|
Well, what's the point of that comparison? III, VC, and SA are completely different games to drive in compared to GTA4. I played those games for probably over 1000 hours with Keyboard&Mouse, but I'd never take that over a controller if I had the option. It's just a better experience. GTA4 too, can be enjoyed with kbm, but the controller still gives you a better control due to the analog sticks and triggers, imo.
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
csidle posted:I disagree. Definitely use a 360 controller for driving and walking about, mouse & keyboard for combat. I'm with you on that. I use the trigger axis sensitivity to control my driving speeds. WASD is just all or nothing on throttle. You can do it, but the triggers allow for much more acceleration control. I played VC and SA on the computer, and I'd use WASD for controls on foot, and would go for the gamepad (a Radioshack dongle'd PS2 controller) for vehicle controls. The helicopter was way easier to control with twin analog sticks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
Himuro posted:I dunno guys. I did the ambulance mission in III with kbm. It's one of the hardest missions in the trilogy and I aced it. kbm has a learning curve, but you eventually learn that you have more control of your car than you do with a pad. You could get away with that for the 3 series. I think it's more fun with analog steering because it was designed with PS2 controls in mind. The problem with gta4 on the pc is it was designed with analog steering and brake/acceleration in mind. Anytime you hit forward on the keyboard it's like you're just flooring the gas pedal every time. At the time gta4 came out for pc I didn't have my ps3 controller hooked to my pc, and the game refused to let me use my ps2->usb one, so I just had to play that way. Thanks Games for Windows Live, but I'm not interested in buying a controller for a console I don't want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
davebo posted:You could get away with that for the 3 series. I think it's more fun with analog steering because it was designed with PS2 controls in mind. The problem with gta4 on the pc is it was designed with analog steering and brake/acceleration in mind. Anytime you hit forward on the keyboard it's like you're just flooring the gas pedal every time. At the time gta4 came out for pc I didn't have my ps3 controller hooked to my pc, and the game refused to let me use my ps2->usb one, so I just had to play that way. Thanks Games for Windows Live, but I'm not interested in buying a controller for a console I don't want. I can understand your dilemma there. I owned a 360 and had a gamepad to spare for a wireless PC controller though, so it was not much of a problem for me. To my understanding you can also get some third-party drivers and wire a PS3 controller directly to a computer, for the same analog trigger driving benefits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
In the III era I saw no problems whatsoever with wasd for everything except flying and those godawful DDR minigames. Shame I don't have a controller to hook up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 00:13
|
|
|
I love driving with kb/m, but I can understand how other people find it difficult. I can't live without the free aim camera using the mouse. I tried driving without it the other day and it takes so long to catch up with your car after a turn that I can believe this is what turned a lot of people off from the driving in GTA4, I really sucked without being able to move the camera around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 00:39
|
|
|
Along these lines of how a controller is better for acceleration control, when I did the San Andreas mission where you have to chase a plane on a motorcycle, I kept being too slow and I couldn't figure out why. I was using the default PS2 controls, where X is accelerate (same position as A on xbox IIRC.) I knew the buttons had some pressure sensitivity, but they were apparently more accurate than I thought - I tried squeezing the gently caress out of the controller to see if that would work, and sure enough, the bike went faster, I guess to emulate twisting the gently caress out of the handlebars (or mashing the gas or whatever). So yeah, even the last-gen consoles had some degree of pressure sensitivity with normal buttons, not even the triggers they've got now. I wonder if computer keyboards will have that for use in gaming anytime soon?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
