Comment posted on 06/11/2008 02:13
ExpertPenguin
"So, basically, I want cars to be modeled with their entire frame in tact so that they can be more affected by crashes and jumps and gunfire and such."

You're doing it wrong.

Honestly, I think it's too EASY to damage your car in this game. As for having an entire frame, are you really trying? I've flattened the front of a Banshee completely. I've screwed up the left side of a sabre so bad, the crumpled metal caused the left front wheel to stop spinning and had me leaving telltale skidmarks wherever I drove. I've had my car in practically a Z shape before I had to let it go. Ever screw up a unique jump, or go airborne at a bad angle and completely SMASH the hood? I have.

In fact, the more I get into trouble, the more impressed I am with the damage modeling. It isn't predetermined scratches and bump textures like previous games, its' literally dynamic, and depends on the kind of car you're driving/speed/angle/impact, etc.

I had some other gripes..but this one needed to be said above all the other points in your blog.
Dan CiTi's Avatar - Comment posted on 06/11/2008 03:03
Dan CiTi
I agree. My biggest complaint is totally the lack of money use. I loved the story though, it could use more watchable/playable flashbacks though. The next GTA should be futuristic or semi-futuristic IMO. Trying a cel-shaded one would be interesting too. Nice post.
B-Radicate's Avatar - Comment posted on 06/11/2008 08:00
B-Radicate
@expertpenguin: You missed my entire point about the physics.

My problem is not the dynamic level of the damage modeling, that's great. I totally agree with you there. I have missed jumps and smashed into walls and other cars and crumpled hoods and destroyed passenger sides (my personal favorite is jumping off a blind hill at full speed and landing in the trunk of another car, only to have my bumper hanging off slightly), etc. Everyone has.

You go ahead and totally prove my point, though, when you said, "I've had my car in practically a Z shape before I had to let it go." Really? You ever been in a car accident? Anything minor by any chance? 'Cause if so you'd know it's not physically possible to drive a car when it's anywhere near a "Z shape."

My grandmother just ran off the road the other day at roughly 30mph and hit a low lying brick wall head on (she's safe, don't worry). The transmission and front axle was literally shoved backward by like 2 feet. They have to total the car because it's so fucked up.

In real life there is no f'ing way you could ever come close to the amount of damage you can do to a vehicle in IV and still drive away, which is exactly what I said my problem was.

I'll go ahead and thank the public school system for reading comprehension right now.
Timmeh's Avatar - Comment posted on 06/17/2008 02:34
Timmeh
I wish professional reviewers would play through something entirely, then have a cooling off period before writing reviews instead of writing as they play then posting their review on a high from completing a game. There was so much fault in GTA not picked up by some people it's a joke.

That said, I think you pretty fairly summed up how the experience looks after completing it. I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels Rockstar has taken a big step backward in developing this new engine. I think we can all guess what the selling points of the next GTA or the DLC for IV will be...
prev next

Comment with Facebook





Click connect and comment instantly!

Comment with Dtoid





New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds

Comments policy

Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?

Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!