Cool, will have a good look at that later.
Hopefully it will tell me if can use the driving range. Has anyone else found this yet?
Printable View
Cool, will have a good look at that later.
Hopefully it will tell me if can use the driving range. Has anyone else found this yet?
Stalking is extremely unhealthy... :afrog:Quote:
Originally Posted by kregg
Not as bad as smoking. Or drinking. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BillGeek
Not individually, but smoking and drinking together has it's advantages. :afrog:
Yes. Like increasing the chances of the grim reaper knocking on your door.
:afrog:
Please explain...I cant see the advantages?!Quote:
Originally Posted by BillGeek
Do you need a pointer?
*Point
Allow me to give you some.
0x4AD32EF1
0X672DDA2D
0X01CE871A.
haha thanks. :)
Anytime. :cool:
Back to the original topic... :afrog:
Interesting that I should find this link... Sometimes I wonder if people who write reviews actually do programming themselves. :confused:
For one, the dude complains that the storyline is too linear. While I agree with that to an extent, I still say he's an idiot. Why?
In the game you have a choice between missions, in particular the missions from Manny and Elizabeta. I finished my Manny missions first, where my cousin finished Elizabeta before finishing Manny missions. She didn't get to do the rest of Manny's missions, as the last mission from Elizabeta shows the truth about Michelle. (I'm not spoiling... ;) ) I think that's about as far as developing a "dynamic" storyline can go. If people want every single interaction to affect another in a game, I can only imagine that such games won't even fit on a dual-layer, double-sided bluray disc. :rolleyes:
What do you guys think?
I agree 85%, if not 100% with that article.
I played the Single Player and Multiplayer mode on PS3 and Single Player mode was OK. Nothing new, they just repeated to death the same formula, although admittedly, I have only done 3 missions, but I know (from my friend confirming to me) that I know (literally) the whole of Grand Theft Auto IV.
Multiplayer was, in my opinion, quite terrible. I've played on Vice City Multiplayer and San Andreas Multiplayer, and they do a much better job than GTA IV's offering of multiplayer modes. And I completely, 100% agree with the lobby point and the Grand Theft Pedestrian point. I wasted so much time trying to find a car, it was ridiculous. Those reverse engineers who worked on SA and VC should've gave Rockstar a few pointers.
Yeah GTA4 is not all good as everyone makes it out to be, Im already bored with it...a GTA game should last way longer than this.
All reviewers seems to have decided that it was a 10 out of 10 game even before it was released, and they refuse to change their mind.
i saw a reviewer give it less than that. Adam on Xplay said "if it was a stand-alone, it would be a 10, but it isn't. It's got prequels that are nearly identical" and gave it an 8 i believe.
We all know game reviewers are mad anyways. What difference does it make?
no one will argue he doesn't have a screw loose. Nearly everyone watches the show to oogle Morgan Webb anyway.
I disagree completely with most of the article.
1. I like the tw@ cafe's. They give an element to the game that was completely unexpected.
2. The new duck and cover system is cool. I'll agree that it needs a bit of refining, but the wall I face is the wall that will be ducked under / against. Not nearly as bad as the dude says.
3. Fine, "ghost cars" appearing is irritating to say the least, though I'd like to see any game that spawns cars from the viewing distance. (Which seems to be around 3km in GTA IV)
I'd still give the game 10 out of 10. I've played GTA 1, GTA 2, GTA 3 and Vice City, and this by far exceeds most of it. I didn't play San Andreas, but still... Other games in this genre (specifically Saints Row) aren't even close to what GTA is.
:afrog:
[/soapbox]
The game is great but i would agree with some saying not much has changed. I get the feeling this was almost a trial run for the game on a next gen console! Rockstar didnt seem to want to change much, but why blame them as the GTA games have all been great.
Sounds silly but i think the next one in the series will be what everyone has been waiting for.
I kind of like the idea that not much has changed. Think of it: If you had a completely different story-mode, different interface and different design, would it still be GTA? I don't think so, but unfortunately it's not for me to say.
Overall I think the storyline in GTA4 was too insubstancial. The way SA was done was much better I thought.
In GTA4 there are fewer significant characters and they are all loosely associated. Each person's role in the game is too short and lacking details I think.