Probably not, or, if so, only specialty keyboards. 95%+ of computers are not brought to play video games on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Probably not, or, if so, only specialty keyboards. 95%+ of computers are not brought to play video games on. Wouldn't that be cool though, if instead of holding the Shift key for capital letters you just slam the key down harder? Get rid of caps lock completely so if someone wants to yell on the internet they really need to be molesting their keyboard to do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:I had very mixed feelings about GTA 4. The first hour or so of driving around was mind blowing, noticing how realistically thing interact with each other. Then I realised how little there was to actually do, and the missions were repetitive and uninteresting as hell. Not to mention that while Euphoria leads to some wonderful ragdolling, applying it so dilligently to Nico results in about the only game where it's harder to manoeuvre while walking than driving. As we moved from one gritty realistic plot strand to another, with no risk of any of them paying off, I couldn't help but wonder what the hell Rockstar was thinking. We get the usual schizophrenic mess of a plotline (where you end up working for every gang in the city) but without much flair to the missions, since the world is so gritty and realistic. It's kind of the worst of both worlds Gotta agree for the most part, but the city was actually the thing that kept me playing the longest. I clocked about 72 hours(!) of the game on the 360 and that was mostly spent just exploring the city at a leisurely pace, trying out all the different vehicles and shooting the poo poo with the characters. Yes, I actually willingly subjected myself to the telephone without being prompted for it like some sort of scary Serbian socialite. If there's one thing Rockstar absolutely nailed in GTA4 it was the world building. Liberty City is an incredibly impressive accomplishment that always seems to be full of life, and there were lots of incidental touches (People dropping trash out of their car, cigarettes lighting people on fire, the engine stalling in broken cars and so on) that even without much to do it felt like an actual place. It was even better when you decided to get into trouble and started a car chase, because it actually felt dangerous and exciting and the damage modeling of the vehicles was satisfying as all gently caress. Where it fell apart for me was, as you mentioned, the plot. Rockstar have an incredibly annoying tendency to try and cram absolutely every gangster film into their setting and it never pays off. Outside of Cahsin Roman, Brucie and Patrick McReary I could not give a flying gently caress about any of the characters in the game and I wish their focus was so much tighter because the plot didn't make a lick of sense. There's no sense of consistency or scale and in a game like this that tries to be character driven it just falls flat on its face. Which brings me to euphoria physics. Holy poo poo, other than the setting this was the one thing that kept me playing the longest. I don't think euphoria will ever stop being fun, I spent hours ritualistically abusing cops and gangsters alike just to see them fall over. Bailing out of vehicles was an absolute treat too, it looked genuinely painful to eat asphalt and made for some holy poo poo moments as you flew off motorbikes and about 50ft into the sky. GTA4 is very much a monster of its own creation though, with Rockstar getting too carried away with how realistic their city was and allowing it to infect the core mechanics of the game. Niko dying to a few shots isn't fun, nor is having the police breathing down your neck the instant you kill a pedestrian. There's so many little things in the game that seem cute at first (Such as the phone) but just start to grate away at you the more you play. I didn't play too much of the expansions because I'm well and truly burnt out on GTA4 at this point, but from what I played in them it seems that Rockstar know very well that they're going to be a lot less serious in the future. GTA4 always seemed to me to be a stopping point or extended tech demo that they were too afraid to be too silly in, given their characters and setting. People have mentioned this before, but the only game in the series GTA4 can really be compared to is GTA3 for this very reason. Rockstar is a smart company who are no strangers to fun, so I'm sure that GTA5 is going to be something very special indeed. They just need to let a bit more colour into their lives, tighten up the focus with their characters and give us more to do with the world they've built for us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 01:20
|
|
|
I think of it like this: There were 4 basic areas that they could improve upon in each game (fun gameplay, engine, humor/satire and scale/scope), but never improved all areas at once with a single game. It was steadily improving most areas at once until San Andreas, where the scale increased dramatically and the other areas stayed relatively the same. GTAIV couldn't possibly match or exceed San Andreas due to the massive undertaking of the Rage engine, so the scale went down a bit, the humor arguably fell down a few notches, and the fun (imo) stayed the same. GTA 2: Fun++, Engine++, Humor++ GTA 3: Fun++, Engine++, Scale++ GTAVC: Fun++, Humor++, Scale++ GTASA: Scale++++++ GTAIV: Engine++++++, Humor--, Scale-- Kind of like an RPG where you get the same number of points after level-up, but can never improve all areas at once. Rockstar stopped trying to improve everything across the board because if they had tried to match San Andreas in every area while improving on each, GTAIV would probably still be in development today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 17:52
