Official GTA IV Thread

Is this game that big of a deal if you've played GTA before? I remember GTA:SA almost to death. Then I decided to try out GTA III and Vice City but I just couldn't get into them because I was already kinda tired of the gameplay after playing SA so much.
Could IV be different? And are there bikes?

There's so many neat little additions to things, and other things are taken further, such as fighting, escaping the cops, plus much smarter AI in pedestrians and the police force. Instead of watching a cop chase after a criminal, killing them, and standing around their body for a bit looking dumb, they know how to arrest people, handcuffing them and throwing in the back of their car. It's so many little details like that that really make this game a joy to play.

And yes, there is bikes, although nowhere near as frequent as in SA. I've seen only a couple in 4 hours play time.

How about we lock the Super Smash Bros. thread as well.

Originally Posted by Dippo

You know what I think. I think that Twilight Princess was severely underrated . If it was some random game and not Zelda, it would have been "the best game ever created", but since it did not live up to the hype, it "sucked." I kind of missed the whole "hype" thing, and I think it was a decent game. And no, TP is not my first Zelda game.

The fact that it was a Zelda game inflated its score, not deflated it.

NOTE: This is now the official GTA thread, and like the official Smash Bros thread, it will remain the main source of GTA IV conversation until this thread dies and or reaches the second page...whichever comes first.

Anywho, this game seems to be getting amazing reviews all around. I never got into GTA but dear god, if the game really is that great I'll have to at least try it.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

Disregarding the obvious inflated ranking Super Mario Galaxy has received (as any level-headed person knows that it isn't better then Super Mario 64, much less a bunch of other Mario games)

Well, I was going along with Game Ranking's ratings; I've always considered Gamestats a bit messier, but I guess it depends on tastes.

Anyway, I sense some "good-ole-dayism", here. Everything about Super Mario Galaxy, from what I have observed by playing it, is better than Super Mario 64- the level design, the style, the audio, and the scenario. Super Mario 64 was more "ground breaking" and "revolutionary", but that was for it's time; it doesn't mean that its quality was better than Super Mario Galaxy. It means that it made more of an impact. What Super Mario Galaxy did for Super Mario 64 was the same thing that Super Mario Bros. 3 did for Super Mario Bros. It took the classic formula and tweaked it for an improved result.

Anyway, I got the game today, and so far, it is awesome. I believe I'm going to be right when I said that it would de-throne OoT and Galaxy as the first and second highest rated games of all time; all it needs is a few more 10/10s to "seal the deal."

Just played some multiplayer with a friend.

Screw the gametypes. Seriously.

Free roam, with a friend, around the whole city is just ****ing hilarious. Add 14 other friends to that mix, and you have 16 players running around the whole city doing whatever the **** you what.

It's great.

Originally Posted by Andross

Anyway, I sense some "good-ole-dayism", here. Everything about Super Mario Galaxy, from what I have observed by playing it, is better than Super Mario 64- the level design, the style, the audio, and the scenario. Super Mario 64 was more "ground breaking" and "revolutionary", but that was for it's time; it doesn't mean that its quality was better than Super Mario Galaxy. It means that it made more of an impact. What Super Mario Galaxy did for Super Mario 64 was the same thing that Super Mario Bros. 3 did for Super Mario Bros. It took the classic formula and tweaked it for an improved result.

It's not, though. Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, and Super Mario 64 are all better then Super Mario Galaxy. Also, I would argue that the original Super Mario Bros. is the best of the bunch; just going back to it delivers one hell of a fun time.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

It's not, though. Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, and Super Mario 64 are all better then Super Mario Galaxy. Also, I would argue that the original Super Mario Bros. is the best of the bunch; just going back to it delivers one hell of a fun time.

