Sulphur on 19/10/2009 at 23:06
Quote Posted by henke
I would agree that Mafia was more solid. But while Mafia kept me entertained for a week, any of the GTA games can keep me entertained for months. I think a perfect 10 score really needs to measure more than just how solid the game is. Say that
Game A is a driving game, and it does the driving perfectly, so it deserves a 10, right? Then we have
Game B which is a driving/shooting/platforming/guitarplaying/realtimestrategy game, and it does everything but the realtimestrategy perfectly. The realtimestrategy it does sloppily, thus not being perfect at everything it sets out to do. Does this mean that it does not deserve a perfect 10? Does it mean that it is a lesser game than
Game A? Because that kind of thinking will punish ambitious games that try do many things instead of just perfecting one or two things.
You have a good point about encouraging ambitious games, but we're talking about the fourth iteration (after GTA III) in a series here. GTA III introduced the template, and GTA IV follows it. It doesn't perfect it; it merely refines some parts of the template in terms of technology and execution.
I'd be fine with GTA III getting a 9 or a 10 for being a trailblazing genre development that everyone would need to play, but I'd find it incredibly difficult to justify that, two sequels on, with many of the faults and annoyances of GTA III still in tow (along with some
new ones), GTA IV deserves the same sort of rating.
EvaUnit02 on 20/10/2009 at 05:42
Quote Posted by gunsmoke
WTF is a whoe, BTW?
A colloquialism for whore.
EvaUnit02 on 20/10/2009 at 06:11
You do know that Game Informer is a propaganda shill rag owned by retail chain Gamestop/EB, right? Nobody should take their opinions seriously and/or treat them as a source of legitimate journalism.
Malf on 20/10/2009 at 06:42
According to RPS comments, John Walker said in his PC Gamer UK review that it's the RPG of the decade.
Strong words.
I just can't believe that a Bioware game will do something different to past Bioware games.
henke on 20/10/2009 at 07:02
Quote Posted by Sulphur
You have a good point about encouraging ambitious games, but we're talking about the fourth iteration (after GTA III) in a series here. GTA III introduced the template, and GTA IV follows it. It doesn't perfect it; it merely refines some parts of the template in terms of technology and execution.
I've been thinking about it, and yeah, you're right. Ambition can't really be measured, as of itself, there's always
more stuff you could put in a game after all. The only way to measure a game(and it's ambition) is to compare it to it's previous iterations and it's contemporaries. And yes, GTA 4 isn't perfect, it has a heap of troubles and leaves out many of the things that made the previous games great. But it's still the most played game on my 360 and if I can't give that a 10 I don't know what I
can give it to. The most
perfect game I've played on my 360 is Portal, which was as good as it could've been, for the evening it took me to finish it. GTA 4 kept me entertained for a year, but didn't live up to it's full potential. So which one of these deserves a 10?
In you first post you imply that reviewers are a bunch of idiots for getting this wrong but it's really not as easy as it looks.
SubJeff on 20/10/2009 at 09:49
I was introduced to GTA through Vice City (which someone on here finally convinced me to get by telling me that at some point I'd be chasing down a speedboat, firing out of a helicopter whilst my sidekick pilots, all the while listening to Blondie. Sold.) and I have GTA3.
Never played San Andreas (for 10 mins on my friends PS2 doesn't really count).
I'm about 15% into GTA4 (PS3) and I love it so far. Just got to the second big island and its gorgeous. The gameplay mechanics have been vastly improved over GTA3/VC but I can't compare to San An. And I really don't mind the social stuff and as you drive to the strip club/whatever the other characters talk to you about stuff and its all interesting background.
I do have a question though - some missions have options in them. You don't have to kill everyone sometimes, you can let people go and so on. There is a biker I chased for this Russian mobster but if I failed to get him I just got a snotty call from the mobster (I retried til I got him and his pals though).
Does this stuff make any difference to the plot? I suppose I'm asking how much branching of the plot there is. I had an encounter where one of my friends came to give me backup. Would he not have come if I wasn't so friendly with him? And do the cutscenes change dependent on past actions. I was at a party and someone told me to give my gf a call. Now I hadn't seen her for ages so was that the reason?
I ask because if the plot/cutscenes do take into account all of this then this game gets an extra thumbs up.
EvaUnit02 on 20/10/2009 at 10:15
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Does this stuff make any difference to the plot? I suppose I'm asking how much branching of the plot there is. I had an encounter where one of my friends came to give me backup. Would he not have come if I wasn't so friendly with him? And do the cutscenes change dependent on past actions. I was at a party and someone told me to give my gf a call. Now I hadn't seen her for ages so was that the reason?
I'm not sure of the cutscenes ("car banter" is definitely affected though), but it does affect the missions that you receive and future services that buddies may provide.
(The following example is very early in the narrative, but I'll use spoil tags anyway:-)
Eg on your way to the first date with Michelle (Valerie's lawyer friend) you often get an urgent call from Roman,
informing you that he's in trouble with the Albanians. If you choose to ignore his pleas and go on your date as planned, you'll receive a mandatory timed mission, where you have pick up Roman's beaten body from somewhere and rush him to the hospital before he bleeds out.mothra on 20/10/2009 at 10:36
he, so what about DragonAge. High praise by PC gamer UK indeed. but then again, they all said MassEffect is the 2nd coming of christ and unprecedented in action and story........hihihihi
none of the trailers, art, voiceover and choice of design did imply ANY of the accolades the reviews seem to give them. I also get suspicious if "elaborate and detailed backstory" is being considered a "feature" of a game, meaning, yeah, ok, you can it seems read tons of stuff about the old civilizations and how/who/what/where did what but that doesn't say much about the story you get. They write how you got massive 6 different origin stories but they don't tell you if they are any good and if they REALLY make any difference in the game when you arrive at the usual quest hub A no matter which race/gender. They write nothing about how the animations, art, voiceover, story, flexibility work together (or against each other) and if it all makes sense. I mean, it IS orks, elves, mages ALL OVER AGAIN. and don't come to me with the "but elves are 2nd class-citizens, it's all oh-so edgy". I'm very disappointed by the reviews so far. They all seem again like someone just scratched the surface so he can write something home about.
SubJeff on 20/10/2009 at 10:53
You don't want to like it face it.
I think that having a depth of history IS important. They don't comment on much that should be par for the course - art, animation, etc. In fact PC Gamer only comment on this stuff if it's poor, bugged or has some specific hook to it like the physics in Portal.
And they do say that being a different race affects things throughout the game. Its a given that the intro stories are good or they would have said otherwise. The review is pretty glowing overall.
But you don't like GTA4 and I do so our opinions are unlikely to match.