|
|
|
GTA2->GTA3 was definitely a bigger leap in engine than GTA3->GTA4, it's just that GTA2 wasn't really memorable. I thought GTA4 was the weakest so far for reasons people have already mentioned, chiefly the instant wanted levels, gimped cheats, and cars that felt like you were driving in a foot of water combined with a city comprised almost entirely of right-angle turns. That said, I still play it (TBoGT, that is). I can't play it quite the same way that I played the other ones, but following a car through a deserted industrial park for 15 minutes then getting out at a stoplight, walking up to the driver's side and unloading an entire magazine of micro-uzi ammo as the windows shatter, blood spurts everywhere and tires blow out, and then walking away as the deceased occupant leans on the horn and you hear police sirens in the distance... it definitely keeps me assured that I'm at least a little screwed up
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 04:34
|
|
|
Songbearer posted:Gotta agree for the most part, but the city was actually the thing that kept me playing the longest. I clocked about 72 hours(!) of the game on the 360 and that was mostly spent just exploring the city at a leisurely pace, trying out all the different vehicles and shooting the poo poo with the characters. Yes, I actually willingly subjected myself to the telephone without being prompted for it like some sort of scary Serbian socialite. I agree with all of this. GTA IV felt like a warm-up to the new engine that got far too serious for its own good, and suffered because...well, the GTA series is all about being over the top. It's about being insane. It's about an ex-gang member coming back home and exploring his whole state to eventually become a jet pilot/Casino partner helped by the Yakuza and CIA. All the childish humor is just part of the madness. But given how Red Dead Redemption turned out, I have faith they can make GTA 5 something amazing. A return to the madness that Vice City and San Andreas gave us. And I can't wait to see it. I hope we get a few more bites before the end of the year, because if they can make a good RDR-like game (and much like the GTA of old), it will be a surefire hit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 06:27
|
|
|
It boggles my mind how people don't appreciate GTA4. Its even weirder how some of you don't think that GTA5 will be improved upon. Its a brand new engine they worked with and Im sure they balanced the development time to put in just as many features as they wanted. Now that they had a solid base game down they added a few light features to the expansions and for the next game all signs are pointing to a much improved version of GTA4, much like what we saw in GTA3:LC->GTA3:VC. Are people forgetting that GTA3 didn't run that well and required a beefy computer at the time? And then VC came out and the game ran smoother and looked better. Rockstar has improved upon each GTA with each newest title, and I see no reason for that to stop for GTA5.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 20:47
|
|
|
GTA is the one franchise where I've most been able to wrap my head around, and get good at the vehicle mechanics. So many people hated the GTA:SA Zero missions, but they were amongst the easiest ones for me. So many people think driving is tough in 4, but it's the easiest 'racing game' I know of. The best tip I can give for when a car seems to be losing control, ease off the gas. And the soundest advice you can get for driving in GTA4, is to slow down for corners. I will say that GTA:VC's 'The Driver' is one of my most hated and resented missions of all the games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
And oddly enough I never had problems with "The Driver" I mean sure it was stacked against you but I always got it in at most 3 tries. I have no idea why though, since It is so random and It is mostly sheer luck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
Songbearer posted:I'm sure that GTA5 is going to be something very special indeed. Mad Doctor Cthulhu posted:I have faith they can make GTA 5 something amazing. Cage posted:Its even weirder how some of you don't think that GTA5 will be improved upon. Huh? Who said GTA 5 wasn't going to be better than 4? I definitely don't prefer the new driving physics but it's worth it to watch people ragdoll when they die and go flying from explosions. I also don't prefer the more serious direction it's taken because it doesn't "feel" as much like GTA, but on the other hand I love how serious RDR is, and would encourage them to continue with that franchise. I feel like Saints Row 3 will be enough goofy fun, and GTA 5 will be more like a modern, more juvenile RDR. That being said, I'll be buying and playing the hell out of all of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
