The base game actually had a pretty decent balance of gritty darkness and hilarious shit. Lost and the damned was ass because it doubled down on the gritty with very little in terms of humor. Ballad of gay tony saw how badly received LATD was so it really went in with the comedy and over the top shit more on par with earlier GTA games.
>driving is not fun >combat is hold left trigger, aim up slightly, press right trigger, repeat >cutscenes and conversations while driving are cringe and tedious, story not engaging >forced going bowling etc.
Just a chore to play, 5 fixes the driving (I am aware it isn't realistic but it's at least fun to drive fast) but has all the same problems, I could replay 3 any time. Bracing for 6 to be absolute slop.
No, it was worse than San Andreas
the only thing it had going for it was its physics
DLCs might've improved it, never played them. but the game itself while fun, was a let down for me when it came out.
I really don't get the appeal of rockstar games. They seem like they exist as a 12 years old's envisioning of a "mature realistic game where you can do whatever you want!"
For what little I've played of the GTA games they seemed like halfway between a slow, bland movie game and a generic, aimless, open world ubishit slog.
It built on top of San Andreas, which got rid of some limitations of previous entries (e.g. swimming) and the then-new hardware allowed for more verisimilitude, with a greater variety of NPCs, more complex vehicle physics, and most importantly crashing through the fricking windshield. Niko Bellic is also a great, believable character (despite clashing with the weird tone). It's good, just not THAT good.
No. It's lag from San Andreas. Same reason Dark Souls II got better reviews than the first. Same reason why DMC 2 sold more than DMC 3, despite 3 being a much better game. Et cetera
Not really. GTA V is better. >More attention to detail >Better and diverse character play style. >More unique weapons >Characters actually have personality >Tons of collectibles and side quests. >Doesnt just take place in the city.
I can say more. GTA 4 was cool at the time. But GTA 5 is just better
this is almost on the same level as people caring about eye lashes looking better in their favorite sony game
details are neat but they can't carry a game
When damn near everything is a direct downgrade of presentation from one entry of a series to the next despite generally being similar, you can absolutely compare, contrast, and ask yourself why so much detail is lost and how that translates to a far less enjoyable experience. If 5 had anything going for it to supersede that, I'd hand you the right freely, but it doesn't. Switching between characters is a neat gimmick, don't get me wrong, but it lacks in so many other areas that it can't carry the immense loss. Worse than all that, they focused on a shitty multiplayer mode to grift morons through shark cards. Expect more of the same with 6; Even worse detail and effort with even more micro-transaction pushing, because clearly, it works and prints money for insane returns.
It can be boring at times, and it's pretty pathetic how little you actually have to spend the money you make in the game on, but other than that yes, yes it really is. It has far and away the best characters in the entire series, and its city and physics still hold up all these years later, which is a crazy accomplishment. It's fun, the player housing is awesome and real, and the story is thoroughly captivating the entire way through. Florian (bernie) is cool as hell even if he is a gay, what happens with Kate is a tragedy, and the choices are quite impactful. It's quite the experience tbh.
Good, as in gameplay? No, not really. It's insanely fricking impressive for the year it came out, systems wise, which is probably why critics were so impressed. I respect the game, and like the story, it just feels like 90% of it is driving from point A to B. I just feel I have a lot more fun with Saints Row 2. >San Andreas was better
Yeah, the first half of San Andreas. Once you hit the redneck trailerpark portion, it becomes a drag.
Gameplay is generally worse than 5, but the atmosphere and story is infinitely more interesting and engaging. I also prefer the driving physics and ragdolls over the stuff in Rockstar's new games.
>story
ok >missions
boring, can't think of anything rememberable >city
great >damage physics
best there is >driving physics
terrible, real life cars don't fricking scratch the road when you slightly turn left >gunplay
all guns sound like shit and euphoria actually makes fights tedious because npcs can fall behind cover from a single bullet and it takes ages for them to stand up and expose themselves again >overall gameplay
should I even say anything? it's a massive downgrade from sa, no planes, no activities, nothing
It was really impressive at the time, REALLY impressive.
And it had fun core mechanics, so even for people who for some reason dislike the (awesome) aesthetic it should be fun.
afraid so
worse than san andreas in every conceivable way
Yeh, rockstar makes almost no bad games, they pur gorillion man hours into development countless details
no. It's an incredibly boring soap opera of a game
absolutely
its a real life time period in a capsule
The base game actually had a pretty decent balance of gritty darkness and hilarious shit. Lost and the damned was ass because it doubled down on the gritty with very little in terms of humor. Ballad of gay tony saw how badly received LATD was so it really went in with the comedy and over the top shit more on par with earlier GTA games.
Yes and I'm tired of pretending it's not
>driving is not fun
>combat is hold left trigger, aim up slightly, press right trigger, repeat
>cutscenes and conversations while driving are cringe and tedious, story not engaging
>forced going bowling etc.