You speak in a "matter-of-fact" tone. Opinion does not equal fact; I've delivered summed-up explanations for why I believe it is the best, and I believe they are quality reasons; of course, you probably have reasons of your own, meaning that there is room for debate. An individual's judgement of a game cannot be factual; the closest we can get to getting a set quality of a game is to examine how well it is recieved by major critics, and even then, that method of judgement does not produce set fact, as the "not your own opinion" arguement comes in to play.

Originally Posted by Andross

You speak in a "matter-of-fact" tone. Opinion does not equal fact; I've delivered summed-up explanations for why I believe it is the best, and I believe they are quality reasons; of course, you probably have reasons of your own, meaning that there is room for debate. An individual's judgement of a game cannot be factual; the closest we can get to getting a set quality of a game is to examine how well it is recieved by major critics, and even then, that method of judgement does not produce set fact, as the "not your own opinion" arguement comes in to play.

The gameplay's better. That's really all there is to it.

Originally Posted by Andross

You speak in a "matter-of-fact" tone. Opinion does not equal fact; I've delivered summed-up explanations for why I believe it is the best, and I believe they are quality reasons; of course, you probably have reasons of your own, meaning that there is room for debate. An individual's judgement of a game cannot be factual; the closest we can get to getting a set quality of a game is to examine how well it is recieved by major critics, and even then, that method of judgement does not produce set fact, as the "not your own opinion" arguement comes in to play.

Seriously, Mario 64 destroys Galaxy. Galaxy just received great reviews because it was the first true Mario game since 64 and because it was on the Wii. Mario 64's controls, gameplay, level design, etc. are all better than Galaxy's. And that's not my opinion, it's fact. It's designed and programmed better, it just plays better and has more of a colorful, Mario feel to it.

And yet not everyone agrees with you there, DrZaius. I don't. The gameplay is more minimalistic and more focused in Super Mario Bros than in any of it's sequels, but that doesn't necessarily make it better. I myself prefer Super Mario Bros 3 over the original, and Super Mario World over them both.

And everyone should keep in mind the difference between a game that has historically reviewed better than anything else and "the best game ever." The majority of gamers, and the majority of reviewers, probably would disagree with the idea that OoT is the best game ever. I certainly would. And the same for GTAIV.

Zaius, historically you've had a problem with tone of writing when it comes to presenting your opinions as absolute fact without backing yourself up. Please avoid doing it here.

Seriously, Mario 64 destroys Galaxy. Galaxy just received great reviews because it was the first true Mario game since 64 and because it was on the Wii. Mario 64's controls, gameplay, level design, etc. are all better than Galaxy's. And that's not my opinion, it's face. It's designed and programmed better, it just plays better and has more of a colorful, Mario feel to it.

Once again, I disagree. This is not something you can look at and claim something as fact.

Although your claim that 64 had better controls than Galaxy just makes me laugh.

Anyways, we all digress. Using Mario games as an example to back up a point about how to compare quality is fine, but I don't want this thread to derail into a Mario discussion, so try to steer back to GTAIV and avoid posts that only reference the Mario side of things.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

The gameplay's better. That's really all there is to it.

In my eyes, Mario Galaxy's was superior to 64's. It was very similiar, in terms of the basic commands, but "planetoids" were a major factor in Mario Galaxy's gameplay, giving the view and focus of the environment a much greater role in the gameplay. The power-ups added more unique qualities to the game than 64's (Except for the final power-up, which wasn't used.) The challenges presented in Galaxy had a much greater variety than Super Mario 64's, and were slightly more challenging, as well. The Bowser battles, although not as challenging, were definitely more interesting, even though they had the same "Similiar boss every time" problem that 64 had.

Also, the gameplay, although the most important factor, surely isn't the only factor to consider. For instance, the musical score, a mixture between an orchestral and reminiscent feel, heightened the emotional feelings and pleasure experienced while playing the game, whereas few of 64's tunes were memorable.