I'm great at driving in Burnout and Saints Row 2, I'm great at driving in Gran Turismo 3/4/5, but GTA4 is in sort of a crappy middleground where the franchise has historically been known for having cars that are basically generic and disposable while at the same time one has to take great care to actually maneuver them effectively. On top of that, the hood camera makes it look like you're driving a goddamn boat (I've heard this is an issue with the camera, not the physics, possibly in this thread, I don't know/care which it is--all I know is that my real life car does in fact not rock from side to side when I'm driving in a straight line, or, for that matter, ever). And yes I do think GTA5 will be an improvement but I'm not exactly holding my breath for it, given how R* hasn't even acknowledged that it's being developed and Saints Row 3 is so close I can loving taste it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 02:00
|
|
|
The hood camera loving sucks. I don't know why they put that in and not a proper cockpit view. They went to all that trouble to model a bunch of different dashboards that you practically never see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 03:26
|
|
|
Yeah I use hood cam in proper racing games, but proper racing games don't have potholes and curbs and pedestrians laying in the street so I stick to the closest chase cam. They really picked a bad fov for the hood cam.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 03:40
|
|
|
Zedd posted:And oddly enough I never had problems with "The Driver" I mean sure it was stacked against you but I always got it in at most 3 tries. I never had issue with The Driver, either. Pedal to the metal, bro. You can beat Hilary with ease so long as you keep your cool. davebo posted:Huh? Who said GTA 5 wasn't going to be better than 4? I definitely don't prefer the new driving physics but it's worth it to watch people ragdoll when they die and go flying from explosions. I also don't prefer the more serious direction it's taken because it doesn't "feel" as much like GTA, but on the other hand I love how serious RDR is, and would encourage them to continue with that franchise. I feel like Saints Row 3 will be enough goofy fun, and GTA 5 will be more like a modern, more juvenile RDR. That being said, I'll be buying and playing the hell out of all of them. I'm perfectly fine with a serious GTA. I actually loved half of GTA4 entirely due to the story and tone. I think the Lost and the Damned is the perfect serious GTA that highlights the tale of a gang's rise and fall. It also told a drat solid social commentary, as well. Serious GTA isn't bad. GTA4's problem wasn't that it was serious, its problem was that it had priorities in the wrong place: friends and benefits, lack of side missions, linear scripted missions, repetitive mission design. I'm perfectly fine with a serious GTA so long as these Rockstar is aware of these faults and fix them accordingly, and make exploring fun in these games again like how it was in Red Dead Redemption. And to be honest, I don't even care if GTA gets silly ever again because as far as I'm concerned Saints Row has topped it in that category. I'd like to see Rockstar master the opposite category. There's room for both types in this biz. That said, my one complaint about serious GTA is how every loving mission begins with a 5-10 minute convo between the characters while inside the car/on the horse/whatever that doesn't amount to poo poo. gently caress, I just want to go kill some people or do some illegal activity I could never do in real life. I don't need your sappy soap opera. I think there's a line between "serious" and "wow this has its head up its rear end". Jupiter Jazz fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Sep 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
moms pubis posted:The hood camera loving sucks. I don't know why they put that in and not a proper cockpit view. They went to all that trouble to model a bunch of different dashboards that you practically never see. I honestly don't know why anyone ever uses the hood camera in GTA games. Only thing that would be more awkward to control considering the style the gameplay is would be a fully first-person GTA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 04:09
|
|
|