Just a chore to play, 5 fixes the driving (I am aware it isn't realistic but it's at least fun to drive fast) but has all the same problems, I could replay 3 any time. Bracing for 6 to be absolute slop.
No, it was worse than San Andreas
the only thing it had going for it was its physics
DLCs might've improved it, never played them. but the game itself while fun, was a let down for me when it came out.
I really don't get the appeal of rockstar games. They seem like they exist as a 12 years old's envisioning of a "mature realistic game where you can do whatever you want!"
For what little I've played of the GTA games they seemed like halfway between a slow, bland movie game and a generic, aimless, open world ubishit slog.
gta 3 was pretty cool when it came out and then they kept adding to it. by now the novelty has long worn off
You had to be there to understand
>Black person simulator
nah
Thread theme
Short answer: No.
It built on top of San Andreas, which got rid of some limitations of previous entries (e.g. swimming) and the then-new hardware allowed for more verisimilitude, with a greater variety of NPCs, more complex vehicle physics, and most importantly crashing through the fricking windshield. Niko Bellic is also a great, believable character (despite clashing with the weird tone). It's good, just not THAT good.
No. It's lag from San Andreas. Same reason Dark Souls II got better reviews than the first. Same reason why DMC 2 sold more than DMC 3, despite 3 being a much better game. Et cetera
Not really. GTA V is better.
>More attention to detail
>Better and diverse character play style.
>More unique weapons
>Characters actually have personality
>Tons of collectibles and side quests.
>Doesnt just take place in the city.
I can say more. GTA 4 was cool at the time. But GTA 5 is just better
Though fun, I always thought GTA was a janky kind of game, 4 was the first time I shouted "TECHNOLOGY" for the overall package.
Are you really going to make me post it again? Fine. Bow down to your king. gta4 is better.
this is almost on the same level as people caring about eye lashes looking better in their favorite sony game
details are neat but they can't carry a game
When damn near everything is a direct downgrade of presentation from one entry of a series to the next despite generally being similar, you can absolutely compare, contrast, and ask yourself why so much detail is lost and how that translates to a far less enjoyable experience. If 5 had anything going for it to supersede that, I'd hand you the right freely, but it doesn't. Switching between characters is a neat gimmick, don't get me wrong, but it lacks in so many other areas that it can't carry the immense loss. Worse than all that, they focused on a shitty multiplayer mode to grift morons through shark cards. Expect more of the same with 6; Even worse detail and effort with even more micro-transaction pushing, because clearly, it works and prints money for insane returns.
>Highest rated with far less votes
Irrelevant. V mogged that garbage hard
It can be boring at times, and it's pretty pathetic how little you actually have to spend the money you make in the game on, but other than that yes, yes it really is. It has far and away the best characters in the entire series, and its city and physics still hold up all these years later, which is a crazy accomplishment. It's fun, the player housing is awesome and real, and the story is thoroughly captivating the entire way through. Florian (bernie) is cool as hell even if he is a gay, what happens with Kate is a tragedy, and the choices are quite impactful. It's quite the experience tbh.
Good, as in gameplay? No, not really. It's insanely fricking impressive for the year it came out, systems wise, which is probably why critics were so impressed. I respect the game, and like the story, it just feels like 90% of it is driving from point A to B. I just feel I have a lot more fun with Saints Row 2.
>San Andreas was better
Yeah, the first half of San Andreas. Once you hit the redneck trailerpark portion, it becomes a drag.
Gameplay is generally worse than 5, but the atmosphere and story is infinitely more interesting and engaging. I also prefer the driving physics and ragdolls over the stuff in Rockstar's new games.
>story
ok
>missions
boring, can't think of anything rememberable
>city
great
>damage physics
best there is
>driving physics
terrible, real life cars don't fricking scratch the road when you slightly turn left
>gunplay
all guns sound like shit and euphoria actually makes fights tedious because npcs can fall behind cover from a single bullet and it takes ages for them to stand up and expose themselves again
>overall gameplay
should I even say anything? it's a massive downgrade from sa, no planes, no activities, nothing
GTA4 is the greatest modern Open world Sandbox game
And 5 was such a downgrade it can't be considered a sandbox game, but its the one people played for a decade straight so what do I know?
People played 4 right until 5 came out dummy
Not really, but it's at least better than V and RDR2.
It was really impressive at the time, REALLY impressive.
And it had fun core mechanics, so even for people who for some reason dislike the (awesome) aesthetic it should be fun.
In a world where game "journalists" dox people for suggesting that a company may be artificially pursuing DEI initiatives, you really believe reviews?
I don’t remember anything about it. Actually I remember driving a cool bike in the ballad of gay tony dlc
for it's time, It had many amazing advancements that brought imersion in videogames to heights previously unseen.