In SA there were lots of people and they tied in with other people much more effectively. The storylines for each character were a lot longer and the overall storyline was much more coherent and you felt like you'd actually accomplished something at the end.
With GTA4, once you've finished the main game there's really nothing else to do apart from go online with it but I guess that's what the developers intended anyway. You can only go bowling with Roman so many times before you just want to throw grenades at him. For my money they should have just made a San Andreas 2 and kept the feel much the same as the old SA. If they could keep the gameplay from SA and the graphics, physics and combat system from GTA4 then THAT would be game of the decade!
Thats why i feel this is more to test the waters of the next gen console. Think this GTA was more about the graphics and physics etc..as wossy mentions.
Hopefully futures GTA will think about the story a bit more and we will have the perfect game!
What I think:
- Money is useless in the game, there's nothing to do with them.
As wossname says, once you've finished the main game there's not much left to do.
- Framerate issues, if the console(s) cant handle the graphics without dropping framerates like this, then they shouldnt have made it so good looking. It ruins the feeling.
- Girlfriends are useless.
- I dont find the cover-thingie that much of a problem, as the guy in the article does.
- It just ends to abruptly...you're playing and having "fun", then all of a sudden...all ends, no more missions, no one calls you, its like a waste-land of suck.
I agree with you on the money thing. Buying property on the previous GTAs was a great idea. The cover thing is also a cool addition!
I think you mean unsubstantial, not insubstancial.Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
Anyways, San Andreas was a good game, but I felt like the storyline was like marmite: You love it or you hate it, and I really did not like that storyline. Things could've been done so much better with the characters and the story. It's like "Oh man, someone killed my moms so I have to kill them and oh yeah take over San Andreas." It seemed quite weak in my eyes. Nevertheless, I still play it and still enjoy the game (even though there are the few insanely hard missions).
However, the game that had a much more better storyline was Vice City. I'll admit, you can't do half as much in Vice City as you can do in San Andreas, but I tell you, it's so much fun working your way to the top of the mansion, owning property, and trying to outdo the competition.
I just hope Rockstar Games do themselves justice and have a similar "build yourself up" theme in the next series.
We dont need a GTA V, what we need is another Theme Hospital!
Urgh! Theme Hospital.
Please, keep on track with thread. It was perfectly fine until you mentioned that horrible game.
There's nothing wrong with Theme Hospital.
Oh, and I agree with Vice City. It's by far probably the best game on the PC that I ever played. Ability to buy property is cool. But think of this now: In VC you could buy property. In GTA IV, you can buy cars...
Best thing ive hear in a while!Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
*stab*
Just because timeshifter isn't here nowadays.
Also true!Quote:
Originally Posted by kregg
From what I've seen of GTA IV, I don't even think I'll buy it for the PC. I had my expectations of IV way too high. Shame really.
It is a great game, purley because its so similar to the others. Should have been better though.
But that's what I dislike so much about it.
OK Sure, keep the violence and the "build yourself up" theme to it, but at least change the way the game is played.
It must be nearly impossible for rockstar to take that sort of risk with a game that has earnt them so much, can they afford to change it??
Well it depends if they do it right. They took a risk on making GTA 3D and it's paid off massively. They could've stopped the franchise after GTA 2 or continue making 2D aerial view, but they didn't. They made it bigger and better.
So why not now? I'd rather have lower graphics for a better gameplay mode, because after all, that is what will keep me hooked onto IV, not the fancy graphics or the realistic physics.
I agree about the gameplay over graphics point you make but as far as moving to 3D, they probably didn't have much choice, thats just the way gaming has gone.
Do they do mass surveys on these games and find out what people will want from the next one? (just give em a link to this thread)
All business that survive do and make use of it extensively. Hence why there are in the long run, compared to their ex-competitors.
I agree it was probably not much choice, but they wanted to expand, and hence they had no other choice. If they wanted to expand even more, my bet would be to change the slightly linear gameplay.
Would be good to know who the right people are to feed this information too, some good points have been made that need to be heard.
Just like the real world :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
why would you want to buy cars in a game based around stealing cars?Quote:
Originally Posted by BillGeek