If GTA's gonna be a serious game in the future, it oughta be a genuinely serious game. Sure, there can be a joke here and there, but GTA 4 was both too serious to be over-the-top hilarity, and too funny to be down-to-earth serious. I can handle serious games and I can handle over-the-top games, but GTA is neither and it do Also I'd prefer that the characters to actually live by their ideals. Niko was a cool guy, but basically summed up by "I want to get away from the bad things I did in the war..." (two seconds later) "I'LL RIP YOUR loving HEART OUT!" It just doesn't make sense. Give me a guy who's out for blood and vengeance and I'm fine, but when he's looking for peace and stability and a little bit of vengeance like Niko, it seems too hypocritical. I've never played Saint's Row, but I haven't heard anything I didn't like about The Third so it'll quite suffice for insanity. It'd be nice to have something serious to balance it out. Also I totally agree about the hood cam, it's pretty useless. If you're gonna give me something like a hood cam, gimme a driver's seat view instead. I'd much prefer a first-person view. (Maybe with working dashboard gauges?) I wouldn't be opposed to a first-person walking/shooting view either, for that matter. Friar Zucchini fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Sep 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
Cage posted:It boggles my mind how people don't appreciate GTA4. A big part of why I don't appreciate it is probably because I am a PC user. The shooting system in IV is definitely a step down from SA's on the PC, with the exception of shooting while driving. The poor optimization meant that the game doesn't run that well on my (or any, from what I've heard) computer and Social Club is a giant pile of poo poo that I don't want anywhere near my gaming experience. And then there's the cover system and unbalanced health and star system, the annoying internet and phone set ups and so forth. Also I found a lot of the music to be subpar, to be honest. Thats a real shame though, because the map is quite neat and probably the closest anyone's come to creating a realistic city environment. Its jaw-dropping to this day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
The first thing Rockstar needs to do with the story is get some decent writers. Most of the dialogue in these games ranges from bland to cringeworthy, but if it was genuinely well-written it would be great no matter how serious or funny it was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 05:53
|
|
|
But if they got new writers it'd be like the Houser's admitting defeat. They don't like that. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 05:54
|
|
|
My one complaint about Grand Theft Auto 4 was that the combat felt like poo poo. If they had Red Dead Redemption's targeting system then it would have been much more pleasant and fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 06:06
|
|
|
Chaltab posted:Hm, you think so? GTA4 seemed like a huge step-up in terms of many of the game mechanics. The shooting is actually challenging without being absurdly difficult and largely based on luck as it is in Vice City, the car physics, while taking a lot of getting used to, feel more reliable; you don't flip your car at random so much. I also thought it was well paced and had a really good mission structure. The mechanics were fine. The problem is what they did with them: very very little. Every mission (or at least a huge majority) boiled down to "go to a brown place, shoot some forgettable people, drive away in a sedan." The main selling point of Sandbox games is variety. In Just Cause 2, I can steal fighter plane, strafe a harbour for half an hour, then steal a sports car and hit ramps and jumps. In the same game. For a game series that was initially interesting because of the idea of free agency, it's a very limited, scripted game. You shouldn't experience almost everything it has to offer in two hours.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 06:28
|
|
|
Why does GTA still need a target system anyways?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 06:32
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:The mechanics were fine. The problem is what they did with them: very very little. Every mission (or at least a huge majority) boiled down to "go to a brown place, shoot some forgettable people, drive away in a sedan." Uh, sandbox game means you don't do all the cool poo poo in missions, you understand that right? Did noone tell you you were allowed to do anything in GTA IV that wasn't a mission? (And from the sounds of it it is almost like you never even got out of the East Island) Maybe you just don't like chasing random cars around the city in an attack helicopter, attempting to cause as much visible damage as possible without spooking the driver so that they flee the car. In which case you're no fun at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 06:34
|
|
|