Seriously, Mario 64 destroys Galaxy. Galaxy just received great reviews because it was the first true Mario game since 64 and because it was on the Wii. Mario 64's controls, gameplay, level design, etc. are all better than Galaxy's. And that's not my opinion, it's face. It's designed and programmed better, it just plays better and has more of a colorful, Mario feel to it.

You're just blurting out things as fact without backing them up, in direct contrast to how I am presenting my opinion. That is fanboyism.

Edited:

Anyways, we all digress. Using Mario games as an example to back up a point about how to compare quality is fine, but I don't want this thread to derail into a Mario discussion, so try to steer back to GTAIV and avoid posts that only reference the Mario side of things

You're the boss.

I just had a chat with my friend who picked up the game last night. He's way into it, "best game of all time" is the way he put it. Looks to be the general consensus.

I haven't really gotten into a GTA game since GTA II (not a typo). I really had tons of fun playing that game, and I tried out III for awhile and lost interest rather quickly. It somehow didn't feel as fun to run people over when their screams and bodies were more realistic to me. I tooled around on San Andreas and Vice City, mostly I would just drive around, not going crazy-violent or anything. Never really did any missions because I was always on someone else's file.

I'll probably end up doing the same for this one. I'm not expecting to fall in love with it because, as I said, I haven't really enjoyed a GTA game since the second one. But who knows, with reviews and reaction like this I may just have to give in to it. 'Course I can't buy it myself, I lack the necessary equipment.

Originally Posted by lord-of-shadow

And yet not everyone agrees with you there, DrZaius. I don't. The gameplay is more minimalistic and more focused in Super Mario Bros than in any of it's sequels, but that doesn't necessarily make it better. I myself prefer Super Mario Bros 3 over the original, and Super Mario World over them both.

But do you prefer Super Mario Galaxy over all three?

And everyone should keep in mind the difference between a game that has historically reviewed better than anything else and "the best game ever." The majority of gamers, and the majority of reviewers, probably would disagree with the idea that OoT is the best game ever. I certainly would. And the same for GTAIV.

I don't know about that. I think it's exactly the opposite, hence the reason why IGN called Grand Theft Auto IV the best game since Ocarina of Time.

Zaius, historically you've had a problem with tone of writing when it comes to presenting your opinions as absolute fact without backing yourself up. Please avoid doing it here.

I was under the impression that people understood my statements that classify as opinions are so, and my statements that classify as fact are so as well.

Although your claim that 64 had better controls than Galaxy just makes me laugh.

I'm gonna have to take his side in Mario 64 having tighter control.

Anyways, we all digress. Using Mario games as an example to back up a point about how to compare quality is fine, but I don't want this thread to derail into a Mario discussion, so try to steer back to GTAIV and avoid posts that only reference the Mario side of things.

That would be fun, though.

Originally Posted by Andross

In my eyes, Mario Galaxy's was superior to 64's. It was very similiar, in terms of the basic commands, but "planetoids" were a major factor in Mario Galaxy's gameplay, giving the view and focus of the environment a much greater role in the gameplay. The power-ups added more unique qualities to the game than 64's (Except for the final power-up, which wasn't used.) The challenges presented in Galaxy had a much greater variety than Super Mario 64's, and were slightly more challenging, as well. The Bowser battles, although not as challenging, were definitely more interesting, even though they had the same "Similiar boss every time" problem that 64 had.

The whole issue of Super Mario 64 being an adventure game and Super Mario Galaxy being a platformer (more similar to the 2D adventures then the N64 outing) has come up before, and that's a big thing that sets them apart. I don't think Mario Galaxy was all that easy, but Mario 64 was tougher. Just try taking on Tick Tock Clock again. It's harder then Luigi's Purple Coins, which is pretty damn toough.

Also, the gameplay, although the most important factor, surely isn't the only factor to consider. For instance, the musical score, a mixture between an orchestral and reminiscent feel, heightened the emotional feelings and pleasure experienced while playing the game, whereas few of 64's tunes were memorable.