trandorian posted:Uh, sandbox game means you don't do all the cool poo poo in missions, you understand that right? Did noone tell you you were allowed to do anything in GTA IV that wasn't a mission? (And from the sounds of it it is almost like you never even got out of the East Island) Aside from shooting pedestrians and getting in gunfights with the cops, what is there to do? I actually got (according to the completion thingy) about 65 % of the way through. Driving isn't partucularly fun (though I can appreciate the technical accomplishment that is the game's physics) There's one armed helicopter in the game, a small selection fairly pedestrian weapons. As I said, the game packs a pretty serious wow factor initially, and it's fun being a dick. To whit, Saints Row 2 does as well. I spent about an hour running down the street, kicking people in the crotch, tasering them, throwing fire hydrants at people and people at traffic. However, two days later, having progressed through a few of the missions, I had also done drivebys, streaking, committed vast amounts of property damage, used helicopters and a bunch of other things. I also had no trouble acquiring fast cars. Two days later in GTA 4, I was still doing the missions because, aside from getting in gunfights with the cops (which was employing the exact same mechanics as the missions) there really wasn't much to do. Also, they never seemed to end and I had no idea which ones were the important ones, forcing me to do them all. Now, you can say "well, the missions are only a part of it" and you're right. The problem with that is, the game puts most of the content under lock and key until you do them. Want a better weapon? Do the missions. Want to explore the other two thirds of the game map? Do the missions. Want money to spend on better weapons? Do the missions. As such, I'm kind of forced to comment on the missions since they are a necessary part of unlocking the fun. As I said, for a sandbox game, it puts a lot of limitations on you and forces you to do a lot of it. By comparison, Saints Row 2 (I use that comparison a lot since, to me, it's an almost perfect sandbox game) lets you access most of the game on your own terms. You do have to do some side missions and activities to progress, but there's enough variety on them, and no order to them. For instance, escort is kind of hard and not engineered particularly well. So I didn't do it. I did activities I did enjoy. Meanwhile, GTA 4 had me stuck listening to characters I hated, driving them somewhere so I could buy some bullets for my pistol and a new grey jumper. Even in the vastly improved Ballad of Gay Tony, there was still Mori, who may be the most annoying character in any form of fiction ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 06:57
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:My one complaint about Grand Theft Auto 4 was that the combat felt like poo poo. If they had the cover system from Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood then it would have been much more pleasant and fun. FTFY. The shooting was fine; the cover was clunky, unintuitive and painful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 06:57
|
|
|
Yeah GTA4 was weird in that it's really fun to shoot things up and yet the guns are SO unrewarding to shoot. I don't know why they can't make assault rifles that sound like they're actually full auto. I'd be find with a 3 round burst M16A2 or something. Just stuff like little smoke effects would go so far. I wouldn't be opposed to a serious GTA5 at all, I think it might even be fun if they went in a Fallout-type RPG direction and had an inventory system, maybe a gang reputation thing like in GTA2. Crafting could be cool, do-it-yourself molotovs and weapon modding and crafting suitcase bombs would be pretty awesome. I also think it would be cool if the locales were a little more varied and you had some repeatable minigames like drug wars or something only you could plan out a whole assault with a gang of like 10 people and loot the place. That could be a loving awesome game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 07:19
|
|
|
Himuro posted:And to be honest, I don't even care if GTA gets silly ever again because as far as I'm concerned Saints Row has topped it in that category. I'd like to see Rockstar master the opposite category. There's room for both types in this biz. EFLC is the ideal mix for me, still some more out there still but never wacky enough to become unbelievable. That said whatever they do with GTA5, wacky or serious, they will have learned so much from gta4 the game will end up being great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 07:33
|
|
|
I don't really care what they do with GT5 as long as it has some semblance of a plot. RDR was so loving fantastic because the entire story was cohesive, you could follow it, and I'll be damned if I didn't care how it turned out. If GT5 has an actual story instead of these pieced together missions I will be extraordinarily happy. Rockstar definitely has the writers to pull it off as evidenced by RDR. When that game ended I'm pretty sure I sat there for a good 10 minutes and stared at the credits rolling, it was utterly fantastic. The music they picked just hammered it home. I hope they do more scripted music stuff.
Jovial Cow fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Sep 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 07:54
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Aside from shooting pedestrians and getting in gunfights with the cops, what is there to do? I actually got (according to the completion thingy) about 65 % of the way through. Driving isn't partucularly fun (though I can appreciate the technical accomplishment that is the game's physics) There's one armed helicopter in the game, a small selection fairly pedestrian weapons. As I said, the game packs a pretty serious wow factor initially, and it's fun being a dick. Honestly it's like you're playing some bizarre alternate universe GTA IV compared to me. Maybe you should try using the cheats once in a while? Try 359 555 0100
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 08:27
|
|
|
trandorian posted:Honestly it's like you're playing some bizarre alternate universe GTA IV compared to me. so in your universe all weapons and the entire map were available straight away? I specify that because it's kind of emblematic of my problem with GTA 4. San Andreas kept plenty under lock and key. But it was stuff like planes, easily accessed helicopters, flamethrowers, jetpacks, missions involving base jumping. There was a clear sense of progression and upgrading. In the later parts of GTA 4 you unlock...missions from a homeless guy? a slightly better assault rifle? Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 11:19 on Sep 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 11:10
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:so in your universe all weapons and the entire map were available straight away? I specify that because it's kind of emblematic of my problem with GTA 4. San Andreas kept plenty under lock and key. But it was stuff like planes, easily accessed helicopters, flamethrowers, jetpacks, missions involving base jumping. There was a clear sense of progression and upgrading. In the later parts of GTA 4 you unlock...missions from a homeless guy? a slightly better assault rifle? It takes like 2 hours to get to Algonquin and then you have pretty much everything unlocked. But there was also plenty to do on the East Island + Bohan by themselves. In San Andreas you didn't get to most of the good stuff until you'd already completed 4 (Los Santos I, Wilderness, San Fierro, Desert) out of the game's 6 acts. You barely had anything unlocked of note until just before you could start the Las Venturas missions in SA. GTA games never have everything unlocked right away but if you feel you need that Rockstar is glad to include cheats to use.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
Pees With Boner posted:Yeah GTA4 was weird in that it's really fun to shoot things up and yet the guns are SO unrewarding to shoot. I don't know why they can't make assault rifles that sound like they're actually full auto. I'd be find with a 3 round burst M16A2 or something. Just stuff like little smoke effects would go so far. Hahaha yeah loving right. The only indication of what GTA5 will be can be found in LA Noire and RDR. Yes they're in an entirely different series but a lot of the core mechanics were carried over from GTA and refined. RDR made the shooting more graphic, fun, and realistic (though I doubt the dead-eye will end up in GTA), LA Noire had worse driving in my opinion, but the damage was a bit more realistic. GTA4's over-the-top ridiculous violence was equally its charm and its demise. Playing that game today, it just feels stupid to shoot at the SWAT team and hit a guy 10+ times with an assault rifle and he gets right up. Vehicular damage wasn't too different. If you get in a 100+ mph head-on collision that car sure as poo poo shouldn't be able to drive. In RDR, if you shot a dude in the chest with a rifle, he stays the gently caress down. In LA Noire, if you have a too-hard head on collision the car's totalled. I don't necessary think GTA should strive for absolute realism but that's clearly a major part of the direction Rockstar is taking with their games, so we can only expect GTA5 to continue the trend. Also, Saints Row sucks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
Yeticopter posted:Vehicular damage wasn't too different. If you get in a 100+ mph head-on collision that car sure as poo poo shouldn't be able to drive. Hey now, needing to make 3 100 mph head on collisions to kill the engine (while not making the car explode) is totally realistic! Just like indestructible subway trains and flying out of your windshield if you crashed at over 30 mph. Also it's completely realistic that all that happens if you spawn a sports car on a skyscraper and drive it off the side is broken windows glass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 20:17
|
|