I thought Mario 64's music was much better then Mario Galaxy's. So it's orchestrated. That doesn't mean all orchestrated music beats out old chiptunes. You do make a point with the emotional aspect, but overall, the music in Mario 64 was much, much more memorable.

Originally Posted by Rob

Good job losing all respect possible by resorting to something so stupid. And I'm giving out true facts that a majority of reviewers did and would agree upon. You, on the other hand, are "blurting" out opinions. My facts beat your opinions. Zing! =)

What? There was no reason to go on the offensive here. The guy didn't personally attack you, so there's no point in personally attacking him. Trust me, as someone who's been on both ends, I know.

I agree, Zaius, that a discussion on the Mario games could be interesting... but not here. Feel free to make another thread.

I don't know about that. I think it's exactly the opposite, hence the reason why IGN called Grand Theft Auto IV the best game since Ocarina of Time.

As I said, there's a difference between a game that reviews well and a game that is "the best game ever." Although that was poor word choice on my part, and I didn't explain it well.

A reviewer has to present a score for a game that cannot truly capture the complexities of the different types of qualities and experiences a game has to offer. Thus, they may take a game like OoT or GTAIV and proclaim it the best game ever, even though, in their gut, their personal appreciation of the game probably wouldn't rank it that high. I would bet that the majority of these reviewers are not going to go around saying that GTAIV is their favorite game of all time.

And that is what I was referring to: I am quite certain that if we were to poll reviewers and gamers, very few of them would actually say that OoT or GTAIV are their favorite games, or the games that they think are the best. With "best" being a very vague term, of course, the definition of which will change subtly from person the person. And thus the meta-critic rankings that average review scores don't really do anything more than measure what games reviewed well.

Originally Posted by lord-of-shadow

I agree, Zaius, that a discussion on the Mario games could be interesting... but not here. Feel free to make another thread.



As I said, there's a difference between a game that reviews well and a game that is "the best game ever." Although that was poor word choice on my part, and I didn't explain it well.

A reviewer has to present a score for a game that cannot truly capture the complexities of the different types of qualities and experiences a game has to offer. Thus, they may take a game like OoT or GTAIV and proclaim it the best game ever, even though, in their gut, their personal appreciation of the game probably wouldn't rank it that high. I would bet that the majority of these reviewers are not going to go around saying that GTAIV is their favorite game of all time.

And that is what I was referring to: I am quite certain that if we were to poll reviewers and gamers, very few of them would actually say that OoT or GTAIV are their favorite games, or the games that they think are the best. With "best" being a very vague term, of course, the definition of which will change subtly from person the person. And thus the meta-critic rankings that average review scores don't really do anything more than measure what games reviewed well.

I kind of agree with what you are saying, but I think that a lot people would say that Oot was their favorite game. Though I personally feel that the reviewers are almost always spot on with their reviews and opinions. It is true that there are real underrated games, but most of the time the reviewers get it about right.

Also there are many games that are favorites that are just terrible. An example of an "underrated" game is the game Assassin's Creed. While it might seem like an okay game, the little flaws made it into a game that was not all that great.

Maybe I just don't have fun playing deeply flawed games.

hmm,my dad bought it while I was in school today, and I saw him playing it just now. Personaly I dislike the idea of no crashing, or the cops will get you or That you cant go down without a fight when police catch you :/

But I might enjoy it if I play it myself

Originally Posted by Rantick

Personaly I dislike the idea of no crashing, or the cops will get you or That you cant go down without a fight when police catch you :/

I...don't understand. You can crash, and you can fight the cops.

Games amazing Not going online yet as exams are starting soon and I wanna wait till they're over before I renew my Xbox Live

But yeah it rules, definitely on par with Zelda for me, wouldn't say it's better. About the same. It's definitely graphically amazing, interactively amazing and fun as heck.

So how many games on IGN have 10s now? I only remember OoT, OoX and GTA IV. Though I never pay attention